Green - An environmentalist community

5237 readers

2 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!

RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith

Related communities:

Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

416

Wealthiest 10% of US Households Responsible for 40% of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Study (www.commondreams.org)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It means nothing to the actual company other than a scoreboard they can point to, as the stock should reflect the performance and outlook of the company.

Except that scoreboard is exactly what they point to when they need a loan or other capital investment to grow their business. Better stock value = bigger/better loans.

Oh, and also the companies are able to release additional stock to raise capital outside of their IPO.

And their executives are rewarded for having high stock value.

[+] bob_wiley 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is about collective action, not just one or two people. You seem to be leaning heavily into the same excuses everyone uses when they don't want to do the right thing if it's even a small inconvenience. "Why should I do X when there's a bunch of other people doing Y? It'll never make a difference."

Sure, in a vacuum, you selling your stock in BP won't make a difference, but alternatively in a world where asset managers collections holding over $8 trillion in assets have pledged to divest from fossil fuels, the pool of people willing and able to buy up those shares is shrinking, and the more people who act the smaller the pool gets.

On this note:

would you rather invest at a valuation of $20B or $75B. You’re saying $75B, but the answer is $20B.

I've got no idea where you went overboard here, but what I'm saying is, if the company in question is doing significant harm to the planet, don't invest. Not sure why you thought I meant invest later.

And if the moral argument against profiting from harmful industries isn't good enough for you, financially you're introducing risk to your portfolio by choosing to invest in companies that are at high risk of running into regulatory challenges and lawsuits globally.

[+] bob_wiley 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Boy you sure are acting incredibly dense. You're acting like I'm implying normal investing guidance doesn't apply. Please stop making up worst case scenarios to try and justify supporting climate damage. I'm not saying dump all your money into a single solar stock somewhere.

There's literally hundreds of ETFs & mutual funds focused on avoiding the major polluting businesses. For example, just look at things like SPYX instead of SPY, etc. (Adding an extra bit to emphasize I'm using this as an example, not telling everyone to only invest in SPYX, because I can already see your response coming in laser focused on that one example). There's countless options, do some homework if you're investing, as you should be doing regardless of whether or not you care about the climate.

The one that's currently hardest is target date retirement funds which many use for their 401k. Not because there aren't enough options, but because many fund managers don't include those options in their offerings. Your hands may be tied but at least you looked. Contact your fund manager and let them know you're interested in ESG investing.

I'm not saying dump your money down the drain, but check if your investments can be moved somewhere less harmful.