It was AMP’s turn this week to field questions from shareholders about how the company is handling issues of climate change and fossil fuel risk.

It revealed something alarming about how Australia’s third biggest asset manager was managing what has been described by Bank of England Governor Mark Carney as a huge risk to global financial stability.

When asked whether the board supported the goal of keeping global warming to below 2°C and how, through its own business, AMP would contribute to achieving that goal, outgoing Chairman Simon McKeon answered that it’s a question that has never been on the Board’s agenda.

That’s right. Never.

AMP is one of Australia’s largest financial institutions, big in banking, lending, life insurance, superannuation and asset management. It will have exposure to the fossil fuel industry through infrastructure, fixed income, and equity investments and will no doubt already be feeling the financial pinch as we see a multi-trillion dollar market correction begin to take hold.

In fact, as part of a report released earlier this year, Market Forces has already estimated the losses AMP’s My Super No 2. option will have felt from fossil fuels in the last couple of years. Over the period 2014-15, this fund’s returns were dented by 2% thanks to coal, oil and gas companies losing their value.

That works out to an average of $878 per member lost on fossil fuel shares.

more

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/amp-boards-stunning-admission-they-never-considered-climate-change-40065

are you burning fossil fuel with your constant complaint via your little computer that probably cost a zillion in carbon to create...

ooops lets not worry about what it too to create your computer   or your mob ile.. or your ipad...or your many other gadgets that are made in a Chinese factory churning them out in the thousands by the hour...

all using fossil fuel... >:( >:( >:(

nah dont lets even think about that.. lets only look at the big end of town..

Why should AMP have anything to do with the scare mongering of climate change? They are in the business of making money, not wasting money.

Why should AMP consider Climate Change? It changes all the time.

AMP is an Insurance Company. They renew premiums every year. So they will go with how they went last year and up the anti anyway. Because they are charging by the year they will not be caught by what is incremental climate change.

____ wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 8:14am:

It was AMP’s turn this week to field questions from shareholders about how the company is handling issues of climate change and fossil fuel risk. It revealed something alarming about how Australia’s third biggest asset manager was managing what has been described by 1. Bank of England Governor Mark Carney as a huge risk to global financial stability. When asked whether the board supported 2. the goal of keeping global warming to below 2°C and how, through its own business, AMP would contribute to achieving that goal, outgoing Chairman Simon McKeon answered that it’s a question that has never been on the Board’s agenda. That’s right. Never. AMP is one of Australia’s largest financial institutions, big in banking, lending, life insurance, superannuation and asset management. It will have exposure to the fossil fuel industry through infrastructure, fixed income, and equity investments and will no doubt already be feeling the financial pinch as we see a multi-trillion dollar market correction begin to take hold. In fact, as part of a report released earlier this year, Market Forces has already estimated the losses AMP’s My Super No 2. option will have felt from fossil fuels in the last couple of years. Over the period 2014-15, this fund’s returns were dented by 2% thanks to coal, oil and gas companies losing their value. That works out to an average of $878 per member lost on fossil fuel shares. more http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/amp-boards-stunning-admission-they-never-considered-climate-change-40065

1. One of the heads of the oligarchy hydra....... :-X, oh dear the poor boy wants his $2 trillion dollar carbon derivatives market and to become a billionaire too..... :P

2. No need to take action and send billions of dollars of our money to the IPCC/United Nations/World Bank.

They have enough money being the oligarchy themselves incognito as environmentalists saving mother Earth from man's ever so small emissions of CO2.

The forecasts of the IPCC computer models were wrong over predicting the current warming trend by 1.77°C by the end of this century.

In accordance with the last 25 years of observations the warming by the end of this century it will be just over 1°C.

1990 IPCC computer models forecast a rise of
2.78°C by the end of this century.

Last 25 years of observations forecast a rise of
1.01°C by the end of this century.

No need to take any action and spend billions on some computer models that cant even predict tomorrows weather let alone climate change in a 100 years.

It will happen on its own...... 8-)

http://i68.tinypic.com/2rhtw6w.png