4 ms·

We're not talking about that kind of risk to humanity here. We're talking specifically financial risk to the bank.

by eloff 6y ago

burkaman 6y ago
The financial well-being of banks is inextricably tied to the financial well-being of their human customers and employees. Until they can find a new species to take over, "risk to humanity" is relevant.
- eloff 6y ago
  Not to the bank. The bank's actions won't make one iota of difference either way to climate change. All the banks acting together could - but each individual bank, much like each individual person can do nothing that will matter. It's a tragedy of the commons. So it's not an actual risk to the bank acting alone in its own interest - despite the fact that the risk to humanity as a whole is very real.
  - burkaman 6y ago
    I disagree, climate change is not an on/off switch. There is a spectrum of possibilities, and marginal changes can have marginal effects. Of course group action is more meaningful, and that's why this group of investors is pressuring a group of banks.
    - eloff 6y ago
      > There is a spectrum of possibilities, and marginal changes can have marginal effects. That marginal effect is exactly that, marginal. It makes as much difference as adding a single drop of water to the ocean. If you're doing a risk calculation, which is what we're talking about - not a moral calculation - then adding zero to any term in the calculation doesn't change the result. I know where you're coming from, your heart is in the right place, but your mathematically wrong here. > Of course group action is more meaningful, and that's why this group of investors is pressuring a group of banks. That's the only way it can work. I wish them luck.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    > The bank's actions won't make one iota of difference either way to climate change How do you know these banks aren't betting that being seen as climate-friendly will make them more attractive to customers and investors? And thereby increase pressure on competitor banks that aren't similarly climate-friendly to follow suit? This would result in the type of coordinated action that actually can make a difference to climate change at a macro level. Mission accomplished. At the end of the day banks are businesses doing what they feel is right for themselves. If you disagree with how they run their business, you should divest yourself from them and end your business relationship with them.
triceratops 6y ago
The global economy tanking due to climate-driven catastrophes isn't a financial risk to the bank? Why not?
gremlinsinc 6y ago
How does the bank profit if all shareholders, board, CEO, and their progenity are wiped out by the end of mankind? Seems money REaLLY becomes worthless at that point.
- eloff 6y ago
  Climate change is not the end of mankind. Your point is valid without the hyperbole, but see my comment above for why it doesn't necessarily matter to the bank.

We're not talking about that kind of risk to humanity here. We're talking specifically financial risk to the bank.

by eloff 6y ago

We're not talking about that kind of risk to humanity here. We're talking specifically financial risk to the bank.

The financial well-being of banks is inextricably tied to the financial well-being of their human customers and employees. Until they can find a new species to take over, "risk to humanity" is relevant.

eloff 6y ago
Not to the bank. The bank's actions won't make one iota of difference either way to climate change. All the banks acting together could - but each individual bank, much like each individual person can do nothing that will matter. It's a tragedy of the commons. So it's not an actual risk to the bank acting alone in its own interest - despite the fact that the risk to humanity as a whole is very real.
- burkaman 6y ago
  I disagree, climate change is not an on/off switch. There is a spectrum of possibilities, and marginal changes can have marginal effects. Of course group action is more meaningful, and that's why this group of investors is pressuring a group of banks.
  - eloff 6y ago
    > There is a spectrum of possibilities, and marginal changes can have marginal effects. That marginal effect is exactly that, marginal. It makes as much difference as adding a single drop of water to the ocean. If you're doing a risk calculation, which is what we're talking about - not a moral calculation - then adding zero to any term in the calculation doesn't change the result. I know where you're coming from, your heart is in the right place, but your mathematically wrong here. > Of course group action is more meaningful, and that's why this group of investors is pressuring a group of banks. That's the only way it can work. I wish them luck.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > The bank's actions won't make one iota of difference either way to climate change How do you know these banks aren't betting that being seen as climate-friendly will make them more attractive to customers and investors? And thereby increase pressure on competitor banks that aren't similarly climate-friendly to follow suit? This would result in the type of coordinated action that actually can make a difference to climate change at a macro level. Mission accomplished. At the end of the day banks are businesses doing what they feel is right for themselves. If you disagree with how they run their business, you should divest yourself from them and end your business relationship with them.

triceratops 6y ago

The global economy tanking due to climate-driven catastrophes isn't a financial risk to the bank? Why not?

gremlinsinc 6y ago

How does the bank profit if all shareholders, board, CEO, and their progenity are wiped out by the end of mankind? Seems money REaLLY becomes worthless at that point.

eloff 6y ago
Climate change is not the end of mankind. Your point is valid without the hyperbole, but see my comment above for why it doesn't necessarily matter to the bank.