The top executive at one of the world’s largest asset managers and proponents of ESG investing says divesting from fossil fuels is the wrong way to persuade oil and natural gas companies to go green.
State Street Chairman and CEO Ron O’Hanley said engagement-style investing — putting more money into high-polluting industries to gain leverage — is how behemoth firms like his can wield influence and force change.
“Divestment makes people feel good, but it has nothing to do with atmospheric decarbonization,” Mr. O’Hanley said Tuesday during Greenfin23, a sustainable finance and investing event in Boston.
“If I sell Exxon out of my portfolio or I sell oil and gas out of my portfolio, that’s great. I have a decarbonized portfolio, but the air you and I are all breathing hasn’t changed. The amount of carbon in the atmosphere hasn’t changed,” he said.
“The reality is,” he continued, “that if you want to get at the problem, you have to identify the high-emitting industries, and you have to invest in them, so they become low-emitting industries.”
Mr. O’Hanley’s remarks confirmed part of the reason for Republicans’ fierce opposition to environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) investing.
Republicans have accused State Street and other major pro-ESG asset managers like Vanguard and BlackRock of using their deep pockets and proxy-voting power over corporations to push a liberal agenda.
Conservatives argue the climate change and social justice politics that are factored into ESG investment decisions hurts fossil fuels and increases energy prices.
Republican-controlled states, especially in energy-producing states like Texas and Louisiana, have cumulatively divested billions in state pension funds from these and other companies over claims they’re boycotting fossil fuels to promote ESG.
Asset managers have rebutted boycott accusations by noting they still invest in oil and natural gas on behalf of clients, though Mr. O’Hanley’s remarks suggest that State Street’s holdings only change the manner in which its ESG investments threaten fossil-fuel development.
Conversely, blue states like California and climate activists have accused investment managers of not going far enough and want state money completely divested from fossil fuels.
ESG proponents like State Street, which at the end of last year had $3.5 trillion in assets under management and another $36.7 trillion in assets under custody and/or administration, say the hot-button financial strategy takes additional long-term risk factors into consideration, such as the transition to clean energy.
“Divestment is almost the opposite of what we need to do, and the second reality of all this is that transition takes time,” Mr. O’Hanley said.
“Given that we’re long term, we’re very concerned not just about what happens next quarter, but over the next decade. What are you — company — doing to actually make sure that you’re thriving and that your activities are leading to a better world? The only way to get there is through engagement,” he said.
He went on to emphasize what he described as an issue of fairness when transitioning away from fossil fuels.
He noted that the impacts of climate change have disproportionately hurt poorer countries that have polluted less and argued it’s unfair to expect developing countries not to reap the economic benefits of fossil fuels.
“Is it really appropriate for the developed world to be saying, ‘you can’t go and use coal, we don’t want you using power plants, we don’t want you building power plants. When you’re ready for renewables, go ahead, but in the meantime stop your development until you get there.’ It’s not realistic,” Mr. O’Hanley said. “If you really were thinking about what’s the single best thing you can do to decarbonize the atmosphere — because remember it knows no borders — help India skip over coal, help India skip over fossil fuels.”
• Ramsey Touchberry can be reached at rtouchberry@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.