Search Results

Last Wednesday, Pope Francis, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, released an updated commentary on climate change. As Mongabay reported last week, some observers credit his lengthier 2015 letter Laudato Si with providing much of the basis for the 2015 Paris Agreement. The BBC and Washington Post reported at the time that he even coaxed reticent countries into accepting the deal. In the document Francis criticized those who sought to cast doubt on the scientific consensus that humans are the drivers of today’s rise in global temperatures. Traditionally such dissenting research (some receiving significant funding from the fossil fuel industry) has focused on the oscillation of natural occurring variables such as solar radiation. “They bring up allegedly solid scientific data, like the fact that the planet has always had, and will have, periods of cooling and warming. They forget to mention another relevant datum: that what we are presently experiencing is an unusual acceleration of warming, at such a speed that it will take only one generation – not centuries or millennia – in order to verify it.” He further clarified that “[e]vents of natural origin that usually cause warming, such as volcanic eruptions and others, are insufficient to explain the proportion and speed of the changes of recent decades.” The letter also called attention to the continued increasing emissions. He noted that the planet could reach the Paris Agreement’s recommended ceiling in only ten years. This meant that “our responses have not been adequate, while the world in which we live is collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point.” This could prove catastrophic in areas such as “healthcare, sources of employment, access to resources, housing, [and] forced migrations.” He said that a just transition should not only focus on the jobs lost in the transition from fossil fuels, but should also weigh losses already occurring because of “rising sea levels, droughts and other phenomena affecting the planet have left many people adrift.” In possibly the most forceful part of the document, he criticized the international framework his 2015 letter helped create. While the agreement proved to be a “another significant moment” in establishing a non-binding and flexible consensus, “proposals tending to ensure a rapid and effective transition to alternative and less polluting forms of energy made no progress” at conferences which sought to monitor countries’ international commitments. International conflicts have also contributed to the delay in effective responses. He urged delegates at November’s COP28 to look toward their legacies and not simply their pocketbooks: "May those taking part in the Conference be strategists capable of considering the common good and the future of their children, more than the short-term interests of certain countries or businesses. In this way, may they demonstrate the nobility of politics and not its shame. To the powerful, I can only repeat this question: “What would induce anyone, at this stage, to hold on to power, only to be remembered for their inability to take action when it was urgent and necessary to do so?” In a nod toward those who show skepticism of top-down climate solutions, he noted multilateralism did not mean “a world authority concentrated in one person or in an elite with excessive power.” Non-state civil society actors are “capable of creating effective dynamics that the United Nations cannot.” Therefore, he emphasized that different social actors have different roles to play in scaling solutions to fit local needs. The Vatican itself has struggled to move rapidly with Francis alluding to internal disagreement about how fast to transition to low-carbon solutions. It did not accede to the Paris Agreement and determine targets until 2022. We will leave others to evaluate the veracity and effectiveness of Francis’ critiques of the international community’s response to climate change. We agree that the best solutions tailor to each organization’s needs. At Responsible Alpha, we love working with individual clients eager to customize their journey to a low-carbon future.

Key Bullets: Biodiversity and ecosystem collapse rank as the 4th major global ris k, with a focus on sustainability analysis. Ecosystem services generate $44 trillion annually but have suffered significant depletion, especially in commodities industries. The Taskforce on Nature-Related Financial Disclosures (TFND) launched its framework and it is gaining traction in addressing this risk. Policymakers are enacting global and regional agreements to conserve nature , including the Kunming Framework and UN efforts on plastic waste. Financial risk experts play a vital role in ensuring accurate biodiversity reporting and standards for responsible investing. Biodiversity and ecosystem collapse is the 4th biggest global risk in the next 10 years according to World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report 2023 . Andrew Wetzel’s F.L. Putnam's newsletter highlighted these risks, noting that “Economists, investors, regulators, and other stakeholder groups are all increasingly focusing on natural capital and biodiversity as the next frontier in sustainability analysis.” Ecosystem services generate a staggering $44 trillion of value per year according to a May 2023 Kepler Cheuvreux report. Despite this tremendous value, we have lost 40 percent of our natural capital per person, 33 percent of our forests, and 60 percent of our vertebrate species. Commodities industries dependent on these ecosystem services have the largest negative impact. With the recent release of the Taskforce on Nature-Related Financial Disclosures (TFND) final recommendations, Central and commercial banks seem to finally grasp the need to address this issue as a significant risk to economic, financial, and social stability. Those that adhere to the TFND framework disclose based on the nature-related material impacts of their “direct, upstream, downstream, and financed operations (specifically for financial institutions).” Furthermore, policymakers have begun to act, instituting international and regional agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity , the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework , the EU Regulation on Deforestation-Free Goods (EUDR) and country-specific legislation . The Kunming Framework commits governments to conserving nearly a third of Earth for nature by 2030, while respecting indigenous and traditional territories in the expansion of new protected areas. Some governments have reached an agreement to protect the high seas, paving the way for the creation of more marine protected areas. UN INC-2 is creating a legally binding treaty to regulate plastic waste, which is one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss. Some countries are working with the private sector to enter into " debt-for-nature swaps ”. Blue bonds and other similar instruments are expanding. Many private sector led stakeholder groups are developing yet often do not engage the Earth’s best stewards, such as Indigenous Peoples, First Nations and professional ecologists. That is beginning to change. In August, 186 countries launched the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) . It allocates 20 percent of raised funds dedicated to preserving biodiversity (now at $159.38 million) to indigenous groups. Small Island Developing States and Least Developed Countries will receive a third of raised funds. These allocations, originally proposed by Brazil and Colombia, were well received by present Global South countries. China committed to integrating its funds into ongoing national initiatives. Where do financial risk experts come in? Given the reputational and financial risk around depleting natural capital, rigorous natural capital reporting standards ensure accurate information for investors and prevent greenwashing. Prominent organizations creating standards for measuring and protecting biodiversity include the TNFD, The United Nations Environmental Programme Finance Initiative (UNEPFI) , The International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN) , The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) , Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) , and the Capitals Coalition . Investors beware. As biodiversity protection becomes increasingly popular, metrics for measuring impact are being rolled out to stakeholders. A long list of metrics which are not biodiversity measures including carbon emissions, acidification, eutrophication, water use, chemicals are being packaged as such. This is leaving actual biodiversity indicators, such as focus of small species (e.g. birds, pollinators, mammals), large orders of high importance (e.g. insects), measures of genetic diversity (e.g. from eDNA and fecal samples), impacted ecosystem extent and condition to the wayside. Institutions should be careful to employ financial risk experts with professional ecologists who utilize current and reputed biodiversity standards. Responsible Alpha guides companies through the critical, complex, and growing regulatory landscape with our team of financial and ecological experts.

We at Responsible Alpha have argued large manufacturers, including state national champions like Brazil’s fossil fuel company, Petrobras , can and should play a crucial role in the green-energy transition. Last month, Japan’s industry leader Tokyo Steel announced it will operate in the daytime using solar power, providing another important example of the benefits a renewable power grid brings to a company’s operations. As Nikkei reports, steel plants typically operate in the cooler nighttime, when energy costs are cheaper and remain idle during the day. But an excess in solar power in the southern Kyushu region has moved the municipal government to offer discounted rates if the companies use excess solar power by operating during the day. Not only does this prevent blackouts caused by imbalances in energy supply and demand, it could reduce daytime energy costs up to 10 percent. As Japan’s Renewable Energy Institute reports, the steel industry makes up 48 percent of Japan’s industrial admissions and 13 percent of its energy-related carbon emissions. By 2030, Japan will have the opportunity to replace 38 percent of its blast furnace steel plants and phase-in renewable-sourced electric steel infrastructure. The move to daytime solar operations stands to further increase Japan’s already efficient energy use and is part of a larger strategy involving increased nuclear, ammonia, and hydrogen use. Experts agree Japan needs all of these to reach Net-Zero by 2050 given Japan’s low capacity for storing carbon. Meeting its 2050 goals will play a central role in the Japanese steel industry’s competitiveness especially as European carmakers and steel companies quickly shift to low-carbon operations.This shift to renewable energy delivers cost savings, more reliable operations, and further opportunities for business growth, all while doing good for the planet. These are the types of transitions we love to see and help facilitate at Responsible Alpha.

Read our new dashboard. In 2023, for the first time in our modern U.S. economy, renewable electricity accounted for over 50% of annual capacity additions. In 2023, the U.S. solar industry added 32.4 gigawatts  (GW) of new electric generating capacity, a 51% increase from 2022. Solar now accounts for 53% of all new electric generating capacity added to the grid in 2023. Total U.S. solar capacity is expected to grow to 673 GW by 2034, enough to power more than 100 million homes. Solar module manufacturing capacity grew from 8.5 GW to 16.1 GW in 2023. Every solar market segment saw year-over-year growth in 2023, bringing total installed solar capacity in the United States to 177 GW. Texas led the nation for new solar installations with 6.5 GW, eclipsing California for the second time in the last three years. Colorado and Ohio are among the top 10 solar states in 2023 for the first time in over a decade, while Wisconsin made its debut appearance in the top 10. More than half of U.S. states have 1 GW of total installed solar capacity.

Sean Bourke, Managing Director, Pearse Partners ; Mohadeseh Abdullahi, Molten Ventures ; Katherine Howells, Senior Consultant, Pearse Partners , and Gabriel Thoumi, CFA, FRM, CEO, Responsible Alpha  (L-R). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  (IPCC) launched its final Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) report after a grueling eight-year-long process assessing tens of thousands of scientific studies. “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere have occurred.” Our best estimate of warming is 1.07°C increase above 1850-1900, compared to 2010-2019. A bulleted summary reads like a catastrophic Hollywood movie: Highest CO2 concentrations in 2 million years. Last decade was warmer than another decade in the past 125,000 years. Ocean warming faster than at any other time since the end of the last ice age. Sea level faster now than in any prior century for the past 3,000 years. Yet business goes on, the news cycle continues, and government action lags while alarm bells ring louder and louder. Remember, our cities, our industry, our transport, and our political boundaries are all based on an Earth not dynamically changing due to climate change. The apolitical Swiss Re Institute  forecasts that our global economy will decline by $23 trillion – or 10% of total economic value – if 2050 net-zero emissions targets are not met. Pro-Tip: Now is the Time for Competency In the context of accelerating climate change, industry leaders were convened by Pearse Partners  in March in London to discuss the competency required for institutions to act profitably, clearly, directly, and within their fiduciary duties to their stakeholders and society to address our pending green repricing tsunami. “I saw there was a genuine gap for thought leadership within the space, particularly within the areas of ESG data Integration and Impact, and wanted to create something that would engage leaders across the industry together. Feedback from the event has been really positive and we’re proud to be pioneers of this type of event and looking forward to future events, where we can continually add value to clients, in ways which are important to them.” Katherine Howells, Senior Consultant, Pearse Partners It is clearly given recent research that competency improves returns and mitigates risks for firms. Yet, what do we mean by competency? Executive Competency: A New Approach The executive competency  required for institutions to address the climate crisis includes: Integration:  We need systems thinkers. Think of “jack of all trades”. We need people who can understand sustainable systems, and decode sustainable systems into plain speak for the rest of us. Climate risk is financial risk, and it impacts us all. Integrity: We need individuals who can be honest about short-comings as no one institution and no one individual has ever managed the climate transition risk before, as, this is the first time that we as a society in our history have had to address climate transition risk. Innovation:  With innovation, we need less “new” and more “do”. The innovation required for climate risk transition is less about being the “genius” and much more about collaboration and working together each day to problem solve, making the complex simple. Inclusion: We need a business model based on inclusion as opposed to exclusion. Climate risk impacts us all and if we exclude others we are losing out on potential key execution partners. This was a great panel, which highlighted the innovation, inclusivity, integrity and integration needed to address the most pressing issue of our time. Rather than look at ESG metrics and impact investment through a siloed lens, what is needed is a systems-level approach. Companies willing to embrace these issues can tap successfully into the single biggest investment opportunity. Companies like Responsible Alpha help businesses to understand and integrate their path to Net Zero better from a risk and data perspective. VC investors like Molten Ventures, pioneer exciting sustainability and climate-focused investments pivotal to the protection, restoration, and preservation of the environment. The collaboration of both of these will accelerate the creation of a sustainable future.

March 2, 2022 Przemysl, Poland. 26th Feb, 2022. Refugees from Ukraine, after crossing the border from Shehyni in Ukraine to Medyka in Poland. Credit: Michael Kappeler/dpa/Alamy Live News. EU, UK, and US regulators have not closed depository receipt trade as investors traded 1.1 billion receipts Monday. Tens of billions of dollars traded for 39 Russian companies traded in 20 liquid markets. Nine out of ten traded ADRs focused on banking, mining, and energy - Sberbank, Gazprom, Rosneft, Lukoil, Norilsk Nickel, and Magnit. Four out of five ADRs traded globally were Sberbank and Gazprom. Among others, J.P. Morgan and Bank of New York Mellon’s platforms used for 54% and 35% of published transactions. Research performed by Responsible Alpha based on Bloomberg data showed that billions of dollars are still flowing to banned companies associated with the Russian government’s invasion of Ukraine. While regulators and some exchanges have stopped trading in Russian equities, markets have not stopped trading in the lucrative multi-billion depository receipt market. In the global depository receipt market, banks issue certificates representing shares of foreign company allowing for exchange of these shares on a local exchange. The depository receipt market for Russian equities is diverse and broad with transactions across 20 markets for 39 companies alone, Monday, February 28, four days after the Russian government’s war of choice began. In the U.S., regulators have not yet acted to address capital raising by investors using American Depository Receipts (ADR) for Russian companies whose materiel and taxes are fueling Russia’s war machine. The New York Times is now reporting that 500,000 people have fled their homes in Ukraine. Europe now has an immediate humanitarian crisis with hundreds of thousands of families without food or shelter facing winter cold. Regulators must move today as winter chills refugees fleeing the Russian government’s war of choice. Without regulatory action , as reported by Reuters, when will investors’ capital in Russian markets stop fueling this escalating humanitarian crisis?

January 24, 2023 Gabriel Thoumi moderating the Oceans Panel. The news from Davos this past week was interesting. Speaking and moderating at four events, I observed extensive conversations about Planetary Boundaries. Gabriel Thoumi speaking on the Future of Finance panel. I frequently had lengthy discussions about how accurate and effective ESG integration within investment thesis will support addressing systemic risks facing our global economy as our economy exceeds planetary boundaries. Gabriel Thoumi speaking at the Davos Green Accelerator. According to the WEF’s Global Risks Report 2023 , our decade has been disrupted by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic followed by both a global energy and food crisis, Russia’s unprovoked war on Ukraine, supply chain disruptions, fears of inflation and increases in cost-of-living, emerging market capital outflows, and a stagnant economy. These factors are compounded by increasingly virulent planetary boundary risks from climate change, water scarcity, chemical dispersion and plastic pollution, along with biodiversity collapse, which all threaten our global sustainability. Gabriel Thoumi at the Cooking up something new: Innovation to shape the future of food event. The WEF says we now live in the polycrisis which they explain as how, “ present and future risks can also interact with each other to form a ‘polycrisis’ – a cluster of related global risks with compounding effects, such that the overall impact exceeds the sum of each part”. Yet this polycrisis is also compounded by our global economy crossing multiple planetary boundaries . While climate change and its negative feedback loops are most often discussed – such as chronic and acute risks including sea-level rise and extreme weather increasingly stressing our fragile global economic systems, similarly concerning is that we are in the midst of the 6th Great Extinction in geologic history while we face unprecedented pollution from chemical dispersion – nitrogen, phosphorous, and other molecules – and increasing plastic use globally while our planet’s lungs – its oceans and forests are being destroyed. We now live in the Anthropocene – the epic during which humans have had a substantial impact on our planet – where economies globally face polycrisis.

January 3, 2023 Corporations, investors, regulators, and the public want to know if ESG commitments institutions make are truthful – not greenwashed. While the global economy in 2023 faces war in Europe, increasing inflation, rising interest rates, challenging energy markets, and growing political challenges, at the same time, regulators are now actively targeting ESG commitments for greenwashing. Even now the concept of ESG is being politicized – yet ESG has evolved with and been a part of the professionalization of capital markets for the last 90 years since the collapse of the markets in 1920s when analysts disregarded and did not address governance risks. Yet tools exist today that can assist corporations, investors, regulators, and the public determine the materiality of greenwashing risks. Responsible Alpha and Deception And Truth Analysis (D.A.T.A.) demonstrate below – in a stepwise manner – how technology can enable truth telling and determine if commitments may not be accurate. To demonstrate we will consider the following real life case study of how we and a mutual hedge fund client assessed New Fortress Energy (ticker: NFE). NFE, founded in 2014, is an $8 billion integrated gas-to-power infrastructure company operating globally in two segments: Terminals and Infrastructure, and Ships. About New Fortress Energy On NFE’s website under the About section, the company tells you immediately that they are ‘Powered by positive energy’ and that their vision and mission is: “We want to light the world. Billions of people around the planet lack access to affordable power. Electricity should not be a luxury good. “As a liquefied natural gas (LNG) company, our mission is to provide capital, expertise and vision to address this problem while also making positive and meaningful impacts on communities and the environment.” “…access to affordable, reliable, cleaner energy is not a privilege, but a human right…Creating that access – in an environmentally responsible way – is our fundamental mission.” For a company that transports liquid natural gas from one location to another around the world – a non-sustainable activity – to have such high aspirations is noteworthy. Yet is the above flowery language supported by their record? Sustainalytics, the Morningstar Company that rates listed companies based on their ESG performance, ranks NFE in the top 30 percent of NFE’s ‘Construction & Engineering’ peer group, or 99 out of 339 peers. But in Sustainalytics total universe of rated companies, NFE ranks 11,960 out of 15,101, or in the bottom 79% of all companies. In other words, NFE is ranked by Sustainalytics as a relatively clean shirt in a dirty industry. A review of Sustainalytics analysis though shows that the primary driver of their ranking is their opinion of the industry in which NFE operates, rather than the specifics of the company itself. In other words, Sustainalytics’ analysis of NFE is more general than specific, more systematic than unsystematic. Testing Greenwashing Responsible Alpha is a globally scaled ESG consultancy who are frequently hired by investors to investigate material greenwashing claims at companies. Responsible Alpha’s approach is similar to a private investigations team, and, in fact, they were hired to investigate NFE because of suspicions that NFE might be greenwashing. The investor hired in collaboration Deception And Truth Analysis (D.A.T.A.) and Responsible Alpha to test this greenwashing claim using the DATAbase tool of pre-scored regulatory filings by U.S. publicly-traded companies since 2008 for each company’s deceptiveness and truthfulness. The following is the time series history of the DATA Score for NFE. Figure 1: NFE’s historical DATAbase scores. DATAbase scores range between 100% and +100% with any negative score meaning a document is deceptive, in the aggregate, and any positive score indicating that a document is truthful, in the aggregate. So, how did NFE score? As you can see above, since going public in 2019 NFE’s documents have always scored as truthful, in the aggregate. At the time of Deception And Truth Analysis (D.A.T.A.) and Responsible Alpha ’s collaboration with the investor, NFE had just issued its second quarter financial results (a 10Q) on August 4, 2022. That document scored as +17.39% and is in the 91.91% percentile of all truthful documents in DATAbase historically. Good, right? But let’s look deeper. At a high level it would be easy to conclude that NFE is not engaged in greenwashing given its consistently high DATA Score. But it’s not all rainbows and unicorns because 42.62% of the document’s fragments scored as deceptive. In other words, in the aggregate NFE is truthful in its regulatory documents, but it does deceive about some things. What are those? The second Deception And Truth Analysis (D.A.T.A.) tool used by Responsible Alpha – the DATA RED line tool – enabled Responsible Alpha to immediately drill down to the key issues worth investigating further at NFE. Specifically, the analysts using DATA RED line determined which fragments in NFEs regulatory filing were deceptive fragments. Figure 2: NFE’s Q2 2022 DATAREDline report. The highlighted fragment in the Data RED line view (see right side pane, above) is NFE’s most deceptive. Additionally, the left side shows the underlying language associated with this fragment. Specifically, the first half of the 10Q fragment says: “In addition to administrative services, an affiliate of Fortress owns and leases an aircraft chartered by the Company for business purposes in the course of operations. The Company incurred, at aircraft operator market rates, charter costs of $1,125 and $1,340 for the three months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021, respectively, and $2,147 and $2,949 for the six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021, respectively. As of June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, $1,248 and $944 was due to this affiliate, respectively.” (Note 24. Related party transactions: Management services p. 32, New Fortress Energy Inc. 10-Q August 2, 2022 – dollars in are thousands, e.g., $1,125,000) “The Company has leased land from Florida East Coast Industries, LLC ( FECI ), which is controlled by funds managed by an affiliate of Fortress. The Company recognized expense related to the land lease of $ 103 and $ 103 during the three months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021, respectively, and $ 206 and $ 229 during the six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021, respectively, which was included within Operations and maintenance in the condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss).As of June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the Company has recorded a lease liability of $ 3,329 and $ 3,314, respectively, within Non-current lease liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet.” (Note 24. Related party transactions: Land lease p. 32, New Fortress Energy Inc. 10-Q August 2, 2022 – dollars in are thousands, e.g., $1,125,000) This fragment uncovered something strange, and was it greenwashing? NFE and the Case for Greenwashing What was it that was uncovered? The disclosed link was an article published by an organization called FloridaBulldog.org on September 17, 2020 entitled, “ Fortress forgave huge Trump loan, got federal permits to transport LNG by rail .” Summarizing the article: In 2005 Fortress Investment Group loaned $130 million to Donald Trump’s Trump Organization, via its subsidiary, Fortress Credit to help finance the construction of the Trump International Hotel and Tower Chicago. The Trump Organization was in danger of defaulting on the loan in 2012 and Fortress Investment forgave all but $48 million of the approximately $150 million owed (principal + interest). This should have been a taxable event. Once in office, the Trump administration awarded two special permits to transport LNG along Florida’s east coast to Doral’s Energy Transport Solutions, owned by NFE. The permit allows Florida East Coast Railway, a subsidiary previously owned by Fortress Investments, to ship LNG. These permits allowed the company to transport LNG much further than was typical under such permits. Previously, it was considered too dangerous to transport LNG by rail over such long distances. First, the transactions described above involving subsidiaries are not arms-length transactions and raise issues surrounding governance at NFE. Second, it is hard not to infer an implied quid pro quo in the above sequence. Both raise questions about NFE and its overall ESG record, especially as it relates to the ‘G’ in ESG: governance. Conclusion Corporations, investors, regulators, and the public have tools to test ESG commitments and scores in a replicable and consistent manner – to wash away greenwashing. Analysts well versed in these tools today are helping these institutions make better-informed decisions, decisions that support the transition to a low-carbon, sustainable, and equitable future. Using analysis and algorithms, you too can future truth ESG and fight greenwashing.

October 1, 2022 We wanted to share our impressions after many of us convened in NYC during Climate Week September 19-23. Climate Week is the annual gathering in NYC of institutions committed to supporting our transition to a low-carbon, sustainable, and equitable economy. Climate Week is known for the opportunity it presents for institutions to discuss and describe transition strategies with their peers and also other unrelated sectors. Triple Crisis – Climate, Biodiversity, and Water: Institutions were actively talking across the triple crisis silos of climate, biodiversity, and water focusing on metrics that can be piloted now, and then deployed at scale in the short term. On the climate cliff: Institutions are demonstrating urgency yet are not fully collaborating. While the 2021 IPCC report states we have 300 GtCO2 left in 2020 if we want to achieve a 1.5° increase with 83% probability, it means we must reduce emissions by 12% per year starting now if we are going to begin decarbonization. Urgency: People from all walks of life and various professions were talking about collaboration, coordination, and dealmaking. Trust: On the other hand, institutions are also talking with their peers and with others outside the sector big and small. Trust is developing out of urgency. Alignment: It is clear now that institutions are talking about “what is true for the plane is true for all forms of financing” Frédéric Samama, Head of Strategic Development at Sustainable1, S&P Global . Fixed Income A consultation was launched by the UK government on the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) to require the pension, which has £342 billion ($394.7 billion) in assets, to implement effective climate risk management. Each administering authority of the pension would be required to publish an annual report that follows the recommendations by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). For full disclosure, Responsible Alpha is a signatory of TCFD. Equities Porsche’s IPO was successful, with Porsche generating €9.4 billion in proceeds for its parent Volkswagen. What this means for other automotive names transitioning to EVs remains to be seen. Indices, Commodities, and Derivatives S&P launched a family of indices called the S&P Net Zero 2050 Carbon Budget Indices . Based on the recent IPCC report, this family of indices recalibrates the pathway of each company based on its pathway to decarbonization to 1.5ºC compared to pre-industrial levels. The indices are updated each year demonstrating the increasing systemic risk of not achieving 1.5ºC. The European Parliament voted to strengthen key elements of a planned EU regulation on deforestation-free supply chains. EU consumption is a major driver of global deforestation. It is the world’s second-largest importer of tropical deforestation and associated emissions after China and is responsible for 10 percent of worldwide deforestation associated with the production of goods or services. Markets, and Fiscal and Monetary Policies UK gilts experienced their biggest one day fall in history after their biggest one day gain in history after fiscal policies were announced to address record inflation and current account deficits. Watch how the Bank of England addresses re-pricing and liquidity of long-dated gilts while policy mavens will be looking for fiscal and monetary policy adjustments. Great Britain’s thousand-year old currency – the pound sterling – is moving towards parity with the US dollar.

The U.S. reduced its CO2 emissions 7.63 percent between 2010 and 2019. This reduction hides regional variations that corporate executives, investors, and policymakers must fully understand so the U.S. can maintain its momentum towards achieving public- and private-sector carbon emissions reduction goals by 2030. Responsible Alpha's Green Investments, Renewable Energy and CO2 Emissions in the U.S. dashboard demonstrates the need for policymakers and corporate executives alike to incorporate regional emissions variations – from 11 mtCO2 in the Northeast to 20 mtCO2 in the Midwest – into modeling their pathways to achieving overall net-zero emissions commitments.

The U.S. economy has a high level of regional specialization and economic complexity. This is clear when assessing direct greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions by Congressional districts. According to the U.S. EPA data, 75% of 2.3 billion metric tons of direct CO2e emissions released in 2020 are from Congressional districts represented currently by Republican representatives. This is why it is important to asses direct GhG emissions by each congressional district . According to the U.S. EPA data, 75% of 2.3 billion metric tons of direct CO2e emissions released in 2020 are from Republican districts. Of the 19 districts that exceeded 19 million metric tons of CO2e, all but two were Republican-led districts. Responsible Alpha's Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Congressional District builds on upon the Responsible Alpha's Toxic Chemicals by Congressional District dashboard , which explored the different toxic chemical emissions in each congressional district in the U.S

Where these toxic chemicals are released measured by Congressional district are described in Responsible Alpha's latest dashboard Toxic Chemicals and Congressional Districts in the U.S. Why should you care? Because there are 435 U.S. House of Representatives up for election this fall. A key measure to consider is the toxic chemical legacy in each of the congressional districts they serve in Congress along with these elected leaders’ voting records. According to the U.S. EPA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), 3.1 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were released in the U.S. in 2020. The mandatory TRI program tracks the management of regulated toxic chemicals in the U.S. that threaten human health and the environment. These toxic chemicals – some called Forever Chemicals – are often used in the composition and the making of our clothes, children's toys, kitchen equipment, automobiles, and plastics There are 435 U.S. House of Representatives up for election this fall. A key measure to consider is the toxic chemical legacy in each congressional district and these elected leaders’ voting records. Recent U.S. EPA data shows that 82% of toxic chemicals released into the environment occurred in congressional districts led by Republicans. These toxic chemicals are often used in the composition and the making of our clothes, children's toys, pots, pans, automobiles, and plastics. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act , which governs the TRI, states a toxic chemical release is when a toxic chemical is emitted into the air, waterways, or disposed of on land. The TRI program in 2020 covered 800 chemicals including chemicals with adverse health effects. Any facility processing, manufacturing, or utilizing these chemicals in quantities that exceed the set levels must submit an annual report to the TRI. They also must submit yearly reporting forms for each chemical assessed.