"Without policies such as regulations or taxes on very polluting investments, it's unlikely that wealthy individuals making a lot of money from fossil fuel investments will stop investing in them," says one economist.
One of the high-growth sectors in most american’s 401k’s is “Energy”. This is a euphemism for fossil fuel companies, such as Shell, BP, and the various supporting industries. Another high-growth sector is “home construction,” which is literally an industry that exist to pave over paradises and put in parking lots creating sprawling suburbs in it’s wake that are owned by companies like Blackrock.
To be fair, you can’t really get away from that, especially since you don’t really have the ability to manage your 401k that way. But passive growing investments absolutely feed Capitalism and directly contribute to the massive polluters.
So workers should forgo the high-growth sectors and fuck themselves over…. for what exactly? Not buying their stock has 0 impact on their growth or outlook.
You can invest in them, if there what’s growing, while at the same time not actually using stuff from those industries. Live in 100 year old house in a walkable city, with an electric car (if needed), which you charge with solar panels so you don’t need to pull from the coal powered grid.
Then I’m not sure what the point of this discussion is, as it seems to be trying to tell people they need to sell their stock to be moral in the eyes of the climate change advocates.
Hard to say what the motivation of this article is, but yea I agree. The article seems listless. They make a grand claim “10% is responsible for 40%!!!” but they dont’ really examine the claim. I absolutely think it’s a true, but without further analysis and a conclusion to be drawn, what is the point? The point of the article as far as I can tell is to advocate for a market based solution that somehow a carbon-based tax will magically make share-holders stop destroying the environment? It’s drivel.
One of the high-growth sectors in most american’s 401k’s is “Energy”. This is a euphemism for fossil fuel companies, such as Shell, BP, and the various supporting industries. Another high-growth sector is “home construction,” which is literally an industry that exist to pave over paradises and put in parking lots creating sprawling suburbs in it’s wake that are owned by companies like Blackrock.
To be fair, you can’t really get away from that, especially since you don’t really have the ability to manage your 401k that way. But passive growing investments absolutely feed Capitalism and directly contribute to the massive polluters.
So workers should forgo the high-growth sectors and fuck themselves over…. for what exactly? Not buying their stock has 0 impact on their growth or outlook.
You can invest in them, if there what’s growing, while at the same time not actually using stuff from those industries. Live in 100 year old house in a walkable city, with an electric car (if needed), which you charge with solar panels so you don’t need to pull from the coal powered grid.
This isn’t a problem that an individual investor can or should be expected to solve.
Then I’m not sure what the point of this discussion is, as it seems to be trying to tell people they need to sell their stock to be moral in the eyes of the climate change advocates.
Hard to say what the motivation of this article is, but yea I agree. The article seems listless. They make a grand claim “10% is responsible for 40%!!!” but they dont’ really examine the claim. I absolutely think it’s a true, but without further analysis and a conclusion to be drawn, what is the point? The point of the article as far as I can tell is to advocate for a market based solution that somehow a carbon-based tax will magically make share-holders stop destroying the environment? It’s drivel.
That’s just more carbon offset bull shit, which is mostly a scam.
It’s 100% a scam.