Live data from Hacker News

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

banktrack.org

41–50 of 54 posts

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

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Hmm, right, I guess that partially paid mortgages still count as savings, as they should ?

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

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

More than $5000 is not a substantial amount

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

#44
post #24

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…

If the package has been labelled "bomb", I would blame them. And that's the point here, they know what it's going to be invested in. Yes, it's commercially imperative to trade, unless it doesn't. And people getting aware of it and complaining is one way, it becomes more of a liability.

It is really a tragedy of the prisoner's dilemma. If a single bank decides to do the right thing and not offer fossil fuel investments to their clients, their market share will diminish. The people who made the right call will be fired by their superiors (ultimately the shareholders), who will see the bank shares decline compared to the competitors who didn't make the moral decision.

The end result: the people who made the call for the long term good won't be around to actually see it implemented.

The problem needs to be fixed in a broader scope. The entire corporate incentive structure is broken.

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

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

More than $5000 is not a substantial amount

Maybe not to someone who has a million dollars, but $10,000 to someone who has $10,000 is 100% of their net worth. "People are not saving enough for retirement" and "people would get significantly hurt if their retirement savings were damaged" are not contradictory statements.

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

#47
I think this is going to change radically in the next few years as the big banks wake up to the stranded assets problem. In fact, from what I understand it is already happening inside the banks, but hasn't worked its way up to where the decisions happen.

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

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More than $5000 is not a substantial amount

Maybe not to someone who has a million dollars, but $10,000 to someone who has $10,000 is 100% of their net worth. "People are not saving enough for retirement" and "people would get significantly hurt if their retirement savings were damaged" are not contradictory statements.

Savings would not be significantly damaged if 1-1.5% in gains was missed on a $10,000 on a fossil fuel divested portfolio. That might be a significant overstatement of the differential.

Disclaimer: 1-1.5% would make a big difference over time

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

#49
The headline itself commands attention because it suggests a target to offload blame upon amidst this ongoing climate change narrative. But how many of us manage our own retirement fund (day-to-day)?

The 410(k) can exist and guarantee returns because of things like fossil fuel financing. Over the past several generations, resources have been funneled into railways, roads, extraction technologies, refineries, fleets, grids, etc. This infrastructure has been established for some time now and continues to grow, but perhaps at a reduced rate because emissions now appear to be a threat. Sudden regulation to the end of the drastic reduction of fossil fuel deployment is not compatible with the expected economic growth that has established people's desires and standards for an idyllic life.

The surplus generated by the energy density, abundance, and accessibility of fossil fuels is the reason the aging citizen can anticipate monthly pension deposits or dividends sufficient enough to keep them well fed, housed, traveling, and medically sound. It is a comfortable method of living out the final years of a life spent participating in an economy that can now serve them as a reward for their service to it.

The necessary large scale transistion to emissionless renewables interrupts long term structured and predictable payment plans on the very grids and refineries that have granted us financial security.

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

#50

The headline itself commands attention because it suggests a target to offload blame upon amidst this ongoing climate change narrative. But how many of us manage our own retirement fund (day-to-day)? The 410(k) can exist and guarantee returns because of things like fossil fuel financing. Over the past several generations, resources have been funneled into railways, roads, extraction technologies, refineries, fleets,…

Ethical investment funds do exist, and these explicitly don't invest in fossil fuel industries. There are also ethical superannuation funds (in the Australian context). Individuals can choose a direction for their investment.
Post reply on HN