*especially the “big four”, whose reputations have suffered during the global financial crisis due to highly-criticised lending practices and failure to fully pass on interest rate cuts*

The author seems to lack knowledge about the role of banks!

Firstly our big four were not responsible for dubious overseas
lending practises, they came through the GFC with flying colours.

Secondly, some interest rate cuts were not passed on, due to half
of bank funding coming from overseas, at increasing rather then
decreasing cost.

Thirdly, it is the role of venture capital and not of banks to
take large risks with other peoples money. For a project to
be "bankable", some guarantees need to be in place, chasing
"what seemed like a good idea at the time", is not their role.

The stockmarket provides money for green energy ventures.
Anyone including the author, are free to risk their hard earned
savings and lose the lot, if the project goes wrong.

There are a number of green energy ventures under way in Australia.
Some have hit the rocks. Money will pour into the sector,
when it can be shown that investors won't lose their shirts
and that they actually can make a profit and a return on those
hard earned savings.

"By cutting off their funding greenhouse gas-emitting projects can be restricted and the transition to a low-carbon economy can gather momentum."
Does this mean socially responsible banks or their financial subsidiaries will not finance the purchase of motor vehicles, air conditioners and other white goods,tractors, motor mowers, jet skis,airplanes,ships(other than sailing boats)unless the manufacturers of these products can somehow show the sale of their product(s)will be accompanied by less global CO2 emissions? Given that world population is increasing it seems a rather tough request. But I guess it will provide a boost to world-wide tree planting projects and encourage more technological research.

Luckily we currently have what's called a self-correcting system:

Step 1: Banks fund green projects.
Step 2: Green projects go broke.
Step 3: Banks lose their money.
Step 4: Bank share prices drop.
Step 5: Bank shareholders withdraw their funds.
Step 6: Banks either stop funding green projects or go broke.

But under a green dictatorship, no doubt, our masters would simply print money and throw it at their well-intentioned friends and colleagues. Let us make sure that it never comes to pass.

It really is mind blowing that anyone so thick can have the qualifications necessary, & be selected to lecture at any university. Does this woman really believe all the propaganda, or is she just protecting her job, going into print, as ordered by her institution, for the AGW cause.

This type of rubish article must be getting to the self defeating stage, with the C grade trivial nonsense becoming obvious to even the most casual reader.

It's bad enough having these dumb activists, if that's what she is, lets hope the banks don't actually catch the bug.

So you either go green or not have a lifestyle by having to show that you are "saving the planet", as if we can? Banks are going to screen that you are green? Hardly, banks don't give a toss where your politics or philosophies lay, they are bankers. By the way, how do you think most of the world ended up in the predicament they find themselves; not because the bankers were "good guys". There are no good guys in banking because it is about money. If you are indeed religious, which I am not, Jesus despised money lenders! I suppose things haven't changed much

I don't know whether or not any Australian bank is allowed to discriminate and not lend to any legitimate entity based on them being carbon polluters alone?

I imagine that the learned wiggy may know though?

..

South Korea are just putting in the world's largest tidal power plant which will power 1/2 a million homes acording to AlJaZeera. Same source says the French having being doing the same since the 60's on a smaller scale.

N.Africa is becoming the home of a vast array of Solar electricity generators.

Australia has amongst other options some great geo-thermal sites.

..

All that is required to convert to renewables is a steady, cap exed over time implementation policy to legislatively cradle the new industries in and legislatively extinguish the polluters out post migration of the labour force.

Let the coal miners sell to Beijing to help with their population problem all they like, but for starters get them out of the Australian local market. <choke, cough, wheeze, gag>

That's what TurnBull should do. Sacrifice a few SilverTails on the alter of his leadership in the "National Interest."

<HaHaHa>

Costello has scarpered, the Chesher cats have gone, howard has been condemned, and Hockey knows a bad thing when he sees it.

<Snicker, Snicker>

Yes, metaphorically speaking, like the priests of old, a ritual sacrifice to the Gods of Green.

<ROFL>

As far as I recall banks are businesses, and businesses expect a return for their investment.

As of yet renewables cannot survive without large subsidies. Unless this changes don't expect the banks to become charities.

I see a few fellow thinkers have already torn a hole through this piece of green whimpsy.

Yabby's post is most direct and informative.

To add my view -

I would trust banks to do what banks do best… discern between financially secure borrowers with low risk and those which are financial “non-achievers” aka representing the fashionably favoured fancies of the intellectually challenged who happen to be beating a drum in the name of religious “climate change”.

I would suggest the recent financial crisis was a product of similar whimsical politicians forcing Banks, through threat of denial of trading licences by despotic regulators (Clinton / Reno & Co), was a product of banks thus forced to lend to people who could not or would not repay what they borrowed, resulting in bankers receiving bags and bags of “jingle” mail” from people who walked away from their financial responsibilities and selling it off as "dirivatives" to Icelandic Superfunds.

Now we have another ignorant (for ignorance exudes from this article at every level) ding-bat, suggesting banks do the same thing for any sentimentally interesting “green” project, which is, supposedly, going to save the world from the myth of climate change.

I think the banks are smart enough to understand risk.

We just need to keep these dim-witted pixies and fellow travellers away from the government appointed regulatory roles or we will see another disaster this time in failed “green” projects, instead of bodgey home loans to Americans of a dusky complexion and negative credit rating.

A lot of the comments on this thread indicate that commenters aren't across the real situation in Australia. Meg notes that two banks have already signed-on to the Equator Principles - Westpac and the ANZ.

You might have also noticed that the ANZ withdrew from financing the Gunn's pulp and paper mill, if I recall correctly on environmental grounds, although with that project it is also possible that it didn't stack-up financially.

I think if you want to fund a project that is regarded as being environmentally questionable - think things like feedlots and coal-fired powerstations, for example - then you are going to have trouble financing them.

Which will probably open up profitable opportunities for lenders less worried about environmental concerns who will be able to exact a higher price for their funds, and also for other middlemen like stockbrokers who may issue shares or things like convertible notes to raise the money from shareholders who are not concerned.

But while high end projects may escape I suspect a lot of smaller projects will suffer. There is no rule that says a bank has to make a loan to anyone. If it becomes too much trouble to lend to one particlar class of borrower, many of them will stop.

If this government ever had the sense and the guts to back nuclear power, and for goodness sake don't start all the scare tactics about that, this country could be the most energy efficient and richest perhaps in the world, somehwat like the oil countries where they don't pay taxes! This means our Australian lifestyle would be enhanced, and the country would continue to prosper.

The banks, bless their cotton socks, would lend any amount of money for this type of project. Mark my words they couldn't get to the front of the line quick enough.

So, if this country wants to be truly green in the future, then nuclear will be the way. Nuclear is not bad, it is the future it is just taking many fixed ideas time to change. How do you think people will travel to the other galaxies in this universe if not without nuclear power? Or, don't you think that will happen? It will - imagine..... we didn't consider the possibility of flight to other countries at will, television, IT services at the turn of the last century. That is only a bit over 100 years ago.

Do you truly believe that man will stop thinking just because a few politicians want to go green?

Intensive wind and sun powered energy are proving to be too expensive. Think about it in a logical manner. We won't be blown by wind to new worlds, like the pioneers of old, it will be by modern technology. Or perhaps I am thinking too far ahead and out of the square....

Aah. And we had an additional dose of free mirth today courtesy of

*4 Corners*

and a quality investigative journalist.

A seriously distressed *Barnaby Joyce* and droves of activists from the Farmers Party appropriately defecting to the Greens.

And of course

*GreenBrowny*

defending them in the Senate from the defilers.

;-)

HaHa

Tis a beautiful thing to behold.

..

I'd agree we need further development in the medical isotopes area. In fact, I think it might be an idea to pump *Col* full of a few and get him into the "P.E.T." scanner to see where he's hyperactive after his comments advocating for the wholesale extermination of the Palestinians.

Oh!? Hmmm .. still, I appreciate the sentiment of wanting to make an end of it.

..

And *RaeBee* the box I think that some people aren't thinking outside of is the current economic/legislative environment. It can easily enough be jigged in the favor of the establishment of conditions conducive for the introduction of *Green Power* as *Bazza Obama* has eloquently foreshadowed.

(He'd be one of the dusty complexion ey *Col*?)

..

Ideally, we end up with a situation where our resources are sold overseas for full international dollar, Ozzies collectively sell back to the grid for industry and are no longer predated upon, and personal savings increase.

..

It's good green bio principles for the rabble in the liberal party. Adapt or perish. It is pointless attempting to defend the indefensible. Resistance is futile.

All those in the liberal party who aren't engaged in activities that involve selling australian product internationally and want to make an international life style off predating of Ozzies in the local market should be marked for redundancy.

DearRae bee,
You got it wrong Jesus Loved the money lenders but hates the sin. It is the same for homosexuals. Jesus knows the penalty for sin is eternal separation from God and it is his will that none should perish BUT it is our individual choice, We have no excuse. God gave us free will we are not mindless zombies so we have no excuse when on our death we face the judgment seat of God and the devil accuses us. Its "my wifes fault" is not an excuse.Only the shed blood justifies us nothing else. The answer to drought is found in 2 chronicles chapter 7-13 and 14, Proverbs 6-16 to 16 and James chapter 4
Richie