World's top banks pour $1.9T into fossil fuel financing since 2015 • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by SifJar » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 9:35 AM UTC

stevehawk wrote: post #39

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…

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.

As I understand it, there are two main ways to invest in fossil fuels - stocks & bonds. Buying stocks in fossil fuel companies doesn't finance their continued operation, so probably not much point taxing those. But buying bonds from a fossil fuel company is directly funding their operation, so I would assume this is where the theoretical tax would be applied?

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

#52

Post by consumer451 » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 2:30 PM UTC

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...

> ... and you arrive at roughly 70% of the stock market belonging to people saving for retirement. Investors are the "average people."

This only applies to the USA, which is a major outlier.

Global stock ownership in 2009 was only around 500 million[0] people from the total world population which was 6.8 billion in 2009. That's 7.23%.

[0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1457482

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

#53

Post by moneytide1 » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 7:20 PM UTC

chris1993 wrote: post #50

moneytide1 wrote: post #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,…

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.

Even if everyone drove an EV, a fossil fueled charging source would continue to add to the problem. Solar/wind charging will likely be the case for transportation batteries, but replacing the fossil with nuclear for heavy industry could still grant us our healthy 401(k) payouts.

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

#54

Post by sroussey » Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 1:48 AM UTC

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

I was off by a 0, but 100x better than you. Not a fan of the snide remarks.

Again, the idea that big banks are chasing returns for their depositors is false.

WellsFargo: 0.01% https://www.wellsfargo.com/savings-cds/rates/

BofA: 0.02%

Citibank: 0.04%

I was surprised by Citibank being so high.

These are for basic savings with minimum deposits and don’t take into account any fees.