The banks can’t lend money because they are compromised by...

The banks can’t lend money because they are compromised by fossil fuels assets. Therefore, it would be inconsistent for them to abruptly shift from the energy landscape based on fossil fuels, which has supported their income, to one based on metals.

I believe, the Australian banks relationship with fossil fuels has put their customers savings and future dividends in jeopardy. According to Market Forces, Australia's big four banks have given the fossil fuel industry A$57.5 billion since the Paris Agreement. In 2022, the banks lent 15% more to the industry, providing a total of $13 billion from January 2021 to December 2022. This is despite the fact that millions of banking customers expect more from their banks than smoke and mirrors when it comes to climate action. So, the banks need to come ‘clean’.

Nevertheless, after cutting back on fossil fuel loans for the past two years, the Commonwealth Bank has managed to contain its addiction and is currently the least generous of the big four, providing A$1.6 billion. This is a signal that the business model is already broken. Most likely in 15 years banks will have stranded assets (which is what I think asteroider actually means), as fossil fuel exploration will be too risky to secure, too expensive and finally abandoned.

As a result, the banks might not be pleased with this development since it does bring into question their purpose and social responsibility. They have hoped that the transition to a future centered on metals would take longer to materialise. They didn't anticipate the speed at which such government actions would happen.

Ultimately, RNU will probably turn into a bank – supplying the social duties and divvies that the banks were suppose to do.

AIMO, DYOR, GLTA(patient)H