"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.
A valid critique, but also worth mentioning, as discussed in the article, much of the GHG emissions for the top 10% (which includes households down to ~$200k) comes from passive income.
Friendly reminder to check who you bank with and what’s in your 401k if you find yourself in that group.
Having not read the article, I would wager a guess that because 401k balances are invested in diverse funds, and if the fund composition includes corporations contributing to emissions… and you are making money off their profitability… you are therefore contributing to those emissions. Pick other things to invest in.
Well 401k’s specifically replaced Pensions that were a much better bet for workers and required companies to fund them etc. Now all those other things exist so that people rich enough to leverage them all can minimize their tax burden. They are just Tax Shelters.
Pensions did go insolvent and laws were changed so that companies could include their pension fund as assets and leverage against them, also other companies could come and buy the fund and then claim that since they don’t offer a pension to their employees none of those pension protections applied.
Those situations could have been resolved in a way that was pro-worker, instead pensions were dissolved and all workers are encouraged to tithe to wall street since that is the “right way” to do things in our shitty society.
Companies you invest in benefit from your investment in a variety of ways. Your investment provides the financial resources needed for the company to grow and expand. Your investment helps companies develop new products, hire more talent, expand into new markets, and improve their overall operations. Your investment essentially contributes to the company’s success.
Not really. Share price has no bearing on financial health. Sometimes share prices have no connection with reality. Tesla is a perfect example. It has a market capitalization of 720 billion. Market cap. Is just the number of all classes of stock multiplied by their respective number of shares. I.e. how much it would cost to buy the company in it’s entirety. General motors has a market cap of 45 billion. Toyota, the world’s largest auto maker by sales, costs 264 billion. Without getting into P/E ratios and book values, stop to think about this. Tesla would have to sell more cars than Toyota, Volkswagen, GM, and Ford, COMBINED to be worth 720 billion. That is after a substantial drop in share price.
The way security analysts and prudent investors evaluate a company’s financial health is by looking at the financial statements they have to file every quarter with the SEC and make publicly available, calculating ratios, and comparing them to prior reporting periods, other companies in the same industry, and the overall market of the industry they are in.
As far as reputation, it probably doesn’t matter. The only shareholders anyone cares about are insiders and large shareholders (big enough to file a form 4) actively managed funds, and super Investors like Warren Buffett.
But paying stock owners their share of the profits is, when you get right down to it, the reason BP exists. Maximum profit for a company like BP, and their shateholds, means minimizing their expenses and maximizing revenue. So sell as much gas as possible, and pay as little to offset the CO2 as possible. I don’t think it’s grasping at straws.
I’ll make sure to only invest in hippy communes that are self sustaining and use indigenous clothing and tool making techniques.
Every company on the stock market contributes to GHG emissions. Every company is using electricity produced by fossil fuels, or produces or uses plastic products, or has vehicles that consume fossil fuels.
https://youtu.be/NJ7W6HFHPYs - This video from Climate Town explains how the bank or credit union only keeps a fraction of your money in reserve when you deposit your money in a savings account, certificate of deposit, or other bank account. The bank/CU is investing the majority of your money, and ecological harm is not a consideration when they are choosing investments. When you deposit money with a financial institution it is almost certain that some portion of your money is being invested in ecologically harmful organizations.
Similarly, your 401k funds are likely in index funds or mutual funds that hold significant shares in ecologically and socially harmful companies like ExxonMobil, Nestle, Chevron, Coca-Cola, et. al.
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment funds exist that ideally exclude ecologically & socially harmful industries, but every ESG fund I have ever encountered is not nearly exclusive enough and has significantly higher fees.
For example - the Vanguard ESG International Stock ETF VSGX excludes adult entertainment, recreational drugs, gambling, weapons, nuclear power, and fossil fuels, yet Nestle is the second largest holding in the fund, and many of the other stocks in the fund likely contribute to environmental and social harm indirectly.
Consider investing in small-businesses and organizations in your local community instead. It is truly bizarre and unique to our time that investing on Wall Street is more accessible than investing on Main Street.
It means nothing to the actual company other than a scoreboard they can point to, as the stock should reflect the performance and outlook of the company.
Except that scoreboard is exactly what they point to when they need a loan or other capital investment to grow their business. Better stock value = bigger/better loans.
Oh, and also the companies are able to release additional stock to raise capital outside of their IPO.
And their executives are rewarded for having high stock value.
This is about collective action, not just one or two people. You seem to be leaning heavily into the same excuses everyone uses when they don’t want to do the right thing if it’s even a small inconvenience. “Why should I do X when there’s a bunch of other people doing Y? It’ll never make a difference.”
would you rather invest at a valuation of $20B or $75B. You’re saying $75B, but the answer is $20B.
I’ve got no idea where you went overboard here, but what I’m saying is, if the company in question is doing significant harm to the planet, don’t invest. Not sure why you thought I meant invest later.
And if the moral argument against profiting from harmful industries isn’t good enough for you, financially you’re introducing risk to your portfolio by choosing to invest in companies that are at high risk of running into regulatory challenges and lawsuits globally.
Boy you sure are acting incredibly dense. You’re acting like I’m implying normal investing guidance doesn’t apply. Please stop making up worst case scenarios to try and justify supporting climate damage. I’m not saying dump all your money into a single solar stock somewhere.
There’s literally hundreds of ETFs & mutual funds focused on avoiding the major polluting businesses. For example, just look at things like SPYX instead of SPY, etc. (Adding an extra bit to emphasize I’m using this as an example, not telling everyone to only invest in SPYX, because I can already see your response coming in laser focused on that one example). There’s countless options, do some homework if you’re investing, as you should be doing regardless of whether or not you care about the climate.
The one that’s currently hardest is target date retirement funds which many use for their 401k. Not because there aren’t enough options, but because many fund managers don’t include those options in their offerings. Your hands may be tied but at least you looked. Contact your fund manager and let them know you’re interested in ESG investing.
I’m not saying dump your money down the drain, but check if your investments can be moved somewhere less harmful.
By contributing to demand for a stock you increase the valuation of that stock. Securities Based Lending is often how companies and executives secure loans and avoid taxable events. By contributing to demand for a stock we facilitate additional funding for the issuer of the stock and it’s largest shareholders.
I absolutely agree, cash flow is a much more immediate concern to any company, but one wealthy shareholder divesting can have the same financial impact as ten thousand average citizens boycotting. Local investing is more difficult and risky, but also more rewarding and necessary. It is not just about a monetary return, it is about building social capital and local resiliency.
You’re arguing that people should give no consideration to the long-term social and ecological harms of their investments beyond what will make them the most money. By directing our actions in that purely incentivized way we sacrifice everything unprofitable, and that alienation is exactly what causes so many chronic societal issues. I agree that an individual can have very little impact alone, but capitalism places this burden at the individual level.
Probably has to do with the investments themselves. You may not be personally ‘picking’ the investments, however, most target funds include investments that have such investments. Source: wife works at a financial institution. Also I’m drinking so Google it ontop of it or something.
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.
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.
If you invest in companies that emit GHGs, then you are helping finance their pollution, and profiting from that.
If you keep your money at a bank that does business with major polluters, your funds are being used by the bank to back loans to those polluters to help them pollute.
Spare change invested in GHGs contributes to climate change.
Basically money is energy. You are using money to buy things which uses energy, stuff produced by machines which need something to run of, not from horses or ppl, but from oil and coal.
A valid critique, but also worth mentioning, as discussed in the article, much of the GHG emissions for the top 10% (which includes households down to ~$200k) comes from passive income.
Friendly reminder to check who you bank with and what’s in your 401k if you find yourself in that group.
Removed by mod
Having not read the article, I would wager a guess that because 401k balances are invested in diverse funds, and if the fund composition includes corporations contributing to emissions… and you are making money off their profitability… you are therefore contributing to those emissions. Pick other things to invest in.
Removed by mod
401k’s were the scam to begin with.
Removed by mod
Well 401k’s specifically replaced Pensions that were a much better bet for workers and required companies to fund them etc. Now all those other things exist so that people rich enough to leverage them all can minimize their tax burden. They are just Tax Shelters.
Lol, as if pension funds never go insolvent and companies never played games reducing benefits (or other shenanigans so they don’t have to pay out).
At least with a 401k they can’t take the money back once it is deposited.
Pensions did go insolvent and laws were changed so that companies could include their pension fund as assets and leverage against them, also other companies could come and buy the fund and then claim that since they don’t offer a pension to their employees none of those pension protections applied.
Those situations could have been resolved in a way that was pro-worker, instead pensions were dissolved and all workers are encouraged to tithe to wall street since that is the “right way” to do things in our shitty society.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Companies you invest in benefit from your investment in a variety of ways. Your investment provides the financial resources needed for the company to grow and expand. Your investment helps companies develop new products, hire more talent, expand into new markets, and improve their overall operations. Your investment essentially contributes to the company’s success.
Removed by mod
TIL, thanks
Still, they do benefit from my owning stock, even if it’s just their reputation and indicator of financial health.
Not really. Share price has no bearing on financial health. Sometimes share prices have no connection with reality. Tesla is a perfect example. It has a market capitalization of 720 billion. Market cap. Is just the number of all classes of stock multiplied by their respective number of shares. I.e. how much it would cost to buy the company in it’s entirety. General motors has a market cap of 45 billion. Toyota, the world’s largest auto maker by sales, costs 264 billion. Without getting into P/E ratios and book values, stop to think about this. Tesla would have to sell more cars than Toyota, Volkswagen, GM, and Ford, COMBINED to be worth 720 billion. That is after a substantial drop in share price.
The way security analysts and prudent investors evaluate a company’s financial health is by looking at the financial statements they have to file every quarter with the SEC and make publicly available, calculating ratios, and comparing them to prior reporting periods, other companies in the same industry, and the overall market of the industry they are in.
As far as reputation, it probably doesn’t matter. The only shareholders anyone cares about are insiders and large shareholders (big enough to file a form 4) actively managed funds, and super Investors like Warren Buffett.
But paying stock owners their share of the profits is, when you get right down to it, the reason BP exists. Maximum profit for a company like BP, and their shateholds, means minimizing their expenses and maximizing revenue. So sell as much gas as possible, and pay as little to offset the CO2 as possible. I don’t think it’s grasping at straws.
Removed by mod
I’ll make sure to only invest in hippy communes that are self sustaining and use indigenous clothing and tool making techniques.
Every company on the stock market contributes to GHG emissions. Every company is using electricity produced by fossil fuels, or produces or uses plastic products, or has vehicles that consume fossil fuels.
Every company contributes - only a few base their entire business model on it.
https://youtu.be/NJ7W6HFHPYs - This video from Climate Town explains how the bank or credit union only keeps a fraction of your money in reserve when you deposit your money in a savings account, certificate of deposit, or other bank account. The bank/CU is investing the majority of your money, and ecological harm is not a consideration when they are choosing investments. When you deposit money with a financial institution it is almost certain that some portion of your money is being invested in ecologically harmful organizations.
Similarly, your 401k funds are likely in index funds or mutual funds that hold significant shares in ecologically and socially harmful companies like ExxonMobil, Nestle, Chevron, Coca-Cola, et. al.
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment funds exist that ideally exclude ecologically & socially harmful industries, but every ESG fund I have ever encountered is not nearly exclusive enough and has significantly higher fees.
For example - the Vanguard ESG International Stock ETF VSGX excludes adult entertainment, recreational drugs, gambling, weapons, nuclear power, and fossil fuels, yet Nestle is the second largest holding in the fund, and many of the other stocks in the fund likely contribute to environmental and social harm indirectly.
Consider investing in small-businesses and organizations in your local community instead. It is truly bizarre and unique to our time that investing on Wall Street is more accessible than investing on Main Street.
Removed by mod
Except that scoreboard is exactly what they point to when they need a loan or other capital investment to grow their business. Better stock value = bigger/better loans.
Oh, and also the companies are able to release additional stock to raise capital outside of their IPO.
And their executives are rewarded for having high stock value.
Removed by mod
This is about collective action, not just one or two people. You seem to be leaning heavily into the same excuses everyone uses when they don’t want to do the right thing if it’s even a small inconvenience. “Why should I do X when there’s a bunch of other people doing Y? It’ll never make a difference.”
Sure, in a vacuum, you selling your stock in BP won’t make a difference, but alternatively in a world where asset managers collections holding over $8 trillion in assets have pledged to divest from fossil fuels, the pool of people willing and able to buy up those shares is shrinking, and the more people who act the smaller the pool gets.
On this note:
I’ve got no idea where you went overboard here, but what I’m saying is, if the company in question is doing significant harm to the planet, don’t invest. Not sure why you thought I meant invest later.
And if the moral argument against profiting from harmful industries isn’t good enough for you, financially you’re introducing risk to your portfolio by choosing to invest in companies that are at high risk of running into regulatory challenges and lawsuits globally.
Removed by mod
Boy you sure are acting incredibly dense. You’re acting like I’m implying normal investing guidance doesn’t apply. Please stop making up worst case scenarios to try and justify supporting climate damage. I’m not saying dump all your money into a single solar stock somewhere.
There’s literally hundreds of ETFs & mutual funds focused on avoiding the major polluting businesses. For example, just look at things like SPYX instead of SPY, etc. (Adding an extra bit to emphasize I’m using this as an example, not telling everyone to only invest in SPYX, because I can already see your response coming in laser focused on that one example). There’s countless options, do some homework if you’re investing, as you should be doing regardless of whether or not you care about the climate.
The one that’s currently hardest is target date retirement funds which many use for their 401k. Not because there aren’t enough options, but because many fund managers don’t include those options in their offerings. Your hands may be tied but at least you looked. Contact your fund manager and let them know you’re interested in ESG investing.
I’m not saying dump your money down the drain, but check if your investments can be moved somewhere less harmful.
By contributing to demand for a stock you increase the valuation of that stock. Securities Based Lending is often how companies and executives secure loans and avoid taxable events. By contributing to demand for a stock we facilitate additional funding for the issuer of the stock and it’s largest shareholders.
I absolutely agree, cash flow is a much more immediate concern to any company, but one wealthy shareholder divesting can have the same financial impact as ten thousand average citizens boycotting. Local investing is more difficult and risky, but also more rewarding and necessary. It is not just about a monetary return, it is about building social capital and local resiliency.
You’re arguing that people should give no consideration to the long-term social and ecological harms of their investments beyond what will make them the most money. By directing our actions in that purely incentivized way we sacrifice everything unprofitable, and that alienation is exactly what causes so many chronic societal issues. I agree that an individual can have very little impact alone, but capitalism places this burden at the individual level.
Removed by mod
Probably has to do with the investments themselves. You may not be personally ‘picking’ the investments, however, most target funds include investments that have such investments. Source: wife works at a financial institution. Also I’m drinking so Google it ontop of it or something.
Edit* Also totally shouldn’t count.
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.
Removed by mod
This isn’t a problem that an individual investor can or should be expected to solve.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
It’s 100% a scam.
Local credit union all the way!
are you claiming money is a gas
If you invest in companies that emit GHGs, then you are helping finance their pollution, and profiting from that.
If you keep your money at a bank that does business with major polluters, your funds are being used by the bank to back loans to those polluters to help them pollute.
Spare change invested in GHGs contributes to climate change.
Basically money is energy. You are using money to buy things which uses energy, stuff produced by machines which need something to run of, not from horses or ppl, but from oil and coal.