To our surprise and self-interested relief, we read in the Globe & Mail that the Canada Pension Plan, to which we must turn for sustenance in our dotage unless people continue to support CDN, has deep-sixed its commitment to net-zero investing of other people’s savings lest they achieve net-zero or lower returns. And fast; as Bloomberg observed, “Canada Pension Plan Investment Board dropped its commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 just three years after establishing the target.” In posting the Globe item, National Post columnist Jamie Sarkonak snickered “Wow they must be climate deniers”. Touché, since it’s exactly the kind of deep though the kind of people who write the CPP’s propaganda are given to if someone dares question the wisdom of plunging off the green cliff fiscally. And yet there they are going whoa nelly, long way down, better not.

The CPP is a very big investor, including a billion dollars in Tesla alone as part of its “focus on climate change”. As Bloomberg put it, “Toronto-based CPPIB is one of the world’s biggest investors in private equity globally.” For now, at least, though its increasingly adventurous and exotic investment policies had been raising eyebrows (as has its lavish executive compensation) even before this latest one came and, with unusual and reassuring speed, went. So it’s actually good news that they’re pulling back on this one. Especially since, generally speaking, they’re as recklessly woke as ever. As National Newswatch notes, apparently without seeing the problem:

“The head of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board sees opportunities for the big investment fund in Prime Minister Mark Carney’s desire for large-scale, nation-building projects. CPP Investments chief executive John Graham says the fund has an appetite to continue growing its Canadian assets.”

If even these people are fleeing Net Zero, you know it means something.

Of course, as with many of the big banks scrambling away from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recently oh-so-trendy Global Financial Alliance for Net Zero, the CPP squirts verbiage that would embarrass, or perhaps impress, a squid in precipitous flight from a shark:

“Forcing alignment with rigid milestones could lead to investment decisions that are misaligned with our investment strategy. To avoid that risk – and to remain focused on delivering results, not managing legal uncertainty – we have made a considered decision to no longer maintain a net-zero by 2050 commitment”.

Telling us you made a considered opinion is somewhat like a restaurant putting “delicious” on their menu. If we’re inclined to doubt it going in, this self-promotion just tells us you’re uneasy with it too. And with reason.

Bloomberg tries to help them out, explaining that:

“The pension plan, which has about C$714 billion ($515 billion) in assets, cited recent legal developments that have changed how such commitments are interpreted. CPPIB’s investment portfolio is too complex for standardized emissions metrics and interim targets, according to the firm.”

But if so, wouldn’t the same problem arise for nearly everyone, from those with large complex operations difficult to track and those with small straightforward ones unable to hire a legion of accountants to try to figure out how much CO2 a muffin gives off?

If we may digress to fulminate against the state of journalism, the Globe article in pointing to the inky statement about “rigid milestones”, which again surely would be as problematic for others as for the CPP, does not provide a link to that statement even though the author must have gone there to be able to cut and paste it. Instead it says “CPP said in the ‘approach to sustainability’ section of its website”. But the CPP does not have a website, and good luck finding any of this stuff on the government’s own mess of pages about how grandly they’re caring for you in your hapless need including in old age.

If you want to find the quotation at all, you have to deduce that the right location is in fact the CPP Investments website. And even then you’d best bring your helmet, crampons and headlamp because it’s buried in FAQ 16, “What is CPP Investments’ position on net zero?”.

Shades of Arthur Dent’s experience seeking the planning document justifying leveling his house in the Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. The latter was “on display” in a basement and when he said he had to take a flashlight and was told “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone” he retorted “So had the stairs”. Eventually he found it “in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’”, and commented “You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? Like actually telling anybody or anything.” But to his credit, the Globe journalist did somehow find it even if he didn’t then tell us where to look, and the FAQ itself continues the job of hiding more than it reveals:

“Achieving net zero by 2050 remains a widely adopted goal and critical ambition for many countries, companies and international organizations – this presents both risks and opportunities for long-term investors. Recent legal developments in Canada have introduced new considerations around how net-zero commitments are interpreted. In particular, there is increasing pressure to adopt standardized emissions metrics and interim targets, many of which don’t reflect the complexity of a global investment portfolio like ours.”

Which is an interesting way of saying we’d love to virtue-signal, bearing in mind that the stuff we’re praising cannot be done in the real world. And virtue-signal they do, including that, as the Globe article says:

“It noted the change as it also touted a 41-per-cent decline in the carbon footprint of its extensive investment portfolio since 2020.”

Moreover, this particular gassy FAQ, after the part quoted above about forcing alignment, adds:

“What hasn’t changed is our conviction that sustainability integration helps create enduring value for Canadians. Sustainability remains embedded in how we manage risk and pursue investment opportunities, guided by our Climate Change Principles and Investment Beliefs.”

We’re just not going to, you know, do it. But we’ll sure keep saying it. Their site continues to blather, at least as of May 21 2025, that:

“Our approach to climate change is to invest in the whole economy’s transition to a net-zero, climate-resilient future – adapting as global standards evolve, mitigating risk, and favoring long-term value creation over blanket divestment. We believe that integrating sustainability creates enduring value for generations of Canadians.”

They just don’t believe it very much, apparently, since they’re not putting generations of Canadians’ money where everyone’s big self-praising mouths are.

This episode is also a classic example of the Canadian government being unable to foresee the consequences of its own actions since, as the Globe also explains:

“CPP’s move comes after a decision in late April by the country’s largest financial institution, Royal Bank of Canada, to withdraw its sustainable finance targets to avoid legal risks presented by federal anti-greenwashing legislation. Several natural resource companies have also expunged public environmental communications in response to the law.”

Own foot, meet bullet. Yet hope springs eternal because the paper gives the final word to a usual suspect:

“Patrick DeRochie, senior manager for Shift Action for Pension Wealth & Planet Health, a climate advocacy group, said CPP has veered from most large Canadian pension plans, which have maintained their net-zero goals to stay in line with the Paris Agreement limiting climate change.”

Yeah? Well, stay tuned for what people with skin in the game decide to do. Mr. DeRochie has none, and it shows:

“‘It’s extremely disappointing to see the CPPIB abandoning their commitments because they have a very explicit mandate to invest in the best interests of Canadians,’ Mr. DeRochie said. That includes young people, whose retirement benefits could be put at risk by the future impacts of climate change, he said.”

Yeah. Like bad government policy.