I can't see any baby killing going on - indeed, quite the reverse. The charity / church / endowment is spending the money that it can spend on whatever its vision or charter of a good deed is.

And then the charity / church / endowment has funds it has for investment to ensure a stable flow of income over the future to be able to keep doing that spending.

And of course it would certainly prefer its investments to not be making things worse faster than the revenue those investment provide can be used to make things better, since in that case it would be doing more good burning up the money in a bonfire (in a chamber with exhaust treated, of course).

Now BigBadBank steps in to squeeze a little bit extra out of the transaction - but if a fund is available that has similar positive externalities and offers better return (say, MediumSizedSlightlyLessBadBank does the same trick but squeezes less off the top), then they can invest in that fund instead.

Provided BigBadBank cannot monopolize the process - and as described they enter too late into the process to be able to monopolize it - then the amount they can squeeze of the top is due to the baby killing effect of other available investments, and the "evil" is that baby killing could be reduced by still more if less was sliced off the top.

But that is a general ill of the system itself, and not increased because the wind farm was developed.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.