But with mainstream banks questioning the competitiveness of fossil fuels, and with the Governor of the Bank of England describing most fossil fuels
as unburnable, divestment (or at least diversification into clean energy investment) is looking less - and-less like gesture politics, and more like a sound plan to protect ourselves from future shocks.
A 2015 study concluded that in order to avoid the worst impacts of runaway climate change, all Arctic fossil fuels should be classified
as unburnable.
Not exact matches
Even
as renewables take off, every year more and more of that
unburnable carbon is being locked into production.
He endorsed research by Carbon Tracker showing that US$ 2 trillion worth of fossil fuel assets are
unburnable as governments aim to hold global warming to 2C.
If 80 percent of these reserves are left
unburnable, these companies
as a whole will be forced to write off up to $ 20 trillion in losses.
As one might imagine, if developments in technology and government policies result in emissions complying with this tighter carbon budget, this renders even more coal, oil and gas
unburnable.
The report clearly sets out the global carbon budget, the reserves outlook, the current capital flow being consumed to expand those reserves and comes to the additional conclusion that this part of the global energy system will also waste trillions in capex over the coming decade
as it develops more reserves that could also become
unburnable.
Contrary to the ITS report Carbon Tracker has never backed divestment
as a viable strategy for the majority of investors — it is one of a number of options we discuss in our recent
Unburnable Carbon 2013 report.