Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Investors with $41tril behind them ask the G-7 to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, mostly because they can afford it   (finance.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Global warming, Greenhouse gas, Fossil fuel, Carbon dioxide, Climate change, coalition of investors, Methane, ambitious greenhouse gas emissions targets  
•       •       •

364 clicks; posted to Business » on 10 Jun 2021 at 7:15 PM (3 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



15 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
3 days ago  
That's $5,125 for every human on earth.  About 1/10 of the world's wealth according to this site:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-​o​f-the-worlds-wealth-in-one-visualizati​on/

Never really looked that up before.
 
3 days ago  
STFU, Subby.
 
3 days ago  
G7 is proof positive that all political elections are a dog and pony show. almost on one on the planet has control outside of a very few who have seized all the power and planning for themselves. reminds me once more of lyrics from a famous rock band:
"tax the rich
feed the poor
till there ain't no
rich no more"
 
3 days ago  
It's good to see the really obscene wealth getting scared that it will mean nothing if we end up in a disaster scenario where we're cracking each others skulls open to eat the goo inside. We should have been transitioning for the last 20 years at least. Now we're gonna get a crash transition. Hope you're ready.

It needs to be done. They weren't going to listen to Greta but they might listen to other rich people.
 
3 days ago  
The push for veganism is corporate lead because it's got better margins than meat products. I suspect green energy will be similar soon, but won't make me sick.
 
3 days ago  

wildcardjack: The push for veganism is corporate lead because it's got better margins than meat products. I suspect green energy will be similar soon, but won't make me sick.


I don't really care what the motivations are. If it gets us away from a fossil fuel economy, I'm cool with it.
 
3 days ago  
That's half the GDP of Earth.  The largest sovereign wealth fund in the world is only $1 trillion.

I'm going to go right ahead and call bullshiat.
 
3 days ago  
Seems to me like a lot of people will be saying things like "I don't care what anybody's motivations are and I don't care what the results are, just as long as someone says something I agree with."

Well, it is not that simple.

First of all, I mean, yay!? and Score one for Greta and all that, but what is this really? Isn't this just a bunch of .001%percenters trying to appeal to the left in some way that will not cost them a dime?

Secondly, what is the big picture?

Name all of the big oil companies and they are all headquartered in G7 countries, right?  Exxon, Dutch Shell, British Pete, Total and others... sure. They are in G7 countries. But they have been cutting back on exploration for a decade, or at least 7 years. Some are investing A LOT in alternative fuels. All of them are interested in keeping Western civilization functioning. They give people cheap oil, which is bad, but they also give people stable oil supplies, which is good if you want a stable civilization.

But let's call them the bad guys. Cuz they are badmkay?

Who are the good guys? Well, I guess it is all of the NON G7, totally subsidized oil companies, who will benefit most. They must be the good guys.

Well, there is Saudi Arabian Aramco, and the Soviet Rozneft or whatever they are calling it nowadays, and Pemex and Petrobras, the Chinese oil companies, and the various national oil corporations of, well, the good guys, you know, Libya, Iran, Qatar, Venezuela, Nigeria, Pakistan and many many more. They aren't based in G7 countries. And they will be ecstatic to know that they can make their oligopoly even stronger and stick it to any nation that has no natural resources. They have done it. They will do it.

Not a huge fan of subsidizing oil companies by any stretch, but once you demonize the capitalist oil companies of the G7, you are handing over control of THE RESOURCE that has driven the world economy for over a century. And you are giving it to a bunch of gangsters.

Energy is STILL a national security issue. Don't be too hasty to cut off your legs just because someone promised you roller skates for your birthday.

Is your economy 100% renewable based? Well, good for you. 80%? 50%? 20%? 10%? How much control over your economy will you give to Aramco? Should you celebrate that?
 
3 days ago  

2fardownthread: Not a huge fan of subsidizing oil companies by any stretch, but once you demonize the capitalist oil companies of the G7, you are handing over control of THE RESOURCE that has driven the world economy for over a century. And you are giving it to a bunch of gangsters.


So, in your mind the only two choices we have are to demonize the petroleum industry or slavishly subjugate our society to it?
No middle ground to be had, at all?
We couldn't just treat it like another industry, that pays it's own bills, and cleans it's own mess, and doesn't have free armies to fight wars for it?
How come?
 
3 days ago  
TL:DR "We're a better criminal gang than they are".
 
3 days ago  
The fossil fuel companies can't be "demonized" any more than the tobacco companies. They knew in the 1970s their products were going to destabilize the climate. They have not pivoted, they have not pushed renewable energy, they bought up some companies and some patents to sit on them and keep their small and not impacting their main business. That business which is killing the climate. They have invested the vast majority of their R&D into more fossil fuels and more fossil fuel development, while sucking up subsidies from governments. If they're the losers, it's because they chose to lose. They knew what was coming before anyone and had decades to be ahead of everyone. Instead they funded denialist, anti-science campaigns spreading FUD. Their own research told them they were spreading lies.

The money needs to go into renewables. Period. We're too late for a slow roll to a new economy. That ship sailed when Bush II was awarded a win by the supreme court. Existing fossil fuel projects can get us there. The IEA has outlined a path that has a chance of keeping us under 1.5 C, and they're about as authoritative as it gets.
 
3 days ago  

jso2897: 2fardownthread: Not a huge fan of subsidizing oil companies by any stretch, but once you demonize the capitalist oil companies of the G7, you are handing over control of THE RESOURCE that has driven the world economy for over a century. And you are giving it to a bunch of gangsters.

So, in your mind the only two choices we have are to demonize the petroleum industry or slavishly subjugate our society to it?
No middle ground to be had, at all?
We couldn't just treat it like another industry, that pays it's own bills, and cleans it's own mess, and doesn't have free armies to fight wars for it?
How come?


That guy is a troll. In other threads he's said stuff like, "If a law is ever passed that makes me drive an EV or ride a bicycle, I'll scream," and "there's nothing more satisfying than handing your card to a guy and driving away with a full tank of gas in 5 minutes."

Don't bother.
 
3 days ago  

BMFPitt: That's half the GDP of Earth.  The largest sovereign wealth fund in the world is only $1 trillion.

I'm going to go right ahead and call bullshiat.


The 20 largest asset management firms manage about $50T total (and the top 4-5 manage more than $20T). So 450+ entities managing $41T seems entirely plausible. Especially considering that the list includes some of the top firms.
 
3 days ago  

2fardownthread: Seems to me like a lot of people will be saying things like "I don't care what anybody's motivations are and I don't care what the results are, just as long as someone says something I agree with."

Well, it is not that simple.

First of all, I mean, yay!? and Score one for Greta and all that, but what is this really? Isn't this just a bunch of .001%percenters trying to appeal to the left in some way that will not cost them a dime?

Secondly, what is the big picture?

Name all of the big oil companies and they are all headquartered in G7 countries, right?  Exxon, Dutch Shell, British Pete, Total and others... sure. They are in G7 countries. But they have been cutting back on exploration for a decade, or at least 7 years. Some are investing A LOT in alternative fuels. All of them are interested in keeping Western civilization functioning. They give people cheap oil, which is bad, but they also give people stable oil supplies, which is good if you want a stable civilization.

But let's call them the bad guys. Cuz they are badmkay?

Who are the good guys? Well, I guess it is all of the NON G7, totally subsidized oil companies, who will benefit most. They must be the good guys.

Well, there is Saudi Arabian Aramco, and the Soviet Rozneft or whatever they are calling it nowadays, and Pemex and Petrobras, the Chinese oil companies, and the various national oil corporations of, well, the good guys, you know, Libya, Iran, Qatar, Venezuela, Nigeria, Pakistan and many many more. They aren't based in G7 countries. And they will be ecstatic to know that they can make their oligopoly even stronger and stick it to any nation that has no natural resources. They have done it. They will do it.

Not a huge fan of subsidizing oil companies by any stretch, but once you demonize the capitalist oil companies of the G7, you are handing over control of THE RESOURCE that has driven the world economy for over a century. And you are giving it to a bunch of gangsters.

Energy is STILL a national security issue. Don't be too hasty to cut off your legs just because someone promised you roller skates for your birthday.

Is your economy 100% renewable based? Well, good for you. 80%? 50%? 20%? 10%? How much control over your economy will you give to Aramco? Should you celebrate that?


All those words and you missed a two key points. First, these are investors discussing fossil fuel energy companies, not the companies themselves. Second, and this is the headline, they want an all-in shift to renewables. They see it as the next big payout and want the globe to shift asap.

Renewable investment will skyrocket as more countries shift their outlook and build out the infrastructure. Investing in emerging renewable energy technology will make the Tesla overvaluation look like small potatoes.
 
2 days ago  

sinko swimo: G7 is proof positive that all political elections are a dog and pony show. almost on one on the planet has control outside of a very few who have seized all the power and planning for themselves. reminds me once more of lyrics from a famous rock band:
"tax the rich
feed the poor
till there ain't no
rich no more"


The G7 is literally a meeting of elected governments. What are you on about?
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.