adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Investment

Gas and nuclear industries fight to the end for 'green' EU investment label – TheChronicleHerald.ca

Published

 on


By Kate Abnett and Simon Jessop

BRUSSELS/LONDON (Reuters) – The gas and nuclear industries have ramped up lobbying to secure last-ditch changes to European rules defining which investments are sustainable, fearing that exclusion from a new “green” list could deprive them of billions of dollars of funding.

The climate section of the EU’s Sustainable Finance Taxonomy is due to be finalised this year and it could prove crucial as nuclear power and most natural gas plants and pipelines were excluded from a provisional list published in March.

300x250x1

By forcing providers of financial products to disclose which investments meet climate criteria from the end of 2021, the new EU green finance rules are designed to channel cash towards projects that support the bloc’s climate goals.

In the four months since the rules were published, gas and nuclear industry representatives held 52 meetings – in person or virtually – with EU officials, according to EU logs analysed by non-profit Reclaim Finance and shared exclusively with Reuters.

Overall, industry representatives have held a total of 310 meetings with EU policymakers since the start of 2018, according to the data based on transparency filings published by July 8.

Nuclear groups in particular have stepped up their lobbying, Of the 36 meetings they’ve held over the past two-and-a-half years, 10 have taken place since March.

Brussels is facing calls to use the rules to guarantee spending from its 750 billion euro ($888 billion) COVID-19 recovery fund goes to green projects. The money starts flowing in 2021, meaning any delay to the rules could thwart this plan.

‘NEED TO BREAK FREE’

Climate campaigners urged the EU not to bow to pressure from the oil and gas industry as the stakes were too high.

“If EU institutions and member states are serious about building a sustainable Europe that confronts the climate emergency, they need to break free from fossil-fuel lobbyists,” said Paul Schreiber, a campaigner at Reclaim Finance.

One of the main gripes of both energy industries is that they were locked out of the group of finance experts that came up with the proposals released in March.

A new EU sustainable finance platform will take over as the European Commission’s advisor on taxonomy next month – and both industries are jostling to be included on the panel.

Rebecca Vaughan, an analyst at InfluenceMap, a non-profit whose lobbying data is used by investors, said the platform was probably the gas industry’s “last shot” at changing the rules.

All four gas and nuclear lobby groups interviewed by Reuters have applied to be part of the sustainable finance platform, along with more than 500 other applicants.

The current expert group – whose 35 members include asset managers, non-governmental organisations, banks and two energy industry representatives – has said gas power plants should only be labeled “sustainable” if they meet strict emissions limits.

Experts say those limits would certainly be breached unless the industry captures the greenhouse gases it produces while “green” hydrogen could play a significant role.

Investments to expand gas pipelines would also not be labeled sustainable, though infrastructure earmarked for the use of hydrogen generated with renewable energy could be.

‘TRANSITIONAL ACTIVITIES’

The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IOGP), Eurogas and FuelsEurope lobby groups all told Reuters the sustainable finance rules should acknowledge more incremental cuts in emissions.

“The report was drafted, in a way, like we need to transition tomorrow,” said Kamila Piotrowska, IOGP senior manager for policy strategy. “This is a journey and we need these transitional activities.”

They want the taxonomy to include a list of so-called transitional activities, including gas power plants, which some EU member states are looking to use as they move away from a heavy dependence on more-polluting coal-fired power stations.

Lobby groups, including Eurogas, also want pipelines to be classed as sustainable, if they can be converted to low-carbon gas at some point in future.

“There’s a real danger that that means the existing (gas) plants in Europe could be deemed not sustainable and therefore unable to raise any finance for anything,” said John Cooper director general of refining industry association FuelsEurope.

FuelsEurope and IOGP have also asked the Commission to consider extending the deadline for companies to comply.

Asked whether transitional activities might be included, a European Commission spokeswoman said in an emailed statement to Reuters that it was exploring all the arguments on what should be included, based on the recommendations of its expert group and feedback from the industry.

‘IT’S TOO LATE’

The EU’s expert group says its criteria are science-based and designed to give incentives to bring about the rapid emissions cuts needed to give the world a chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change.

“A lot of people still think the transition is about incremental small steps, and it’s too late for that, unfortunately,” said Helena Vines Fiestas, global head of stewardship and policy at BNP Paribas Asset Management and a member of the expert group.

Nuclear industry groups say the energy deserves a sustainable label, based on its low carbon emissions and existing secure waste disposal sites.

They fear that if nuclear isn’t deemed sustainable, the cost of capital for power plants will rise – a concern for an industry where flagship projects, such as Britain’s Hinkley Point C reactor, are struggling with spiralling costs.

To help get the message across, several nuclear lobby groups enlisted the help of the public, tweeting to encourage responses to an EU consultation in April on the proposed rules – and suggesting what to write.

That helped generate 126 responses to the EU consultation from concerned citizens asking for nuclear power to be termed sustainable – nearly a third of all the responses received, according to InfluenceMap analysis.

The expert finance group was split on how to brand nuclear power and the Commission has now asked its scientific arm to report on the issue next year.

Lobby groups told Reuters they were confident nuclear power would ultimately be considered sustainable, but they want the energy section of the taxonomy delayed until the report is done.

The spokeswoman for the Commission said it was still planning to finish the sustainable finance rules this year, though they could be amended at a later date to accommodate nuclear, depending on the outcome of the scientific report.

(Reporting by Simon Jessop in London and Kate Abnett in Brussels; Editing by David Clarke)

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

BWXT announces $80M investment for plant in Cambridge – CityNews Kitchener

Published

 on

By


BWX Technologies (BWXT) in Cambridge is investing $80-million to expand their nuclear manufacturing plant in Cambridge.

Minister of Energy, Todd Smith, was in the city on Friday to join the company in the announcement.

The investment will create over 200 new skilled and unionized jobs. This is part of the province’s plan to expand affordable and clean nuclear energy to power the economy.

300x250x1

“With shovels in the ground today on new nuclear generation, including the first small modular reactor in the G7, I’m so pleased to see global nuclear manufacturers like BWXT expanding their operations in Cambridge and hiring more Ontario workers,” Smith said. “The benefits of Ontario’s nuclear industry reaches far beyond the stations at Darlington, Pickering and Bruce, and this $80 million investment shows how all communities can help meet Ontario’s growing demand for clean energy, while also securing local investments and creating even more good-paying jobs.”

The added jobs will support BWXT’s existing operations across the province as well as help the sector’s ongoing operations of existing nuclear stations at Darlington, Bruce and Pickering.

“Our expansion comes at a time when we’re supporting our customers in the successful execution of some of the largest clean nuclear energy projects in the world,” John MacQuarrie, President of Commercial Operations at BWXT, said.

“At the same time, the global nuclear industry is increasingly being called upon to mitigate the impacts of climate change and increase energy security and independence. By investing significantly in our Cambridge manufacturing facility, BWXT is further positioning our business to serve our customers to produce more safe, clean and reliable electricity in Canada and abroad.”

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

AI investments will help chip sector to recover: Analyst – Yahoo Finance

Published

 on

By


The semiconductor sector is undergoing a correction as interest rate cut expectations dwindle, prompting concerns about the impact on these high-growth, technology-driven stocks. Wedbush Enterprise Hardware Analyst Matt Bryson joins Yahoo Finance to discuss the dynamics shaping the chip industry.

Bryson acknowledges that the rise of generative AI has been a significant driving force behind the recent success of chip stocks. While he believes that AI is shifting “the way technology works,” he notes it will take time. Due to this, Bryson highlights that “significant investment” will continue to occur in the chip market, fueled by the growth of generative AI applications.

However, Bryson cautions that as interest rates remain elevated, it could “weigh on consumer spending.” Nevertheless, he expresses confidence that the AI revolution “changing the landscape for tech” will likely insulate the sector from the effect of high interest rates, as investors are unwilling to miss out on the “next technology” breakthrough.

300x250x1

For more expert insight and the latest market action, click here to watch this full episode of Yahoo Finance.

This post was written by Angel Smith

Video Transcript

BRAD SMITH: As rate cut bets shift, so have moves in one sector, in particular. Shares of AMD and Intel, both down over 15% in the last 30 days. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index, also known as Sox, dropping over 10% from recent highs, despite a higher rate environment.

Our next guest is still bullish on the sector. Matt Bryson, Wedbush Enterprise Hardware analyst, joins us now. Matt, thanks so much for taking the time here. Walk us through your thesis here, especially, given some of the pullback that we’ve seen recently.

MATT BRYSON: So I think what we’ve seen over the last year or so is that the growth of generative AI has fueled the chip stocks. And the expectation that AI is going to shift everything in the way that technology works.

And I think that at the end of the day, that that thesis will prove out. I think the question is really timing. But the investments that we’ve seen that have lifted NVIDIA, that have lifted AMD, that have lifted the chip stock and sector, in general, the large cloud service providers, building out data centers. I don’t think anything has changed there in the near term.

So when I speak to OEMs, who are making AI servers, when I speak to cloud service providers, there is still significant investment going on in that space. That investment is slated to continue certainly into 2025. And I think, as long as there is this substantial investment, that we will see chip names report strong numbers and guide for strong growth.

SEANA SMITH: Matt, when it comes to the fact that we are in this macroeconomic environment right now, likelihood that rates will be higher for longer here, at least, when you take a look at the expectations, especially following some of the commentary that we got from Fed officials this week, what does that signal more broadly for the AI trade, meaning, is there a reason to be a bit more cautious in this higher for longer rate environment, at least, in the near term?

MATT BRYSON: Yeah. I think certainly from a market perspective, high interest rates weight on the market. Eventually, they weigh on consumer spending. Certainly, for a lot of the chip names, they’re high multiple stocks.

When you think about where there can be more of a reaction or a negative reaction to high interest rates, certainly, it has some impact on those names. But in terms of, again, AI changing the fundamental landscape for tech, I don’t think that high interest rates or low interest rates will change that.

So when you think about Microsoft, Amazon, all of those large data center operators looking at AI, potentially, changing the landscape forever and wanting to make a bet on AI to make sure that they don’t miss that change, I don’t think whether interest rates are low or high are going to really affect their investment.

I think they’re going to go ahead and invest because no one wants to be the guy that missed the next technology wave.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

If pension funds can't see the case for investing in Canada, why should you? – The Globe and Mail

Published

 on

By


It’s time to ask a rude question: Is Canada still worth investing in?

Before you rush to deliver an appropriately patriotic response, think about the issue for a moment.

A good place to begin is with the federal government’s announcement this week that it is forming a task force under former Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz. The task force’s job will be to find ways to encourage Canadian pension funds to invest more of their assets in Canada.

300x250x1

Wooing pension funds has become a high-priority matter for Ottawa because, at the moment, these big institutional investors don’t invest all that much in Canada. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, for instance, had a mere 14 per cent of its massive $570-billion portfolio in Canadian assets at the end of its last fiscal year.

Other major Canadian pension plans have similar allocations, especially if you look beyond their holdings of government bonds and consider only their investments in stocks, infrastructure and real assets. When it comes to such risky assets, these big, sophisticated players often see more potential for good returns outside of Canada than at home.

This leads to a simple question: If the CPPIB and other sophisticated investors aren’t overwhelmed by Canada’s investment appeal, why should you and I be?

It’s not as if Canadian stocks have a record of outstanding success. Over the past decade, they have lagged far behind the juicy returns of the U.S.-based S&P 500.

To be fair, other countries have also fallen short of Wall Street’s glorious run. Still, Canadian stocks have only a middling record over the past 10 years even when measured against other non-U.S. peers. They have trailed French and Japanese stocks and achieved much the same results as their Australian counterparts. There is no obvious Canadian edge.

There are also no obvious reasons to think this middle-of-the-pack record will suddenly improve.

A generation of mismanagement by both major Canadian political parties has spawned a housing crisis and kneecapped productivity growth. It has driven household debt burdens to scary levels.

Policy makers appear unwilling to take bold action on many long-standing problems. Interprovincial trade barriers remain scandalously high, supply-managed agriculture continues to coddle inefficient small producers, and tax policy still pushes people to invest in homes rather than in productive enterprises.

From an investor’s perspective, the situation is not that appetizing. A handful of big banks, a cluster of energy producers and a pair of railways dominate Canada’s stock market. They are solid businesses, yes, but they are also mature industries, with less than thrilling growth prospects.

What is largely missing from the Canadian stock scene are big companies with the potential to expand and innovate around the globe. Shopify Inc. SHOP-T and Brookfield Corp. BN-T qualify. After that, the pickings get scarce, especially in areas such as health care, technology and retailing.

So why hold Canadian stocks at all? Four rationales come to mind:

  • Canadian stocks have lower political risk than U.S. stocks, especially in the run-up to this year’s U.S. presidential election. They also are far away from the front lines of any potential European or Asian conflict.
  • They are cheaper than U.S. stocks on many metrics, including price-to-earnings ratios, price-to-book ratios and dividend yields. Scored in terms of these standard market metrics, they are valued more or less in line with European and Japanese stocks, according to Citigroup calculations.
  • Canadian dividends carry some tax advantages and holding reliable Canadian dividend payers means you don’t have to worry about exchange-rate fluctuations.
  • Despite what you may think, Canada’s fiscal situation actually looks relatively benign. Many countries have seen an explosion of debt since the pandemic hit, but our projected deficits are nowhere near as worrisome as those in the United States, China, Italy or Britain, according to International Monetary Fund figures.

How compelling you find these rationales will depend upon your personal circumstances. Based strictly on the numbers, Canadian stocks look like ho-hum investments – they’re reasonable enough places to put your money, but they fail to stand out compared with what is available globally.

Canadians, though, have always displayed a striking fondness for homebrew. Canadian stocks make up only a smidgen of the global market – about 3 per cent, to be precise – but Canadians typically pour more than half of their total stock market investments into Canadian stocks, according to the International Monetary Fund. This home market bias is hard to justify on any rational basis.

What is more reasonable? Vanguard Canada crunched the historical data in a report last year and concluded that Canadian investors could achieve the best balance between risk and reward by devoting only about 30 per cent of their equity holdings to Canadian stocks.

This seems to be more or less in line with what many Canadian pension funds currently do. They have about half their portfolio in equities, so devoting 30 per cent of that half to domestic stocks works out to holding about 15 per cent of their total portfolio in Canadian equities.

That modest allocation to Canadian stocks is a useful model for Canadian investors of all sizes. And if Ottawa doesn’t like it? Perhaps it could do more to make Canada an attractive investment destination.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending