Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fossil fuel divestment has ‘zero’ climate impact, says Bill Gates

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 253 posts

Re: Fossil fuel divestment has ‘zero’ climate impact, says Bill Gates

#241

Post by dunstad »

Armisael16 wrote: post #219
dunstad wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Choosing not to profit off of fossil fuels may be a 'poor decision' from a financial perspective, but it's a good moral decision. The fact that our financial systems incentivize poor moral behavior makes them poor systems.

Honest question: why is it inherently bad morals to profit from fossil fuels? If you act the same as you would if you weren’t profiting I don’t seem how it changes anything at all. It seems strange to me to cast everyone with an index fund as morally corrupt.

Fossil fuels are a large contributor to climate change, which is forecast to, and in fact is already causing, great harm.

In order to profit from them you have to have some form of investment in them, which means in a small way you have contributed to the cause of promoting fossil fuel usage.

Exactly how morally corrupt people with an index fund are is a question I'll leave for philosophers.

Re: Fossil fuel divestment has ‘zero’ climate impact, says Bill Gates

#242

Post by momokoko »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #240
toomuchtodo wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Walk 20 miles twice a day? Is buying a Tesla for $50,000 really better for the environment than driving my old Volvo that gets 30 mpg? After you take into account all the environmental costs associated with constructing a new vehicle?

Do not live 20 miles from work. With that said, you may have extraordinary circumstances that absolutely require you to live 20 miles from your employment. No problem. Statistically, that would place you in the vast minority of people. As long as the massive majority of people that can very realistically replace their commute with public transit and/or other options do so, the problem is solved immediately. There will always be a small minority of people that have to drive a car to work. We are not talking about that tiny minority of people. As I said, we only need 30% and this problem is solved immediately. I repeat, immediately.

Re: Fossil fuel divestment has ‘zero’ climate impact, says Bill Gates

#243

Post by toomuchtodo »

momokoko wrote: post #242
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walk 20 miles twice a day? Is buying a Tesla for $50,000 really better for the environment than driving my old Volvo that gets 30 mpg? After you take into account all the environmental costs associated with constructing a new vehicle?

Do not live 20 miles from work. With that said, you may have extraordinary circumstances that absolutely require you to live 20 miles from your employment. No problem. Statistically, that would place you in the vast minority of people. As long as the massive majority of people that can very realistically replace their commute with public transit and/or other options do so, the problem is solved immediately. There wil…

Average American one way commute is 16 miles. 17 million new cars a year sold in the US. Most Americans need a car to get to work.

Re: Fossil fuel divestment has ‘zero’ climate impact, says Bill Gates

#244

Post by jfnixon »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #201
shinryuu wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know why Bill Gates would go out and tell it is ineffective?

It's basically a sales pitch for his own investments. He regularly says things that are questionable in this topic and ends with "and the company I'm investing in is the answer". E.g. his pitch for modular nuclear is basically to talk down renewables.

Username checks out. I'd definitely believe Bill Gates over J Random Ycombinator any day of the week. And he's right, nuclear is the road to go on if you want reduced emissions.

Re: Fossil fuel divestment has ‘zero’ climate impact, says Bill Gates

#245

Post by jpttsn »

gbrown wrote: post #233
jpttsn wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok, sure - pardon my use of expressive and imprecise language. I meant that we should pursue everything feasible from among the set potentially helpful or promising actions in as sensible a way as we can (infer a few more sensible qualifiers if you wish). Spending a couple minutes to switch my retirement allocations doesn't affect my ability to advocate for other policies. What I think we definitely want to avoid is…

I thing you greatly underestimate the cost of these ineffective actions.

Using non-recyclable paper straws, selling my oil shares to someone else, etc. make me feel like I’ve done my part, and I’ll happily kick back for the rest of the day, week, year. After all, I have the dinner party bragging rights covered.

Buying a letter of salvation from the Church is not the way to kick-start a streak of meaningful good-doing; it’s a way to get off the hook for actually pious things I could do.

Re: Fossil fuel divestment has ‘zero’ climate impact, says Bill Gates

#246

Post by zackmorris »

triceratops wrote: post #138
zackmorris wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also I would argue that the smug truisms that people spout such as "divestment won't solve climate change" have a very damaging effect on causes that require concerted action by the public. For example the "Penn & Teller Bull$#!@: Recycling" episode left many viewers under the impression that recycling is a waste of time because it's not mature yet and is sometimes mismanaged. That probably lowered global recycling b…

I'm not saying "do nothing". I think legislation is a better tool to fix this problem and everyone's time would be best spent on working on that. > Nobody should listen to Al Gore about global warming because he flies a private jet! Well, I think we should still listen to him. He could also fly first-class and set a better example. But average Joe passenger won't fly less just because "it's good for the planet". He w…

Ya I'm right there with you. Good points!

Re: Fossil fuel divestment has ‘zero’ climate impact, says Bill Gates

#247

Post by ClumsyPilot »

Udik wrote: post #217
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is dominated by structural issues and non-market forces. You can live the exact same lifestyle in France and US, and your carbon footprint will be almost 3 times higher in the US. Your personal buying habits cannot address the fact that energy grid is more carbon intensive from US, I cannot but electricity directly from a nuclear powerplant, UK government gives subsidies to fossil fuel companies, energy p…

> Your personal buying habits cannot address... No, of course not. But the end result of any policy to curb fossil fuels consumption will be an increase in their price to the consumers and a shift of the demand to other sources. So why don't activist simply demand more taxes on those fuels, instead of blaming the companies that produce them? > most of energy market is B2B, meaning you are not even a buyer there You'r…

Many products could be produced without fossil fuels, but aren't. Like delivery company could get an electric truck. A consumer is powerless

Re: Fossil fuel divestment has ‘zero’ climate impact, says Bill Gates

#248

Post by Udik »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #247
Udik wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your personal buying habits cannot address... No, of course not. But the end result of any policy to curb fossil fuels consumption will be an increase in their price to the consumers and a shift of the demand to other sources. So why don't activist simply demand more taxes on those fuels, instead of blaming the companies that produce them? > most of energy market is B2B, meaning you are not even a buyer there You'r…

Many products could be produced without fossil fuels, but aren't. Like delivery company could get an electric truck. A consumer is powerless

> Many products could be produced without fossil fuels

Sure. But at the same price, at least initially? A delivery company will change its fleet to electric trucks if it costs less. Otherwise, it means that the consumer has to pay the price difference.

Re: Fossil fuel divestment has ‘zero’ climate impact, says Bill Gates

#249

Post by ClumsyPilot »

Udik wrote: post #248
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many products could be produced without fossil fuels, but aren't. Like delivery company could get an electric truck. A consumer is powerless

> Many products could be produced without fossil fuels Sure. But at the same price, at least initially? A delivery company will change its fleet to electric trucks if it costs less. Otherwise, it means that the consumer has to pay the price difference.

For the most part ui ou are right, and that's fine. Boneheaded examples exist, like energy inefficient building in Uk

Re: Fossil fuel divestment has ‘zero’ climate impact, says Bill Gates

#250

Post by gbrown »

jpttsn wrote: post #245
gbrown wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, sure - pardon my use of expressive and imprecise language. I meant that we should pursue everything feasible from among the set potentially helpful or promising actions in as sensible a way as we can (infer a few more sensible qualifiers if you wish). Spending a couple minutes to switch my retirement allocations doesn't affect my ability to advocate for other policies. What I think we definitely want to avoid is…

I thing you greatly underestimate the cost of these ineffective actions. Using non-recyclable paper straws, selling my oil shares to someone else, etc. make me feel like I’ve done my part, and I’ll happily kick back for the rest of the day, week, year. After all, I have the dinner party bragging rights covered. Buying a letter of salvation from the Church is not the way to kick-start a streak of meaningful good-doing…

That's an intersting hypothesis, but that's all it is. Is there actually science about whether the effect of increased consciousness is cancelled out by corresponding complacency?

Let me offer an alternative, also unsubstantiated hypothesis: it's tempting to use cynicism to reject small actions, and letting the perfect be the enemy of the good ends up harming efforts to make big change.

Also, it seems crazy to me to compare straw choice to institutional disinvestment. The former is a rounding error, while the latter is macroeconomic in scope. I fail to see why it's a bad idea to try and stigmatize carbon capital.

Post reply on HN