3 ms·

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 ba

by 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.

by eloff 6y ago

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.