Boksuccé för Sasja Beslik: "Vi kan inte lösa klimatkrisen genom att döva medelklassens klimatångest"

Boken ”Where The Money Tree Grows” handlar om hållbarhet – men inte bara med fokus på klimatkrisen.

Den handlar om mer än så – om det ekonomiska systemet och den pågående polarisering som drivs av ekonomisk ojämlikhet och som gör det svårare att ställa om till ett hållbart samhälle.

– Vad är poängen med den ekonomiska modellen? Är poängen att så få människor som möjligt ska bli så rika som möjligt, eller är poängen att vi ska skapa en ekonomisk utveckling som gynnar fler än bara dem som redan har? Det frågar sig Sasja Beslik, numera chef för hållbar finansutveckling på schweziska banken J. Safra Sarasin, tidigare chef för hållbara finanser på Nordea.  

Tillsammans med medförfattaren Karim Sayyad – Vice President, ESG Strategy vid Credit Suisse – riktar Sasja Beslik hård kritik mot marknadsekonomin som den ser ut idag, och som av många behandlas som en helig ko. 

– Hållbar utveckling handlar egentligen om en ny syn på hur den ekonomiska utvecklingen ska se ut, säger Sasja Beslik och fortsätter:

– Vi är fast i en massa gamla ismer – socialism, kapitalism. Men de där ismerna kommer inte leda oss någonstans. Vi måste hitta nya vägar och bygga nya system som kan hjälpa oss att hantera klimatkrisen och den pågående polariseringen.

Du talar om polarisering som drivs av ekonomisk ojämlikhet. Propagerar du för en betydligt mer omfattande fördelningspolitik?
– Jag propagerar för ekonomisk utveckling, inte ekonomisk tillväxt för bara några få.

Handfasta tips

Samtidigt är boken mindre en kritisk exposé över sakernas tillstånd, och mer en handbok med tips om hur dina och mina pengar kan bidra till en mer hållbar värld.

– Den handlar om hur man kan investera hållbart och tjäna bra med pengar på det. Man kan göra ganska mycket mer idag än tidigare tack vare mängden av tillgänglig data och information kring hur företag levererar avseende hållbarhet, säger Sasja Beslik.

”Where The Money Tree Grows” ger exempel på hur investeraren kan analysera bolag ur ett hållbarhetsperspektiv samt hållbarhetsanalyser av flera stora bolag som HM, Amazon, och Facebook.

– Det är klart att vissa saker som de här bolagen gör är bra, men du måste ställa dig frågan om affärsmodellen är hållbar.

Är HM:s, Amazons och Facebooks affärsmodeller hållbara?
– Nej.

Toppar Amazons försäljningslista

Med ”Where The Money Tree Grows”, som släpptes för mindre än en vecka sedan, ser författarna ut att ha träffat väldigt rätt. Boken toppar nu Amazons försäljningslista i USA, och Beslik menar att det behövs många fler böcker på samma tema.

– Vi kan inte lösa klimatkrisen genom att döva medelklassens klimatångest. Folk fattar fortfarande inte att det betyder mer för klimatet att ställa om sina investeringar och pensionssparande än att panta burkar, säger han.

I boken ställer författarna också frågan: Hur mycket kan man egentligen åstadkomma genom att panta burkar när endast 100 företag i världen står för 71 procent av den globala industrins totala utsläpp?

Men det är inte bara privatpersoner som uppmanas att påverka med hjälp av sina pengar,

– Genom att styra om kapitalflödena – som är hjärtat i det ekonomiska systemet – så kan regeringar åstadkomma förändringar mycket snabbare än genom att laborera med mindre effektiva ”straffskatter”, som man gör idag, säger Sasja Beslik och fortsätter:

– Man ska ha tydligt uppsatta mål och styra kapitalet dit kapitalet kan bidra till att utveckla samhällen och inte bara maximera vinsten för aktieägarna.

Utdrag ur boken Where the Money Tree Grows: Invest Climate-Smart and Get Rich

By Sasja Beslik & Karim Sayyad

INTRODUCTION

Do we live in a world that is socially, environmentally, and economically sustainable? The short answer is no. There is poverty, hunger, and gender inequality. Slave labor did not cease to exist in the 19th century; it just continues today in different forms. Adequate supplies of clean water, or water resources in general, are not accessible for everyone. Although the world is better today than it used to be, it is not good enough, as the late professor in international health, Hans Rosling, shows in his book Factfulness. And a changing climate makes it harder to achieve a sustainable world. In fact, climate change may erode the social and economic progress we have achieved so far.

Our global economic system is largely based on consumption. In Sweden, half of our GDP comes from consumption. In the US, this figure is about 70 percent. In fact, we consume as if there were four planets with resources. By March each year, Swedes have already consumed their entire share of the world’s resources for the whole year. Globally, this day occurs in August; after that we are overexploiting the world’s resources. Only 50 years ago, this day occurred in December. Because of this mass consumption, CO2 emissions are increasing and we face the severe consequences of our failure to limit global warming. In addition, climate change contributes to an increasing uncertainty about the supply of the world’s resources, along with an increasing demand for water.

Perhaps you suffer from climate anxiety? But who are you to be blamed for climate change? Is it because you fly too often? Or because either you buy stuff you don’t need or not enough ecological food? No, that’s not the whole truth. The burden and the guilt for a potential ecological collapse is not yours. It is not because you are flying to Spain for a summer vacation or using plastic cutlery with your lunch box. The problem is more complex than that.

The truth is that the economic system is at fault. It is a complex system, involving the combination of several factors. This system—which has served us for well over 250 years—is built on an economic model which is now under pressure. We need systematic solutions to ensure the transition to a sustainable world. The questions we address in this book are how you as individuals may contribute to these acutely-needed, system-wide solutions, and how corporations and politicians— in collaboration with you as a citizen and consumer—may help change today’s economic system, which currently seems unable to provide what we need.

This system—which has served us for well over 250 years—is built on an economic model which is now under pressure.

Before we move on to address these questions, let us try to define what a sustainable world would be like; a world that is socially, environmentally, and economically sustainable. The United Nations General Assembly adopted 17 global sustainable development goals (SDGs) in 2015, which may be described as our—humanity’s—global strategy for a sustainable world:

End all forms of poverty, everywhere.

End hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture.

Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all.

Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.

Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.

Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all.

Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all.

Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation.

Reduce income inequality within and among countries.

Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.

Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.

Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts by regulating emissions and promoting developments in renewable energy.

Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development.

Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.

Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.

Table 1 UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change is part of this strategy for achieving a sustainable world. Its central aim is to make sure that the global temperature does not rise more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to a maximum 1.5 degrees Celsius (aligned with SDG 13 on climate change).

Through the ages, humanity has faced great challenges, from terrible pandemics—including the one we are facing now—to world wars and financial crises. Climate change, however, may prove to be the hardest challenge of all. It is global, but the consequences are still very local. And it’s really all about money. There is no doubt climate change is caused by humans, as 97 percent of all research shows. But we, humans working together, can stop this development.

The answer to the sustainability challenges is global and scalable system change, adapted to local conditions. This will make it possible for us to run businesses and develop societies for a more sustainable world. The UN Sustainable Development Goals can be achieved through systematic support from the private sector, not least with the involvement of the financial sector.

In traditional economic practice, the fight against poverty, inequality, and climate change, as well as water resource management, are all considered costs. This work costs money, and someone must pay. The market-economy model, which has served us well for the last 250 years, is based on continual— though sometimes uneven—economic growth.

In this model there is no planet to consider. Natural resources are infinite, and the climate is constant. The market distributes the resources and compensates for any shortage. It is assumed that costs for pollution, reduced water supplies, and severe climate change are ours to pay, through taxes. Profits are privatized, taxed whenever possible, and hopefully reinvested, causing new cycles of economic growth. This happens in a global economic system that is no longer controlled by nationally elected politicians. However, beyond all the “isms” and the narratives that have characterized the economic discourse since the 17th century, there are people who long for context, balance, acknowledgment, and progressive environmental development in community with others.

We should not confuse economic growth with economic development. This is done too often, even though they mean very different things for us as individuals compared to society at large. Economic development stems from values such as automation, increasing productivity, the circulation of materials, resource efficiency, digitalization, adaptation to needs, and self- sufficiency—in contrast to economic growth, which stems from values such as increased consumption, production, and extraction of resources.

We understand that it is difficult to challenge and question constant growth and consumerism. But the present economic system undermines what we as individuals strive towards with a climate-smart lifestyle. Our societies rest upon a profound conflict between values, pragmatism and ideology—where short-sighted economic interests dominate the narrative we currently all adhere to, and which we cannot influence. We are stuck in a narrative which we can’t get out of, no matter how many times we try to rewrite it.

Economic development stems from values such as automation, increasing productivity, the circulation of materials, resource efficiency, digitalization, adaptation to needs, and self-sufficiency.

To reset the world to sustainability, and to set it on a path towards a sustainable future, requires massive investments and commitments. According to the UN climate panel, IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), investments in energy of $2.4 trillion per year will be required by 2035 to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. That is seven times the Bloomberg estimates of actual investments in renewable energy during 20177. Where can we get this money? One option presented by the climate panel is the introduction of CO2 taxes, to pay a fairer price for the damage caused by the emissions associated with the use or manufacture of products. This market-economy mechanism should work since everything has its price in the global market-economy casino. Today’s carbon taxes have reduced emissions to some extent, but they are not high enough. A global carbon tax of at least $135 per ton, and up to $5,500 per ton in 2030, is indicated as a necessary interval. However, given this wide span, specified by the United Nations, we may assume that the necessary tax should be closer to $5,500 than $135 per ton. Perhaps this is part of the solution we need to restart the system.

The problem is that CO2 taxes at these levels are politically unfeasible today. If these prices were reflected at the consumer level, it would mean cost increases in everyday life that the public would likely have difficulty accepting. A return trip to New York from Stockholm could be $400 more expensive. One liter of fuel might become 736 percent more expensive than today. This can be seen in relation to the price increase of 16 percent on diesel in France in 2018, which prompted hundreds of thousands to protest, along with a crisis of confidence for President Macron.

CO2 priced at the necessary levels would consequently be very expensive and difficult to implement politically. But there are more options to cover the investment gap of $2.4 trillion a year to limit global warming. We should look to the financial sector, where the big bucks are.

In today’s system—where external circumstances are not properly priced and where profits are reinvested or consumed— growth continues, and the wheels spin ever faster. Growth on a planet with finite resources—unevenly distributed and owned— is perhaps in itself an absurd economic premise, but it also makes it difficult to implement the radical changes we need. Unlike any other industry in the world, the financial sector reflects—in its origins and its mission—the pursuit of an eternal economic paradise.

While the financial sector has become the epitome of greed and short-sightedness, its ability to achieve global sustainability objectives and halt climate change (and its ability to create a more balanced and sustainable world) is severely underestimated. No other sector in the world is as global in all its constituents. Stock markets around the world are connected in nanoseconds; money and investments are moved at the speed of light from New York to Beijing or London. Everything in the financial sector is global and is therefore crucially important for global sustainability goals and climate resilience.

The financial sector plays a key role, not least because of its short-sightedness. This short-sightedness is an epic obstacle to using money as a toolbox for building a sustainable future, an obstacle to more consistent economic development. Our current economic model is—in fact—the biggest obstacle to achieving the low-carbon future we are striving for. When financial analyses, policy decisions and incentives are short-term, long-term factors (such as the consequences of climate change) are ignored. Everyone knows this: politicians, consumers, investors, and finance people. But so far, no one has been willing or able to rework and change the system.

A telling example is investment in the extraction of coal in Australia, coal being among the most polluting forms of energy in the world. The coal industry has long been one of Australia’s most profitable sectors or—rather—has been perceived as such. The coal reserves, which are large and continually being expanded, are extracted, and shipped to the relatively nearby China, whose growth over the last 30 years has been tremendous. The coal industry accounts for approximately 40,000 jobs in Australia, and these job opportunities can likely be multiplied in a country with a large land mass and small population. So, the coal industry is good for the country’s economy, for its growth, and for the Australian citizen, or so the story goes.

Everyone knows this: politicians, consumers, investors, and finance people. But no one has been willing or able to rework and change the system.

However, the extraction and consumption of coal creates global climate problems and pollution that in the long-term affect Australia’s greatest economic asset—the Great Barrier Reef. The reef, located in the northeastern part of Australia, has been heavily damaged by climate change and is slowly but surely dying, due to increased acidification and the increasingly warm sea. Every year about 2 million tourists visit the Great Barrier Reef, and almost 64,000 people work in tourism and other industries related to the reef. The value of the Great Barrier Reef is estimated at $56 billion, with revenues of over $6 billion per year. This is more than the total revenue for many countries, including Greenland or Fiji. The question one might ask is why coal is considered a more important asset for Australia and its population than the Great Barrier Reef?

Policy is important in a sustainable transition. There are regulatory changes that support this conversion and the opportunities associated with it. But these political commitments are hardly a driving force. In today’s global market economy system that we are all part of, the shareholders and financiers are the driving force. This group includes you and us, with pension savings and investment portfolios.

The European Commission has given attention to the need for changes in the financial sector. In 2018, the European Commission adopted a package of measures in its action plan on sustainable finance. The aim is to direct monetary flows towards sustainable investments, promoting long-term management, and tackling climate and social risks with financial instruments. “Current levels of investment are not sufficient to support an environmentally sustainable economic system that fights climate change and resource depletion. More private capital flows need to be oriented towards sustainable investments …” the EU commission wrote in a press release.

Do you sometimes make sacrifices for the sake of the climate? Are you sorting waste, recycling cans, or buying organic bananas but feel that it doesn’t really contribute to solving the problem? You are partially correct. Whereas every individual can contribute marginally to reducing emissions, such actions do not lead to the long-term, complex changes in the economic system that are necessary to achieve a sustainable future. Individual actions like these rarely change structurally unsustainable business models or incentive structures. Sustainable alternatives cannot be created unless there are mechanisms and capital to support them.

Current levels of investment are not sufficient to support an environmentally sustainable economic system that fights climate change and resource depletion.

Suppose we shut down the entire aviation sector in Sweden for a year, for the sake of the climate. How many tons of CO2 emissions would we avoid? A million? 15 million? The answer is a little over three million tons if we use the Swedish EPA methodology. Sure, it’s a lot of CO2. However, there is a single steel company in Sweden that emits the same amount of CO2 in just three and a half months. Of course, it is important that we as individuals make sacrifices. We should fly less in our everyday and professional lives, for instance. However, there are limitations to the type of systemic change needed that this could create. How much can be accomplished by recycling cans when only 100 companies in the world emit 71 percent of the world’s industrial emissions? Among these companies we find China Petrochemical Corp, Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell and Rosneft. How can we get these companies to re-invent their business models?

A powerful force that could make a substantial contribution to much-needed systemic solutions would be if the public assured that their investments, their retirement, and other savings, are invested sustainably. So, while we are recycling cans or taking the bike instead of the car, we must not forget the power of capital and its potential in combating climate change. An illustration of this is presented in Chapter 1.

In Chapter 2, we describe how investments in companies offering climate solutions as part of their products and services can be a value-adding component of your investment portfolio, and how it contributes to a better world. In this chapter we also give examples of companies who are likely to be tomorrow’s winners. Will the famous electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla be one of them?