81–90 of 189 posts
I think Tariq Fancy does a good job of breaking down why ESG and sustainable investing as a whole is bunk: https://medium.com/@sosofancy/the-secret-diary-of-a-sustaina... He also summarizes his thoughts on Doug Henwood's podcast: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9zaG91dC5sYm8tdGF...
1: https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Inc-Corporate-Americas-Justice/d...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can they? I've seen people make this claim, but I've not seen it actually substantiated. Who has successfully recycled one, what was their yield, what was the cost?
https://www.tesla.com/support/sustainability-recycling already happening
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A electric cars are mostly a luxury item for rich people to feel better. Not sure why you think Tesla should have a good rating. 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. T…
Whenever I see an argument like this I'm confused by how hand-wavey "just achieve societal change" is. Like, sure, there's various issues with various technological approaches, but it's not as if the kind of broad social change that'd see private cars outlawed develops overnight. If anything, the last couple of decades demonstrate pretty convincingly and depressingly that putting together real momentum (read: won ref…
Having finding trouble an apartment? Without all the wasted space for cars we could have much denser cities. Problem solved!
Want to have a place where children can actually play outside safely? Again, ban cars and you don't have to move to the country or suburbia.
Tired of how loud cities are? Oh boy, do I have a solution for that.
I am not preaching sacrifice, I am saying if we change some things we can achieve much better living conditions for everyone, a plus in living standard.
So it is more of a matter of getting people to be conscious about how things actually work.
So no, I am not Utopian. The point still stands that Tech wont solve the issues. It is sink or swim for humanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't live in a city. I'm 20 miles from the nearest grocery store. I build real physical things with my hands that require physical materials like lumber to haul around. I can't haul 2000 lb of lumber on the back of my road bike.
What would be the issue with just having your stuff delivered then? And yeah every rule needs exceptions, of course there should be ways to rent cars for special occasion, I am just against general private car ownership for most people. Edit: General private car ownership of people living in the cities that is
delivery here is unreliable and expensive. if I'm picking out wood I have to go through dozens of boards to find ones that aren't fucked up. I need to find ones that are suitable for the job that I'm trying to use them for. A delivery guy would just grab whatever and throw it in the truck. It's not like I'm ordering an iPod off of Amazon. no mileage savings would be had because it is unlikely that anybody else would be having something delivered in the middle of nowhere.
ESG exists because there's a market for that form of equity. That market is willing to buy equity that might even underperform the rest of the market, because it explicitly does perform in the metric these buyers care about. There are already options if you strictly are focused on emissions, so I don't think this article is meaningful. The Economist is right-leaning and would certainly love to distract ESG equity buy…
Not to comment on the rest of the comment, but apparently the Economist is not right leaning? Do you have a source for that? https://www.allsides.com/news-source/economist
To most lefties that gives a slight right-wing bias, even if they aren't ranting demagogues going on about foreigners.
To less sane and educated right wing people, that makes them seem like "the liberal elite" and so they see them as left.
They do seem to have pivoted towards an American audience somewhat more recently, which means they're sucked into the whole anti-woke thing, which these articles veer worrying close to.
I think Tariq Fancy does a good job of breaking down why ESG and sustainable investing as a whole is bunk: https://medium.com/@sosofancy/the-secret-diary-of-a-sustaina... He also summarizes his thoughts on Doug Henwood's podcast: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9zaG91dC5sYm8tdGF...
Does he actually have a point in amongst the rambling name dropping I gave up hope somewhere around the Swedish Souffle anecdote and abandoned the article.
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
My rough and ready sums put 30,000 pounds of petrol through the lifetime of an average ICE car. Meanwhile, I see numbers like this a lot and they always seem to trend high. You're talking 250 tons of ores to make perhaps 250-1000kg of the car; an efficiency of between 0.1 and 0.4 percent over some pretty straightforward, widely available ores. That doesn't really stack up with the numbers you get if you look at the e…
My calculation shows ~50,000 pounds. 200,000 mile lifetime at 25 MPG = 8000 gallons * 6.30 pounds/gallon fuel density[0] = 50,400
Also keep in mind that gasoline is a refined product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my mind's eye, I picture his ideal society as being some sort of giant human factory farm where we are all living in little pods and eating bugs. You still have freedom here. Comrade even though you cannot leave, you still have freedom here in your utilitarian pod. (clean luxury pods require too much energy and are outlawed). You have the freedom to consume media from either one of the state sanctioned media infor…
What a weird straw man. I haven't owned a car for my whole life and I am doing fine. It is not a big deal. Yes you need to life in a city with decent public transport but that is all. It is insane how people seem to be not even able to imagine a world that is not car-centric. It is really a small sacrifice that would increase the actual living conditions of everyone as we could have cities that are much more pleasant…
That is a huge ask. cities come with an incredible amount of baggage: higher taxes, higher cost of living, lower quality of life, less living space, smaller property, left wing politics, higher crime rates, more air pollution. many of us have zero interest in living in a big city.
My personal theory is that individual liberty is inversely proportional to population density. wherever people are closer together, you end up with more rules because it's easier to encroach on other peoples wellbeing. so no thank you. I will keep my car and I will continue to have fires and shoot moose in my backyard.
I sometimes toy with the idea of investing only in vice companies. Creating my own personal index and allocating across it. 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.
Might consider too, but at a first view, looks like subpar performance (and Casino stocks might go down further due to recession) https://www.etf.com/VICE ESG Orphans https://etfdb.com/etf/ORFN/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would be the issue with just having your stuff delivered then? And yeah every rule needs exceptions, of course there should be ways to rent cars for special occasion, I am just against general private car ownership for most people. Edit: General private car ownership of people living in the cities that is
I think your view is skewed towards living in a city. your solution doesn't work for a number of reasons. if I wanted to go somewhere I would call an Uber and they would drive 20 or 30 miles to pick me up and then 40 or 50 miles more to drop me off and then the reverse would happen when I wanted to go home Rather than me just driving the 100 miles there and back You have additional overhead of somebody having to come…
The thing is most people live in urban areas (and the general trend is for that to increase) and don't work in woodworking. So this caused me to be a bit dismissive as it doesn't really effect the main point that much.
As I said, there will always be exceptions. I think the more productive discussion is to find what would work for most people, that is people in an urban setting. Then we can figure out how to make it work for people farther out.
I am not sure what the best solution for your situation would be. I guess the biggest quick win would be just to get private cars out of the cities. It doesn't really matter if a few people farther out own cars as long as they are a minority. Maybe that is where electric cars would come in handy but then again they lack the range.
Again, most people live in urban areas and prefer to live in urban areas and once cities become more green they will become even more attractive furthering urbanization. Whether the few people living outside own a car or not will hardly matter.