4 ms·

But some other investor bought the stock, didn't they?

gbrown 7y ago
Perhaps, though most people don't buy stock. If you can get institutional investors to divest, that limits most people's direct exposure. Do I expect it to necessarily make a big difference (especially in the short term, without becoming a broader movement)? No. I do believe, however, that it's not nothing, and that we need to pursue everything. There's also a personal aspect - I want nothing to do fossil fuel stocks. I try to limit my emissions in my personal life, so why not exercise that preference in whatever small way I can in my financial life?
- jpttsn 7y ago
  We need to pursue _everything_? Your time is surely scarce. Wouldn’t you want to pursue only the most effective things? Every minute you spend arguing for divestment is a minute you don’t spend arguing for nuclear.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    Yes but if everyone is vested in fossil fuels nuclear won't happen, don't you see?
  - gbrown 7y ago
    Ok, sure - pardon my use of expressive and imprecise language. I meant that we should pursue everything feasible from among the set potentially helpful or promising actions in as sensible a way as we can (infer a few more sensible qualifiers if you wish). Spending a couple minutes to switch my retirement allocations doesn't affect my ability to advocate for other policies. What I think we definitely want to avoid is the temptation to see an incomplete or minimally effective action (in the current context) and dismiss it, while we wait for a silver bullet. For example: "Individual actions aren't going to be enough, we need regulation. I might as well fly instead of drive." "Your divestment isn't going to make a difference, so don't bother." Both of those statements contain kernels of truth, but miss the fact that individual actions do have consequences in the aggregate, and cultural change is possible (and is one way to motivate policy change!).
    - jpttsn 7y ago
      I thing you greatly underestimate the cost of these ineffective actions. Using non-recyclable paper straws, selling my oil shares to someone else, etc. make me feel like I’ve done my part, and I’ll happily kick back for the rest of the day, week, year. After all, I have the dinner party bragging rights covered. Buying a letter of salvation from the Church is not the way to kick-start a streak of meaningful good-doing; it’s a way to get off the hook for actually pious things I could do.
      - gbrown 7y ago
        That's an intersting hypothesis, but that's all it is. Is there actually science about whether the effect of increased consciousness is cancelled out by corresponding complacency? Let me offer an alternative, also unsubstantiated hypothesis: it's tempting to use cynicism to reject small actions, and letting the perfect be the enemy of the good ends up harming efforts to make big change. Also, it seems crazy to me to compare straw choice to institutional disinvestment. The former is a rounding error, while the latter is macroeconomic in scope. I fail to see why it's a bad idea to try and stigmatize carbon capital.
        jpttsn 7y ago
        I’m not aware of any “science” on this, it’s gut level for me. Was TFA unconvincing? If you usually need hard numbers to disprove the effectiveness of treatment, be sure to stay away from homeopaths.
        gbrown 7y ago
        There's no scientifically justified causal basis for homeopathy, and well powered trials investigating it have repeatedly returned null results - that's pretty conclusive evidence against it in my book. In contrast, we have examples of consumer movements which led to regulatory or policy change, with or without the use of social stigma. I didn't find the article convincing, because I don't think Gates is looking at the right metrics. I agree with him that I don't expect to see carbon impacts to divestment right now, even a little bit. What I expect is that divestment (especially by institutional investors) will lower the barriers to heavy handed regulation in the future, and is a useful additional dimension to get people engaged in the climate fight now. Simply accepting "we all should just give up and not worry that we're invested in fossil fuels via our retirement accounts" is counter-intuitive to me.

Perhaps, though most people don't buy stock. If you can get institutional investors to divest, that limits most people's direct exposure. Do I expect it to necessarily make a big difference (especially in the short term, without becoming a broader movement)? No. I do believe, however, that it's not nothing, and that we need to pursue everything. There's also a personal aspect - I want nothing to do fossil fuel stocks. I try to limit my emissions in my personal life, so why not exercise that preference in whatever small way I can in my financial life?

jpttsn 7y ago
We need to pursue _everything_? Your time is surely scarce. Wouldn’t you want to pursue only the most effective things? Every minute you spend arguing for divestment is a minute you don’t spend arguing for nuclear.
- MiroF 7y ago
  Yes but if everyone is vested in fossil fuels nuclear won't happen, don't you see?
- gbrown 7y ago
  Ok, sure - pardon my use of expressive and imprecise language. I meant that we should pursue everything feasible from among the set potentially helpful or promising actions in as sensible a way as we can (infer a few more sensible qualifiers if you wish). Spending a couple minutes to switch my retirement allocations doesn't affect my ability to advocate for other policies. What I think we definitely want to avoid is the temptation to see an incomplete or minimally effective action (in the current context) and dismiss it, while we wait for a silver bullet. For example: "Individual actions aren't going to be enough, we need regulation. I might as well fly instead of drive." "Your divestment isn't going to make a difference, so don't bother." Both of those statements contain kernels of truth, but miss the fact that individual actions do have consequences in the aggregate, and cultural change is possible (and is one way to motivate policy change!).
  - jpttsn 7y ago
    I thing you greatly underestimate the cost of these ineffective actions. Using non-recyclable paper straws, selling my oil shares to someone else, etc. make me feel like I’ve done my part, and I’ll happily kick back for the rest of the day, week, year. After all, I have the dinner party bragging rights covered. Buying a letter of salvation from the Church is not the way to kick-start a streak of meaningful good-doing; it’s a way to get off the hook for actually pious things I could do.
    - gbrown 7y ago
      That's an intersting hypothesis, but that's all it is. Is there actually science about whether the effect of increased consciousness is cancelled out by corresponding complacency? Let me offer an alternative, also unsubstantiated hypothesis: it's tempting to use cynicism to reject small actions, and letting the perfect be the enemy of the good ends up harming efforts to make big change. Also, it seems crazy to me to compare straw choice to institutional disinvestment. The former is a rounding error, while the latter is macroeconomic in scope. I fail to see why it's a bad idea to try and stigmatize carbon capital.
      - jpttsn 7y ago
        I’m not aware of any “science” on this, it’s gut level for me. Was TFA unconvincing? If you usually need hard numbers to disprove the effectiveness of treatment, be sure to stay away from homeopaths.
        gbrown 7y ago
        There's no scientifically justified causal basis for homeopathy, and well powered trials investigating it have repeatedly returned null results - that's pretty conclusive evidence against it in my book. In contrast, we have examples of consumer movements which led to regulatory or policy change, with or without the use of social stigma. I didn't find the article convincing, because I don't think Gates is looking at the right metrics. I agree with him that I don't expect to see carbon impacts to divestment right now, even a little bit. What I expect is that divestment (especially by institutional investors) will lower the barriers to heavy handed regulation in the future, and is a useful additional dimension to get people engaged in the climate fight now. Simply accepting "we all should just give up and not worry that we're invested in fossil fuels via our retirement accounts" is counter-intuitive to me.