A lot of big polluters are publicly traded companies. Owning shares of US public companies means you can go to shareholder meetings, vote, and other rights.

What do all think of a non profit that runs and is funded with an endowment composed of big polluters like oil companies and using the dividends to fund climate initiatives? In the mean time, using the seat at the table to influence other shareholders to reduce emissions, which is in their long term interest anyways.

If the endowment dries up, mission accomplished. If it grows, more money to act with.

What do all think?

  • neanderthal@lemmy.worldOP
    2·
    1 year ago

    your position presupposes that capitalism can serve to improve our collective wellbeing, when it is fundamentally an oppressive heirarchy enforced through violence.

    Ok. So is your proposition that capitalism NEVER serves the collective well being or that it GENERALLY doesn’t. If it is the former, all I have to do is find a single case to prove it false.

    Your argument sounded like it was this (correct me if I am wrong):

    P: Bad people use NPO as a tool for bad things Q: NPOs are bad

    P->Q

    I was demonstrating that at best you can put the existential qualifier on that statement and not the universal. All I have to do is find a single good NPO. If you want to argue what it means to be good, have a PhD in philosophy as it has been argued about since Plato wrote Euthyphro. Probably before.

    Edit: civility