231–240 of 253 posts
Since Microsoft's big data is in bed with the fossil fuel industry to produce billions of dollars worth of additional fossil fuel production.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's true that divestment drives down the stock price. I find that hard to believe. Stock prices are set by the profitability of the company. This doesn't change by investors divesting. Only if you manage to get a 100% boycott could that happen, but then it would be insanely profitable to break the boycott and cash in. To me divestment just looks like a form of shunning. People think some companies are disgusting,…
> Stock prices are set by the profitability of the company. No, stock prices are driven by demand. The most dominant factor in determining demand might be profitability for some investors, but it's one of many (stability, risk, ethics are all other factors). Even saying profitability is the dominant factor for stock prices is dubious, since many unprofitable companies have outrageously high stock prices based on spec…
Sure I simplified, and you're right that it's more the expected future profitability than the current one that's important.
> If demand dropped enough in spite of profitability, it would reduce the stock price.
Technically true, I guess, but pretty meaningless. To me that's a tautology, boiling down to that if the stock price falls then the stock price falls.
I'm not sure you appreciate the armies of analysts who crunch the numbers for every possible investment, trying to spot under- or overvalued companies and make a profit on their deeper insight.
Even if 95% or 99.9% of investors decline to invest in companies with the right numbers, there will always be a few who will gladly take the free money.
Maybe that's the disconnect here. The "Divest People" think of this as a democracy where you have to sway the majority. But that's not at all how the markets work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps, though most people don't buy stock. If you can get institutional investors to divest, that limits most people's direct exposure. Do I expect it to necessarily make a big difference (especially in the short term, without becoming a broader movement)? No. I do believe, however, that it's not nothing , and that we need to pursue everything . There's also a personal aspect - I want nothing to do fossil fuel stoc…
We need to pursue _everything_? Your time is surely scarce. Wouldn’t you want to pursue only the most effective things? Every minute you spend arguing for divestment is a minute you don’t spend arguing for nuclear.
What I think we definitely want to avoid is the temptation to see an incomplete or minimally effective action (in the current context) and dismiss it, while we wait for a silver bullet. For example:
"Individual actions aren't going to be enough, we need regulation. I might as well fly instead of drive."
"Your divestment isn't going to make a difference, so don't bother."
Both of those statements contain kernels of truth, but miss the fact that individual actions do have consequences in the aggregate, and cultural change is possible (and is one way to motivate policy change!).
And keeping the fossil fuels that are still in the ground there is one of the top priorities for fighting climate change. Every billion ton of coal we mine turns into three billion tons of CO₂ and that adds another 0.5 ppm of CO₂ to the atmosphere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way I figure if someone buys a gasoline powered car, they've just committed us to 50-100 tons of CO2 emissions. Seems like that is what you want to stop not playing games with fuel taxes.
That seems incredibly low. 1kg of Beef produces ~1ton CO2 equivalent emissions
Today it is large corporations which have the greatest power over daily life, and they are far more susceptible to pressure and change then the insulated bureaucracies of governments.
Thankfully Bill and many others knew this years ago, and started a divestment campaign of breathtaking magnitude...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Divestment or investment due to ESG score goals is effective. Internal decisions at F500 oil & gas companies are being made with ESG in mind due to the amount of capital increased scores open up. Source: work for an oil & gas company
Do you know why Bill Gates would go out and tell it is ineffective?
So, how about the concern that if we cut fossil fuel to 0% tomorrow (or even in a year or decade), we would have absolutely no way (for decades) to replace it. We don't have enough alternative (renewable or nuclear or whatever) energy power, we need to build billions of electric cars (if we are to replace the current fleet), thousands of wind/solar/etc installations, ways to regulate fluctuations and store the energy…
And in reality we all have the power to flip the switch and stop eating meat today, which causes as much as if not more greenhouse gasses than all of the fossil fuel industry combined [link below]. And again, no new technology needed, and we can start today.
But as I’ve noticed people tend to put on earmuffs when you mention that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like most of your message but how do I get to work if I don’t drive and don’t have public transit and live 30 minutes away?
Walk, ride a bike/e-bike/electric scooter, or drive an electric vehicle (to not include the last option is unreasonable IMHO). A Nissan Leaf or Chevy Bolt are options, or a Tesla if you want to splurge.