Any super fund that claims to be ethical and or sustainable while investing in fossil fuel should be fined and sued.
deleted by creator
Yep sorry, that was me. I still think the fees from future super are exorbitant but Australian ethical isn’t a good alternative
deleted by creator
Yeah I thought timing was interesting since I haven’t been online in about a week when the other thing was posted and came back to this post. Btw it looks like SSSuper and Prime Super are the only ones on the list that seemed to actually be ethical.
deleted by creator
Hmm it doesn’t show Australian Ethical as having any fossil fuel investments???
deleted by creator
For example, NGS Super’s policy excludes investment in companies that make more than 30 per cent of their revenue from thermal coal mining.
As a result, BHP is not excluded because the $US3.5 billion it earned mining thermal coal last financial year only accounted for 6.6 per cent of its total revenue.
I can see a case being made for allowing >0, even if I don’t really like it myself.
But 30% is ridiculous. It should be more like 10%, with an additional stipulation on maximum total, so a giant company like BHP which produces billions doesn’t get away with it just because they also do a bunch of other stuff.
shocked face
This is a terrible form of analysis Why would you show these assets in terms of an absolute number? The ngs analysis showed that 3.5% of their assets fell under the fossil fuel category, and some of those companies operate in other areas
If you want to get mad at super funds go ahead but I don’t know what you want them to do? If you go fully renewable instantly you’re not going to be as attractive as an option, meaning even less people investing in renewable super. Meaning potentially less investment in that space
