Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 189 posts

Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions

#141

Post by clairity »

WalterBright wrote: post #139
clairity wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, because the amount of carbon in each energy input doesn't directly correlate with the amount of pollution and harm, and it's a courser measure than taxing the polluting components relative to their externalized impact on health and wellbeing. we need to directly tax each of the things we don't want proportional to harm, rather than trying to simplify the problem and thereby creating unintended distortions and con…

Uh, the carbon content of fuels winds up as CO2 emissions, which are blamed for climate change. Taxing the carbon content of fuels is a very targeted, direct tax. It's simple, too, orders of magnitude simpler than any other proposed method.

the very point is that climate change and CO₂ are mediopolitical distractions, and your 'simpler' isn't better but rather materially worse. pollution is a consensus problem. we should directly tackle that problem, not the indirect, mediopolitically manufactured one.

* note that consensus isn't how media or political careers are made.

Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions

#142

Post by x-complexity »

JacobThreeThree wrote: post #114
WalterBright wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but even "emissions" isn't a simple calculation Yes, it is. Tax the fuel on its carbon content at the point of sale of the fuel from the refinery.

Many activities generate emissions that have nothing to do with the sale of fuel. Who gets to decide what counts as emissions?

In the ideal sense, we go strictly chemical on this & track the chemical outputs from a given process. From there, the chemical/resource inputs are taken into account to get (supposed resulting emissions + inefficiency overhead + 5% padding).

With those emission outputs in hand, a table of carbon prices is referred to before the final tally is made.

Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions

#143

Post by x-complexity »

function_seven wrote: post #89
PaywallBuster wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Thanks. I'm constantly surprised how unoriginal my ideas are :)

Given that there's about to be 8 billion people in the near future, & the fact that multiple ideas can belong under the same general idea, it'll be inevitable that multiple people will come up with their own variations on a given idea that's new to them.

TL;DR: You're one of today's lucky 10,000 -> https://www.xkcd.com/1053/

Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions

#144

Post by giantg2 »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #127
giantg2 wrote: post #15

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?

Are you implying that it is impossible to be carbon neutral? Or are you saying something else?

For most industries, carbon neutral is just marketing. Also, with international supply chains for many companies, most don't try to offset the carbon from their imports and shipping, only from their own production. Often times their products involve electricity, which is still predominantly emitting.

It's like saying hey look at us being carbon neutral, but we're one step out of 10, the product will run on carbon based power for years, and the steps to be carbon neutral aren't really our steps but we pay someone to offset them.

Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions

#145

Post by dhke33ird »

function_seven wrote: post #31

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.

When you find yourself saying "a bit sociopathic, sure", please take a step back, and think about what you really want to acheieve in your short time on earth. Wouldn't you like be able to say you spent your life trying to make the world a little less shitty? Or are those dividends really that important to you?

I say this because, you say youre just toying with the idea. So something is holding you back. I think you know it's not something worth doing, and I think you're right.

Not saying we can ever be 100% free of moral impurity in our investment decisions. After all, there are unsavory things about most big companies. But it's another thing to go out of your way to support things repulsive to your own values. I hope you don't go that way. The little money youd make from it isn't worth the guilt you'd feel.

Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions

#146

Post by adament »

abirch wrote: post #124
WillPostForFood wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He believes in climate change: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/30/billionaire-ray-dalio-on-why... You can see how he quantifies carbon emissions. https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/sustainabl... If he was only concerned with making money, you'd think he'd have jumped into digital currencies.

He has or at least Bridgewater has been pushing an allocation to Bitcoin in some of their Daily Observations in the last 1 or 2 years.

Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions

#148

Post by [deleted] »

FabHK wrote: post #106
morelisp wrote: post #32

How 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 foss…

[deleted]

Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions

#149

Post by smsm42 »

washbrain wrote: post #72
smsm42 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see how bizarre it gets. If you discuss workplace safety and racism (even without any proof of any wrongdoing, just talking about how to treat people better - and I'm sure there are always ways to treat people better), you get a ding on the score. If you suppress any discussion on the matter, you score is perfect. There's absolutely no evidence Tesla is more racist or unsafe place to work than Shell. If anything,…

Your hypothesis is that people are more likely to sue their employer if their employer is Tesla, rather then Shell?

I don't know the actual statistics (does it exist even?), all I say is making decisions on the basis of "discussions" as if it were derogatory information makes no sense. It doesn't also make sense to treat accusations as if they were a proof of wrongdoing - though a lawsuit slightly raises the probability of there being some wrongdoing, as we can assume at least some potential claimants would be deterred by the fact that their accusations are false - but we should not overestimate it, there are a lot of false accusations flying around, and even more accusations that aren't provably false but also not proven true - e.g. when a person has no success working for the company and claims it was because of discrimination of one sort or another. The person may genuinely feel that way - but it does not mean necessarily that's actually what happened.

Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions

#150

Post by logifail »

kitbrennan wrote: post #131
tracker1 wrote: post #96

Pay-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…

but event "emissions" isn't a simple calculation No one is claiming that it is, but there are standardised reporting practices to ensure proper coverage of emissions when published. These are the Scopes 1, 2, and 3 (which includes 12 sub-scopes), listed in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. They are the GAAP of the sustainability industry and is required by every major reporting mechanism (e.g. CDP, etc). All the items you…

> A common claim by climate-deniers that has been widely debunked

Extending car lifetime and first-owner possession length can reduce overall emissions more than accelerating replacement according to new study[0]

[0] https://www.kyushu-u.ac.jp/en/researches/view/218

Post reply on HN