Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

BlackRock Faces Criticism for Role in Climate Crisis, Amazon Deforestation

Climate
BlackRock Faces Criticism for Role in Climate Crisis, Amazon Deforestation
People hold puppets shaped as crows and reading BlackRock, a U.S. global investment management corporation on Dec. 17, 2019. PHILIPPE LOPEZ / AFP / Getty Images

A month and a half ago, BlackRock, the world's largest investment firm, made waves for choosing to divest from some coal investments, setting up funds that avoided fossil fuels, and saying it would only support corporate board members who factored the climate crisis into its decisions. While the initial announcement was met with some criticism by environmental activists, BlackRock's recent decisions have cast doubt on the seriousness of its commitments to help fight the global climate crisis.


BlackRock's January announcement that it would sell off $500 million in coal assets made business sense since coal has been losing money. Critics point out that BlackRock continues to be the world's largest investor in fossil fuels, including oil and gas. Furthermore, the investment giant is staying conspicuously quiet on agricultural and commodities, which are the second largest contributor to the climate crisis after the energy sector, according to CBS News.

BlackRock has not agreed to sell off its investments in Bungee Limited or Archers Daniel Midland, two agricultural commodity giants whose practices have been linked to Amazon deforestation and wildfires, as CBS News reported.

According to Ceres and Morningstar, BlackRock has ranked among the worst investment firms when it comes to considering the climate crisis. Along with Vanguard, BlackRock has voted against climate crisis related motions nearly 80 percent of the time, as CNBC reported. It also has been one of the least responsive to activist moves from shareholders looking for corporate responsibility.

Just recently, fast food giant Yum Brands and snack maker Mondelez International faced shareholder resolutions that targeted deforestation. BlackRock voted against both, as CBS News reported.

"If BlackRock's voting record and shareholder engagement isn't strong and effective on climate change, then it wouldn't be a stretch to call Fink's words empty and hypocritical," said Moira Birss, a director at environmental group Amazon Watch to CBS News. "There is more that BlackRock could and should be doing."

The company's CEO, Larry Fink, said in January that the climate crisis would lie at the center of the company's future decisions. In the letter, Fink wrote, "Climate change has become a defining factor in companies' long-term prospects … But awareness is rapidly changing, and I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance. The evidence on climate risk is compelling investors to reassess core assumptions about modern finance."

Now, environment activists are wondering how serious the letter was.

"Larry Fink's letter was a sea change," Birss said to CBS News. "The follow-through remains to be seen."

And Ford Seeman, founder and president of the nonprofit Forest Founders, told CNBC, "There's been a big movement to divest large investment firms from investing in fossil fuels, and that's a start. But the BlackRock announcement would have sounded a lot better 10 years ago, not when investing in renewable energy is actually cheaper than fossil fuels. It ultimately makes for a feel-good story."

BlackRock claimed that it has been pushing for sustainability issues for years and will become more proactive about it moving forward.

"Given the groundwork we already laid and the growing investment risks surrounding sustainability, we will be increasingly disposed to vote against management when companies have not made sufficient progress," a BlackRock spokesperson said to CBS News.

With restaurants and supermarkets becoming less viable options during the pandemic, there has been a growth in demand and supply of local food. Baker County Tourism Travel Baker County / Flickr

By Robin Scher

Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.

Read More Show Less

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.

Read More Show Less

Trending

A technician inspects a bitcoin mining operation at Bitfarms in Saint Hyacinthe, Quebec on March 19, 2018. LARS HAGBERG / AFP via Getty Images

As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.

Read More Show Less
OR-93 traveled hundreds of miles from Oregon to California. Austin Smith Jr. / Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs / California Department of Fish and Wildlife

An Oregon-born wolf named OR-93 has sparked conservation hopes with a historic journey into California.

Read More Show Less
A plume of exhaust extends from the Mitchell Power Station, a coal-fired power plant built along the Monongahela River, 20 miles southwest of Pittsburgh, on Sept. 24, 2013 in New Eagle, Pennsylvania. The plant, owned by FirstEnergy, was retired the following month. Jeff Swensen / Getty Images

By David Drake and Jeffrey York

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

The Big Idea

People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.

Read More Show Less