5 ms·

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 squee

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.

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.