151–160 of 187 posts
Lots of the comments I’m reading really indicate how well the political campaign against ESG has worked. Lots of knee jerk comments without much actual analysis and thinking. Most of the commentators aren’t even aware what E, S and G stand for (environmental, social governance).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree: - caring about your investments aligning with your values is good - investment firms violating civil rights laws and promoting fashionable bigotry using retirement funds to coerce companies into self-destructive behavior is bad
Why are you prefixing bigotry with "fashionable"? Seems like a shibboleth. The only "fashionable" bigotry I can think of right now is anti-trans bigotry, but I don't see how that links to the rest of your statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In short: ESG measures the worlds impact on the company NOT the company's impact on the world. Better ESG score means company is more resilient to change in those factors.
> In short: ESG measures the worlds impact on the company NOT the company's impact on the world. This is not correct. ESG tracks, among others, the carbon output of a business. In other words, the impact of the business on the world. You can read more here: https://www.pwc.com/ca/en/today-s-issues/environmental-socia...
It's very high level and sparse .. even then the only references to emissions reductions (including carbon) were pretty much: "company must adhere to laws and regulations and must take into account the future emissions reductions that are governmental targets" (paraphrasing).'
I don't see how this is different from what I said. It does not rate how environmentally friendly the company is, it rates whether the company is in compliance with current and it has plans future regulations.
Edit: there is carbon emissions section that is helpfully labelled as one of the things that "CAN be tracked". So this seems to be optional and also the benchmark seems to be self determined by the company rated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But shouldn't the "free market" correct for this? If most people are putting their money into ESG but there isn't a real underlying performance difference, that creates an arbitrage opportunity for people willing to invest in non-ESG? Sadly, I can already hear the right-wing rebuttal: "the market isn't truly free because of the (bankers) running blackrock! we need govt intervention to ban ESG, then the market will be…
The market isn't free because Vanguard and BlackRock are a duopoly on this. Vanguard isn't the issue though - they do literally nothing besides harvest tiny tiny fees at scale. BlackRock is a different story - look into their actions around SFH. They're not great.
Lots of the comments I’m reading really indicate how well the political campaign against ESG has worked. Lots of knee jerk comments without much actual analysis and thinking. Most of the commentators aren’t even aware what E, S and G stand for (environmental, social governance).
Equally, one might say that you don't know how the world works and how these scores will be governed by the few to get power over the many.
You can also buy whatever stocks and shares you want. ESG does not prevent companies from listing.
If you don't want to invest based on ESG then don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Equally, one might say that you don't know how the world works and how these scores will be governed by the few to get power over the many.
No one is forcing you to make decisions based on ESG. There are fund that invest based on ESG. Equally there are funds that don't. You can also buy whatever stocks and shares you want. ESG does not prevent companies from listing. If you don't want to invest based on ESG then don't.
If these concerns people have about ESG are so important, they should be passed at the democratic level via legislation. At least that way, people could debate and change the system as needed. You didn't need ESG to get rid of lead plumbing - just an interested government.
Of course these days, we can only have private power, not public power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, there's evidence that moving investment from polluting to non-polluting industries at best has almost no impact, and potentially makes things worse: https://www.icpmnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Count...
Europe defunded their oil and gas industry and only great things happened from it. Just ask Ukraine The only way to stop pollution is to consume green. That’s it. The Saudis and the Russians don’t care about ESG
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, there's evidence that moving investment from polluting to non-polluting industries at best has almost no impact, and potentially makes things worse: https://www.icpmnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Count...
Europe defunded their oil and gas industry and only great things happened from it. Just ask Ukraine The only way to stop pollution is to consume green. That’s it. The Saudis and the Russians don’t care about ESG
Anyway ESG never was big in Europe and is now entirely dead. The EU mandates far better reporting in the CSRD and the texts linked to the european green taxonomy with actually meaningful KPIs and financial data having to be disclosed.
A quick look at the gap between ESG scores and EU Green taxonomy alignment results will tell you all you need to know about ESG scores by the way. They are meaningless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you prefixing bigotry with "fashionable"? Seems like a shibboleth. The only "fashionable" bigotry I can think of right now is anti-trans bigotry, but I don't see how that links to the rest of your statement.
[dead]
> people with obvious mental problems akin to anorexia
> allow people to invade opposite gender areas such as toilets or sport or any number of other arenas of life
> when people ignore reality
At least, that's what I've been told when I express similar concerns.
Lots of the comments I’m reading really indicate how well the political campaign against ESG has worked. Lots of knee jerk comments without much actual analysis and thinking. Most of the commentators aren’t even aware what E, S and G stand for (environmental, social governance).