Your weekly guide to Sustainable Investment
Upcoming TBLI Events
TBLI Inspiration Weekend
Join a transformative experience for Impact Leaders at Glen House, Scotland.
Reserve your spot today! - Deadline July 15th!
€2,500 (includes food, drinks, accommodation, excursions & concert). All previous Glenhouse attendees receive 10% discount.
Limited spots are available! A 50% deposit secures your place.
For full details and impressions of Glenhouse
Would you like to watch a recording of a past TBLI Talk event? Visit this page
TBLI Radical Truth Podcast
Will Italy show the way in implementing the Green New Deal? /w Filippo Addarii
The country provides a unique vantage point on the real potential of impact investing in the post-COVID covid. The European Union has invested its largest stake in the recovery of the country. Italy has turned into the poster child of the European green transition and a playground for the new geopolitics.
Furthermore, 2021 is a special year: Draghi at the head of a collation gov, and Italy hosting the G20 for the first time. Naturally, every major corporation has made commitments to join the green transition and contribute to the economic and social recovery. The ability to cooperate within this roadmap represents the true challenge to win for public institutions and private corporations together.
Discover the latest on America's Anti-ESG Campaign:
TBLI Talk on the challenges to freedom and prosperity.
INCREASE CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND REDUCE SHAREHOLDER RISK
As You Sow believes that shareholders are a powerful force for creating positive, lasting changes in corporate behavior. Over the past century, corporate power has become the most dominant force on the planet. Of the 100 largest economic entities in the world, nearly 70% are corporations. This concentration of resources gives companies power and influence over their workers, customers, and the communities in which they operate. It is critical for corporate leaders to address the impact of their policies and actions. By ignoring this impact, they are creating risk for their customers, employees, shareholders, and themselves. Ultimately, companies that view the world not in months, but in years, decades, and generations will be able to reduce their long-term risk and ensure success.
Shareholder actions press corporations to undertake this broader risk analysis and make decisions that benefit people, the planet, and profit over the long term. Since 1992 As You Sow has utilized shareholder advocacy to increase corporate responsibility on a broad range of environmental and social issues. As shareholder advocates, As You Sow communicates directly with corporate executives to collaboratively develop and implement business models that reduce risk, benefit brand reputation, and increase the bottom line while simultaneously bringing positive environmental and social change. Andrew Behar is CEO of As You Sow,
What will you learn:
- The Power of Shareholder Advocacy Long
- Term Risk Management for Companies
- Examples of Shareholder Action in Practice
Watch the recording of the webinar for free
Farmers who graze sheep under solar panels say it improves productivity. So why don’t we do it more?
Allowing livestock to graze under renewable developments gives farmers a separate income stream, but solar developers in Australia have been slow to catch on.
This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
As a flock of about 2,000 sheep graze between rows of solar panels, grazier Tony Inder wonders what all the fuss is about. “I’m not going to suggest it’s everyone’s cup of tea,” he says. “But as far as sheep grazing goes, solar is really good.”
Inder is talking about concerns over the encroachment of prime agricultural land by ever-expanding solar and windfarms, a well-trodden talking point for the loudest opponents to Australia’s energy transition.
But on Inder’s New South Wales property, a solar farm has increased wool production. It is a symbiotic relationship that the director of the National Renewables in Agriculture Conference, Karin Stark, wants to see replicated across as many solar farms as possible as Australia’s energy grid transitions away from fossil fuels.
“It’s all about farm diversification,” Stark says. “At the moment a lot of us farmers are reliant on when it’s going to rain, having solar and wind provides this secondary income.”
By keeping the grass trimmed, which can otherwise pose a fire risk during dry summer months, sheep save the developer the cost of slashing it themselves.
In exchange, the panels provide shelter for the sheep, encourage healthier pasture growth under the shade of the panels and create “drip lines” from condensation rolling off the face of the panels.
“We had strips of green grass right through the drought,” Dubbo sheep grazier Tom Warren says. Warren has seen a 15 percent rise in wool production due to a solar farm installed on his property more than seven years ago.
Despite these success stories, a 2023 Agrivoltaic Resource Centre report authored by Stark found that solar grazing is under utilised in Australia because developers, despite saying they intend to host livestock, make few planning adjustments to ensure that happens.
“The result is that many solar farms are poorly suited for sheep,” Stark says. “Developers need to be talking to landholders earlier than they currently are.”
Prof Bernadette McCabe, the director of the Centre for Agricultural Engineering at the University of Southern Queensland, says farming and solar are “two very different activities” and there’s “minimal research and demonstrated success” of running them in combination.
The expectation to retain farming land for primary production is driving greater interest in the coexistence of agriculture and renewable energy but McCabe says “misaligned incentives” between the developers and farmers must be better managed.
It’s these conflicting goals that are giving anti-renewable voices “fodder to attack the renewable energy industry,” according to former New South Wales solar developer Ben Wynn.
He says energy developers often “talk up the possibility” of coexisting with livestock production but don’t have “genuine desire to do so”.
Nearly all 50 states face local opposition to renewable projects, report finds
A new edition of Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center’s Opposition to Renewable Energy Facilities in the United States report identified 378 renewable energy projects across 47 states that have encountered significant opposition. The report also identified 395 local restrictions across 41 states, along with 19 state-level restrictions that could have the effect of blocking a renewable energy project.
This is the fourth edition of the Sabin Center’s report on Opposition to Renewable Energy Facilities in the United States, and it covers developments through December 31, 2023. Previous editions of the report were published in September 2021, March 2022, and May 2023. This edition identified 73% more local restrictions than the May 2023 edition (from 228 to 395), 111% more state-level restrictions than the May 2023 edition (from 9 to 19), and 29% more contested projects than the May 2023 edition (from 293 to 378). This edition also includes maps and data visualizations that were prepared by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Blue Raster LLC.
Counties in Ohio are continuing to adopt binding resolutions to create restricted areas where large wind or solar projects are prohibited pursuant to Senate Bill 52 of 2021 (S.B. 52). By December 31, 2023, at least 22 counties in Ohio had adopted such resolutions, an increase of 8 counties since the end of May 2023.
In the span of only 4 months, at least 9 townships in Marathon County and Clark County, Wisconsin, adopted ordinances that require large wind turbines to be set back the greater of 1 mile or 10 times turbine height from property lines, substantially restricting where turbines can be sited in those townships. These ordinances were adopted despite a state law that prohibits local governments from placing restrictions on wind or solar facilities unless those restrictions: (a) protect health or safety; (b) do not significantly increase the cost or decrease efficiency; or (c) allow for an alternative system of comparable cost and efficiency.
An increasing number of local governments have adopted ordinances prohibiting solar energy systems from farmland. For example, at least 7 townships in Michigan and 4 counties in Virginia prohibit or substantially restrict solar development on agricultural land.
There has been significant litigation against offshore wind projects. Between the end of May 2023 and the end of December 2023, several new lawsuits were filed in federal court by local governments, historical preservation societies, fishing industry groups, coastal residents, and other plaintiffs seeking to reverse federal approval of the Revolution Wind, South Fork Wind, and Ocean Wind 1 Meanwhile, four federal lawsuits against the Vineyard Wind project were dismissed and subsequently appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. All of these federal lawsuits include claims that the agencies approving the projects violated the National Environmental Policy Act, among other federal causes of action. At the state level, 8 municipalities sued the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection in New Jersey state court over its review and certification of the Atlantic Shores project.
Local governments have increasingly taken action to oppose the siting of power lines and battery storage facilities that will be necessary to transmit and store electricity generated by renewable energy facilities. To provide a few examples, in Maine, 2 towns recently passed moratoria on the siting of utility lines in response to the Aroostook Renewable Gateway Project. And in New York, the Town of Long Lake passed a 1-year moratorium in August 2023 on permits for battery energy storage systems.
This report, Opposition to Renewable Energy Facilities in the United States, was prepared as part of the work of the Sabin Center’s Renewable Energy Legal Defense Initiative (RELDI). RELDI conducts independent research on issues related to siting renewable energy infrastructure and facilitates pro bono legal representation to community groups and local residents who support renewable energy developments in their communities that are facing opposition.
The full report is available here.
Energy performance certificates are unreliable and need reform, says Which?
Investigation finds assessors providing inaccurate EPCs and unhelpful advice to homeowners
The consumer group Which? has called for an overhaul of the energy performance certificates (EPC) system after an investigation found assessments riddled with inaccuracies and unhelpful advice that could cost homeowners thousands of pounds.
The investigation, which included Which? securing EPC assessments for 12 homeowners, found in one case an assessor had failed to mention a property’s solar panels or wood burning stove in their final assessment, while the cost of upgrades recommended to another owner would not have been recouped for 29 years.
EPCs were introduced in 2007 as a way of assessing a home’s energy performance, with properties banded from A, the most energy efficient properties, to G, the least efficient.
About 60% of homes in England, and 55% in Wales, have an EPC certificate, with a recent survey by the property website Rightmove finding that 14.5% of respondents said the EPC rating was a big factor in determining their next home purchase.
The Guardian reported earlier this month that there were growing concerns around the accuracy of EPC reports, as well as finding that many contained outdated information.
As part of its investigation, Which? booked EPC assessments for 12 of its homeowning members across England, Wales and Scotland between February and March this year.
Of the 12 homeowners assessed, only one said they were satisfied with their EPC, while three said they were likely to recommend getting a certificate to others.
In one case, the homeowner had the EPC assessment done but never received a certificate. They were eventually refunded but never received any information on their home’s energy performance.
Of the remaining 11 that did receive reports, eight reported inaccuracies with the descriptions of their homes, including the windows, roofs and heating systems.
This included a couple in Aberdeenshire who noticed there was no mention of their solar panels, thermal panels or woodburning stove in their report, while a suspended floor was described as having no insulation despite the pair discussing the insulation with the assessor.
The EPC rating of a property can have a significant impact on the sale price of a property, with more efficient homes selling for a higher price.
Accurate EPC ratings are also important as the score can define whether a homeowner is eligible for government grants for energy upgrades, or green financial products such as loans or mortgages.
Investing in carbon-reduction technology: How to get started
Carbon-dioxide-reduction technology is a nascent but growing industry that captures and removes carbon from the Earth’s atmosphere.
It’s hard to believe, but just a few years ago, technology that could remove carbon directly from our atmosphere sounded more like science fiction rather than a sustainable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Luckily, considerable technological advancements have recently made carbon reduction an increasingly promising investment opportunity that also better serves our environment.
What is carbon-reduction technology Anyway?
Carbon reduction technology is the process of capturing C02 after it has been released into the earth’s atmosphere. There are two primary carbon capture methods: source air carbon capture and direct air carbon capture.
Source air carbon capture is the process of capturing C02 as it leaves a power plant or other fixed source, such as a manufacturing plant. The second method is direct air carbon capture, which pulls C02 from small moving sources like cars and trucks.
Rising demand for climate solutions
Carbon reduction is becoming an increasingly pressing topic for all individuals and companies within the U.S. and abroad.
Recently, the Biden-Harris administration announced that it’s providing $1.2 billion to develop two commercially viable direct air capture facilities in Texas and Louisiana. The two projects are expected to create roughly 4,900 well-paid jobs, highlighting the economic advantages of investing in carbon removal technology.
In addition to the current administration’s announcement, the U.S. government is increasing its support for green technology through grants, subsidies and tax credits. For example, the Department of Energy recently awarded $100 million in Carbon Utilization Grants to further stimulate green investments.
Even globally, support is continuing to bubble up. At a recent United Nations meeting, 190 countries agreed, for the first time, that the world needs to transition away from fossil fuels.
So what does this all mean?
The background for a greener world is rapidly developing: the U.S. government is initiating economic support, companies are racing to meet their climate goals and countries worldwide are coalescing around the view that things need to change. These developments provide a solid “green thesis,” supporting the idea that individuals may want to take a closer look at potential carbon investment opportunities.
Carbon capture investment opportunities
Many pure-play carbon reduction technologies are founded by private companies, making them inaccessible to most individual investors. Luckily, there are a handful of publicly traded companies that focus on or invest in carbon-reduction technology.
Read full article
