From his desk in midtown Manhattan, Tariq Fancy once oversaw the beginning of arguably the biggest, most ambitious effort ever to turn Wall Street “green.” Now, as environmentally friendly investing grows at an exponential rate, Fancy has come to a stark conclusion: “This is definitely not going to work.”
As the former chief investment officer for sustainable investing at BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, Fancy was charged with embedding environmental, social and governance corporate policies across the investment giant’s portfolio.
Fancy was a leader in a movement that has given many people, including investors, environmental advocates and academics, hope that after years of backing polluters, Wall Street was finally stepping up to confront the climate crisis.
Illustration: Mountain People
“I have looked inside the machine and I can tell you business does not have this,” Fancy said. “Not because these are bad people, but because they run for-profit machines that will operate exactly as you would expect them to do.”
Fancy, 42, worked for BlackRock from 2018 to 2019 and was responsible for sustainable investing at a time when BlackRock was preparing to announce a major shift in strategy.
“The evidence on climate risk is compelling investors to reassess core assumptions about modern finance,” BlackRock chairman Larry Fink wrote in his highly influential annual letter to CEOs last year, shortly after Fancy’s departure. “In the near future — and sooner than most anticipate — there will be a significant reallocation of capital.”
BlackRock would transition away from investments in firms that “present a high sustainability-related risk,” Fink said.
BlackRock manages about US$7 trillion in assets and, with one of Wall Street’s biggest voices sounding the alarm about the need to deal with the climate crisis, the news was viewed as a pivotal moment for the financial community.
However, for Fancy, who now runs the digital learning nonprofit organization Rumie in Toronto, BlackRock’s move, and the ones it has inspired, contain a fundamental flaw: The climate crisis can never be solved by today’s free markets.
“It’s not because they are evil, it’s because the system is built to extract profits,” he said.
Investors have a fiduciary duty to maximize returns to their clients and as long as there is money to be made in activities that contribute to global warming, no amount of rhetoric about the need for sustainable investing would change that, he said.
“In many cases it’s cheaper and easier to market yourself as green rather than do the long tail work of actually improving your sustainability profile. That’s expensive, and if there is no penalty from the government, in the form of a carbon tax or anything else, then this market failure is going to persist,” said Fancy, whose organization aims to bring affordable digital education to underserved communities worldwide.
The amount of money that poured into sustainable investment through vehicles like exchange traded funds (ETFs) hit record levels last year.
It is a trend Fancy believes could continue for years and still have zero impact on climate change because “there is no connection between the two things.”
In many cases it is cheaper and easier to market yourself as green. Moving money to green investments does not mean that polluters would no longer find backers. The argument is similar to that of divestment, another strategy Fancy says does not work.
“If you sell your stock in a company that has a high emissions footprint, it doesn’t matter. The company still exists, the only difference is that you don’t own them. The company is going to keep on going the way they were, and there are 20 hedge funds who will buy that stock overnight. The market is the market,” he said.
“I don’t think the public realizes we are not talking about stopping climate change. We are literally talking about selling assets so we don’t get caught up in the damage when it hits,” Fancy said.
Business knows this, and it also knows the solution — it just does not like it, Fancy said.
He compared the business community’s reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic to its views on climate change.
“Science shows us that COVID-19 is a systemic problem for which we all need to bend down a curve, the infections curve,” Fancy said.
As the crisis escalated, business leaders were immediately supportive of government-led initiatives to restrict travel, close venues and shutter the economy.
“The Business Roundtable [the US’ most powerful business lobby] said we should make mask-wearing mandatory. They were right about all those things,” he said.
The world needed government to use its extraordinary powers “because if you left it to the free market, everything would have been open in the US,” Fancy said. “We would have lost millions of people, it wouldn’t have been half a million.”
Climate change is also a problem science says is systemic and one where we have to bend down the curve, he said.
“The difference is the incubation period. It’s not a few weeks, it’s a few decades. For that they are still saying we should rely on the free market,” Fancy said. “That’s where I have a problem.”
A survey of 250 senior executives supports Fancy’s point.
About 64 percent of the executives surveyed in a poll commissioned by British lender Standard Chartered said that they “believe the economics of operating as a net-zero [carbon emissions] organization do not stack up for their company.”
Seventy-nine percent of them said that short-term CEO tenure made it harder for companies to transition to net zero.
Under the current system, the costs are simply too high and the benefits of conducting business as usual are too great, Fancy said.
A 2019 Morgan Stanley study found that getting to net zero by 2050 would cost US$50 trillion.
“The reality is that their incentives are very short-term,” Fancy said. “My concern is that when it comes to climate change, it’s actually expensive. It’s like saying when it comes for COVID-19, that’s a crisis and an opportunity. Well yeah, it’s an opportunity for Zoom, it’s not an opportunity for society.”
There is a solution, and it is the one that business leaders embraced in the COVID-19 crisis: government intervention, he said.
However, given the long time line for climate change, it is one that business leaders do not like, Fancy said.
What would work is a change in government policy that made it more expensive to pollute, such as a carbon tax, because that would change the corporate world and Wall Street’s incentives, he said.
“If you put a tax on carbon, every single portfolio manager would adjust their portfolio,” he said.
BlackRock disputes Fancy’s analysis.
In a statement, the company said: “Sustainable investing can deliver strong investment returns while also helping to address urgent social and environmental concerns.”
The company added that it believes that greenwashing “is a risk to investors and detrimental to the asset management industry’s credibility, which is why we strongly support regulatory initiatives to set consistent standards and increase transparency for sustainable portfolios.”
However, for Fancy, the overarching point is that real change must be led by government, not Wall Street.
“If I was on a panel and someone asked me what’s the best way to tackle climate change? Should I buy an ETF or should I call my congressperson, and demand legislation and a price on carbon? The truth is someone is better off calling their congressperson,” he said.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS