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

Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 560 posts

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#381

Post by victorbjorklund »

sgt wrote: post #285
petterroea wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Norway the oil fund are actively arguing against boycotting these kinds of companies saying, and I paraphrase: "but our job is to earn money and we can't do that if you hippies keep standing in the way with your morals" Good to see it isn't necessarily the case.

[flagged]

It’s not about virtue signaling. It’s that SpaceX (or xAi like it should be called because that’s most of the company) is a shitty deal where they changed the rules just to make large funds bail out Elon.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#382

Post by Gomotono »

90d wrote: post #320
tordrt wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fossil fuel part doesn't seem like a rational decision to me. Why are we pretending that fossil fuels dont provide an immense amount of value for humanity, and that its horrible to invest or support building out any fossil fuel production whatsoever. Lets not do produce it ourselves, lets just instead outsource it to the gulfs and Russia…

It is a tricky situation isn't it? We wouldn't have gotten where we are without fossil fuels, but now we realize they are not sustainable to be dependent on and we cannot continue this level of growth. I don't think it is actually possible using current means to power what we have come to know as a "first-world lifestyle" for the majority of the planet.

Thats not true. We don't know if we would be able to be were we at.

There is also no value in this. If we owuldn't known about progress through oil and gas, who would say that we would be unable to get to the same point just a 100 years later?

No own would be hurt if we would have achieved this 100 years later but healthier.

It was also ignored on purpose. Oil companies knew very well, researchers knew. Apparently there were big demonstrations here in germany in the 70ties so our parents knew too.

Life came inbetween apparently.

And from a pure calculation point of view: Its actually very easy to switch over to renewable. As of today, we do have everything we need.

The only thing missing is people doing it.

And just to be clear: it would repay itself.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#383

Post by mr_toad »

swingboy wrote: post #226

Apologies for the naivety, but, why is SpaceX valued so high? Starlink? Are rockets really a lucrative business? Don’t get me wrong, being able to send objects up into orbit is cool, but is it $1.8T cool?

People betting that the price will go up because they think other people are doing the same thing.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#384

Post by Gomotono »

tordrt wrote: post #338
eigenspace wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slavery part doesn't seem like a rational decision to me. Why are we pretending that slavery doesn't provide an immense amount of value for humanity, and that it's horrible to invest or support building out any slavery production whatsoever? Lets not do produce it ourselves, lets just instead outsource it to Africa... ___________________________________ Snide comparisons aside, I'd just say that we can accept tha…

Slavery is evil. Fossil fuels is actually still a net good for humanity. E.g. the consequences of removing access to these energy sources, would be overwhelmingly more negative for humanity right now, than the consequence of global warming. The transition is moving ahead, it just takes time, and we need more technological breakthroughs and innovation. Trying to attack production instead of solving demand, can cause s…

Fossil fules is not a net good for humanity.

We have everything to switch over and while we do nothing more and more people are affacted by it daily and in longterm.

co2 is in the athmosphere for a long time.

In the only world were this is true, is a purely capitalistic society which values poorer people less.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#385

Post by Gomotono »

apexalpha wrote: post #297
devlovstad wrote: post #258

I have AkademikerPension as my pension fund through work and this move suits me quite well. They've already excluded Tesla as well as a variety of companies that profit of weapon production, fossil fuel production or are suspected for human rights violations. https://akademikerpension.dk/ansvarlighed/ekskluderede-selsk...

Defensive weapons are very much needed in Europe…

No they are not.

The amount of military spending europe has, is already higher than russia.

Russia clearly showed how incapable they are, they are not even able to present modern war technology at their freedom parade.

And china we don't fight china.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#386

Post by OtherShrezzing »

noodlesUK wrote: post #371

I think European countries need to get serious about investing money locally. The UK is a particularly egregious example but it’s taking begging and pleading with the mansion house accord to even convince pensions to try to invest in the UK economy. Every country should make a portion of local (at least within Europe) investment a prerequisite for whatever favourable tax treatment pensions and similar products get. S…

I partially agree, but if my private pension needed to invest into the underperforming FTSE250 by law, I’d just opt out of that system and put my savings into a US/Emerging-markets index myself.

I’m not patriotic enough to spaff my compound interest opportunity on a bunch of dying tobacco, oil, & mineral extraction companies to put any of it to work in the FTSE250.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#387

Post by raddan »

tordrt wrote: post #362
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t one major fund reducing investment in fossil fuels and increasing investment in renewable energy precisely migrate towards the notion of helping solve demand and encourage technological breakthroughs and innovation?

I think the right way to go about this is to tax consumption. The most efficient one would just be a co2 tax, to not favoritize some emission over others. This is mostly fine in western rich countries, and we already do this to some extent by putting extra taxes and fees on petrol, carbon emissions and stuff. Becoming reliant on countries you dont want to be reliant on, and pretending we dont desperately need this to…

> I think the right way to go about this is to tax consumption. The most efficient one would just be a co2 tax, to not favoritize some emission over others.

I too thought this for a long time. But after watching taxes on consumption basically be a non-starter in the US for a long time, I’m not so sure anymore. Gas taxes are also regressive, which means the people who feel it the most are the ones least able to pay it. Raising the gas tax while retaining one’s elected position is challenging in the US to say the least. In most places in the US, driving is not a luxury.

To be clear, I think we need to move off of fossil fuels to the greatest extent possible as soon as possible. For those with means, it is a great moral failing to continue to drive a gas guzzler and heat one’s home with fossil fuels when there are better affordable alternatives. I’ve been driving an EV for nearly four years; it is now not just more affordable than a gas powered vehicle, it is more convenient. For me, the cherry on the top is that I also do not pay for electricity, because I took advantage of the pre-Trump II era solar tax subsidy and built a massive one.

The tax break was good for me, and it’s a shame that is gone (I paid off that panel in 5 MONTHS with the help of the subsidy), but tax breaks really only help the relatively wealthy. We need an investment in infrastructure for the masses to break their dependence on fossil fuels. I’m not really sure what that is.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#388

Post by Gomotono »

ifwinterco wrote: post #284
devlovstad wrote: post #258

I have AkademikerPension as my pension fund through work and this move suits me quite well. They've already excluded Tesla as well as a variety of companies that profit of weapon production, fossil fuel production or are suspected for human rights violations. https://akademikerpension.dk/ansvarlighed/ekskluderede-selsk...

How does Tesla fit with the rest of those? I'm not a huge fan of Elon Musk but Tesla is a company that produces electric cars (mostly in western countries with half-decent labour laws), it's not associated with any of those things. I guess one could argue with some merit that the governance is bad enough to exclude it on that basis alone?

Europe is still a democracy and while its apparently not relevant in the US America, Elon Musk as the richest person on the planet directly tried to involve him in europe elections.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#389

Post by mejutoco »

petterroea wrote: post #271
devlovstad wrote: post #258

I have AkademikerPension as my pension fund through work and this move suits me quite well. They've already excluded Tesla as well as a variety of companies that profit of weapon production, fossil fuel production or are suspected for human rights violations. https://akademikerpension.dk/ansvarlighed/ekskluderede-selsk...

In Norway the oil fund are actively arguing against boycotting these kinds of companies saying, and I paraphrase: "but our job is to earn money and we can't do that if you hippies keep standing in the way with your morals" Good to see it isn't necessarily the case.

The sovereign fund of Norway also researches a lot of the state of the companies and then invests into the whole market vs the ones they dont consider good according to some metric. Sounds like this Danish example.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#390

Post by Gomotono »

sgt wrote: post #288
ifwinterco wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does Tesla fit with the rest of those? I'm not a huge fan of Elon Musk but Tesla is a company that produces electric cars (mostly in western countries with half-decent labour laws), it's not associated with any of those things. I guess one could argue with some merit that the governance is bad enough to exclude it on that basis alone?

Agreed - Tesla has been an insanely good investment. I'm not sure about the next 10 years, but people have continuously underestimated them (and Elon Musk). The Norwegian so called Oil Fund owns more than 1% of Tesla.

Tesla is not and never has been a good investment.

Its a gamble.

The current evaluation of Tesla is still higher than real car companies + robot companies + robot taxi companies.

Post reply on HN