Considering almost all company's produce something to sell (even software or services) and those things rely on consumption and emissions, then shouldn't all companies be rated as net harmful or "C" or whatever?
Why disagree without reply?
ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
101–110 of 189 posts
Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
#102Isn't a large part of the problem that you can make gains in one category by harming another? So to make mining more climate friendly, use kids in the Congo who do not require any gasoline? Or do it all with biodiesel so that emissions are lowered by CO2 reuptake by the plants, but the rainforest is bulldozed? Yes, they conflict, so you want to reward companies that effectively manage those conflicts, not casually tr…
Yes, and addressed in the article:
> ESG suffers from three fundamental problems. First, because it lumps together a dizzying array of objectives, it provides no coherent guide for investors and firms to make the trade-offs that are inevitable in any society. Elon Musk of Tesla is a corporate-governance nightmare, but by popularising electric cars he is helping tackle climate change. Closing down a coalmining firm is good for the climate but awful for its suppliers and workers. Is it really possible to build vast numbers of wind farms quickly without damaging local ecology? By suggesting that these conflicts do not exist or can be easily resolved, ESG fosters delusion.
Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
#103I 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.
The article alludes to that:
> The industry’s second problem is that it is not being straight about incentives. It claims that good behaviour is more lucrative for firms and investors. In fact, if you can stand the stigma, it is often very profitable for a business to externalise costs, such as pollution, onto society rather than bear them directly. As a result the link between virtue and financial outperformance is suspect.
Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
#104Pay-walled, so only got the summary... but even "emissions" isn't a simple calculation... do you include the electricity generation you get your power from? What about emissions on what went into something you buy? The mining, processing, shipping, refining, manufacturing and distribution of the final product, and many component hierarchies in play? Depending on how you look at something, getting an electric car is a…
Do car emissions get attributed to the car manufacturer, or the petrol stations?
Or the owner? (Which could be a company of course, in case you're thinking that's a cop-out.)
Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
#105So, "E."
The article is paywalled, but this seems like a nothing burger. The point of ESG isn't to save the planet, it's to make the world a better place to live/work in. Union busting is bad for workers and therefore society at large. What's the article's point? That point shouldn't care about social issues? Agree to disagree I guess.
> What's the article's point? That point shouldn't care about social issues?
The thesis is "because [ESG] lumps together a dizzying array of objectives, it provides no coherent guide for investors and firms to make the trade-offs that are inevitable in any society," that industry "is not being straight about incentives" and that "the various scoring systems have gaping inconsistencies and are easily gamed."
Co-mingling E, S and G winds up focussing on nothing except making consultants rich.
Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
#106How bad is the Economist's own ESG score after decades of laundering climate denialism?
Source? I cite from Wikipedia:
> The Economist supports government action on global warming. In 1987 the paper called for a price on carbon emissions. In 1997 it wrote that the United States showed 'dangerous signs' of using the developing world as an excuse to do nothing about global warming. In 1998, The Economist expressed its view that global warming may be a catastrophe that warrants much spending to reduce fossil fuels, but before this, climatologists need a stream of reliable data. In a December editorial before the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference, The Economist declared its view that the risk of catastrophic climate change and its effect on the economy outweighs the economic consequences of insuring against global warming now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance...
Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm a Dalio guy. He believes in this: https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/sustainabl...
He believes there is a lot of money to be made, so he he supports it enthusiastically. It doesn’t reflect on whether he thinks it is good for society or the planet.
Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
#108Gotta love opinion articles that cite nothing to support their views.
The newspaper has a 10-page special report on ESG, mentioning sources (it does not "cite" them, because it is a newspaper, not an academic journal). The linked article is the one-page summary ("leader").
Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Transitioning from car-centric to human-centric cities is not about sacrifice. It is about understanding how cars actually keep cities from being places that could be much more enjoyable to live in. 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 do…
'Take away cars and meat from the poors and forcibly relocate them into tiny pods in Mega-City One'
Don't you see any problems with that plan?
Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Transitioning from car-centric to human-centric cities is not about sacrifice. It is about understanding how cars actually keep cities from being places that could be much more enjoyable to live in. 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 do…
OMG . Not personal, but you're delusional and/or straight up lying.
Denser cities are more enjoyable to live ? Wrong.
Denser cities safer for children to play outside ? Wrong.
Cities are loud because of cars ? With all that increased density you will have your surroundings much noisier when it hurts most - at the end of the day, when everyone is back from the job, and having a good time at home. Loud music, celebrations, brawls, arguments, etc.
No, cramping more people in the same space will not this space more livable; ask Chinese .