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. 

Comments

  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!!!!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha