The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
Conger, I am just interested in other people's perspectives, if you just ignore opposing views with everyone then you can't really learn anything new or have your own thoughts and opinions stress-tested. Some interesting points raised, well interesting to me at least.
Discussion boards aren't the most effective if everyone agrees.
I am sure people are open to better alternatives as of when they arise, but the only way to do that is through green initiatives. Hydrogen is seeming quite promising. Anecdotally from a financial perspective rather than environmentally, solar has been very beneficial to my company (manufacturing) . The electricity renewal quote through broker went from paying 30k a year to being quoted 140k before they came back and said it had increased further. 70k for solar panels+installation with a 25k govt grant now produces 70% of the electricity and some months even pays money back. This also aids with marketing and brand image. Again I am going off on a non-IAG tangent
I am still curious about the claim, I am not attacking your character or saying you are wrong I just want a bit more information of the below subject as it could have negative impact on my investment.
It was just the claim of blackrock suppressing of airlines for not following ESG, or companies trying to promote ethical behaviour being a negative thing. Or blackrock saying they wanted IAG to collapse.
I don't think its character assassination to want know the reliability of someone providing an opposing opinion on something that is generally agreed upon. This is becoming so largely removed from my original point. I am not talking about the state of UK economy or rich people getting richer.
Either way that was just an AI response since its not really relevant to anything here. I don't think we are going to agree on carbon emissions being something we should seek to reduce, whether people are or not. Or your disbelief of the science. Nor can I take accountability for rich peoples taking advantage of situations for financial gain, which is common practice if there is money to made or examples misinformation which has been spread in the past.
It was just the claim of blackrock suppressing of airlines for not following ESG, or companies trying to promote ethical behaviour being a negative thing. Or blackrock saying they wanted IAG to collapse.
"The rest is taking money under false pretenses of green righteousness."
While there may be instances of greenwashing or deceptive practices in the pursuit of environmentally friendly branding, it is essential to distinguish between genuine efforts to achieve sustainability and misleading tactics. Many organizations, governments, and individuals are genuinely investing in green initiatives to combat climate change and promote sustainable practices. Transparency and scrutiny are crucial in holding entities accountable for their actions and ensuring they genuinely contribute to environmental preservation.
In summary, climate change is a complex and pressing global issue supported by extensive scientific research. Efforts to combat climate change involve collective actions from all nations, and while challenges exist, the pursuit of sustainability and net zero emissions is grounded in scientific evidence and aims to protect the planet and future generations.
Can I ask where you got your science degree? Or your credibility with such matters to be able to speak against scientific research?
We're getting too sidetracked and completely away from IAG or the original point I was trying to make but if you want to try and disprove science on a message board.
"The UK is on a crash course to net zero, while the US, India, and China far offset any benefit the UK brings."
While it is true that some countries, including the US, India, and China, are significant contributors to global carbon emissions, it does not negate the importance of individual countries like the UK taking steps to reduce their own carbon footprint. Climate change is a global challenge, and every nation's efforts matter. By setting an example and adopting sustainable practices, the UK can encourage other countries to follow suit, leading to a cumulative impact in combating climate change.
"Changes for net zero are ideological only and have little real impact."
The transition to net zero emissions is not merely ideological; it is a response to scientific evidence that shows human activities are contributing to climate change. Mitigating climate change requires concrete actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to cleaner energy sources. Many countries, including the UK, have set ambitious targets to achieve net-zero emissions by a certain date, signaling their commitment to tackling climate change seriously.
"Controlling the masses through fear."
Addressing climate change is a matter of raising awareness and understanding the potential consequences of inaction. While some communication about climate change might be framed to emphasize urgency, it is not necessarily about controlling people through fear. Rather, it aims to motivate individuals, businesses, and governments to take responsible and sustainable actions for the well-being of the planet and future generations.
"The world moves in cycles over millennia, hot-cold ice melt."
While the Earth's climate has indeed experienced natural cycles of warming and cooling over geological time scales, the current climate change is driven primarily by human activities and is occurring at an unprecedented rate. The scientific consensus is that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are significantly contributing to the current global warming trend observed over the past century. Understanding the role of natural climate cycles is important, but it should not be used to dismiss or downplay the human influence on current climate change.
"There is little proof that the tinkering over a decade or so will save anything."
Scientific evidence and research support the notion that taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to cleaner energy sources can have a positive impact on mitigating climate change. Numerous studies show that measures like renewable energy adoption, energy efficiency improvements, and sustainable land use can make a difference in reducing emissions and limiting global warming. While addressing climate change is a complex and long-term chal
I wasn't questioning whether rich people will try and find ways to line their pockets.
It was just the claim of blackrock suppressing of airlines for not following ESG, or companies trying to promote ESG and ethical behaviour being a negative thing
Think we got a bit sidetracked
Feels like I'm watching Alex Jones. Think we will have to agree to disagree on that.
What is your alternative for when we run out of fossil fuels?
If youre against our current solutions, Instead of green sustainable fuel we just continue using fossil fuels?
If we can't throw money at it, who's going to volunteer to do it for free?
MaryBr, 5 billion years is quite far away, especially when we are already seeing the effects. I am not sure where you got your science degree. They cause climate change by trapping heat, and they also contribute to respiratory disease from smog and air pollution. Extreme weather, food supply disruptions, and increased wildfires are other effects of climate change caused by greenhouse gases.
Why should we just keep burning fossil fuels and not invest in greener energy to meet need of future generations as well as current?
North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them.
Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation.
Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe.
Africa: Between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised.
Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions.
ESG not just environmental though, its things like buying materials from british manufacturer rather than sweat shops or paying fair trade prices to farmers in different countries.
You can be the guy like 'SCREW ESG' but that's not really good if you want to maintain a good brand image and retain customers.
I see no issue with people want to be more ethical and good to planet instead of lining pockets of big corporations who cut corners at the expense of other people and future generations.
I remember reading in 2021 how summer of 21 this will take off, then it moved to 2022, then the summer of 22, then 2023, now we are looking at 2024.
If you want a quick return airlines probably are not your best bet atm. Or trade the volatility and cash in the lots of little wins.
That's what I mean by empty promises of netzero by 20XX - but we cannot deny the damage to the planet global warming can cause. Is it really such a bad thing we work to reduce and prolong the harmful affect it can cause? (and I don't mean sitting in front of a plane with a just stop oil sign, I mean actually doing something that will reduce emissions)
ESG isn't just environment though, it is sourcing from sustainable suppliers, paying fair wages and promoting ethical behaviour.
The youngers grew up being told the importance of ESG and will spend their money accordingly. Companies have to adapt or they will fall behind. Don't want IAG to become the blockbuster of airlines because they are stuck in their ways.
Like a company that refuses to use the internet and say how bad is is and its just a fad that will blow over is not going to get very far.
At the moment we can get away with just marketing but I am sure as the tech advances it will be a necessity to adopt it.
ESG is good for marketing. You pay extra for flight to be fueled with SAF, they don't say which flight though. Tell everyone your empty goals of net zero by 20XX - The younger generations and those with loud voices are becoming increasingly more concerned about ESG so you may as well establish it as part of your values early on. Nobody is going to be like I would like extra-emissions with my flight or I wont fly with you!! But people will pay extra to fly on lower emissions and sustainable flights to feel like they are doing something good.
If you've got a good copywriter you don't even need to change your operation. May as well get with the times or you'll evaporate.
- IAG was the first airline group worldwide to commit to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050 through a series of measures
- Contributing to the UK government’s goal of a net zero carbon economy by 2050
$865m investment in SAF purchasing and investments
- IAG was the first European airline group to commit to powering 10 per cent of its flights with sustainable aviation fuel by 2030
I don't think ESG is what's keeping airlines down. In fact I think they'd be in a lot worse financial positions if they were spending lots of monies on ESG.
I am under no delusion the power and influence groups like WEF and BlackRock being largest asset management company have.
I am just doing due diligence as to when they actually said they want IAG to collapse. As far as I could tell they were more interested in removing carbon emitting planes and investing hydrogen and electric planes to reduce emissions.
BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Ltd.
56,614,623 1.150 % £117 M
When did our 4th largest investor say they wanted IAG to collapse?
When I googled it, the only source was you...
https://pasteboard.co/DjZRhyFQ7BTj.jpg
I don't think we are likely to see much movement on results day. We know tourism in places like Spain has been good and we should be higher end/slightly exceed expectations given what we know from other airlines who have reported their results which should be largely priced in already. We'll probably just continue to float with market sentiment which should improve itself when they are done with rate hikes and clearer picture of what the forward direction is.
Short term Income is predictable, the only realistic meaningful movement I can see happening from results is if they are announced a debt repayment plan. However that doesn't really align with their expansion and continuous improvement plans.