If instead they go all-in on net zero, they should at least publish studies of how much that will cost their shareholders and the economy

You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.

By Gina Pappano

Banks are essential institutions for participating in modern life. Without a bank account it’s hard to be part of society. Of all institutions banks therefore need to be truly inclusive. Which means they should be held to a standard of strict political neutrality, looking after the interests of their clients and shareholders in a nonpartisan, non-ideological way. So long as their clients are abiding by the law, banks should be open to all potentially profitable businesses — for the good of the bank’s own shareholders and the health of the economy.

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Increasingly, however, that isn’t how things work in Canada. Instead, highly motivated activists have spent years pressuring banks to sign on to environmentalist pledges to “divest” from oil and natural gas projects and companies. Their objective is to have banks help enforce the 2015 Paris Agreement’s vision of “net-zero” energy emissions by 2050.

Boycotting the oil and gas sector in this way is decidedly not in the interests of the banks’ clients and shareholders. As Philip Cross and Jack Mintz show in a recent study for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, the oil and gas industry is, by far, our country’s most productive sector.

© Financial Post