Mark Carney’s past as a senior executive at Brookfield Asset Management is under scrutiny due to the firm’s sale of deforestation-linked Brazilian farms. While advocating for net-zero emissions and responsible corporate behavior, Brookfield deforested significant areas of the Cerrado savanna. Critics highlight a disconnect between Carney’s environmental rhetoric and the actions of his company, questioning his transparency on these critical issues.
Mark Carney, the newly selected Liberal leader, faces scrutiny regarding his past at Brookfield Asset Management amid his vocal commitments to climate change and net-zero emissions. A BBC investigation highlighted that while serving as a senior executive at Brookfield, Carney was involved in the sale of Brazilian farms linked to deforestation, raising questions about his transparency regarding environmental issues.
The land in question, sold by Brookfield subsidiaries, deforested 9,000 hectares of the Cerrado savanna between 2012 and 2021, transforming it into soybean farms. This activity released approximately 600,000 tonnes of CO2, which is comparable to the emissions from 1.2 million flights from London to New York. Given the importance of the Cerrado in combating global warming as noted by the World Wide Fund for Nature, the implications of these actions are profound.
Carney, who joined Brookfield in 2020 as a vice chair and became chair of its asset management arm in 2022, has promoted decarbonization. He launched the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) in 2021 and has consistently advocated for companies to retain carbon-intensive assets and phase them out responsibly, a message he reiterated at COP27 and during UK Parliament discussions.
Brookfield defended the sale, asserting it was a pre-planned decision tied to fund lifecycle and return obligations to investors. However, they recognized the challenges in financially viable reforestation efforts and claimed to be collaborating with GFANZ on solutions. Critics like Veronica Oakeshott from Global Witness argue that Brookfield should have reforested the land, pointing out the contradiction between Carney’s environmental statements and the actions of his company.
In light of the findings about Brookfield’s deforestation activities, Mark Carney’s environmental advocacy is called into question. His significant financial ties to a company engaged in damaging ecological practices contradict his public stance on corporate responsibility regarding carbon-intensive assets. This situation emphasizes the need for consistency between leadership rhetoric and corporate actions in the climate space.
Original Source: www.westernstandard.news
