I wouldn’t give my pension to Americans who don’t care about the climate

I  am pleased to see that Dutch pension funds are no longer putting their money with BlackRock now it’s retreated from voting on climate change. Well done Mary McDougall & Co for bringing our attention to it.`

The PME group, which manages €59bn of retirement savings for workers in the metal and technology sectors, said it had “decided to end our relationship with BlackRock” following a months-long review.

There are two views of money at work here. Firstly there is the deal between the scheme managers which may be commercial and then there is the deal done for the members, which is fiduciary and social. The PME group has to be both commercial and social and that means standing behind the principles it has established.

BlackRock have changed their position on voting to align it with American political consensus and the consequence for the Dutch fund manager is to terminate its relationship.

We have had one such example that springs to mind (though there may be other decisions of the same kind taken by pension trustees in conjunction with their advisers). The FT reminds us

In February, the UK-based The People’s Pension pulled £28bn from State Street, saying it was prioritising “sustainability, active stewardship and long-term value creation”.

I have not forgotten. My estimation of People’s Pension went up in February when they announced this and it goes up every time I read such news.

We should be particularly pleased to see American Pension Funds voting off American fund managers who do not comply with instructions.

In late November, New York City’s top finance official Brad Lander recommended that three of the city’s biggest pension funds drop BlackRock as a manager of more than $42bn, as the metropolis looks to use its weight in markets to tackle climate change.

Lander, who will step down as city comptroller at the end of the year, said BlackRock and two other asset managers, Fidelity and PanAgora, had failed “to address climate risk with the seriousness we expect”.

New York has recently made its position on American political behaviour quite clear. Now I read of a top official determining that New York’s City Pension funds should not tolerate capitulation to political interference.

It is not woke to have principles about climate risk and stick to them and I hope that those of us strong minded about this in the UK or Europe, will recognise and support those in America who do not give in to the commercial advantage that can be gained by dong what Government considers commercially to the gain of it and the country.

It cannot be commercially for a country or a Government to see the climate continue to deteriorate. Canada, with a form BOE head Mark Carney at the helm, will have none of that.

Thanks FT for publishing this and laying out the facts in such a way that we can have no doubt how you feel on this.

I wouldn’t give my pension to Americans who don’t care about the climate. I wouldn’t and I won’t and I will pay to remove my money from LGIM if it moves from the mandates I chose for my personal investments. I don’t suppose I will have to, knowing Legal & General. There are of course alternatives if they did!