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

World's top banks pour $1.9T into fossil fuel financing since 2015

banktrack.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: World's top banks pour $1.9T into fossil fuel financing since 2015

#31

Post by baud147258 »

consumer451 wrote: post #29
frenchman99 wrote: post #3

This is probably due in part to private investors asking their banks to invest their money for them without regard to environmental issues. Will you blame the postal office for delivering a bomb if it's properly packaged ? Probably not. The same way, I feel it's stupid to blame the banks for investing their customers' money where the yield is the largest when that is specifically what the customers' expect. Put huge…

I really want a carbon tax especially on investment, it's the only solution to the investment problem, isn't it? But imagine the riots in France as the price of gas goes up. I can also imagine the News Corp/Sinclair spin on it in the USA. It has to be supplemented with other programs to take the load off of average people. A really disproportionate percentage of the burden needs to be taken on by investors. Doesn't i…

> But imagine the riots in France as the price of gas goes up.

Most of the gas price in France is taxes, so a carbon tax on gas wouldn't change much. On the other, a carbon tax on imported Chinese crap and American junk food, why not...

Re: World's top banks pour $1.9T into fossil fuel financing since 2015

#32

Post by BlueTemplar »

consumer451 wrote: post #29
frenchman99 wrote: post #3

This is probably due in part to private investors asking their banks to invest their money for them without regard to environmental issues. Will you blame the postal office for delivering a bomb if it's properly packaged ? Probably not. The same way, I feel it's stupid to blame the banks for investing their customers' money where the yield is the largest when that is specifically what the customers' expect. Put huge…

I really want a carbon tax especially on investment, it's the only solution to the investment problem, isn't it? But imagine the riots in France as the price of gas goes up. I can also imagine the News Corp/Sinclair spin on it in the USA. It has to be supplemented with other programs to take the load off of average people. A really disproportionate percentage of the burden needs to be taken on by investors. Doesn't i…

Indeed, one of the complaints of the rioters was that only 10% of the new tax was going to be reused in programs that help poor and average people to drive less. And at the same time, there was still no tax on kerosene for planes (that poor people cannot afford anyway).

Re: World's top banks pour $1.9T into fossil fuel financing since 2015

#33

Post by BlueTemplar »

whatshisface wrote: post #30
consumer451 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really want a carbon tax especially on investment, it's the only solution to the investment problem, isn't it? But imagine the riots in France as the price of gas goes up. I can also imagine the News Corp/Sinclair spin on it in the USA. It has to be supplemented with other programs to take the load off of average people. A really disproportionate percentage of the burden needs to be taken on by investors. Doesn't i…

> A really disproportionate percentage of the burden needs to be taken on by investors. Fifty four percent of equities are held by households and mutual funds. Add in another 15% for pensions, and you arrive at roughly 70% of the stock market belonging to people saving for retirement. Investors are the "average people." Source: https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/54aff08969beddb2240a8...

I'm afraid that people able to save for retirement are less and less average these days ?

Re: World's top banks pour $1.9T into fossil fuel financing since 2015

#34

Post by BlueTemplar »

charliesharding wrote: post #5

World's top lenders help finance the industry that powers the world? I know we're supposed to grab our pitchforks but come on now.. 1.9T into wind and solar would produce a fraction of the power output and they have obligations to their clients

A significant fraction of this money went into US tight oil, which seems to have effectively negative power output, considering that they've yet to turn a profit ?

Re: World's top banks pour $1.9T into fossil fuel financing since 2015

#35

Post by whatshisface »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #33
whatshisface wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A really disproportionate percentage of the burden needs to be taken on by investors. Fifty four percent of equities are held by households and mutual funds. Add in another 15% for pensions, and you arrive at roughly 70% of the stock market belonging to people saving for retirement. Investors are the "average people." Source: https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/54aff08969beddb2240a8...

I'm afraid that people able to save for retirement are less and less average these days ?

This report says that 1 in 5 have saved less than $5000 for retirement, which means that 4 in 5 have a substantial retirement investment. Although there is a big problem brewing (1/5th of all Americans is a huge number of people), those who would stand a lot to lose if something went wrong in the financial world are still the majority.

https://news.northwesternmutual.com/planning-and-progress-20...

Re: World's top banks pour $1.9T into fossil fuel financing since 2015

#36

Post by BlueTemplar »

GhettoMaestro wrote: post #16

ITT: People have no concept of return on investment.

Funny that - has the last financial crisis shown us that these "top US banks" (helped by the US government) had a good grasp on this concept or maybe the opposite ?

Re: World's top banks pour $1.9T into fossil fuel financing since 2015

#38

Post by wutbrodo »

frenchman99 wrote: post #27
sroussey wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What yield? 0.002%?

Investing in stocks has long term yields of like 7% or 8% per year if you invest in an SP500 (or similar) index fund, from what I know. Admittedly I am not an expert, but the documentation I read before investing myself lets me think that 7% or 8% is quite standard for 25 year investments. I'm not sure what you mean with 0.002%. Maybe bonds?

> I'm not sure what you mean with 0.002%. Maybe bonds?

This is 1000x lower what a standard savings account pays. I wouldn't look for any meaning in the parent comment beyond economic illiteracy

Re: World's top banks pour $1.9T into fossil fuel financing since 2015

#39

Post by stevehawk »

consumer451 wrote: post #29
frenchman99 wrote: post #3

This is probably due in part to private investors asking their banks to invest their money for them without regard to environmental issues. Will you blame the postal office for delivering a bomb if it's properly packaged ? Probably not. The same way, I feel it's stupid to blame the banks for investing their customers' money where the yield is the largest when that is specifically what the customers' expect. Put huge…

I really want a carbon tax especially on investment, it's the only solution to the investment problem, isn't it? But imagine the riots in France as the price of gas goes up. I can also imagine the News Corp/Sinclair spin on it in the USA. It has to be supplemented with other programs to take the load off of average people. A really disproportionate percentage of the burden needs to be taken on by investors. Doesn't i…

You want to tax me for betting on society not abandoning fossil fuels?

I'm not the bad guy. The people refusing to abandon fossil fuels are.

Re: World's top banks pour $1.9T into fossil fuel financing since 2015

#40

Post by [deleted] »

wutbrodo wrote: post #38
frenchman99 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investing in stocks has long term yields of like 7% or 8% per year if you invest in an SP500 (or similar) index fund, from what I know. Admittedly I am not an expert, but the documentation I read before investing myself lets me think that 7% or 8% is quite standard for 25 year investments. I'm not sure what you mean with 0.002%. Maybe bonds?

> I'm not sure what you mean with 0.002%. Maybe bonds? This is 1000x lower what a standard savings account pays. I wouldn't look for any meaning in the parent comment beyond economic illiteracy

[deleted]
Post reply on HN