The 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change implicitly calls for leaving 80% of coal, 50% of gas and 33% of oil reserves underground. This paper studies the scarcely addressed relationship between investors like pension funds and climate policy implementation by addressing the question: what is the extent of pension fund investments in the fossil fuel sector, what is the range of actions that pension funds take to address environmental issues, and what does this suggest about pension fund commitments to ambitious climate targets through leaving fossil fuels underground? A small sample of pension funds alone manages at least €79 billion in liquid fossil fuel assets, suggesting that OECD pension funds may jointly manage between €238–828 billion. Sustainability reports reveal that pension funds engage in five actions to implement climate policies: 1) divestment; 2) direct engagement; 3) carbon footprint calculations; 4) investing in ‘green’ alternatives; and 5) engaging in climate-oriented coalitions. However, their use of these actions is so far ineffective and counterproductive to taming the fossil fuel sector. Pension funds are not fully committed to leaving fossil fuels underground, which de facto renders them not yet committed to meeting ambitious climate targets. Forthcoming policies must target investors like pension funds to improve the prospects of meeting such targets and protect vulnerable countries from inheriting the risks of stranded assets.
This is one of the reasons I try to point out that there’s a generational conflict. A lot of leftists act like this isn’t happening, but, well, it is. I noticed it some time ago with relation to BP: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/20/revealed-bps-close-ties-with-the-uk-government
Conflicting commitments? Examining pension funds, fossil fuel assets and climate policy in the organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD) - ScienceDirect