3 ms·

Nothing in the title or intro indicates that it was caused by environmental activism, just that it's a major positive step in their view.

barrkel 9y ago
Environmental activism seems to be an almost entirely invented slant by the author and his or her selection of quotes. The piece reads like propaganda to me.
- RyanZAG 9y ago
  I've found that every message surrounding environmentalism from all angles - either for or against - is almost always propaganda. People without some sort of bone in the game have long since dropped out of the ironically toxic discussion. There's just too much money involved in it and no real desire for real discussion. Only zealotry remains. The winning move is not to play.
njharman 9y ago
Shot heard round the world Implies exactly that. If it had nothing to do with activism then 1) activism effort to influence investments failed and 2) this lends no momentum to the movement as it was a coincidence and could be changed tomorrow regardless of environmental impact. The only way this is positive news for EA is if they spin and misrepresent it as is done here.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Strongly disagree. Markets are not rational and changes in portfolio allocation by sovereign wealth funds are likely to have a ripple effect no matter what the stated reason. If it pans out, that means fossil fuel stocks become de facto optional rather than mandatory.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    $35B divestment out of trillions in oil businesses market caps is a rounding errror.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    No, assuming the fundamentals haven't changed oil stocks become a good investment for other entities until the price is back to where it was (assuming it's negatively affected at all). Oil may or may not have a bright near to mid term financial future, but Norway's move is either virtue signaling at the national level or diversification of a portfolio that's too heavily invested in that sector. In itself it won't change the oil market one iota.

barrkel 9y ago

Environmental activism seems to be an almost entirely invented slant by the author and his or her selection of quotes. The piece reads like propaganda to me.

RyanZAG 9y ago
I've found that every message surrounding environmentalism from all angles - either for or against - is almost always propaganda. People without some sort of bone in the game have long since dropped out of the ironically toxic discussion. There's just too much money involved in it and no real desire for real discussion. Only zealotry remains. The winning move is not to play.

njharman 9y ago

Shot heard round the world Implies exactly that. If it had nothing to do with activism then 1) activism effort to influence investments failed and 2) this lends no momentum to the movement as it was a coincidence and could be changed tomorrow regardless of environmental impact. The only way this is positive news for EA is if they spin and misrepresent it as is done here.

anigbrowl 9y ago
Strongly disagree. Markets are not rational and changes in portfolio allocation by sovereign wealth funds are likely to have a ripple effect no matter what the stated reason. If it pans out, that means fossil fuel stocks become de facto optional rather than mandatory.
- valuearb 9y ago
  $35B divestment out of trillions in oil businesses market caps is a rounding errror.
- gozur88 9y ago
  No, assuming the fundamentals haven't changed oil stocks become a good investment for other entities until the price is back to where it was (assuming it's negatively affected at all). Oil may or may not have a bright near to mid term financial future, but Norway's move is either virtue signaling at the national level or diversification of a portfolio that's too heavily invested in that sector. In itself it won't change the oil market one iota.