Hacker News Reader

Comment by dd36 | Hacker News Reader

I think demand for fossil fuel free holdings is more of a risk reduction strategy greenwashed as something more.

I think you're right for most cases. And that's OK. We still end up with an investment climate that's fossil-investment-averse, and that's good for the atmosphere/ocean in the long run[1] conducive to H. sap's continued existence.

i.e. People doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is just fine. The right thing ends up being done.

[1] for some value of 'long'...

>People doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is just fine.

It's not laudable though.

I'll take "alive" over "laudable" any day of the week.

I understand the desire to dig into intentions here but we're not losing if we invest less in coal.

Potentially we are if an even more polluting investment becomes more profitable and they go for that. Gas, for instance, usually emits less CO2 but emits a lot more methane, which is ~90 times more warming. This is what coal is typically being replaced with.

I'd like to know what is the point of giving investors a pat on the back for engaging in selfish behavior? It's like thanking a full tiger for not eating you.

It could be legal too. Imagine an organization whose members voted to ban its management from investing in any fossil fuel (no matter the motives). Or a country whose law forbid any investment in some particular resources (e.g at some point, we could ban coal like we ban some drugs and weapons).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com