Slashdot Mirror
Fossil Fuel Divestment Has Doubled In the Last 15 Months (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: A little over a year ago, it was big news that thousands of people and hundreds of institutions controlling more than $2.6 trillion in total assets had pledged to remove their investments from stocks, mutual funds, and bonds that invest in fossil fuel companies. A year later, that number has doubled. According to a report by DivestInvest, a philanthropy helping to lead the movement, more than 688 institutions and 60,000 individual investors worth $5.2 trillion have pulled their investments from fossil fuel companies and have reinvested a portion of their assets into clean energy companies. In September 2015, 436 institutions and 2,040 individuals worth $2.6 trillion had divested. For comparison, the total net worth of investors who had pulled out of the fossil fuel market was just $52 billion in September 2014. Divestment is increasingly seen as one of the stronger moves that private citizens and companies can take to support the move to clean energy. The movement started in earnest in 2011 when college students began petitioning their institutions to remove their assets from stocks, bonds, and mutual funds that invest in fossil fuel companies. What was seen as a gimmick at the time appears to be gaining real momentum a year after the Paris Climate Treaty was signed.
If you divest, you are not a stockholder. You have no say in how the companies invest or spend their money. Much wiser to invest and help to steer the company by participating. "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."
An that answer would be none.
I certainly hope so.
You know if you little snowflakes stopped worrying so much over what Trump might do and start telling him what you want done, well this might all work out after all.
I want Trump to either divest from all his business interests or resign from the presidency. Plus release his tax returns like every presidential candidate have done for the last 40 years, and like all his cabinet nominees will be doing for their Senate confirmation hearings.
The share price dropping gives the corporation the ability to buy back shares at a lower price. This improves the ability of the company to do things like go private or otherwise defend itself from troublemakers in the general public.
A well established company with ongoing profits needs stockholders like a boat needs a hole.
The only harm that such divestitures cause a company are that some employees who have been rewarded with stock options will see the value of those options fall for a few years until the divestiture fad falls off.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Yeah... calling people who are worried about what a fascist tyrant may do "little snowflakes" would be more impressive if the conservatives in America were not the most censorious little snowflakes in the country.
Seriously - there is nobody more easily offended than a conservative. They may rail against political correctness but they have their own brand of it. The major difference is that theirs is not polite and isn't done out of concern for anybody but themselves. Liberal PC tries to keep you from harming vulnerable people. Conservative PC tries to keep you from being appropriately critical of government policy.
Liberals complain if you use the n-word. Conservatives complain if you burn a flag. Liberals just want trans people to be able to pee where they feel most comfortable, conservatives can't stand that but will defend a politician who enjoyed walking in on nude, underage girls in their dressing rooms.
Liberals say "maybe we should stop shooting unarmed people for walking while black", conservatives call them racist for just daring to be critical about police behaviour. Conservatives consider all unionized public workers to be arrogant thieves more interested in their own power than making things better for members... EXCEPT of course when it's police or border patrol - then they are dutyful public servants who risk their lives and deserve nothing but uncritical respect. And if you dare question that narative it's job-loss and ostracising time.
There is nothing more hypocritical than a conservative complaining about "PC" ness. They are pointing long fingers at a behaviour they themselves engage in more frequently, more passionately and with far more power to call upon.
They complain about liberals who defend traumatized students right to be forewarned if the material they are about to cover relates to the source of their trauma in order to let these students properly mentally prepare themselves to confront this material and so be able to actually participate in the debate. But then they do a name-and-shame campaign of "professors who teach from a liberal perspective" because conservative students can't stand the idea of being confronted by non-conservative ideas in class. At least one professor on the list, who happens to be female, was written up for "teaching from a female perspective".
https://www.cato.org/publicati...
You don't get to complain about political correctness until patriotic correctness no longer exists.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Every other country where a leader like him became a tyrant had similar separations of power, they all had constitutions, they all had equivalents to the supreme court. That structure only works if the president plays by the rules. It assumes a measure of sanity.
It assumes he won't drag every democrat in congress from their beds one night and shoot them.
It assumes the same about supreme court judges.
A sufficiently determined leader, with sufficient public support, can dismantle the entire system in a week. It's happened over and over - including at least 6 times in the 20th century. It happened in Italy, in Germany, in Spain.
All the times it happened it followed the same pattern - and the first step was always a campaign like Trumps, always the EXACT same rhetoric as his, always the exact same campaign promises.
Americans are rightfully afraid of the fascist who comes with a smile. But most of them don't. Most fascists come as screaming and shouting orators, bombastic demagogues who rile people up and say things others would consider beyond the pale (and then convince their spectators that the other people believe hte same things but are just too scared to say it).
They all promise to be the one person who can fix whatever ails the nation. It's never "us" it's always "I".
They always sell the contradictory tale of the enemy who is both easy to defeat and an existential threat all at once. These two things cannot both be true - but they always claim it. Trump has followed this one to the letter. Half his speeches described ISIS as if they are far more dangerous to America than they actually are, the other half he spoke of how he will destroy them in a week.
And, in a grand irony, like every fascist before him - he is doomed to lose every war, because fascists NEVER win the war -they can't as they are constitutionally incapable of accurately assessing the strength of their enemies. It's what happens when you believe them a powerful force intent and capable of your destruction - and a weak enemy that's easily defeated all at the same time.
This is your Musolini. This is your Franco.
He is risen, and like many others - he did so through the electoral process.
Your argument is basically that we should pretend his campaign never happened, nothing he said was said. We should let him start with a clean slate, and only act after he's been in government a while... no. That's bullshit. The campaign DID happen. He DID make those speeches. He DID make those promises. He DID promise to violate EVERY amendment in the constitution except perhaps the second (his immigration policy alone would violate everything from the due process clauses to the 4th amendment).
Assume he meant what he said - and realize that this makes him a Tyrant right now. And right now - he is still reasonably easy to defeat.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *