4 ms·

I think demand for fossil fuel free holdings is more of a risk reduction strategy greenwashed as something more.

• rcMgD2BwE72F 7y ago
  It could be legal too. Imagine an organization whose members voted to ban its management from investing in any fossil fuel (no matter the motives). Or a country whose law forbid any investment in some particular resources (e.g at some point, we could ban coal like we ban some drugs and weapons).
• mikro2nd 7y ago
  I think you're right for most cases. And that's OK. We still end up with an investment climate that's fossil-investment-averse, and that's good for the atmosphere/ocean in the long run[1] conducive to H. sap's continued existence. i.e. People doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is just fine. The right thing ends up being done. [1] for some value of 'long'...
  • pytester 7y ago
    >People doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is just fine. It's not laudable though.
    • murph-almighty 7y ago
      I'll take "alive" over "laudable" any day of the week. I understand the desire to dig into intentions here but we're not losing if we invest less in coal.
      • pytester 7y ago
        Potentially we are if an even more polluting investment becomes more profitable and they go for that. Gas, for instance, usually emits less CO2 but emits a lot more methane, which is ~90 times more warming. This is what coal is typically being replaced with. I'd like to know what is the point of giving investors a pat on the back for engaging in selfish behavior? It's like thanking a full tiger for not eating you.