This news has been out a few days and has been discussed at Catallaxy.
The seven companies are – Santos, Newcrest Mining, Iluka Resources, Sandfire Resources, Oil Search, Independence Group and Sirius.
There are two main issues I see here – the divestment of the petroleum companies SANTOS and Oil Search can be justified for believers in IPCC global warming/climate change. However the other five are metal miners & explorers and considering the huge importance of minerals in our economy it is not clear exactly what the ANU thinking is.
However it is to be hoped the various Govts and resource companies make their opinions known to the ANU. Another issue that is also far from clear to me – is where there are good investment prospects in green companies such as renewable energy.
On the other hand, tadalafil uk cheap psychological reasons may be responsible for this: Primary teeth that have failed to provide any beneficial effect. Impotence is another word for erectile dysfunction. levitra 40 mg Apart from these codes, if there’s an injury due to fall, the proper acute injury code will be reported apart from the External Cause free viagra uk code(s). The message that you send while marketing to those who haven’t subscribed (in a legit manner) to one of your newsletters is that you’re a website other levitra online entity that doesn’t care about privacy. A reader has sent in this chart showing the importance of Australian resources industries – from the RBA Chart Pack.
In July 2013 I wrote – Seven “green” companies I checked in January 2011 – still poor investments
I really want to know – where are these good green investments in renewable energy that are supposed to be where the smart money is heading.
I’d find them a lot more convincing if they banned the use of products from these companies.
Taking Iluka as an example, they could ban the use of sunscreen (Titanium Dioxide) and bathroom ceramics (Zircon). Back to using dunnies for the ANU.
Of course the ANU can’t have it both ways. Will they continue to train resource geologists and engineers? Will the resource groups they have divested from (and other Australian resource companies) reconsider hiring ANU graduates? Is it fair that the ANU receives taxpayer funding (which in part comes from the divested groups)?
The ‘divestees’ have not broken any Australian law and if they were individuals of a distinctive ethnic background, colour or religion the ANU would be regarded as discriminatory.
Does anyone know why the ANU needs to hold shares in the first place?
I presume their superannuation affairs are handled by UNISUPER. Apart from that, they have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of buildings, equipment and facilities to manage. But why don’t they just stick to that? What is the point of having a fortune tied up in the stock market?
On the divestment, it’s just the typical hypocritical posing one has come to expect. Next thing you know they will be divesting in ciggie and booze companies, then McDonalds because they don’t like junk food, then soap because they don’t use it etc. etc.
Economically, perhaps we shouldn’t complain. Their irrational investment strategies increase market returns for everyone else.
Everybody at the ANU benefits from the 3/4 of the Balance of Payments generated by the Resources & Rural.
They are probably too toked up to work out that their standard of living & all the things they take for granted are underpinned by the balance of trade; the value of the $A & the interest rate regime for starters.
Petulant self absorbed arrogant deluded dickheads!
Such blinkered slaves to failed green ideology. Presumably these would-be academics will also divest themselves of the technology of the twenty first century, technology which is utterly dependent on the products of the resource companies and others like them for which ANU shows such disdain. This means of course eschewing current technology like computers, smart phones, tablets, TVs, radios, motor transport, air travel, the list goes on!
They may also find it challenging learning to communicate via homing pigeon, recording their “thoughts” on stone tablets, hand weaving hemp garments and commuting on wooden bicycles/scooters?
More politicians are speaking up –
Education Minister Christopher Pyne describes ANU decision to ditch mining company investments as ‘bizarre’
www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-13/pyne-says-anu-decision-to-ditch-mining-companies-bizarre/5808674
Now ANU is saying they have kept investments in BHP & RIO – go figure that –
We have to realize ANU and other universities too are under pressure from GreenLeft activists to spread this international divestment movement into Australia. There is recent news about the Rockefellers selling fossil fuel stocks out of some trust they have – only a minor part of their holdings I read.
It must have been a bonus for the activists when the ANU process caught up the metal miners and explorers in the divestment net.
ANU says – [An external consultant was engaged to assess each company the university had investments in, with reference to three issues. “They looked at environmental impact,… they look at the social issues around the company, and they look at the governance,” he said.]
[1] Let’s consider environmental impact –
All mining companies operate under State mining laws which minimize as far as practicable impacts over the life of a mine and balance these against the various advantages of mining. These conditions include cash bonds, environmental offsets and rehabilitation where feasible.
So ANU and its consultants set themselves above all this legal framework and procedure established over a century or more.
[2] ANU says their consultants looked at social issues around the companies. Whatever that translates as.
[3] ANU says they looked at the governance. Is not that the realm of the ASX and ASIC ?
We can only hope that details of these consultants assessments are eventually forced out into the light of day.
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, (RBF) of Rockefeller oil empire fame, provides funding to eco-extremist groups like 350 .org (a collaborator on the offensive No Pressure video).
There’s more at oilsandsfactcheck.org/2014/09/25/video-the-truth-about-the-anti-keystone-xl-rockefeller-brothers-fund/
The RBF fossil fuel divestment turns out to be more a matter of cosmetics rather than substance i.e. visible fossil fuel investments divested, hidden fossil fuel investments retained.
Perhaps the “Rockafeller Divestment” is somehow related to a broader push to devalue commodoties against the $US.
Certainly there is a 2 order higher paper market in precious metals futures which has been manipulated to lower the Gold price to give the patina of solidity of the Fiat $US.
Today it has come to light that other commodoties & principally including oil are completely at the mercy of derivatives markets trading at ~20 times the physical trade.:-
kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2014/10/13_Corrupt_Paper_Markets_May_Reverse_Gold%2C_Silver_%26_Oil_Higher.html
Sooner or later the props will collapse. It is a game played with 3 very rotten shells!
Now we see Friends of The Earth behind this campaign against the banks – Join thousands of Australians on 18 October as we move hundreds of millions of dollars out of fossil fuel funding banks!
Read what they say – this looks more and more like a green guerrilla attack on the Australian economy.
The ACCR – a Canberra based org advocating bank divestment on basis of carbon exposure.
Some familiar old names in there.