this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2025
211 points (96.9% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5808 readers
1033 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
211
Bill Gates Is Playing Both Sides of the Climate Crisis. (jacobin.com)
submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Bill Gates presents himself as a climate champion, but his trust has actually increased its fossil fuel investments since his divestment pledge. It's just the latest example of the billionaire appointing himself to solve problems he helps perpetuate.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Blue_Morpho -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Buying back shares doesn't increase market value. It raises an individual share price. The market cap remains unchanged. Given that they lost money, it can cause the market cap to decline because they have less cash after buying the shares. The company doesn't get any money.

You claimed buy back was an example of a company getting money based on their stock price. But it's the opposite. It's a company spending money to buy their own shares. They don't get money. They lose money. It's similar to paying a dividend.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

And why would a company want to buy pack? Who is getting the money? The investors. who owns the company?.... the investors. So quite literally the company is getting the money generated by profits. And buying pack is reducing the amount of shares making the investors more wealthy by increasing their proportion of ownership.

[–] Blue_Morpho -1 points 4 days ago

Yes buying back makes investors more wealthy at the cost of the company's cash. Like I said, it's similar to a dividend in that the company is giving money to the investors. Instead of cash which is taxable, they are giving their cash in the form of stock value to the investors.

The company does not get any cash from a buy back. They are spending money. The company has less money after a buy back. The market cap is technically unchanged but can go down afterwards because the company has lost money buying back the shares.

Losing money on a buy back is not an example of a company making money from the value of their stock.