5 ms·

If you still have any fossil investments I am begging you to divest. It might not even impact your returns http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-mythi

If you still have any fossil investments I am begging you to divest. It might not even impact your returns http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-mythical-peril-of-divesting-from-fossil-fuels/ http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-mythical-per...

luckylion 7y ago
I don't have any, but how would that change anything? Presumably, people won't just shut down a company, they will sell it to somebody else - the company stays in operation, only with new owners.
- perfunctory 7y ago
  I guess there are many convoluted and interconnected reasons. Here is just one snippet "As time went on, though, it became clear that divestment was also squeezing the industry. Peabody, the world’s biggest coal company, announced plans for bankruptcy in 2016; on the list of reasons for its problems, it counted the divestment movement, which was making it hard to raise capital. Indeed, just a few weeks ago analysts at that radical collective Goldman Sachs said the “divestment movement has been a key driver of the coal sector’s 60% de-rating over the past five years”." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/divestment-fossil-fuel-industry-trillions-dollars-investments-carbon https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/divest...
  - luckylion 7y ago
    Thanks, that sounds plausible. So it's less about taking out your current investment and more about not investing new money into them that is hurting them. Taking out the current investments still makes sense, of course, both ethically and by not being invested into an industry you're trying to shut down.
    - kennywinker 7y ago
      Divesting your current holdings should also help to drive the price down (more supply) which lowers the appeal of the industry for investors with less idiological motivation.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        Some people like to purchase investments that decline, because they are cheaper. As opposed to owning things that are going up, because they are expected to go up more. If a lower price didn't attract investors, you couldn't divest, could you? Nobody would appear to buy from you.
        kennywinker 7y ago
        Everything you say is true, but seems like a weird framing. Low price “attracts” investors because they think it will go up in value. If all it does is go down, it creates a downward spiral as less and less people believe it will go up in value.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Many people have said that coal has been in decline because of competition from natural gas. It seems to me that if you are profitable in the first place, raising capital becomes moot. I'm not quite sure why people who are concerned about fossil fuels are cheering the decline of coal rather than lamenting the rise of fracking. It seems like there was a lot of concern about it just a few years ago, and it's as if it's dropped off the agenda.
- kennywinker 7y ago
  You may have indirect fossil fuel investments you’re not aware of. From my cursory research, most banks are heavily invested in fossil fuel industries, and most mutual funds and index funds include oil and gas positions. Even many “ethical” or “green” funds seem to have investments that bleed into oil and gas - e.g. enbridge, a company that makes pipelines AND clean energy infrastructure. Long story short - i’ve found it very hard to invest money without some of it going to fossil fuel businesses.
  - gingabriska 7y ago
    Should we also deinvest from petroleum derivates like Petroleum Jelly maker Vaseline?
    - kennywinker 7y ago
      Somehow I don’t feel like you’re actually asking this question with sincerity... but you’re getting a sincere answer anyway: We could likely make most if not all petroleum derived household products with such a small amount of crude that it would not impact the environment in a significant way. On those grounds, there’s little point in divesting in unilever (owner of the vaseline brand). More damaging than unilever’s chemical production, however, is their use of plastic containers and packaging - which likely gives large amount of money to the oil extraction industry. But good luck divesting in companies that use plastic. This is why consumer choice is unable to effect change here. I can want to buy from and invest only in companies that don’t use traditional plastics - but if basically none exist then i’m screwed.
- imtringued 7y ago
  The price of the stock goes down.

luckylion 7y ago

I don't have any, but how would that change anything? Presumably, people won't just shut down a company, they will sell it to somebody else - the company stays in operation, only with new owners.

perfunctory 7y ago
I guess there are many convoluted and interconnected reasons. Here is just one snippet "As time went on, though, it became clear that divestment was also squeezing the industry. Peabody, the world’s biggest coal company, announced plans for bankruptcy in 2016; on the list of reasons for its problems, it counted the divestment movement, which was making it hard to raise capital. Indeed, just a few weeks ago analysts at that radical collective Goldman Sachs said the “divestment movement has been a key driver of the coal sector’s 60% de-rating over the past five years”." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/divestment-fossil-fuel-industry-trillions-dollars-investments-carbon https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/divest...
- luckylion 7y ago
  Thanks, that sounds plausible. So it's less about taking out your current investment and more about not investing new money into them that is hurting them. Taking out the current investments still makes sense, of course, both ethically and by not being invested into an industry you're trying to shut down.
  - kennywinker 7y ago
    Divesting your current holdings should also help to drive the price down (more supply) which lowers the appeal of the industry for investors with less idiological motivation.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      Some people like to purchase investments that decline, because they are cheaper. As opposed to owning things that are going up, because they are expected to go up more. If a lower price didn't attract investors, you couldn't divest, could you? Nobody would appear to buy from you.
      - kennywinker 7y ago
        Everything you say is true, but seems like a weird framing. Low price “attracts” investors because they think it will go up in value. If all it does is go down, it creates a downward spiral as less and less people believe it will go up in value.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Many people have said that coal has been in decline because of competition from natural gas. It seems to me that if you are profitable in the first place, raising capital becomes moot. I'm not quite sure why people who are concerned about fossil fuels are cheering the decline of coal rather than lamenting the rise of fracking. It seems like there was a lot of concern about it just a few years ago, and it's as if it's dropped off the agenda.
kennywinker 7y ago
You may have indirect fossil fuel investments you’re not aware of. From my cursory research, most banks are heavily invested in fossil fuel industries, and most mutual funds and index funds include oil and gas positions. Even many “ethical” or “green” funds seem to have investments that bleed into oil and gas - e.g. enbridge, a company that makes pipelines AND clean energy infrastructure. Long story short - i’ve found it very hard to invest money without some of it going to fossil fuel businesses.
- gingabriska 7y ago
  Should we also deinvest from petroleum derivates like Petroleum Jelly maker Vaseline?
  - kennywinker 7y ago
    Somehow I don’t feel like you’re actually asking this question with sincerity... but you’re getting a sincere answer anyway: We could likely make most if not all petroleum derived household products with such a small amount of crude that it would not impact the environment in a significant way. On those grounds, there’s little point in divesting in unilever (owner of the vaseline brand). More damaging than unilever’s chemical production, however, is their use of plastic containers and packaging - which likely gives large amount of money to the oil extraction industry. But good luck divesting in companies that use plastic. This is why consumer choice is unable to effect change here. I can want to buy from and invest only in companies that don’t use traditional plastics - but if basically none exist then i’m screwed.
imtringued 7y ago
The price of the stock goes down.