3 ms·

This is an interesting idea but impractical to implement. Not all companies are for sale, there are still real uses for coal, and "forcing something to happen"

This is an interesting idea but impractical to implement. Not all companies are for sale, there are still real uses for coal, and "forcing something to happen" doesn't always makes sense. It's his job to be the best capital allocator he can be, and buying a company just to shut it down is a way to lose a lot of money. Since they are sinking on their own, fighting to find better solutions for the future might have been a calculation he made that has better long term benefits.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
You would find economic ways to disable these companies from operating. You mustn’t buy a whole company to do this. Maybe you buy a key piece of real estate they need and tie them up in court for years. Maybe you find key employees and hire them away and pay them to garden at the Spheres in Seattle. Maybe you convince a port to no longer allow the transfer of coal through there using economic coercion or donations to city hall. Or you acquire the water rights near a coal plant so it can’t run its cooling operations, forcing early retirement. Lots of ways to skin a cat. Find the linchpin and apply as much force necessary with as little cash possible. One can be efficient and expedient simultaneously. I agree you have to do the math to pick the opportunities that allow for offsetting/retiring as much CO2 per dollar spent as possible. I’ve put together notes along these lines if someone with deep pockets is interested. Economic warfare is the most exciting exertion of force imho.
- codekilla 7y ago
  Do you think there is any appetite for funding these types of alternative ‘campaigns’. I’ve also thought a bit about this.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    I get mixed reactions from potential wealthy benefactors when I discuss these ideas. Some definitely shun them and would rather play a clean ballgame, but I have had exactly two who have asked who to make the check out to. In front of the right audience, there is an appetite.
    - codekilla 7y ago
      I wrote [1] a couple of months ago, a sort of 'clean baseball' version, under the overall auspices of a fund. I've also recently pitched an idea to win Senate seats, but haven't heard anything back on that one (major funding needed). Anyway, if there is interest, or just to brainstorm (as I enjoy this sorta thing), please drop me a line. grant AT eonias DOT (typical non-profit top level domain) [1] http://d28jgulqbmbful.cloudfront.net/EarthSWF.pdf http://d28jgulqbmbful.cloudfront.net/EarthSWF.pdf
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        I appreciate the share. I will be in touch!
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- KerryJones 7y ago
  Sure, and you stop coal from getting to a small town that used it to run it's power supplies, or heat, because you didn't offer a solution and suddenly removed it, or it jacks up the price for low-income/mid-income people. You need a solution, not just "shut down the company", people rely on those jobs. It needs to be an easing-out process.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    That’s your job as a citizen to vote for representation that implements such policies. Don’t like the policies, run for office and vote. I agree with you these people need to be taken care of (subsidizing energy efficiency programs, such as insulating their homes and installing heat pumps to get them off of coal or oil for thermal needs), but that’s the responsibility of their government (at the moment; I would of course like to see non government efforts if the resources can be mustered).
    - KerryJones 7y ago
      That's an incredibly optimistic perspective, as any minority will tell you. To argue that businesses should shutdown current solutions without creating new ones lacks a huge amount of responsibility and will lead to mass chaos. New solutions to be discussed and in place before or immediately after dissolution that could put thousands on the street, in poverty or medical care.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

You would find economic ways to disable these companies from operating. You mustn’t buy a whole company to do this. Maybe you buy a key piece of real estate they need and tie them up in court for years. Maybe you find key employees and hire them away and pay them to garden at the Spheres in Seattle. Maybe you convince a port to no longer allow the transfer of coal through there using economic coercion or donations to city hall. Or you acquire the water rights near a coal plant so it can’t run its cooling operations, forcing early retirement. Lots of ways to skin a cat. Find the linchpin and apply as much force necessary with as little cash possible. One can be efficient and expedient simultaneously. I agree you have to do the math to pick the opportunities that allow for offsetting/retiring as much CO2 per dollar spent as possible. I’ve put together notes along these lines if someone with deep pockets is interested. Economic warfare is the most exciting exertion of force imho.

codekilla 7y ago
Do you think there is any appetite for funding these types of alternative ‘campaigns’. I’ve also thought a bit about this.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  I get mixed reactions from potential wealthy benefactors when I discuss these ideas. Some definitely shun them and would rather play a clean ballgame, but I have had exactly two who have asked who to make the check out to. In front of the right audience, there is an appetite.
  - codekilla 7y ago
    I wrote [1] a couple of months ago, a sort of 'clean baseball' version, under the overall auspices of a fund. I've also recently pitched an idea to win Senate seats, but haven't heard anything back on that one (major funding needed). Anyway, if there is interest, or just to brainstorm (as I enjoy this sorta thing), please drop me a line. grant AT eonias DOT (typical non-profit top level domain) [1] http://d28jgulqbmbful.cloudfront.net/EarthSWF.pdf http://d28jgulqbmbful.cloudfront.net/EarthSWF.pdf
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      I appreciate the share. I will be in touch!
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
KerryJones 7y ago
Sure, and you stop coal from getting to a small town that used it to run it's power supplies, or heat, because you didn't offer a solution and suddenly removed it, or it jacks up the price for low-income/mid-income people. You need a solution, not just "shut down the company", people rely on those jobs. It needs to be an easing-out process.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  That’s your job as a citizen to vote for representation that implements such policies. Don’t like the policies, run for office and vote. I agree with you these people need to be taken care of (subsidizing energy efficiency programs, such as insulating their homes and installing heat pumps to get them off of coal or oil for thermal needs), but that’s the responsibility of their government (at the moment; I would of course like to see non government efforts if the resources can be mustered).
  - KerryJones 7y ago
    That's an incredibly optimistic perspective, as any minority will tell you. To argue that businesses should shutdown current solutions without creating new ones lacks a huge amount of responsibility and will lead to mass chaos. New solutions to be discussed and in place before or immediately after dissolution that could put thousands on the street, in poverty or medical care.