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