The answer to who's missing is nearly every single asset owner and asset manager of any significance. Let me explain why.
An investor friend recently sent me a three-page letter titled "2024 Global Investor Statement to Governments on the Climate Crisis." The initiative was organized by the Asia Investor Group on Climate Change, CDP, Ceres, the Investor Group on Climate Change, the Institutional Investor Group on Climate Change, Principles for Responsible Investment, and the U.N. Environmental Programme Finance Initiative. It was signed by some 400 investors and a few NGOs.
The letter begins, "Investors are increasingly taking a coherent approach to address environmental-related financial risks in their portfolios, including both climate and nature, and seizing the growing opportunities associated with the net zero transition." This makes sense but there is also the danger, as I've written about, of conflating climate risk with climate impact and overstating the financial risks from climate change.
The first paragraph continues with a discussion about science-based net zero strategies and targets and company and investor transition plans. Its final sentence rightly notes that enabling private capital to contribute to making the transition at the necessary rate and scale for the transition requires "the appropriate legal, policy, and regulatory conditions." I was pleased to see this because so far the dominant "theory of change" is a finance-centric one. I have critiqued this in reviewing a report by the Institute of International Finance (IIF) which very intelligently points out the flaws in this approach.
The letter cites important government policies like the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), notes that COP 28 ,reaffirmed the need for urgent action to keep temperature rise below 1.5°C, the need to triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency globally by 2030, and that finance flows to emerging and development markets (EMDEs) will be a priority for COP 29 in Azerbaijan which begins today. It then calls for "a whole-of-government approach to implement policies in line with countries' nationally-determined contributions (NDCs) and a 1.5°C scenario." It then lists what actions governments should take in the following five domains:
"1. Enact economy-wide public policies.
2. Implement sectoral transition strategies, especially in high-emitting sectors
3. Address nature, water and biodiversity-related challenges contributing to and stemming from the climate crisis.
4.. Mandate climate-related disclosures across the financial system.
5. Mobilise further private investment into climate mitigation, resilience and adaptation activities in EMDEs."
Some very big names signed this letter including the large French asset managers Amundi and BNP Paribas Asset Management, four of the Swedish AP funds (2, 3, 4, and 7), the UK asset managers Aviva Investors and Legal & General, three large U.S. state pension funds (CalPERS, CalSTRS, and New York State Common Retirement Fund), the large Canadian pension fund CDPQ, and Generation Investment Management. Signatories included investors in a wide range of European countries , Australia, China, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
There were some names I expected to see but didn't, such as Brookfield (where Mark Carney is Chair of Brookfield Asset Management and Transition Investing), the big Dutch pension funds APB and PFZW, New York City Employees' Retirement System, and the gigantic Norwegian pension fund Norges Bank Investment Management.
The general pattern is that the signatories were small socially responsible (SRI) and ethical asset managers and very small pension funds with a heavy concentration being in Europe, with a heavy tilt towards France, Germany, and the Nordics.
In the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute's (SWFI) ranking of the world's 100 largest asset managers, there are only six signatories: Amundi (ranked 5), Schroders (16), Ostrum (28), M&G (33), Union Investment (34), and Ninety One (ranked 66). These 100 asset managers have a total assets under management (AUM) of $67.5 trillion; the top 10 have 37.2 trillion, over half. Other asset managers are included in its ranking of 53 financial holding companies, representing $34.8 trillion in assets under management. This list includes the signatories of Legal & General (5), BNP Paribas (9), Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group (16), and Pictet Group (25).
Of the worlds 20 largest pension funds, representing $9.5 trillion in assets, there are three signatories:, CalPERS (7), CalSTRS (10), and New York State Common Retirement Fund (14). There is not a single member in the world's 20 largest sovereign wealth funds, representing around $2.4 trillion in assets. Nor in the world's top 10 private equity firms which have a total AUM of around $3 trillion.
In the U.S., the only asset managers were small SRI funds such as Boston Common Asset Management, Boston Trust Walden, Domini Impact Investments, Parnassus, and Trillium Asset Management. The only other U.S. state pension fund was the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System. Not even Pension Reserves Investment Management ("PRIM") in my very blue home state of Massachusetts was a signatory.
Given the importance of climate change to investors, the obvious question is why virtually all the significant asset owners and asset owners did not sign this letter. Focusing on the near complete absence of U.S. participation, an easy answer would be the ESG Culture Wars. Here the argument is that U.S. investors are reluctant to draw the attention of the redoubtable Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and be hauled into a House Hearing (chances are looking good he can do this again given the House elections) where he accuses them of being part of a "Climate Cartel." While it strains credulity to think that signing a letter is joining a cartel and I can't imagine how one effectively manages a cartel of over 400 members, this certainly won't prevent Mr. Jordan from indulging in some more political theater, no doubt to the delight of President elect Donald Trump. This political theater means nothing one way or the other for dealing with climate change.
In any case, the ESG Culture War argument quickly falls apart since the pattern is the same for every single country that has asset owners and asset managers of any meaningful AUM. So why didn't they sign this letter? While I can't speak for them, I can think of two major reasons for this.
The first is that it is based on the goal of 1.5°C. There is a broad scientific consensus that this goal is simply unrealistic. A Guardian survey of 380 scientists, all associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, found that only six percent felt the 1.5°C target will be reached and 77% felt we'll exceed 2.5°C. Why would an investor sign a letter calling for government action based on a false premise? And then find itself under pressure to make net zero commitments it has no idea how to achieve without violating its fiduciary duty? The brutal fact is that there is nothing governments can do to keep the world at 1.5°C or less. Continuing to chant the 1.5°C invocation is a major barrier to dealing with climate change. It is impossible to develop effective and pragmatic government policies to address climate change while hanging onto 1.5°C. This is not to ignore the dire consequences of 2.5°C or more. Rather, it is focus more on adaptation rather than simply mitigation.
Second, the letter is grounded in the finance-centric theory of change, made even more untenable by 1.5°. The term "finance" is used 14 times but without any explanation of exactly where this finance is coming from, whether public or private, and the financial instruments and structures for putting it to use. Furthermore, even the wealthiest nations will struggle to come up with the amount or money necessary. This theory of change places a great deal of emphasis on net zero goals, plans, and disclosure. These words play prominently in the letter. Also prominent is the usual bashing of fossil fuels. Of course we should be reducing their use as fast as possible. But this must be done in ways that make economic sense, and which recognize the dependence many people and nations of less economic means have on fossil fuels. There are too many people who seem more interested in the naïve goal of putting the fossil fuel industry out of business than solving the problem of climate change.
What's also telling is the words that get less attention or even no attention at all. Technology, electrification, and infrastructure are mentioned a few times. Putting a price on carbon, probably the single most important thing to do but by no means a silver bullet, is only mentioned once. Permitting isn't mentioned at all. When I talk to conservatives focused on addressing climate change, which I'm doing a lot, there is a great deal of conversation about simplifying and speeding up the permitting process for wind and solar projects, transmission lines, and for mining the minerals and rare earths that are needed. We also talk a lot about the importance of innovation and exciting technologies such as carbon capture storage and utilization, direct air capture, hydrogen, and small modular reactors. Sadly, too many advocates of the finance-centric theory of change dismiss, degrade, and even demonize these and other technologies we'll need to get to a net zero world by 2050. There is too much discussion about withholding capital from fossil fuel companies and not enough about how to get capital to these other technologies.
I love the idea of the investment community writing a thoughtful letter to governments explaining what policies are needed so finance can play its central role in the energy transition. But we need a very different letter, one that will secure the signatures of the asset owners and asset managers that really matter. Nota letter from a well-meaning group of NGOs and mostly tiny investors with a flawed theory of change. What are the contents of that letter? I'm thinking about this and getting good ideas from my conservative friends in the Ecoright.