Royal Bank of Scotland’s chairman, Sir Tom McKillop, claimed this week that an attempt by environmental activists to hold it responsible for the carbon emissions of oil and gas projects which it finances was “deeply, deeply flawed,” The Herald reports.
London-based Platform claimed in a recent report backed by Friends of the Earth Scotland that Royal was responsible for carbon emissions greater than those of all of Scotland. In 2005, the report claimed the bank was responsible for about 37 million tonnes of carbon emissions, more than one hundred times the level the bank had reported for that year.
McKillop said the report implied “banks should be responsible for the carbon footprints of everyone they lend to.”
He added: “That would mean banks would be responsible pretty much for the carbon emissions of the world.”
“It is just completely flawed,” he claimed, saying that the argument could be extended to take in the impact of households’ carbon emissions if Royal provided a mortgage, or the environmental impact of cars if it had provided a car loan.
Retailers, Developers and Eco-Business Leaders...learn about green retail trends, consumer buying habits and sustainable business practices. Register NOW to Attend!
The 2008 Green Leaders Survey collects sustainability program insights from business and civic leaders. Learn from peers what works and what doesn't. Take survey>>
Today's combination of dwindling natural resources, economic uncertainty, and the growing threat of global warming underscores the urgent need to embrace "being ... continue »
The National Geographic Society and the international polling firm GlobeScan have unveiled a new mechanism for measuring and comparing individual consumer behavior ...
click to view full size chart »
Joe Sprouls gives a tour of Citigroup's $310 million Green Skyscraper.
Comments
Perhaps McKillop’s view and the London Based Platform could both improve their approach. Is it reasonable for a “conscious bank” to do due dilligence into the carbon impact of potential investments? “Conscious lending” protects the planet, and improves the reputation of the bank.
Zephyr Bloch-Jorgensen July 12th, 2007Tom McKillop either hasn’t read our report or is purposefully distorting it.
It’s publicly accepted that banks bear some moral responsibility for projects they finance. That’s why its not OK to give loans to illegal drugs or cluster bombs.
Our calculations are based on the idea that RBS is responsible for emissions corresponding to the proportion to the project it financed. Not for the entire project or company’s emissions, despite McKillop’s distortion.
Mika Minio July 13th, 2007Common sense to the world, deeply flawed to RBS’ Chair. Somebody’s sticking his head in the ground.
RBS is not the only bank to be under pressure about how it uses the money its customers deposit with it. Earlier this summer, Dutch banking behemoths ABN Amro won the FT Sustainable Bank of the Year Award, as it simultaneously came bottom of a Dutch Friends of the Earth list of environmentally damaging banks.
When big business, like M&S, is increasingly embracing the ethical pound, the high-street banks are once again in danger of lagging behind their commercial contemporaries. And they can ill-afford to. Large and small companies alike, including sustainable banks like Triodos, have proved that environmental considerations can make for good business. Providing much more transparency about how they are investing their money (we send our depositors a list of all the organisations we lend to) will only be a good thing for customers who are increasingly reluctant to accept anything less.
James Niven August 1st, 2007