3 ms·

> Of the 50 billionaires studied, around 40 percent of their investments were in high-polluting industries like oil, mining, and shipping, with few having signi

> Of the 50 billionaires studied, around 40 percent of their investments were in high-polluting industries like oil, mining, and shipping, with few having significant renewable energy investments. That means the average billionaire's investment portfolio is responsible for 340 times the emissions of private jets and yachts - combined. It doesn't make sense to tally someone's investments as them polluting. If they sell half their investment, the pollution emissions on earth don't go down. Oxfam just lost its credibility with me.

CalRobert 2y ago
In isolation, yes, but combined with divestment or investment via etf’s like VOTE it may be meaningful at some point.
bpfrh 2y ago
>It doesn't make sense to tally someone's investments as them polluting. If they sell half their investment, the pollution emissions on earth don't go down. No but your income depends on pollution happening and you investing in X company enables that company to raise cash to keep on polluting or in worst case start polluting.
- ivewonyoung 2y ago
  The demand does not go down, so someone else will step in to cash in. If all social media companies decided to shut down tomorrow because it's harmful to society, how many people on HN would be willing to launch their own to cash in? Probably almost everyone.
nobunaga 2y ago
What a silly take. Of course it wouldnt change things in an instant but i twould long term. So if everyone divested from fossil fuel companies, tanking their stock price, and redirected that cash to renewable energy companies, you are saying no impact would happen in the long term? I beg to differ. It would force these companies to actually change their long term strategies so that investors continue to provide cash to them. Dont worry, Oxfam doesnt need your simplistic views and support based on your own simplistic analysis.
fazeirony 2y ago
not really. one's investments will contribute to the companies' access to money which is then used in their businesses...to further pollute. whilst you are correct when one investor pulls out it doesn't reduce carbon emissions, you do have agency where you invest. for these people [those that choose to invest in companies that have poor environmental track records], their investments absolutely are perpetuating the problem.
nicce 2y ago
> It doesn't make sense to tally someone's investments as them polluting. If they sell half their investment, the pollution emissions on earth don't go down. Of course it makes. As long as someone keeps investing on things regardless of how much they pollute, the pollution will keep happening. People look for billionaires and see how they do invest. They think it is okay and good to invest for same things too, in order to make money. And pollution never ends.
frereubu 2y ago
They don't personally need the money from their investments any more given they have almost unimaginable amounts of it. However, if they collectively invested that wealth into realistic renewable energy companies / projects they could significantly shift the incentives of polluting energy companies. BP et al aren't going to take renewables seriously out of the goodness of their hearts (nor should they) so we have to create the economic environment in which they are incentivised to do that.
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  The ridiculous amounts of money they have are their investments. Hasn't Musk done exactly what you are demanding of him with Tesla and what ever his solar company is?
  - frereubu 2y ago
    > The ridiculous amounts of money they have are their investments. C'mon, you know what I mean. I bet there are plenty of non-polluting investments that they hold too. They're not suddenly going to become bankrupt because of investing in renewable energy. Maybe they'd be able to afford one less yacht or private jet, but I presume that, like me, you don't really care about that either. > Hasn't Musk done exactly what you are demanding of him with Tesla and what ever his solar company is? To some extent, yes. Much as I despise Musk as a person he's done a huge amount for electric cars at least. I haven't heard anything about the solar company recently, and the last I heard it was languishing very far down in the list of Tesla priorities. Tesla home batteries seem to be pretty ubiquitous though. But we're also talking about personal emissions here, and he hasn't invented an electric jet yet. The point is that we need to radically reduce emissions, and me personally insulating my house doesn't make a blind bit of difference if those at the top of the pile don't make significant changes themselves.
themaninthedark 2y ago
I would agree, especially since they are calling out Musk and Bezos by name but don't name a single other person. I don't see Bill Gates, Al Gore or Taylor Swift being called out. IIRC the last time there a summit happened in Egypt someone put together a list of all those who flew in private jets and the reaction was to start masking the passenger manifests for "security".
- frereubu 2y ago
  Yeah, while I generally agree with the direction of the article, not including someone like Taylor Swift make the argument too easy to dismiss.
serallak 2y ago
> shipping This is the odd one here. Sure, shipping/transportation as it is is highly polluting. But it's not something from which we as a civilization can opt out. We have to figure out how to reduce the impact, but having less of shipping is a non starter.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- shantara 2y ago
  A significant portion of the global shipping [1] is the transportation of fossil fuels, so a general transition to renewables would contribute to reducing that. [1] 40% according to https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbarnard/2023/12/05/how-will-climate-action-change-the-face-of-global-shipping/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbarnard/2023/12/05/how-w...
ggu7hgfk8j 2y ago
It really seems like scapegoating. Most of us want to live in a world with shipping and mining. They invest with our permission and encouragement. We have to take responsibility for that choice.

CalRobert 2y ago

In isolation, yes, but combined with divestment or investment via etf’s like VOTE it may be meaningful at some point.

bpfrh 2y ago

>It doesn't make sense to tally someone's investments as them polluting. If they sell half their investment, the pollution emissions on earth don't go down. No but your income depends on pollution happening and you investing in X company enables that company to raise cash to keep on polluting or in worst case start polluting.

ivewonyoung 2y ago
The demand does not go down, so someone else will step in to cash in. If all social media companies decided to shut down tomorrow because it's harmful to society, how many people on HN would be willing to launch their own to cash in? Probably almost everyone.

nobunaga 2y ago

What a silly take. Of course it wouldnt change things in an instant but i twould long term. So if everyone divested from fossil fuel companies, tanking their stock price, and redirected that cash to renewable energy companies, you are saying no impact would happen in the long term? I beg to differ. It would force these companies to actually change their long term strategies so that investors continue to provide cash to them. Dont worry, Oxfam doesnt need your simplistic views and support based on your own simplistic analysis.

fazeirony 2y ago

not really. one's investments will contribute to the companies' access to money which is then used in their businesses...to further pollute. whilst you are correct when one investor pulls out it doesn't reduce carbon emissions, you do have agency where you invest. for these people [those that choose to invest in companies that have poor environmental track records], their investments absolutely are perpetuating the problem.

nicce 2y ago

> It doesn't make sense to tally someone's investments as them polluting. If they sell half their investment, the pollution emissions on earth don't go down. Of course it makes. As long as someone keeps investing on things regardless of how much they pollute, the pollution will keep happening. People look for billionaires and see how they do invest. They think it is okay and good to invest for same things too, in order to make money. And pollution never ends.

frereubu 2y ago

They don't personally need the money from their investments any more given they have almost unimaginable amounts of it. However, if they collectively invested that wealth into realistic renewable energy companies / projects they could significantly shift the incentives of polluting energy companies. BP et al aren't going to take renewables seriously out of the goodness of their hearts (nor should they) so we have to create the economic environment in which they are incentivised to do that.

themaninthedark 2y ago
The ridiculous amounts of money they have are their investments. Hasn't Musk done exactly what you are demanding of him with Tesla and what ever his solar company is?
- frereubu 2y ago
  > The ridiculous amounts of money they have are their investments. C'mon, you know what I mean. I bet there are plenty of non-polluting investments that they hold too. They're not suddenly going to become bankrupt because of investing in renewable energy. Maybe they'd be able to afford one less yacht or private jet, but I presume that, like me, you don't really care about that either. > Hasn't Musk done exactly what you are demanding of him with Tesla and what ever his solar company is? To some extent, yes. Much as I despise Musk as a person he's done a huge amount for electric cars at least. I haven't heard anything about the solar company recently, and the last I heard it was languishing very far down in the list of Tesla priorities. Tesla home batteries seem to be pretty ubiquitous though. But we're also talking about personal emissions here, and he hasn't invented an electric jet yet. The point is that we need to radically reduce emissions, and me personally insulating my house doesn't make a blind bit of difference if those at the top of the pile don't make significant changes themselves.

themaninthedark 2y ago

I would agree, especially since they are calling out Musk and Bezos by name but don't name a single other person. I don't see Bill Gates, Al Gore or Taylor Swift being called out. IIRC the last time there a summit happened in Egypt someone put together a list of all those who flew in private jets and the reaction was to start masking the passenger manifests for "security".

frereubu 2y ago
Yeah, while I generally agree with the direction of the article, not including someone like Taylor Swift make the argument too easy to dismiss.

serallak 2y ago

> shipping This is the odd one here. Sure, shipping/transportation as it is is highly polluting. But it's not something from which we as a civilization can opt out. We have to figure out how to reduce the impact, but having less of shipping is a non starter.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
shantara 2y ago
A significant portion of the global shipping [1] is the transportation of fossil fuels, so a general transition to renewables would contribute to reducing that. [1] 40% according to https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbarnard/2023/12/05/how-will-climate-action-change-the-face-of-global-shipping/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbarnard/2023/12/05/how-w...

ggu7hgfk8j 2y ago

It really seems like scapegoating. Most of us want to live in a world with shipping and mining. They invest with our permission and encouragement. We have to take responsibility for that choice.