<iframe src="//www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-K3L4M3" height="0" width="0" style="display:none;visibility:hidden">

Features Australia

Business/Robbery etc

16 March 2019

9:00 AM

16 March 2019

9:00 AM

Is it $8.5 million of BHP’s shareholders’ money wasted on a directors’ virtue-signalling frolic to further their climate change credentials and justify the existence of a corporate vice-president for Sustainability and Climate Change? Or, as the New York Times suggests, a necessary response to mounting pressure from activist shareholders (including the politically-oriented industry superannuation funds)? Or is it simply a good investment in a potentially significant technological advance that could offset the huge CO2 emissions resulting from BHP’s role as the world’s largest mining company.

Already a subscriber? Log in

Subscribe for just $2 a week

Try a month of The Spectator Australia absolutely free and without commitment. Not only that but – if you choose to continue – you’ll pay just $2 a week for your first year.

  • Unlimited access to spectator.com.au and app
  • The weekly edition on the Spectator Australia app
  • Spectator podcasts and newsletters
  • Full access to spectator.co.uk
Or

Unlock this article

REGISTER

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first month for free, then just $2 a week for the remainder of your first year.


Comments

Don't miss out

Join the conversation with other Spectator Australia readers. Subscribe to leave a comment.

Already a subscriber? Log in

Close