Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Chip Pitfield's avatar

An excellent essay that is not at all unreasonable. Interestingly, CPP is investing assets on behalf of future beneficiaries who will be confronted by the horrendous consequences of climate change. And these consequences will undoubtedly include food insecurity for the very people on whose behalf CPPIB is supposed to be working.

I’d also add that carbon sequestration is not at all a technology proven in Canada. The only long-life site that has operated in a manner consistent with expectations has been the Norwegian Sleipner project, which sequesters carbon underneath the North Sea. The AB Pathways proposal involves sequestering carbon underneath Alberta, which is a geography riddled with over 180,000 we’ll bores. It is hypothetical and may or not operate as hoped.

Mary Anne's avatar

If I had been there, I would have attempted to say that having had my first career in finance, I do my own retirement investing. There is plenty of work that has been done showing that divesting fossil fuels and reinvesting yields better returns. I did this more than 10 yrs ago. Five years ago, I had my investments reviewed by an investment team to check work. The response was that they could not have done better. One of the main research teams I follow is Corporate Knights. At one of their events, in 2019, Mark Carney attended and said "Companies that ignore climate change will go bankrupt." The challenge to keep Canada together surely factors into his strategies. However, your (CPPIBP) strategy should not change - which is to manage Canada's Pension Plan with an emphasis on security. It is clear that fossil fuel investments are more volatile and face the prospect of becoming stranded assets, not to mention the target of legal action at every level of government, including international. We expect better and urge you to consider who you serve.

11 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?