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"
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.
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.
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
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
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
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