Slashdot Mirror
Ireland Becomes World's First Country To Divest From Fossil Fuels (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The Republic of Ireland will become the world's first country to sell off its investments in fossil fuel companies, after a bill was passed with all-party support in the lower house of parliament. The state's 8 billion euro national investment fund will be required to sell all investments in coal, oil, gas and peat "as soon as is practicable", which is expected to mean within five years. The Irish fossil fuel divestment bill was passed in the lower house of parliament on Thursday and it is expected to pass rapidly through the upper house, meaning it could become law before the end of the year. The Irish state investment fund holds more than 300 million euro in fossil fuel investments in 150 companies. The bill defines a fossil fuel company as a company that derives 20% or more of its revenue from exploration, extraction or refinement of fossil fuels. The bill also allows investment in Irish fossil fuel companies if this funds their move away from fossil fuels. "The [divestment] movement is highlighting the need to stop investing in the expansion of a global industry which must be brought into managed decline if catastrophic climate change is to be averted," said Thomas Pringle, the independent member of parliament who introduced the bill. "Ireland by divesting is sending a clear message that the Irish public and the international community are ready to think and act beyond narrow short term vested interests."
This seems rather meaningless as Ireland divesting does nothing to the companies if someone else is willing to buy Ireland's holdings. It's worse if this means that Ireland will see a lower return as a result.
If governments want to be serious, they should remove subsidies for fossil fuels. In many countries there would be a much quicker move to alternative sources of energy if the government weren't giving fossil fuel companies special tax breaks or other forms of government largesse. But if, even after doing all of that, the best return on investment is still in those fossil fuel companies, it's idiotic to ignore the opportunity.
Also, I suspect that a good many of the large energy companies that are currently heavily involved in extracting fossil fuels will still be big energy companies after the world moves passed fossil fuels. I'm not sure that the arbitrary line in the sand that Ireland has drawn is particularly useful.
That's about 41 minutes' worth of US government spending.
Wouldn't seem to me to be a proper function of government.
Best leave private sector investing to private sector investors and concentrate on the actual functions of government like national defense, police, and the courts...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
I can't speak for Ireland, but lots of countries have "sovereign wealth" funds. Opinion clearly differs on what is a "proper" function of government.
Wouldn't seem to me to be a proper function of government.
Cool story, bro? Why is the government of Ireland supposed to care what you think?
That approach hasn't worked in one single country in the world. Not one. It's been tried, but it failed.
The problem with leaving investing in the hands of the private sector is that the private sector would gladly throw a baby off a bridge for a dollar. That, and the fact that there are no such things as free markets. They do not exist in nature. They always fail.
You are welcome on my lawn.
So Ireland can invest in complex things that will allow Ireland to grow.
Projects and services that span any one government party term and that private investment could see as a short term risk.
Like the US has considered for its use of Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle, or GARVEE, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... but for more projects.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
If? We've been told, multiple times now, that we're already totally fucked.
So, what's changed? What new data has come in to point to a conclusion that we have NOT passed the point of no return?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Peat is big, big business in Ireland. Government pushing out of that is a pretty big deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's a huge shift for Ireland, and more than just a token effort potentially. That's pretty cool in my books.
Ryan Fenton
Peak oil was never about immediately running out of oil. It was a theory that oil production would hit a maximum point and then decline from there. Also, Hubbert’s prediction never stated that supply would run out in 20 years. His theory was production quantity would steadily decline over a couple hundred years.
What are you talking about? Your link perfectly exemplifies what I was talking about - notice the almost overuse of the word energy? "Energy lives here" is their slogan? Energy is the main menu item? One of the first links, "Energy and Carbon Summary", talks about their research and investment in renewables. Even a single google search easily finds articles on the subject.
They've used "Energy" since the 80s at least. Oil got really unpopular around the 70s during the gas crisis and association with OPEC.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
... I can see this fueling anti-Irish sentiment ...
The problem with leaving investing in the hands of the private sector is that the private sector would gladly throw a baby off a bridge for a dollar.
Interesting. What makes the people in government so angelic and the people in private employ so demonic? They are both people, no?
I hear about racist cops that will shoot a black man for driving in the wrong part of town. Cops are government employees, no? Is shooting innocent black men the right thing for the government to do? Or, am I mistaken on the reports of cops being racist and shooting innocent black men?
People in the Army are government employees. They go where the commander in chief tells them to, and get funds to do so only with the permission of Congress. If Congress doesn't like what the Army is doing then they can withhold funds. With "angelic" representatives in Congress funding the Army, and an "angelic" public employee like the President in charge, the Army must be full of angelic people. Angelic people don't abuse innocent brown people in far off places. Therefore what I see in the news is a lie.
I hear that POTUS just appointed a coal advocate to head the EPA. I'm guessing that coal mines will get government subsidies now. That's a good thing, no? Because government investment is a good thing. Private investment is bad, public investment is good. The US government is investing in coal, therefore coal is good.
In other words, you are an idiot.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
That's great for Germany. I hear that Germany is just looking for more natural gas and oil. I'm sure that Germany will be quite happy to buy up these investments. It's summer now but winter will come again. Without more Russian natural gas it's going to be a lot of cold nights in Brrrrr-lin.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Ireland has a lot of windy coastline compared to the size of its population. It has the potential to do very well selling energy to other nations in Europe, especially the UK. Brexit may make it a little more complex, but the links to France already exist from the UK, so selling on to the EU via the UK is theoretically possible with more investment in the grid. It could actually be quite a good money spinner.
Hard to believe a whole government of any country would believe in the hoax.
Glaciers seem to be part of the conspiracy, by melting.
Under Hitler at least you had freedom of religion.
Are you serious?
No. Corporations are not people.
Anyway, it's not about "angelic" or "demonic", although your desire to frame economies in biblical terms makes me wonder if you're some kind of crazy. It's about what works. And there is not a single country that has succeeded by leaving their economy in the hands of the private sector. Ever. Not one. As in it has never happened in the history of the world.
So seriously, until you have some proof that it works besides a dog-eared copy of Ayn Rand you've been carrying around since junior year of high school, kindly take your mythical free market and go fuck yourself.
Absolutely not. The coal companies will get the same thing Trump has given everyone to whom he's made a promise: Jack and shit, and maybe not in that order. He only pays his bill when it's hush money to a porn star, and even then under protest.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If you had any clue, you'd understand that far right nutters are just as much for planned economy as far left nutters.
People who argue for divestment are far-libertarian types, who rank high on libertarian-totalitarian scale. They cannot be neither far left nor far right, because dogma of both of those extremes dictates totalitarian government control.
A government is not beholden to a limited "private club" third party to get "profit". It is beholden to the whole of the public. And while some part clearly are co-opted or even corrupted by industry lobbyist (from the exact same corporation you seem so fond of) and while clearly some government are more democratic than other, in your average western government the public HAS an influence on laws. The public has NO influence on corporation, only those of that private club (the share holder, the board). The end result is that the corporation by large are far more sociopathic than the government on average. Corporation have no qualm polluting the environment if it means sparring a few greenbacks for example. That is why most democratic country have the equivalent of the EPA. Most corporation do not care if a few kids get mangled in the machinery (or at least used to) or do not care if kids get an education, this is why we have labor laws , education laws and no child work allowed. Corporation do care to abuse worker and pay the least possible, which is why there was script currency and people making no money back in the 19th. Don't get me started on the whole finance system. And I pass many other shenanigan corporation would immediately be back to do if enabled. Yet you do not see most government or most civil servant do that. Why ? Because since government are not beholden to short term profit, while they DO attract people who want power and not care about consequence, the mass of civil servant and the hierarchy is not beholden to short term profit and that small private subset of civilian and thus far less likely do sociopathic stuff.
That is a short summary , with caveat, but the bottom line is , if there was no law against grinding live puppy into paste , and it would bring money, a corporation WOULD do it.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Government can be toppled by the general public at election , or in some rare case by protests. The general public has no influence whatsoever over private corporation, if you set aside laws, only the small private owner or share holder have influence. And that again is a factor.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I can't speak for Ireland, but lots of countries have "sovereign wealth" funds. Opinion clearly differs on what is a "proper" function of government.
For the large libertarian element of slashdot, there are basically no proper functions of government. Except possibly for the military.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The problem with leaving investing in the hands of the private sector is that the private sector would gladly throw a baby off a bridge for a dollar.
The real problem is that they would take the dollar as pure profit and ignore the costs to society, because they are harder to quantify.
It's like how companies building nuclear power plants are guaranteed a profit because ultimately the taxpayer takes the costs and risks of waste disposal, decontamination and storage, never mind potential catastrophic accidents.
It doesn't mean nuclear power plants are wrong, simply that is absurd to allow private companies to extract any short term profit from them.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
free markets [...] always fail.
Uh ... free-market economies are responsible for the past two centuries of economic growth: the most massive and sustained improvement in the human condition ever.
For an economic system that always fails, are you absolutely sure that you're not thinking of socialism?
The point is that at best we have had pseudo-free-market economies.
I suppose you can argue that things were better with less regulation in the early-mid Nineteenth Century (and ignore why more regulation came about in the first place), but you can't argue that they were pure free markets even then.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Virtue signalling: Term used by conservative assholes attempting to dismiss or devalue moral and ethical standards they are incapable of attaining.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Anyway, it's not about "angelic" or "demonic", although your desire to frame economies in biblical terms makes me wonder if you're some kind of crazy.
You've misinterpreted the GP's meaning here: they're implying that you're presenting corporations as demonic (complete with throwing-a-baby-off-a-bridge imagery).
And there is not a single country that has succeeded by leaving their economy in the hands of the private sector. Ever. Not one. As in it has never happened in the history of the world.
No country has ever left their economy entirely in the hands of the private sector: since any government action impacts the economy, an absolutely private-sector economy implies no government at all. So this statement of yours looks a bit like a strawman.
In practice, every country has had some balance of public and private sectors in the economy. And there is a very strong trend that those countries with an emphasis on the private sector do better, economically, than those which emphasise the public sector. The world's strongest economies all have free enterprise and free markets, capitalists taking loans and issuing shares to make investments in privately-held industries, etc. Even China didn't really take off economically until it thus liberalised its markets in the 1990s. Meanwhile, the most prominent examples of strong public-sector control over the economy are countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, North Korea, etc. - basically, economic basket cases.
In fact, it's reasonable to state that public-sector socialist economies have failed every time they've been tried. They may be temporarily buoyed by natural resources (e.g. Venezuela up to ~2014), but they either collapse (e.g. Venezuela after 2014) or transition to a free-market economy (e.g. China). For you to state that private-sector economies have never, not once, worked in the history of the world is ... so bold, so blatantly counterfactual, that I'm genuinely disturbed that enough people believed it to upvote it.
And they will be stopping their use of all fossil fuels "as soon as is practicable" too, right?
What I find weird is what is Ireland's source of capital for their sovereign wealth fund?
Most nation states with a sovereign wealth fund use them to basically extend the economic benefits of some time-limited resource extraction, usually oil. Basically to extend the party once whatever lucrative resource they extract runs out. I don't remember Ireland having much in the way of oil reserves or any other significant extraction resource.
Ireland has traditionally had a marginal domestic economy, so I wonder what source of excess capital they generate that can go into this. Maybe on paper it makes sense to invest their capital vs. domestic investment in real infrastructure -- ie, expanding a port, railway or road doesn't produce the same capital growth as investing in foreign markets. But it sure seems odd that taxation would produce more economic benefits than direct spending on their own domestic infrastructure.
As an Irish person, I just see this as our incompetent government targeting jobs in peat and crippling the economy deliberately in their continuous effort to destroy anything we have left.
Could be worse. At least you aren't Brexiting.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
It was set up to counteract a projected shortfall in pensions in the future - it was known as the National Pensions Reserve Fund until it was raided to pay for the banking crisis during the economic crash post 2008.
In short it is a function of government as they are giving very generous pensions to public servants and hoping that future taxation will pay for it is stupid - make current taxation pay and at least our children will not be left with a huge bill
Glaciers was the easy part. The hard part was to convince all the scientists in the world to sign the NDA and follow in line all the time. The cost of that is the reason why solar is still so expensive.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Peak oil was never about immediately running out of oil. It was a theory that oil production would hit a maximum point and then decline from there. Also, Hubbert’s prediction never stated that supply would run out in 20 years. His theory was production quantity would steadily decline over a couple hundred years.
Hubbert's theory of the future seems to be based on the false notion that conditions remain static.
The Irish parliament just passed a bill drafted by an organization dedicated to "Challenging injustice through innovative legal strategies." http://www.glanlaw.org/ . From TFA:
"Gerry Liston at Global Legal Action Network, who drafted the bill, said: “Governments will not meet their obligations under the Paris agreement on climate change if they continue to financially sustain the fossil fuel industry. Countries the world over must now urgently follow Ireland’s lead and divest from fossil fuels.”
It's pretty silly. They have to know this is nonsense and that owning 300M euros of stock doesn't "financially sustain the fossil fuel industry" in any way.
Subsidies are a different story, but the article makes no mention of such.
Sell it cheap, buyers will eagerly snatch it up.
300m Euro is chump change in the realm of fossil fuels. Whether or not the Irish government "invests" this pittance doesn't matter. This has nothing to do with how much fossil fuel is burned in Ireland. It's pointless gesture.
Hubbert's theory of the future seems to be based on the false notion that conditions remain static
No, the model only applies to static conditions, but it doesn't say that the conditions will be static.
Hubbert's theory of the future seems to be based on the false notion that conditions remain static
No, the model only applies to static conditions, but it doesn't say that the conditions will be static.
I see. It's like predicting "England will go on to the world cup finals" when the score was 1:0.
And then after they lost saying "the model only applies to static conditions, but it doesn't say that the conditions will be static"
No. Corporations are not people.
I didn't say corporations are people, you did. You said the private sector would toss a baby off a bridge for a dollar.
I said people act on the behalf of corporations. A corporation itself does nothing. What is a corporation? It's a legal construct. It's nothing but words on paper and an idea in people's heads. A corporation cannot act. The people in the corporation act. For a corporation to do some evil act, like toss a baby off a bridge, means someone acting on behalf of the corporation tossed that baby off the bridge.
Perhaps there might be a series of events, where no one person in the corporation tossed the baby off the bridge. Maybe it's a series of acts from multiple actors in the corporation that by themselves would be seemingly innocent but when combined result in the baby being tossed from the bridge. That does not make the corporation evil, just blind and mindless.
What you seem to fail to comprehend is that corporations are, in the end, groups of people acting in concert just like a government. What is the term we use to describe the creation of a government? Incorporation. What is the term we use to describe the creation of a corporation? That's right, incorporation. A government is a corporation, a legal construct that is just words on paper and ideas in people's heads. I'm just trying to understand how you believe that a government corporate investment is inherently any better or worse than a private corporate investment. It's still people acting on the behalf of a legal construct. The actions of both are determined by the people within them. Their actions may be virtuous because the people are virtuous, or because the blind and mindless machine just happened to do something virtuous by chance like a blind squirrel can find a nut.
Anyway, it's not about "angelic" or "demonic", although your desire to frame economies in biblical terms makes me wonder if you're some kind of crazy.
The terms are not "biblical", they are English. Using the term does not mean I'm religious. It does not prove whether I'm crazy or not either.
And there is not a single country that has succeeded by leaving their economy in the hands of the private sector. Ever. Not one. As in it has never happened in the history of the world.
Of course not, because a government that is completely separated from the economy is no government at all.
So seriously, until you have some proof that it works besides a dog-eared copy of Ayn Rand you've been carrying around since junior year of high school, kindly take your mythical free market and go fuck yourself.
Interesting. You want proof from me to defend my theory but provide no proof to defend your own. Go fuck yourself.
Absolutely not. The coal companies will get the same thing Trump has given everyone to whom he's made a promise: Jack and shit, and maybe not in that order. He only pays his bill when it's hush money to a porn star, and even then under protest.
Trump promised to move the Israel embassy to Jerusalem, he kept that. He promised to lower taxes, seems like he kept that promise. He promised to get out of the Iran nuclear deal, that happened. Trump didn't do these things on his own, of course. Maybe these things would have happened anyway because a government is big and in many ways blind and mindless. Maybe Trump is just a blind squirrel that happened to find a nut.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Isn't Natural Gas a fossil fuel?
http://ireland2050.ie/question...
45% of its power comes from natural gas.
Seems a little hypocritical and self-righteous to say "I'm going to swear off any investments in beef production because it's IMMORAL!" ...when nearly half your meals are hamburgers.
-Styopa
It's not so much about angelic and demonic, it's about incentives. Imagine you're a company, and you pay your employees like crap. Should you pay them more? That would be nice, they would be happier, but it would cost a lot of money off the bottom line. Your competitors also pay like crap, so they're not particularly resentful of you. Also your competitors are using the money saved from crap pay to spend more on ads or something. It's going to be hard to keep up if you just try to pay them more. So, you continue the crappiness as it is.
What if your competitor is in the same boat? They also aren't too thrilled about how crappy they pay their employees, but are also worried about you, and how you will undercut them if they pay more. You find out most of the industry is like you. But nobody is going to make the first move in improving working conditions, unless you had a guarantee that everyone will do it. That sort of higher level agreement usually comes from government, who has the power to enforce such things.
So it's not about angels and demons, but about solving a nonlocal optimization problem. When the government gets involved you just have to make sure the people are well informed to understand the bottlenecks of the system. They clearly are not, so maybe we should try to do a better job of that.
Wow, you're bad at this...
Interesting. What makes the people in corporations so angelic and the people in public service so demonic? They are both people, no?
I hear about biased moderators that will censor a conservative man for posting in the wrong part of a forum or video sharing site. Moderators are corporate employees, no? Is censoring innocent conservative men the right thing for a corporation to do? Or, am I mistaken on the reports of mods being biased and censoring innocent conservative men?
People in blood diamond mines are corporate employees. They go where the CEO tells them to, and get funds to do so only with the permission of shareholders. If shareholders don't like what the blood diamond mines are doing then they can withhold funds. With "angelic" representatives in corporations funding the blood diamond mines, and an "angelic" private employee like the CEO in charge, the corporation must be full of angelic people. Angelic people don't abuse innocent brown people in far off places. Therefore what I see in the news is a lie.
I hear that Uber's CEO just appointed a diversity advocate to head their corporate diversity program. I'm guessing that Uber employees will get more diverse now. That's a good thing, no? Because corporate diversity is a good thing. Public investment is bad, private investment is good. Uber is investing in diversity, therefore diversity is good.
In other words, you are a colossal idiot.
Pro tip: don't use arguments I can just copy/paste and flip for the same effect unless your point was that myopic arguments on either side are equally stupid.
As an Irish person, I just see this as our incompetent government targeting jobs in peat and crippling the economy deliberately in their continuous effort to destroy anything we have left.
I don't agree with modding this -1, Flamebait. This seems like very conservative political viewpoint, likely to be held by many in Ireland's large peat industry (and all those in the economy who depend directly or indirectly on the use of peat as a fuel). The comment doesn't contribute much to the discourse, but I don't think calling it "flamebait" is fair.
But if you'll just look at the comment's subject, "As an Iris peron meh", you'll realize that no "Irish person" would ever write that.
Those aren't typos of an Irish person. They're the typos of bored flunky who pasted prewritten propaganda (with no typos) into a comment box--but was expected to type the subject manually. Neither English nor Irish was this person's first language.
This isn't a cynical Irish person's heartfelt complaint about what they see as a shitty situation. This was someone just trying to stir the pot with a carefully-written message.
We really need a -1, Troll Farm mod.
I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious. --Albert Einstein
Given that we all have to get off fossil fuel pretty much completely by mid-century, disincentivising the fossil fuel industry starting now is actually virtuous. If being actuually virtuous also signals that to others so that they can get on the actually virtuous bandwagon too, so much the better.
Not only that, if humanity succeeds at the rapid de-fossilization of energy that is needed (according to the physics of the situation), then Ireland's move will also likely be a financially smart move.
The reality is that carbon is going to have to be priced (via taxation or cap and trade) high enough to actually start gradual then rapid braking on oil consumption and production.
Fossil-fuel investment is beginning to look really stupid financially (if we're going to succeed at reducing fossil fuel use), or alternatively, really evil (if you're continuing to invest in fossil fuel expansiion, which blocks progress in reduction of production and use and thus prevents reduction of harmful emissions.)
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
As pointed out by someone above, it makes sense when you have paid off high cost debts and can more profitably invest than pay off low cost debts. As for resources, you are correct, Ireland doesn't do much in the way of resource extraction other than zinc, lead and bauxite mining, with the odd bit of copper, silver and gold thrown in.
Fixing a problem: pointing out to an illiterate idiot that there's a difference between "then" and "than"...and laughing when they don't get it.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Amen to that. I bristled at the OP's contention as well. Where in the world has a purely free market been tried? People are inherently greedy / self serving and they reside in both corporations and governments. To put full trust in either is folly.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
Congratulations. You've managed to take just about every conspiracy theory and stick them altogether in one single post. Kudos. I still however, am confused as to what any of that has to do with TFA.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
Anybody that remains invested in oil or coal only companies within 2 years, will be foolish. OTOH, if the company is moving to diversify, then they may be worth it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
They have plenty of wind. Whist trading that could work to the UK and EU with a big enough tie across the Irish Sea (I am not sure what is there at the moment), it would work better with investment in HVDC. If that's in place Ireland could potentially use solar power from Germany, as Germany gets the sun first. Obviously, this does add a lot of complexity, so there's an increased chance of failure from a putative Europe-wide HVDC, so it doesn't obviate the need for either storage or backup supplies like gas turbines or diesel generators for critical infrastructure.
Solar hot water would probably work reasonably well in Ireland.
In theory there is probably a lot of opportunity for tidal as well, but it would need careful thought not to ruin the beauty of the bays in Ireland.
Which I don't understand. Peat is not a fossil fuel, is it? Are they harvesting something that grew millions of years ago or something that grew this year? If it's something that grew this year and looking at your link, this seems dumb.
She died of Fentanyl poisoning.
Call me when Ireland (53 N latitude - rainy about 200 days per year) has also stopped the use of all fossil fuels.