To have Green bonds really take off, the market signals must better assure the Green projects’ profitability.

Sir, Siddarth Shrikanth writes:“Estimates suggest that a mere 5 to 10 per cent of green-bond proceeds have gone towards funding biodiversity conservation projects, as the vast majority flows in to energy, buildings and transport”. “Green bond issuance leaves the planet’s wildlife behind” June 22.

The explanation to that is that it is obviously easier to construct a credible scenario for the investors’ to recover their investments, something that, no matter how good Green bonds investors’ intentions are, most of them want to do.

So, if we really want “Green bonds” to take off, these must be supported with strong market signals that helps the Green projects to be profitable, bettering the chances of the bonds being repaid.

In that sense, except from perhaps except it from all taxes, I have no clue as to what could be done with “blue bond” aimed at supporting sustainable fisheries. What I do know though is that, very high carbon taxes, with all its revenues being distributed equally back to the citizens, would signify a huge boost for the biggest majority of Green bonds.

What stands in our way in that respect, are the Green-fight and the redistribution profiteers refusal to give up one cent of their desired franchise value.

Sir, I say it again and again, if we are not able to keep the climate change fight profiteers away, we won’t be able to afford the fight against climate change. Hell, we will not even afford to mitigate some of its consequences.

@PerKurowski

Yes we sure need a carbon tax, but its revenues, should be shared out equally to all

Sir, Tim Harford writes: “The exciting thing about the Green New Deal is that it has serious political momentum focused at addressing climate change.” “Why the world urgently needs a carbon tax” April 13.

No! That “Green New Deal” “vague, and [with] grand aims [to] win… support than [with] hard practicalities”, far from being exciting is scary. As Harford thinks, “climate change is far too important a challenge to entrust to oil companies” I am sure that “climate change is far too important a challenge” to entrust its spending decisions of the fight against it, to some few who might be pursuing a different objective.

As I’ve said over and over again, the more you are concerned about climate change, the more you should be concerned with keeping the climate-change-fight profiteers as far away as possible.

Harford writes: “A lump-sum subsidy can encourage the uptake of electric cars — but a carbon tax will also reward those who cycle instead of driving.” Sir, I just ask, would the rewards for cycling not become so much real, if all carbon tax revenues were shared out equally to all?

PS. Harford mentions “a carbon permit auction” as a “close sibling” to a carbon tax. Not so. A carbon permit auction is nothing but a new type of those indulgences that were sold by the Catholic Church in order to permit sinning. It is a twist of history to see that Martin Luther’s Protestant Germany is one that now most supports such indulgences.

@PerKurowski

Let’s make sure that environmental, social and governance investing does not just signify ESG profiteering, or access to indulgences for paying worse sins.

Sir, John Authers writes: “On the side of the devil, ESG offers a rebranding for an unpopular industry, an excuse for data providers to crunch a lot of data and then charge for it” “Pressure for ESG presents fund management chiefs with a moral dilemma” May 31.

That is right on the dot. In all these political correct issues, what is by far the most present is the profit motive for those preaching it... morality is much absent

In terms of defending the environment, I would much rather prefer a huge revenue neutral carbon tax, meaning all its revenues paid out in equal shares to all its citizens, than having the climate change fight profiteers gaming the fight and taking their cut. It is sufficiently difficult and expensive as is.

And in terms of “social” it is much better to use all potential profits to help fund a Universal Basic Income than to help fund the social fighters.

But what really upsets me is that good governance is on the list of good socially conscious investments. Much better, much clearer, would be to make sure bad governance is never ever financed.

Let me be absolutely clear. I would much rather prefer a Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein being socially sanctioned, never ever more invited to a party in New York, for helping to finance a human rights violating regime like Venezuela’s Maduro’s, than allowing him to be able to purchase indulgencies to pay for his sins, by (profitably) financing some other “good” guys.

http://ourpiedaterre.blogspot.com/2017/04/solutions-that-share-out-all-benefits.html

http://myubi.blogspot.com/2017/01/my-universal-basic-income.html

https://unsustainabledebtsustainability.blogspot.com/2017/06/goldman-sachs-financing-of-venezuelas.html

@PerKurowski