4 ms·

This site seems to be equal parts dishonest and confused. Dishonest because they point out that Autodesk, a publicly traded company, has a portion of its stock

This site seems to be equal parts dishonest and confused. Dishonest because they point out that Autodesk, a publicly traded company, has a portion of its stock owned by Blackrock, one of the world's largest investment companies. Not only does Autodesk have no control over who its investors are (anyone can buy stock!), but Blackrock owns pieces of lots of things, and is not primarily in the business of owning fossil fuel companies. Confused because this is such a weird and unproductive way to go about advocating for fixing climate change. Let's think this out, since the activist chose not to. Suppose Autodesk does what he wants and says "we will not sell you Autodesk products." What will the mining company do? They have many options. They may hire a mechanical design company that already has Autodesk licenses to do the work for them. They may use a different CAD package. (The activist suggests this is an invalid point, but doesn't explain why; there are many CAD packages available and it's clear they can choose another one.) There is no endgame in which this writer's ultimate goal, even if it were wholly achieved, makes any positive difference to the environment. What's the point? It's a waste of time. Advocate instead for systemic change that stops coal mining from being cost effective and will cause systemic diversion of capital away from coal and toward greener sources of energy. That can take the form of carbon taxes, or regulation on toxic mining effluents, or advocating for subsidies of green energy, et cetera. Each of those has an endgame that, if successful, makes a meaningful and positive impact on our planet's climate. Unlike this effort.

basch 6y ago
>Blackrock owns pieces of lots of things, and is not primarily in the business of owning fossil fuel companies. [...] Confused because this is such a weird and unproductive way to go about advocating for fixing climate change. Blackrock and Vanguard are a promising, scary, and potentially very effective way to go about climate change change. Blackrock has, in the past, taken a passive approach, not exerting its ownership to change the direction of companies. That is changing. >Climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects. Last September, when millions of people took to the streets to demand action on climate change, many of them emphasized the significant and lasting impact that it will have on economic growth and prosperity – a risk that markets to date have been slower to reflect. But awareness is rapidly changing, and I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance. >Given the groundwork we have already laid engaging on disclosure, and the growing investment risks surrounding sustainability, we will be increasingly disposed to vote against management and board directors when companies are not making sufficient progress on sustainability-related disclosures and the business practices and plans underlying them. https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry... As others have said, talk is cheap, we will see how they act on their new strategic direction. Maybe they continue to be their own version of a vampire squid or giant refrigerator perpetually keeping us unchanged and frozen in the past, or maybe they will be an NGO that both offers shared ownership of capital and votes wisely for the preservation of the planet.
wcerfgba 6y ago
Systemic change is an emergent property at the level above individual actions. If Autodesk chose not to supply a mining company, sure the mining company could go and find another software supplier. However, if multiple companies refuse to sell software to the mining company, then it becomes much harder for the mining company to acquire software and do their business. This would be an example of systemic change at the market level.

basch 6y ago

>Blackrock owns pieces of lots of things, and is not primarily in the business of owning fossil fuel companies. [...] Confused because this is such a weird and unproductive way to go about advocating for fixing climate change. Blackrock and Vanguard are a promising, scary, and potentially very effective way to go about climate change change. Blackrock has, in the past, taken a passive approach, not exerting its ownership to change the direction of companies. That is changing. >Climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects. Last September, when millions of people took to the streets to demand action on climate change, many of them emphasized the significant and lasting impact that it will have on economic growth and prosperity – a risk that markets to date have been slower to reflect. But awareness is rapidly changing, and I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance. >Given the groundwork we have already laid engaging on disclosure, and the growing investment risks surrounding sustainability, we will be increasingly disposed to vote against management and board directors when companies are not making sufficient progress on sustainability-related disclosures and the business practices and plans underlying them. https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry... As others have said, talk is cheap, we will see how they act on their new strategic direction. Maybe they continue to be their own version of a vampire squid or giant refrigerator perpetually keeping us unchanged and frozen in the past, or maybe they will be an NGO that both offers shared ownership of capital and votes wisely for the preservation of the planet.

wcerfgba 6y ago

Systemic change is an emergent property at the level above individual actions. If Autodesk chose not to supply a mining company, sure the mining company could go and find another software supplier. However, if multiple companies refuse to sell software to the mining company, then it becomes much harder for the mining company to acquire software and do their business. This would be an example of systemic change at the market level.