4 ms·
By bundling S and G together with E, we've doomed E. It's almost like that's what the oil companies wanted. Even if you agree with some/all of the "ESG" goals
by FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
By bundling S and G together with E, we've doomed E. It's almost like that's what the oil companies wanted.
Even if you agree with some/all of the "ESG" goals though, it almost doesn't matter, because when you look at the ETFs that've been marked with that word, you see they're full of Exxon and Philip Morris like all the others -- just with a larger fee on top, for all the suckers.
- blahblah1234567 4y agoExcellent point. I fully agree. It disenfranchises environment/energy/natural resource conservation efforts to associate them with woke topics such as "social equity" and related "governance" efforts. I am personally a conservative environmentalist. Virtually 100% of "woke" related concepts to me, represent inculcation by foreign governments seeking to destabilize western societies. The environment must not be politicized. It is the foundation of all biota including humans of course-- it is the matrix we live within.
- Kon-Peki 4y agoWhat's the problem with the "G"? Most of the oil companies score pretty well on the "G" - since it's really just a measure of how well-run they are and how responsive they are to shareholders.
- freejazz 4y agoESG is and never was anything but a buzzword