11 ms·
British billionaire Hohn launches campaign to starve coal plants of finance
- JohnJamesRambo 7y agoWhile your hero might be a guy making a Cybertruck and talking about living on Mars, this guy is my hero.
- mathieuh 7y agoHe can go to Mars and stay. I don’t understand why so many people just accept the rhetoric of Musk and Gates, so-called “liberal capitalists” (liberal in the modern meaning, not classical liberal). They made their money through exploiting other people’s labour, that’s the only way you accumulate such capital. They then go on to donate a vanishingly small amount relatively to recognisable, bleeding-heart-liberal causes and everything they did to get here is forgotten and forgiven.
- wilg 7y ago> They made their money through exploiting other people’s labour, that’s the only way you accumulate such capital. Is that true? Maybe, but I guess it hinges on your definition of "exploit". I think you can make money (in theory, of any amount) without exploiting people. > They then go on to donate a vanishingly small amount Haven't they both pledged to donate 99% in their lifetimes? Plus you could argue the companies themselves (where at least Musk's wealth is mostly locked up) are helpful. At least Tesla.
- stuaxo 7y agoBy taking a bigger % of the work put in than the person doing the work == exploiting.
- diffeomorphism 7y agoSo any management position is exploitation? Being the boss of any manufacturing business is exploitation? Hint: Even if you take only 1% of the work but employ 1000 people you are going to get rich. Your benchmark for what is exploiting seems to not work particularly well in practice.
- samcday 7y ago> So any management position is exploitation? Being the boss of any manufacturing business is exploitation? In many peoples opinion (including mine), yes. This can all be considered wage slavery. Of course the magnitude and severity varies. A worker in the Gigafactory (probably) has a higher standard of living than the one in the Foxconn factory, who in turn probably has a better standard of living than the worker in the Nike sweatshop. But it’s all the same thing.
- virgilp 7y ago> wage slavery Also called a "job". You're telling me I'm a wage slave? (in the last 10 years nobody reported to me, I was never self-employed). Through this sort of wage slavery in the last 10years, I have achieved an incredibly high standard of living, compared to the regular citizens of any age in human history. I think this narrative is just devaluing the meaning of words and the suffering of those who really are exploited.
- nicoburns 7y agoA lot of people (even in first-world countries) have zero chance of becoming a multi-millionaire, and even struggle to make ends meet, pay their rent, etc. That is the problem, not highly compensated workers. And it is an economic system which awards a vastly disproportionate share of resources to people like Musk and Gates that deprives others of those same resources.
- virgilp 7y ago
- econcon 7y ago>Is that true? Maybe, but I guess it hinges on your definition of "exploit". I think you can make money (in theory, of any amount) without exploiting people There would be no excess for the founder if you distribute all the money that a company operation makes evenly to all employees and owners. That's what they mean when they summon the world "exploit". Roman slaves weren't exploited in the ways some layman might imagine.
- vzcx 7y agoFounders are typically the first and primary owners, at least initially... Is the objection that founders and investors get a larger slice? People have a strange reaction to the word 'exploit.' It smells bad, and it gives the sense that those using the term want something to smell bad. 'Exploit' just means 'to make productive use of' to me. Musk 'exploited' his workers? Good. Theyre making cool stuff. That's what he should be doing. A company 'exploited' a uranium deposit? Good. We need those hot rocks for fuel rods.
- econcon 7y agoI also own a company but many times who work for us often have similar ideas like "owners are taking too much, they are stealing from us".
- modo_mario 7y ago>Haven't they both pledged to donate 99% in their lifetimes? Didn't gates massively increase his wealth in the period in which he said he'd give away half of it? >Plus you could argue the companies themselves (where at least Musk's wealth is mostly locked up) are helpful. At least Tesla. But would they exist without him? He's certainly been good at marketing himself and by extension his companies. On the other hand he also just bought the rights to the title founder at tesla so the actual original founders can't call themselves that which many people don't seem to realize. Meanwhile they kept hostage battery tech advantage via Panasonic. And then there's spacex and Solar city which happily survived on tax payer funds whilst the later maybe didn't help green energy adoption as much as a competitor might have in it's stead as they basically did Chinese solar panel resale which were going at dumping prices and the EU was blocking for that rezason....And i think they also had/have some fun gov bribery accusations against em which reflects badly on the billions in taxpayer subsidies they managed to waste. Meanwhile whilst an increase in NASA's budget wasn't politically feasible it's been a notoriously monetarily efficient institution.
- 101404 7y agoThey made their money by providing tools that saved others a lot of money. It's not 1850 anymore.
- de_watcher 7y agoDon't lump Musk and Gates together.
- 101404 7y agoVery true. Gates made his money using very shady tactics at the cost of the consumer. Now he uses that money to buy himself a favorable place in the history books by doing things that don't help but look good.
- lawlessone 7y ago> Now he uses that money to buy himself a favorable place in the history I agree >doing things that don't help but look good I disagree, they seem to do a lot for vaccinations
- 101404 7y agoYes, it looks good. They spend a lot of money. But, if you look at all the countries that have successfully won the fight against malaria (many Latin American countries, southern US, southern EU, etc): it wasn't because of vaccines but because of good public administration. Anyway, sure it's good that money goes to vaccines research. But so far it only looks good. They also spend money on other areas.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago> Gates made his money using very shady tactics at the cost of the consumer. In part, but the other part of that is making software that vastly increased human productivity with a computer at an incredibly competitive price point.
- 101404 7y agoAnd destroying other software that increased productivity using pretty shady methods. But it's interesting to see that his "old image" already almost vanished. His strategy to "do things that look good" seems to work. Humans have very short memories after all.
- roenxi 7y ago> They made their money through exploiting other people’s labour, that’s the only way you accumulate such capital. What alternative do you want to see? Perhaps a world where everyone is using linux and everyone compiles their own software? It isn't a laughable idea, but the idea that if the labour hadn't been exploited we'd be better off is not a good one. If labour isn't exploited it is wasted; it isn't like programmers or mechanics are a special breed of person who appeared in the modern era. These people are the same people we've always had and the evidence is we get much better results when working within a corporate structure. There wasn't and isn't a law saying that Musk and Gates had to own the the corporations. If workers want co-ops I'm sure they'd manage.
- nicoburns 7y agoNobody wants the labour not to occur. But some of us want the fruits of that labour to be more evenly distributed. That could be as simple as keeping a corporate structure, but taxing it more aggressively and/or raising minimum wages.
- Grazester 7y agoAs much as I am not a big fan of Musk, I say he is also playing his part. He has shown that EV's don't have to be boring nor ugly and made people actually want to own one. He's has also build out battery storage for the grid. When you have all wind and solar energy now how do you storage that energy for a consistent supply during all hours including during peak demand? All of this is needed in the fight. It certainly wouldn't take one man to win it.
- kstenerud 7y agoMy hero is a guy who is the closest thing we have to a Seldon Plan. He made electric cars a consumer reality. He is making space travel significantly cheaper. He is making energy storage significantly cheaper. He made roof tiles that have a similar cost to regular tiles, but also collect solar energy. He is making tunnelling cheaper. He is blanketing the Earth in a RAIS satellite communications network, in a model that can be replicated on other planets. All of these previously-considered-risky techs converge to promote sustainable energy, transport, communications, space travel, and terraforming. The fact that he can be a dick doesn't diminish these accomplishments.
- eigenvalue 7y agoWhy does everyone need to couch their praise of him by saying he can be a dick, or "I don't like him as a person, but...". He is human and subject to emotions. He is also under an insane amount of pressure and stress that few people could probably even imagine. And on top of that, he is subject to as much press scrutiny as Michael Jackson. I challenge anyone to thrive in that sort of situation while maintaining a high degree of authenticity.
- kstenerud 7y agoBecause as a person, I don't like him. Using your massive social influence to slander someone, calling him a pedophile, is reprehensible behavior that cannot be excused by "pressure". The fact that it took a lawsuit to force him to apologize makes it even worse. However, as an innovator and driver of human progress, he is a godsend. I didn't like Steve Jobs either. He was a massive dick, but he did usher in the smartphone revolution, and brought U/X to the mainstream.
- LatteLazy 7y agoHe just has convince every other private investor, every government, every bank and pension fund and the owners of existing plants to all agree. Literally every single one.
- stuaxo 7y agoHe just has to convince the big ones first, most just follow.
- diffeomorphism 7y agoNot really. You don't need to get anywhere close to 100% to effectively make coal too expensive to be worth it. Even if he just convinces a few big ones that will make coal operations more expensive, hence less attractive also for other ones, hence more expensive... . Viscous cycle, virtuous cycle and all that. To win you only need the price to increase to a higher level than preferable alternatives and the market will do the rest.
- LatteLazy 7y agoHow does not being funded by a few investors etc make it more expensive to be funded by others? Remember, these projects are inherently very profitable because coal is cheap and easy (and dirty, but dirty isn't a cost). If a big name won't invest for a 5% return, I'm sure 1001 small names will...
- diffeomorphism 7y ago> How does not being funded by a few investors etc make it more expensive to be funded by others? Supply and demand. If the number of investors goes down, the remaining ones can charge higher rates. The 1001 small names would be stupid to invest for 5% if they can get 6%. The coal company would build even more plants if it were lucrative, but at 6% such and such big investment does not make financial sense anymore.
- sjwalter 7y ago
- xvilka 7y agoThere are some countries like Australia and Japan that only increase investment in coal mining and burning. It's hard to starve such a big economies.
- mariushn 7y agoAfter so many fires in Australia, how come there aren't any protests to decrease coal mining? Yes, most of that is exported and producing money for mining companies, which pay AU taxes and employ miners. But still, that's a small fraction of AU population.
- sjwalter 7y agoI was reading a book to my kids yesterday that had an opening rant about how the wildfires over Australia are a massive problem and our forest management system is a disgrace globally. Flying at 10000 feet led to coughing and choking, seemed like it was everywhere in the country. The author was Jacques Cousteau, the book was written in 1973. Australia’s been dealing with giant wildfires forever. It’s not clear whether the fires are getting bigger or smaller with time, what impact forest management has in same, and whether smaller fires closer to population centers get more press and then make it seem like the problem is worse when it may not be. Global heating is a slow burn, but we’re all poised to read any climate tragedy on it.
- gambiting 7y ago>> It’s not clear whether the fires are getting bigger or smaller with time I'm pretty sure that it's very very clear that the fires are getting maybe not bigger, but definitely more frequent. Sure 1973 might have had a fire as bad as the one this year, the problem is that Australia is now expected to have such a fire every year or even multiple times a year, instead of once a decade or so.
- sjwalter 7y agoThis is largely a forest management issue and not one of global heating. Forest management used to focus on eliminating fires entirely. This has the impact of building up brush to the point where any fire became massive. They thought they were reducing fires, but they actually just increased amplitude and decreased frequency. It’s kinda like dams for flood control, but with different time scales. A few dams for flood control reduces flood frequency massively, and we build up population centers in what was previously deserted floodplain. Then a flood (dam failure eg Oroville came pretty close) has a huuuuge systemic and possibly chain reaction, trading semiannual road blockages from minor flooding into one Whoa Noah every hundred years.
- itg 7y agoI see nothing in the article about helping workers who would be out of jobs when coal plants shut down. The headlines will read "Billionaire causes thousands of blue-collar workers to lose their jobs".
- ggm 7y agoThousands of future people won't die of asthma related illnesses. Most of the older workers will fail to find work but most of the younger workers will succeed. Non-coal energy industries seem to create jobs, your pessimism is possibly overrated. You do know that PV and solar is understood to be net job creating? Do you actually want us to be drowning in the horse manure, literally tonnes a day, from still depending on horses, because horseless carriages will under employ postboys and farriers?
- itg 7y agoNot arguing that we should avoid clean energy, but if one person with so many resources can effect the coal industry, the least they can do is also help the people who would be affected by it through job retraining, etc.
- ben_w 7y ago£1 billion is a lot for one person; yet very little for 3 million people, even when most of them are on Chinese wages.
- mariushn 7y agoPlease separate the issues. 2 different problems, need 2 different solutions for each. Similar problems is with state workers in bureaucracies. In my country, citizens spend hours in queues, filling forms etc. when it could all be done online and have simpler laws. If the purpose is for the state worker to have a job, let her stay at home and get paid, rather than causing more harm just to have a job.
- rypskar 7y agoHow many do actually work in coal industry compared to how many works in the renewable energy industry?
- ykevinator 7y agoHalf of us don't acknowledge a problem.
- _red 7y agoSounds like coal is competing against his other investments. Pretty smart way to dress up your self-interest as a virtue.
- icebraining 7y agoRunning businesses that pollute less than the alternatives is a virtue.
- akiselev 7y agoHe's not running the businesses, he's just an investor. The former gives him power to do something about it, the latter gives him plausible deniability.
- frockington1 7y agoUntil you've made energy so expensive lower class families get an extra financial burden to handle
- icebraining 7y agoInvestment in non-fossil fuels is exactly what was needed to make them cheaper that fossil, and in many cases they already are.
- IshKebab 7y agoThis such nonsense. Green tariffs (where 100% of electricity is from renewable sources, and sometimes a bit of your gas is biogas) are essentially the same price as non-green tariffs in the UK.
- frockington1 7y agoAnd what about in Kazakhstan? Primary source of energy is from coal. Should we let them freeze because they aren't as fortunate as you to live in the UK?
- dharma1 7y agoI think this is great. It's worth actually reading the letters - https://ciff.org/news/ciff-calls-leading-banks-and-regulators-end-coal-finance/ https://ciff.org/news/ciff-calls-leading-banks-and-regulator... He is asking for banks to publicly disclose their coal loan exposures and significantly increase the applied risk-weighting of these coal loans. Sounds prudent to me.
- perfunctory 7y agoDivestment is one of the most effective ways to fight climate change. And guess what, you can do it yourself too. Shift your investments from fossil to green. If you can't find enough worthy greens, shift it to anything else. Some say it won't impact your returns: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-mythical-peril-of-divesting-from-fossil-fuels/ http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-mythical-per... Move your deposits and savings to a more sustainable bank. It's very easy to do yet quite powerful https://fairfinanceguide.org https://fairfinanceguide.org
- mech1234 7y agoIn terms of investment risk and returns: The more honest approach is to admit that shifting your investments will make you marginally less diversified and exposed to marginally greater idiosyncratic risk, but to weigh the tradeoffs and to do it anyway. The tradeoffs include the possibility that the remaining investors who do not choose to starve the industry have greater investment upside by being able to buy at a less competitive/lower price.
- ryanmercer 7y agoIt's far easier, and safer, for me (many of us) to invest in broad market index funds though. I have neither the skill nor time to track individual companies. I'm just trying to have enough money for basic cost of living when I'm 70, I only make about 34k a year (and turn 35 this month) and am unable to even adequately fund my retirement so I can't afford to gamble on random renewable energy companies I'm guessing I'm invested, via such funds, in numerous fossil fuel companies. It's just gotta be that way for a lot of us.
- richardknop 7y agoThere are ETFs that don't invest in fossil fuel companies. You can invest in these ETFs to get broad market exposure minus fossil fuel companies.
- bamboozled 7y agoI have done this and they’ve been performing excellently for me.
- Hitton 7y agoOr how to make investing into coal plants more profitable for those who don't buy into this guy's campaign. One would expect this to reach Nash equilibrium with barely any change.
- RickJWagner 7y agoI doubt it'll work. If the business is profitable, capital will find a way to flow to it.
- ptah 7y agohis point is that profitability will go down sharply in an abrupt manner
- 2zcon 7y agoI didn't interpret the letter as laying out a plan that must work. I understood: - If governments stop funding coal, coal goes down. - Governments are likely to stop funding coal. - Coal is likely to go down. - This risk isn't adequately represented.
- jsjddbbwj 7y agoNice, I'm sure many people will appreciate being out of a job.
- _ph_ 7y ago"Jobs" is never a great argument to defend a technology overtaken by development. It is an especially bad argument in this context, because not only is coal endangering the whole society, but when we close down coal plants, we continue to need electricity. So the coal plants are replaced, usually these days with renewable sources. And those tend to be more labor-intensive than coal. So "jobs" is actually a good reason to close down coal plants.
- SteveSmith16384 7y agoWe still need the power, so new jobs will be created at the "alternative" power plants, whatever they will be.
- multiplegeorges 7y agoYes, I too still weep for the poor unemployed farriers and lamplighters of the world.
- dgudkov 7y agoI hope re-education of the plant workers is part of this campaign.
- ptah 7y agocoal miners should be encouraged to claim compensation as well: https://www.gov.uk/coal-health-compensation-claims https://www.gov.uk/coal-health-compensation-claims
- frockington1 7y agoLess privileged people who who rely on cheap but dirty energy will get to chose between starving and staying warm. Renewable energy research being done by these companies will cease to exist. This seems incredibly naive at best, at worst it's intentionally malicious and devoid of compassion.
- burkaman 7y agoThe money that would have funded these plants is not just going to disappear. And there is more than enough money going around to keep the poor warm and fed. People in countries like South Korea and Japan are obviously not going to starve if their central banks stop investing in coal.
- frockington1 7y agoI'm not worried about South Korea and Japan. If you cut off funding to every coal plant, massive regions of Africa, South America, and Central Asia will be without any source of heat and electricity (or more likely they will just burn something worse). I want to see renewable, but not at the cost of entire nations going dark and freezing in the winter months
- icebraining 7y agoFunding for operating existing plants comes from the clients and/or the government, or possibly from bank loans for cashflow management. Investor money is usually for funding new plants or mines. The only reason most existing plants might close is if cheaper alternatives provide a better service.
- turc1656 7y ago"In his letter to Carney, dated Feb. 28, Hohn warned that British banks were “highly likely” to suffer losses on coal financing as the cost of renewables continued to fall and regulations on air pollution and carbon emissions tighten." If that's the case then Hohn shouldn't even need to push this agenda at all. Coal usage would go down dramatically naturally based on market competition from renewables based on his own statement. Either he doesn't believe that, or he does and there's something else going on.
- dharma1 7y agoI think it's mostly to do with timing. What he is highlighting is risk mispricing when it comes to coal loans (that aren't properly disclosed to shareholders of banks). But the effects of this mispricing - and market competition from renewables can take years to play out. In the meanwhile, climate change doesn't wait - if we want to have any chance of not going beyond widely accepted atmospheric CO2 limits, it's important no new fossil fuel infrastructure is built.
- justaguyhere 7y agoThis is good, but I wish we aren't so dependent on the largesse of billionaires for every major, planet threatening problem there is to solve