"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.
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.
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.