POCKET or Planet?

We live in an increasingly polarized world, with strongly opposing views: right wing versus left wing, freedom versus regulation, concern about the climate versus indifference.

Some readers of this column may feel provoked by what they see as attempts to make them feel bad about their lifestyle, as if it’s a question of virtue versus vice.

Do we have to look after either the money in our pocket or the planet?

Most of us are sometimes inconsistent: some environmentalists fly, and some hedge fund managers recycle.

Can we find a meeting point that doesn’t always result in accusations of indifference or hypocrisy?

A financial report last week suggests that in 2020 many high-ESG investments have done better than low-ESG investments (ESG- Environmental, Social and Governance – meaning basically adopting strong environmental principles).

Fossil-fuel industries are becoming less profitable and will soon end up as “stranded assets” – worth nothing to their shareholders, while renewables are becoming ever cheaper.

Even a few “non-intentional” ESG investments (where profit is the only goal), are yielding higher returns than some “intentional” ones (which involve active environmental considerations).

The same applies to some consumer goods.

Last week’s Green Focus column reminded us that the extraction of peat (used in most garden compost – read the label) damages the environment by releasing harmful carbon dioxide; there are competitive green alternatives.

Good for our pocket and good for our planet.

Although “win-win” advertising around green investments is often misleading, the above examples might for once bring opposing sides together.

Next question: how urgent is the environmental crisis?

Whatever your motives - financial or environmental - now is the time to “speak to your bank manager” - as we oldies used to call it - about where your savings are going.

Or to the garden centre manager. No need to be either virtuous or hypocritical.

SIGURD REIMERS
Grandparents for a Safe Earth