31–40 of 189 posts
Sectors I'd include: Oil, gas, coal, tobacco, pharmaceuticals (but only makers of opiates), payday loans, gambling, etc.
It's a bit sociopathic, sure. But if enough people sleep on these tickers, I might as well get 'em cheap and earn those dividends.
I agree. Is there an emissions only ETF that I can buy into? (Not sure if this is mentioned in the article, it's paywalled for me)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To manufacture each EV battery, you must process > 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium > 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt > 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, 25,000 pounds of ore for copper > Digging up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust > For just - one - battery. https://twitter.com/brianroemmele/status/1503176565974216710 Would appreciate a fact check if this is anyone's business here
They can be recycled once we have a large install base
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MSCI ESG ratings: Tesla: A https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings... Exxon: BBB https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings...
Shell: AA https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings... Higher than TSLA
(I'm not weighing in on their validity, but it's absolutely truthful the allegations and lawsuits are there.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To manufacture each EV battery, you must process > 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium > 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt > 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, 25,000 pounds of ore for copper > Digging up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust > For just - one - battery. https://twitter.com/brianroemmele/status/1503176565974216710 Would appreciate a fact check if this is anyone's business here
They can be recycled once we have a large install base
We judge companies on their actions now, not on what they might do, or might be possible in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's also a way to extort money out of companies. Using slave labor? it's ok just donate some money here and boost your score. That's not extortion, that's the opposite - bribery > They reach out and attempt to partner with successful disadvantaged education programs for cheap interns and to add badges to their website I did see this kind of shit once
>That's not extortion, that's the opposite - bribery. I think that depends on your perspective. From the company's perspective, they're bribing the ratings agency by donating money. From the agency's perspective, they're using their rating as a way of coercing a company into making donations. That could be considered extortion, though not in the legal sense.
If you are the one that was doing something illegal to begin with, and bribe an official to keep it under wraps, then it's on you.
ESG is a political compliance score. Fall out of favor with certain groups and your score will plummet, publicly tout an agenda around diversity and sustainability and your score will rise. The fact that Exxon (edit: oops I mean shell) has a higher ESG score than Tesla should be all you need to know.
If you weren't so deeply into Musk intimate parts and repeat word for word his tweet you'd realize that it makes perfect sense.
Exxon only extracts the thing, it doesn't burn it. Tesla burns a lot of energy to build cars.
That's not to say ESG is a perfect system, perfection would be assigning an ESG score at the atomic level, meaning for every single human. At that point it wouldn't matter if you are the CEO of an oil company or the CEO of a coal car company which sells itself as a solar car company...when you board the G650ER you'd get the automatic Z-rating which puts you at the very bottom enabling peers to shame and attack you.
Of course it will never happen because the elites love to protect their CO2 intensive lifestyle while pontificating the rest of us to drive electric and eat bugs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shell: AA https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings... Higher than TSLA
also Tesla is only average for the automotive industry which is mind-boggling.
They are harmful in that they are actively distracting from the proper solution: that people shouldn't have private cars.
The environmental cost to produce car, the space they take up in the cities, in the end private car ownership can not be made sustainable even if they run on electric. Tech wont solve the climate crisis, only societal change will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shell: AA https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings... Higher than TSLA
TSLA also has a lot of labor related discussions open about workplace safety and racism. (I'm not weighing in on their validity, but it's absolutely truthful the allegations and lawsuits are there.)
I want to make sure I understand you. You don't know if people's accusations are true, but you do know that they are making accusations. Is that correct?