Skip to main content

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk. 

Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good? 

Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals, as communities, as producers, and as consumers. Its power is all around for us to see.  

The Tory Party in the UK has just had its Party conference.  Its slogan is Build Back Better.  There is no strategy, but the 'growth is good' mantra.  It is an ongoing theme on The Thin End that growth is not good for the planet.  

So, we need accountability, not least to stakeholders.  Where and what is our money doing?  There needs to be corporate responsibility for the environment and human rights.  There also needs to be a legal framework for independent audits of the environmental impact assessment.  Profit and loss accounting is not sufficient.  

Laws tackling illegal deforestation are not enough, particularly when what is legal is even more destructive.  Moreover, there are perhaps limitations on what individual governments can do in proscribing action in other countries. 

However, the government could have specific laws controlling finance emanating from within its bounds or allowing companies to trade that are not transparent or are blatantly harming the environment.  Companies registered, or trading in the UK should be made accountable for their investments and actions.  Investment in environmentally harmful activity is culpability.  We need to see that in the profit and loss columns.  The cost is enormous. If we factored that in, most companies would see their profits shrink dramatically.  Let us see the real cost of what we do, or what is done in our name, to feed, clothe, and keep us warm.  

For decades we pumped out carbon from coal, gas, and oil.  Now we worry about the consequences. Black gold is no longer good.  Yet we go on trading as if that is not equally as harmful.  Trade, trade, trade. The market cannot package and sell an ounce of clean air, an ounce of reduced carbon emissions. Yet, that has been the approach of international trade.  Let someone else pay the true cost.  The poor farmer struggling to make a living producing the crops that give us cheap food, scratching a living for a farthing to have cheap products on our shelves.  We need to pay more.  Let us see the real cost of what we do or what we consume. 

And so back to finance that drives it all. Disclosure of investment should not be voluntary as if some form of a PR exercise.  Shame alone is insufficient if companies have a choice over what they disclose. So, the laws in individual countries should be tougher on financial disclosure.  Where's the money going, and what does it do to the planet?

Photo by Birger Strahl on Unsplash

Author: Ray Noble is a chartered biologist. 


  1. Build build build Trade trade trade !!!!! Very well put and at what cost? So sick of politicians pandering to our own collective greed for cheap cheap cheap!!!!


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The Herring Song

For all the fish that are in the sea, the herring is the fish for me!  These are the words of a song my mother used to sing, and the whole family would join in the chorus.  But how many fish are in the sea?  Estimates of the numbers of fish in the oceans vary, of course. How could it be an exact measure? One figure given by scientists places the number of fish in the ocean at 3,500,000,000,000.  That is a lot of fish?  So, what about 'the fish for me', the herring? Archaeologists counting herring bones  along North America's west coast recently found evidence that herring that had been abundant for thousands of years.   Like so many, they are in decline due to overfishing.  Herring collapse has signifcant knock-on effects both for humans and for ecological balance.  Over time, there have been serveral periodic collapses.  Sometimes the recovery has been slow.  Herring is the fish for me could be a standard for seabirds, With loss of fish such as herring, the seabird populat