Consumer advocacy: make wind investment “less safe”

Recently we heard of an interesting example of “consumer advocacy” which turned the tables on a wind company targeting their most sensitive and vulnerable parts – access to capital markets and investors. Read on:

I met with my financial adviser and he met with the financial manager of a stock portfolio, who phoned the senior manager of an equity portfolio who set up a phone meeting with me and my financial adviser. We had an hour long conversation with the senior manager who also brought in the investment specialist who oversees the wind company file. Later that day the senior manager was meeting with company reps from the wind company as one of their normal meetings. We got on the agenda: “an investor in Ontario is concerned that a wind company is pursuing a legal suit against an individual, in what appears to be an attempt to chill public discussion . . .” The wind company was caught off-guard and could offer only a weak excuse for its behaviour. We got a report on this meeting during a follow-up phone call the next week. It was an interesting exercise in consumer advocacy. I gather that even a single complaint causes a ripple effect. The stock market watches to see if one person gets nervous in a crowd, because soon the whole room can be stampeding for the exits.

socially irresponsible investingThis tale is true and illustrates how a simple but dedicated exercise can stir the waters. There are lots of examples of mistreatment and abuse of people in wind projects. Find out if any of your investments (pensions too) are placed in wind projects, and if so, which ones. Explain the problems that are occurring in the wind project and insist that they help you in making the case to senior managers with the aim of putting the issue on their meeting agenda.

Pension funds invest in wind projects because of the relative safety of the investment. Make it less “safe” for them.

16 thoughts on “Consumer advocacy: make wind investment “less safe”

  1. Organized crime throughout the world invest in these projects because of the guaranteed returns and it is one of the best places to launder money, because politicians turn a blind eye where renewable energy is concerned.

  2. If you have a financial adviser from a life insurance company they will tell you all segregated funds
    contain Wind Energy companies in their portfolios. I suggested I would not invest in or support a Wind Energy company with my investment money.
    Maybe this will be passed along too.
    Time to check your investments and let the advisors know we wont support these companies at all.

  3. I used to have a letter I would send out. It was about government subsidies and what happens when the government cuts off the money, or is forced to cut off. From political pressure, international trade agreements, budget problems etc. It had Solyndra and Bombardier as examples. It seemed effective as well. The subsidies are currently being cut in Europe. North America will soon follow.

    Bombardier used to be Canada’s star company. The government subsidies were cut and 10 years later the share price is still in the dumps. And Bombardier makes a great product. Imagine how bad it would be if the product is not so great.

    Tell the ones that control the money. The first one out wins.

    • Exactly. This is a bubble waiting to burst. I expect that to happen very soon. That is why I think *any* legal and/or civil disobedience actions right now could tip the balance and stop current projects.

  4. And don’t forget mention the eagle KILL permits. Not ‘take’ permits. KILL permits. There are many decent companies that do not want their name associated with that!

    search ‘eagle take permits’ at NWW
    https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2013/02/21/federal-agency-slammed-over-secretive-eagle-wind-energy-policy-proposal/

    “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is considering eliminating most public oversight of wind turbine impacts on protected bald and golden eagles by offering developers 30-year permits to kill eagles by accident, as opposed to the current 5-year permits. What’s more, they’re shaping the implementation of that proposed policy change in a series of private “stakeholders’” meetings to which the public is not invited.”

    Bird slaughterhouse: Repowering Altamont Pass with smoke and mirrors
    https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/11/29/bird-slaughterhouse-repowering-altamont-pass-with-smoke-and-mirrors/

  5. It’s not the USFW that is doing this. It is the president and the eco-nuts he has appointed to craft U.S. energy policy.
    Then you have the eco-nuts in the congress who also approve of what’s taking place.

  6. Ontario’s direction – ‘creative economy’;
    and, nothing else.

    ‘[excerpt] SACRAMENTO — California’s huge government pension fund is expected to report today a whopping annual loss of an estimated $56.8 billion, almost a quarter of its investment portfolio.

    The loss at the California Public Employees’ Retirement System for the fiscal year ended June 30 is the second in a row for the country’s largest fund. A year ago, CalPERS reported an $8.5-billion loss, as the severe recession began to take hold.’
    http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/21/business/fi-calpers21

    ‘[excerpt] The government is introducing three new initiatives to further invest in infrastructure priorities such as public transit, highways, hospitals and schools:

    Ontario’s New Trillium Trust: The government would create the Trillium Trust where revenue gains from asset sales would be placed in a consolidated trust and used to finance key public infrastructure priorities.

    Green Bonds: The government would make Ontario the first province in Canada to develop and sell green bonds. Green bonds are a tool to raise capital for projects with specific environmental benefits. The proceeds from green bonds would be invested in transit and other environmentally friendly infrastructure projects across the province and allow Ontarians to directly invest in the future of their province.

    Pension Plan Investment in Ontario Infrastructure: The government will propose regulations that would allow pension plans to further invest in local infrastructure by exempting plans’ investments in certain Ontario public infrastructure projects from the “30 per cent” pension investment rule. This rule prohibits Ontario pension plans from owning more than 30 per cent of the voting shares of a single corporation, restricting pension plans from taking an active role in infrastructure and other investments. The government is proposing to remove this obstacle to investments in Ontario public infrastructure projects, which could represent a significant new source of capital to support economic growth and job creation in Ontario.

    Public Infrastructure Benefits Ontario’s Economy’
    http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/fallstatement/2013/chapter1a.html

    Hey Ms. Wynne!…………creative management 101?

  7. If California’s two senators and their house members objected to eagle killings this would not even be taking place in California.
    Then you can add the senate majority leader from Nevada to this list.
    These are federal permits that are required.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *