3 ms·
He still doesn't really get it. The big problem with ESG is that the entire fundamental premise pushed by the media that inspired it is a lie: the world isn't e
by makomk 4y ago
He still doesn't really get it. The big problem with ESG is that the entire fundamental premise pushed by the media that inspired it is a lie: the world isn't emitting masses of greenhouse gases just because it means more profits for big corporations, and the main consequence of fossil fuel corporations not pumping out so much fuel isn't that they and their shareholders make less money. Ordinary comsumers really do get direct benefits from fossil fuels, this isn't just some clever propaganda line big fossil fuel came up with to protect their profits.
We've actually seen this demonstrated, though not via BlackRock (because the idea that they were somehow responsible was another lie pushed by the media to give people someone to hate). ESG campaigners have successfully discouraged investment in new fossil fuel extraction in much of the world. The world's consumption of fossil fuels is now being strangled at the source, exactly as publications like the Guardian campaigned for them to be. The consequences? Fossil fuel corporation profits at record highs and ordinary people unable to afford food and heating - which is of course exactly what you'd expect to happen when there's insufficient supply, with prices being driven up until people are forced to reduce their use of fossil fuels and the profits going to those that chose to carry on produciung and not starve and freeze the poor further.
- TomSwirly 4y ago"Let's not call the fire department, because they would break the windows. Let's sit here in the living room and wait for the fire to burn out." So what's your game plan, then? Continue to burn fossil fuels and guarantee +5Cº and up? This is death for our descendents and for a million non-human species. --- Also, I note a large number of claims about the real world, claims which seem wildly false, yet none of them do you actually prove with facts, data, citations or anything. Given that your basic argument is, "We can't afford not to kill our ecosystem," I think you are going to need more than that.
- Gasp0de 4y agoThat is such a short sighted answer I don't even know if I should reply to it as it is most probably intentional propaganda, but here it goes: Obviously, the end consumer profits from cheap energy. However, the energy from fossil fuels is only cheaper because it massively destroys our planet, a cost which is not currently paid by those producing or using those fossil fuels. Also, renewable energy nowadays would be cheaper than fossil fuels even if you ignore the reparation costs, if there were enough of them built yet. However, some politicians (in cooperation with fossil fuel companies) do what they can to prolong this process because they want to profit from fossil fuels as long as possible.