3 ms·

Whose voice carries more weight when campaigning to reduce fossil fuel usage: the person who profits off fossil fuels and will suffer as a direct result, or the

Whose voice carries more weight when campaigning to reduce fossil fuel usage: the person who profits off fossil fuels and will suffer as a direct result, or the person who has divested themselves completely? If you have a moral objection to receiving those funds, then just give them to a charity that might actually help. The way economics works, if you choose to divest yourself in this way, you are betting against the profitable use of fossil fuels, but you are not influencing it (it will either continue or cease on its own depending on whether it stays profitable). You are simply encouraging someone else (who maybe doesn't care so much about the environment) to "take that bet" and profit off your poor decision.

Nicholas_C 7y ago
The problem is if you’re an activist investor you’re not going to buy a bunch of shares and then tell them to stop trashing the environment or else. You might not get support from other investors and your shares would drop.
dunstad 7y ago
Choosing not to profit off of fossil fuels may be a 'poor decision' from a financial perspective, but it's a good moral decision. The fact that our financial systems incentivize poor moral behavior makes them poor systems.
- Armisael16 7y ago
  Honest question: why is it inherently bad morals to profit from fossil fuels? If you act the same as you would if you weren’t profiting I don’t seem how it changes anything at all. It seems strange to me to cast everyone with an index fund as morally corrupt.
  - dunstad 7y ago
    Fossil fuels are a large contributor to climate change, which is forecast to, and in fact is already causing, great harm. In order to profit from them you have to have some form of investment in them, which means in a small way you have contributed to the cause of promoting fossil fuel usage. Exactly how morally corrupt people with an index fund are is a question I'll leave for philosophers.

Nicholas_C 7y ago

The problem is if you’re an activist investor you’re not going to buy a bunch of shares and then tell them to stop trashing the environment or else. You might not get support from other investors and your shares would drop.

dunstad 7y ago

Choosing not to profit off of fossil fuels may be a 'poor decision' from a financial perspective, but it's a good moral decision. The fact that our financial systems incentivize poor moral behavior makes them poor systems.

Armisael16 7y ago
Honest question: why is it inherently bad morals to profit from fossil fuels? If you act the same as you would if you weren’t profiting I don’t seem how it changes anything at all. It seems strange to me to cast everyone with an index fund as morally corrupt.
- dunstad 7y ago
  Fossil fuels are a large contributor to climate change, which is forecast to, and in fact is already causing, great harm. In order to profit from them you have to have some form of investment in them, which means in a small way you have contributed to the cause of promoting fossil fuel usage. Exactly how morally corrupt people with an index fund are is a question I'll leave for philosophers.