British billionaire Hohn launches campaign to starve coal plants of finance(in.reuters.com)
in.reuters.com
British billionaire Hohn launches campaign to starve coal plants of finance
https://in.reuters.com/article/climate-change-coal-banks/british-hedge-fund-billionaire-hohn-launches-campaign-to-starve-coal-plants-of-finance-idINKBN20P0KB
122 comments
Divestment is one of the most effective ways to fight climate change. And guess what, you can do it yourself too.
Shift your investments from fossil to green. If you can't find enough worthy greens, shift it to anything else. Some say it won't impact your returns: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-mythical-per...
Move your deposits and savings to a more sustainable bank. It's very easy to do yet quite powerful https://fairfinanceguide.org
Shift your investments from fossil to green. If you can't find enough worthy greens, shift it to anything else. Some say it won't impact your returns: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-mythical-per...
Move your deposits and savings to a more sustainable bank. It's very easy to do yet quite powerful https://fairfinanceguide.org
>Divestment is one of the most effective ways to fight climate change.
What's the source for this? There was a post from a few months ago that said the opposite.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998948
What's the source for this? There was a post from a few months ago that said the opposite.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998948
In terms of investment risk and returns:
The more honest approach is to admit that shifting your investments will make you marginally less diversified and exposed to marginally greater idiosyncratic risk, but to weigh the tradeoffs and to do it anyway. The tradeoffs include the possibility that the remaining investors who do not choose to starve the industry have greater investment upside by being able to buy at a less competitive/lower price.
The more honest approach is to admit that shifting your investments will make you marginally less diversified and exposed to marginally greater idiosyncratic risk, but to weigh the tradeoffs and to do it anyway. The tradeoffs include the possibility that the remaining investors who do not choose to starve the industry have greater investment upside by being able to buy at a less competitive/lower price.
It's far easier, and safer, for me (many of us) to invest in broad market index funds though. I have neither the skill nor time to track individual companies. I'm just trying to have enough money for basic cost of living when I'm 70, I only make about 34k a year (and turn 35 this month) and am unable to even adequately fund my retirement so I can't afford to gamble on random renewable energy companies
I'm guessing I'm invested, via such funds, in numerous fossil fuel companies. It's just gotta be that way for a lot of us.
I'm guessing I'm invested, via such funds, in numerous fossil fuel companies. It's just gotta be that way for a lot of us.
You can do both (sort of) through an ESG weighted ETF.
ESG stands for" Environment, Social, Governance", and represents the inclusion of these factors in the construction of the portfolio. This is actually quite a big trend in Finance these days, and it's reasonable to believe that ESG ETFs could even outperform the broader market if you think the trend will continue/accelerate.
I should say, these funds don't always completely remove exposure to coal companies (for example), but would at the very least down-weight them relative to a broader market index.
ESG stands for" Environment, Social, Governance", and represents the inclusion of these factors in the construction of the portfolio. This is actually quite a big trend in Finance these days, and it's reasonable to believe that ESG ETFs could even outperform the broader market if you think the trend will continue/accelerate.
I should say, these funds don't always completely remove exposure to coal companies (for example), but would at the very least down-weight them relative to a broader market index.
There are ETFs that don't invest in fossil fuel companies. You can invest in these ETFs to get broad market exposure minus fossil fuel companies.
Not in my 401k plan though. It's great for people earning 6 figures or more that have lots of income to throw at investments, but for the common man that is doing their best to even make the minimum contribution needed for maximum employer match in something like a 401k (if they even have an employer match, or access to a 401k) they are locked in to whatever funds their employer has allowed in the plan.
The median household income in the United States is around $63,000 with an average household size of 2.6 people.
Unfortunately many of us simply lack the luxury to invest in such ways, we do our best just to invest. At best I could throw 1-2% of my income into an IRA and buy some ETF that invests in renewables which would equate to a drop in a swimming pool and interestingly at 2% it would be about 1% of my gross income less than the amount I spend on gasoline annually at current prices (I pretty much only drive to work and church, I bought my 2013 Impala in 2013 and I'm at like 68k miles).
The median household income in the United States is around $63,000 with an average household size of 2.6 people.
Unfortunately many of us simply lack the luxury to invest in such ways, we do our best just to invest. At best I could throw 1-2% of my income into an IRA and buy some ETF that invests in renewables which would equate to a drop in a swimming pool and interestingly at 2% it would be about 1% of my gross income less than the amount I spend on gasoline annually at current prices (I pretty much only drive to work and church, I bought my 2013 Impala in 2013 and I'm at like 68k miles).
I agree this should be easier, and far more accessible.
I'm not sure how this works in the US, but in the UK you can transfer whatever you have accrued in the default (defined contribution) workplace pension into a private pension plan, at any point.
They are called SIPPs, and you have many suppliers for them, and many of them offer a large universe of funds (or even shares directly). They are accessible to all taxpayers in the UK.
Getting broad market exposure, minus fossil fuels - there are a growing number of ETFs and funds that don't have exposure to fossil fuels - I think there should be more, and lower cost ones.
I'm not sure how this works in the US, but in the UK you can transfer whatever you have accrued in the default (defined contribution) workplace pension into a private pension plan, at any point.
They are called SIPPs, and you have many suppliers for them, and many of them offer a large universe of funds (or even shares directly). They are accessible to all taxpayers in the UK.
Getting broad market exposure, minus fossil fuels - there are a growing number of ETFs and funds that don't have exposure to fossil fuels - I think there should be more, and lower cost ones.
Portraying the fact that you have the option of tax-sheltered, employer-matched investment as a "lack of luxury" is kind of weird.
>as a "lack of luxury" is kind of weird.
I did no such thing.
In fact, I am unable to even contribute enough to meet my full employer match (like most of the people in my office).
I said I don't have the luxury of investing meaningful amounts of money into potentially risky stocks/funds that only invest in renewable energies instead of broad market/whole market index funds that also include fossil fuel driven companies. As far as tax-sheltered, it looks like 59-65% of Americans have access to a 401k [1], something like 3 million teachers will have access to a 403b, and those that don't have access to either are almost certainly eligible for an IRA.
[1] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/12/how-many-americans-dont-have...
I did no such thing.
In fact, I am unable to even contribute enough to meet my full employer match (like most of the people in my office).
I said I don't have the luxury of investing meaningful amounts of money into potentially risky stocks/funds that only invest in renewable energies instead of broad market/whole market index funds that also include fossil fuel driven companies. As far as tax-sheltered, it looks like 59-65% of Americans have access to a 401k [1], something like 3 million teachers will have access to a 403b, and those that don't have access to either are almost certainly eligible for an IRA.
[1] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/12/how-many-americans-dont-have...
I have done this and they’ve been performing excellently for me.
This kind of “divestment” is doing literally nothing to fight climate change. You’re just offering stocks in fossil companies at bargain prices, making them more attractive to hold by increasing ROI. Nothing changes in real economy, everything operates as usual.
I'm not selling them at a loss, if I can't get what I paid for them it means they are by definition worth less. Because I do not want them anymore it mean that that market has one less buyer so demand decreases by at least one. If hundred investors came to the same value judgement, the demand decreases by 100. What you are saying is that supply and demand does not matter in a market and I suspect it does.
> I'm not selling them at a loss, if I can't get what I paid for them it means they are by definition worth less.
You have taken a loss. No one who holds the stock is taking a loss. That's why gains and losses can be "realized" and "unrealized."
> Because I do not want them anymore it mean that that market has one less buyer so demand decreases by at least one.
The demand curve shifts to the left, and since stock buyers and sellers are the same people, the supply curve shifts to the right, and, yes, the equilibrium price drops. (edit: Come to thnk of it, the supply curve doesn't change, since it only reflects shareholders and you're dropping out by design. Still, the price goes down.)
But... the company still has all the same employees, still has the same hard assets (real estate, machinery, etc) and is still earning money. The company's fundamentals remain unchanged by a boycott of its stock.
The dividends they pay out per share remain the same, since those are dictated by profits and those haven't changed.
Their investors' assets are worth slightly less, but those investors are the ones who bought your shares, so they actually get more dividends paid out to them.
You've thus managed to reward the people who held on to their stock by making it cheaper for them to acquire more shares.
You have taken a loss. No one who holds the stock is taking a loss. That's why gains and losses can be "realized" and "unrealized."
> Because I do not want them anymore it mean that that market has one less buyer so demand decreases by at least one.
The demand curve shifts to the left, and since stock buyers and sellers are the same people, the supply curve shifts to the right, and, yes, the equilibrium price drops. (edit: Come to thnk of it, the supply curve doesn't change, since it only reflects shareholders and you're dropping out by design. Still, the price goes down.)
But... the company still has all the same employees, still has the same hard assets (real estate, machinery, etc) and is still earning money. The company's fundamentals remain unchanged by a boycott of its stock.
The dividends they pay out per share remain the same, since those are dictated by profits and those haven't changed.
Their investors' assets are worth slightly less, but those investors are the ones who bought your shares, so they actually get more dividends paid out to them.
You've thus managed to reward the people who held on to their stock by making it cheaper for them to acquire more shares.
Except you’re taking your money elsewhere and “investing” in future technologies and providing them capital to grow and outpace fossil fuels ?
If the majority of money was locked up in coal, there would be no capital for new types of power generation.
You’re argument sounds like it might even be crafted to make people think divesting is pointless but it can’t be.
Money is actually finite and therefore can be distributed in different ways.
If the majority of money was locked up in coal, there would be no capital for new types of power generation.
You’re argument sounds like it might even be crafted to make people think divesting is pointless but it can’t be.
Money is actually finite and therefore can be distributed in different ways.
If you're buying stocks (outside of an IPO), you're not actually providing capital to a company though? You're just buying the shares from someone else & somewhere back in the chain of ownership, someone provided capital to the company.
You're paying off the early investors who funded that company, making similar investments more attractive.
Plus many companies do raise money by issuing new stock after IPO, or buy other companies with their own shares, and so a higher stock price benefits them, even if you don't buy those particular shares.
Plus many companies do raise money by issuing new stock after IPO, or buy other companies with their own shares, and so a higher stock price benefits them, even if you don't buy those particular shares.
> Nothing changes in real economy, everything operates as usual.
FWIW,
"As time went on, though, it became clear that divestment was also squeezing the industry. Peabody, the world’s biggest coal company, announced plans for bankruptcy in 2016; on the list of reasons for its problems, it counted the divestment movement, which was making it hard to raise capital. Indeed, just a few weeks ago analysts at that radical collective Goldman Sachs said the “divestment movement has been a key driver of the coal sector’s 60% de-rating over the past five years”."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/divest...
FWIW,
"As time went on, though, it became clear that divestment was also squeezing the industry. Peabody, the world’s biggest coal company, announced plans for bankruptcy in 2016; on the list of reasons for its problems, it counted the divestment movement, which was making it hard to raise capital. Indeed, just a few weeks ago analysts at that radical collective Goldman Sachs said the “divestment movement has been a key driver of the coal sector’s 60% de-rating over the past five years”."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/divest...
"In his letter to Carney, dated Feb. 28, Hohn warned that British banks were “highly likely” to suffer losses on coal financing as the cost of renewables continued to fall and regulations on air pollution and carbon emissions tighten."
If that's the case then Hohn shouldn't even need to push this agenda at all. Coal usage would go down dramatically naturally based on market competition from renewables based on his own statement. Either he doesn't believe that, or he does and there's something else going on.
If that's the case then Hohn shouldn't even need to push this agenda at all. Coal usage would go down dramatically naturally based on market competition from renewables based on his own statement. Either he doesn't believe that, or he does and there's something else going on.
I think it's mostly to do with timing. What he is highlighting is risk mispricing when it comes to coal loans (that aren't properly disclosed to shareholders of banks). But the effects of this mispricing - and market competition from renewables can take years to play out.
In the meanwhile, climate change doesn't wait - if we want to have any chance of not going beyond widely accepted atmospheric CO2 limits, it's important no new fossil fuel infrastructure is built.
In the meanwhile, climate change doesn't wait - if we want to have any chance of not going beyond widely accepted atmospheric CO2 limits, it's important no new fossil fuel infrastructure is built.
There are some countries like Australia and Japan that only increase investment in coal mining and burning. It's hard to starve such a big economies.
After so many fires in Australia, how come there aren't any protests to decrease coal mining? Yes, most of that is exported and producing money for mining companies, which pay AU taxes and employ miners. But still, that's a small fraction of AU population.
I was reading a book to my kids yesterday that had an opening rant about how the wildfires over Australia are a massive problem and our forest management system is a disgrace globally. Flying at 10000 feet led to coughing and choking, seemed like it was everywhere in the country.
The author was Jacques Cousteau, the book was written in 1973.
Australia’s been dealing with giant wildfires forever. It’s not clear whether the fires are getting bigger or smaller with time, what impact forest management has in same, and whether smaller fires closer to population centers get more press and then make it seem like the problem is worse when it may not be.
Global heating is a slow burn, but we’re all poised to read any climate tragedy on it.
The author was Jacques Cousteau, the book was written in 1973.
Australia’s been dealing with giant wildfires forever. It’s not clear whether the fires are getting bigger or smaller with time, what impact forest management has in same, and whether smaller fires closer to population centers get more press and then make it seem like the problem is worse when it may not be.
Global heating is a slow burn, but we’re all poised to read any climate tragedy on it.
>> It’s not clear whether the fires are getting bigger or smaller with time
I'm pretty sure that it's very very clear that the fires are getting maybe not bigger, but definitely more frequent. Sure 1973 might have had a fire as bad as the one this year, the problem is that Australia is now expected to have such a fire every year or even multiple times a year, instead of once a decade or so.
I'm pretty sure that it's very very clear that the fires are getting maybe not bigger, but definitely more frequent. Sure 1973 might have had a fire as bad as the one this year, the problem is that Australia is now expected to have such a fire every year or even multiple times a year, instead of once a decade or so.
This is largely a forest management issue and not one of global heating.
Forest management used to focus on eliminating fires entirely. This has the impact of building up brush to the point where any fire became massive. They thought they were reducing fires, but they actually just increased amplitude and decreased frequency.
It’s kinda like dams for flood control, but with different time scales. A few dams for flood control reduces flood frequency massively, and we build up population centers in what was previously deserted floodplain. Then a flood (dam failure eg Oroville came pretty close) has a huuuuge systemic and possibly chain reaction, trading semiannual road blockages from minor flooding into one Whoa Noah every hundred years.
Forest management used to focus on eliminating fires entirely. This has the impact of building up brush to the point where any fire became massive. They thought they were reducing fires, but they actually just increased amplitude and decreased frequency.
It’s kinda like dams for flood control, but with different time scales. A few dams for flood control reduces flood frequency massively, and we build up population centers in what was previously deserted floodplain. Then a flood (dam failure eg Oroville came pretty close) has a huuuuge systemic and possibly chain reaction, trading semiannual road blockages from minor flooding into one Whoa Noah every hundred years.
This is incorrect.
You can’t manager a tinder dry forest with fire anymore because the droughts and dry seasons are becoming hotter and dryer than in recorded history.
What land management would fix this issue because deforestation?
The only thing that probably needs to be reincorporated in Australia is indigenous cold fire burns when the time is right.
You can’t manager a tinder dry forest with fire anymore because the droughts and dry seasons are becoming hotter and dryer than in recorded history.
What land management would fix this issue because deforestation?
The only thing that probably needs to be reincorporated in Australia is indigenous cold fire burns when the time is right.
Well, what if ecosystem is changing due to GW from forests to veld?
How fire management could help if forest fires are main tool to move from forest to veld - forest will burn and replaced by bushes and grass
How fire management could help if forest fires are main tool to move from forest to veld - forest will burn and replaced by bushes and grass
>Australia’s been dealing with giant wildfires forever. It’s not clear whether the fires are getting bigger or smaller with time,
It's clear the fires are getting much bigger than in the past. The fires were called by Australian people "unprecedented".
It's clear the fires are getting much bigger than in the past. The fires were called by Australian people "unprecedented".
Yeah, global warming and poor land management isn’t a new thing. It’s hundreds of years old.
We start
We start
There were plenty of protests, but the lobby is strong. The current chief of staff for the Prime Minister is the same guy who, whilst at the Minerals Council, supplied the then-minister (now PM) with the coal to take into parliament and tell people “don’t be scared of coal”.
The tentacles from the industry into our political system run deep.
There are frequent protests against coal mining and for climate action. Turns out "carbon capture and storage" works after all, just on politicians, not coal.
There is. The protests especially have affected the large public international miners (BHP, Rio Tinto, Glencore, Anglo-American). One problem is is that when these companies leave thermal coal market by selling coal mines, the companies they sell the assets to aren't exactly suspectible to protests in Australia. For example, Yancoal, the buyer of Rio Tinto's assets, mainly answers to the Chinese Communist Party.
There are a lot of protests to decrease coal mining
Dwarfed by China, which has no need for outside finance of any power infrastructure.
In North America and Europe I would rather see these billionaires donate to land conservation which is as big a direct environmental issue as climate change. Bezos' $10B would have gone a long way to saving Florida's Everglades or helping the Lousisiana coastline.
In North America and Europe I would rather see these billionaires donate to land conservation which is as big a direct environmental issue as climate change. Bezos' $10B would have gone a long way to saving Florida's Everglades or helping the Lousisiana coastline.
Sounds like coal is competing against his other investments. Pretty smart way to dress up your self-interest as a virtue.
Running businesses that pollute less than the alternatives is a virtue.
He's not running the businesses, he's just an investor. The former gives him power to do something about it, the latter gives him plausible deniability.
Until you've made energy so expensive lower class families get an extra financial burden to handle
Investment in non-fossil fuels is exactly what was needed to make them cheaper that fossil, and in many cases they already are.
This such nonsense. Green tariffs (where 100% of electricity is from renewable sources, and sometimes a bit of your gas is biogas) are essentially the same price as non-green tariffs in the UK.
And what about in Kazakhstan? Primary source of energy is from coal. Should we let them freeze because they aren't as fortunate as you to live in the UK?
I don't see how that follows from anything I said.
If you motivate "bad" people to do good in the name of profit then who loses out
The people who rely on cheap energy for warmth and going about their day to day activities will lose out big. When money is tight, any increase in expense can be life changing. On the other side, investors and climate activists worldwide benefit
Or how to make investing into coal plants more profitable for those who don't buy into this guy's campaign. One would expect this to reach Nash equilibrium with barely any change.
This is good, but I wish we aren't so dependent on the largesse of billionaires for every major, planet threatening problem there is to solve
coal miners should be encouraged to claim compensation as well:
https://www.gov.uk/coal-health-compensation-claims
https://www.gov.uk/coal-health-compensation-claims
I hope re-education of the plant workers is part of this campaign.
I doubt it'll work. If the business is profitable, capital will find a way to flow to it.
I didn't interpret the letter as laying out a plan that must work.
I understood:
- If governments stop funding coal, coal goes down.
- Governments are likely to stop funding coal.
- Coal is likely to go down.
- This risk isn't adequately represented.
I understood:
- If governments stop funding coal, coal goes down.
- Governments are likely to stop funding coal.
- Coal is likely to go down.
- This risk isn't adequately represented.
his point is that profitability will go down sharply in an abrupt manner
Half of us don't acknowledge a problem.
Nice, I'm sure many people will appreciate being out of a job.
"Jobs" is never a great argument to defend a technology overtaken by development.
It is an especially bad argument in this context, because not only is coal endangering the whole society, but when we close down coal plants, we continue to need electricity. So the coal plants are replaced, usually these days with renewable sources. And those tend to be more labor-intensive than coal. So "jobs" is actually a good reason to close down coal plants.
It is an especially bad argument in this context, because not only is coal endangering the whole society, but when we close down coal plants, we continue to need electricity. So the coal plants are replaced, usually these days with renewable sources. And those tend to be more labor-intensive than coal. So "jobs" is actually a good reason to close down coal plants.
Yes, I too still weep for the poor unemployed farriers and lamplighters of the world.
We still need the power, so new jobs will be created at the "alternative" power plants, whatever they will be.
Less privileged people who who rely on cheap but dirty energy will get to chose between starving and staying warm. Renewable energy research being done by these companies will cease to exist. This seems incredibly naive at best, at worst it's intentionally malicious and devoid of compassion.
The money that would have funded these plants is not just going to disappear. And there is more than enough money going around to keep the poor warm and fed. People in countries like South Korea and Japan are obviously not going to starve if their central banks stop investing in coal.
I'm not worried about South Korea and Japan. If you cut off funding to every coal plant, massive regions of Africa, South America, and Central Asia will be without any source of heat and electricity (or more likely they will just burn something worse). I want to see renewable, but not at the cost of entire nations going dark and freezing in the winter months
Funding for operating existing plants comes from the clients and/or the government, or possibly from bank loans for cashflow management. Investor money is usually for funding new plants or mines.
The only reason most existing plants might close is if cheaper alternatives provide a better service.
The only reason most existing plants might close is if cheaper alternatives provide a better service.
He just has convince every other private investor, every government, every bank and pension fund and the owners of existing plants to all agree. Literally every single one.
Not really. You don't need to get anywhere close to 100% to effectively make coal too expensive to be worth it.
Even if he just convinces a few big ones that will make coal operations more expensive, hence less attractive also for other ones, hence more expensive... .
Viscous cycle, virtuous cycle and all that. To win you only need the price to increase to a higher level than preferable alternatives and the market will do the rest.
How does not being funded by a few investors etc make it more expensive to be funded by others?
Remember, these projects are inherently very profitable because coal is cheap and easy (and dirty, but dirty isn't a cost). If a big name won't invest for a 5% return, I'm sure 1001 small names will...
Remember, these projects are inherently very profitable because coal is cheap and easy (and dirty, but dirty isn't a cost). If a big name won't invest for a 5% return, I'm sure 1001 small names will...
> How does not being funded by a few investors etc make it more expensive to be funded by others?
Supply and demand. If the number of investors goes down, the remaining ones can charge higher rates. The 1001 small names would be stupid to invest for 5% if they can get 6%. The coal company would build even more plants if it were lucrative, but at 6% such and such big investment does not make financial sense anymore.
Supply and demand. If the number of investors goes down, the remaining ones can charge higher rates. The 1001 small names would be stupid to invest for 5% if they can get 6%. The coal company would build even more plants if it were lucrative, but at 6% such and such big investment does not make financial sense anymore.
It's self-correcting. At 6%, more interest will be shown by other sources of funding, who will then enter the game and lower the interest rate as a result.
The world is awash with capital right now, money sitting around idle, looking for a place to be invested. Just look at how much money is being thrown at startups, how low interest rates are for countries who were bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy <10 years ago. This scheme is guaranteed to fail right now. Maybe in another credit crunch it has a chance?
The world is awash with capital right now, money sitting around idle, looking for a place to be invested. Just look at how much money is being thrown at startups, how low interest rates are for countries who were bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy <10 years ago. This scheme is guaranteed to fail right now. Maybe in another credit crunch it has a chance?
That is not what "self-correcting" does.
Your argument does not show that it won't go up, but only that it won't go from 5% to 15% but rather find some balance at, say, 8%. Mission accomplished, coal is now at a disadvantage compared to what it was before.
> The world is awash with capital right now, money sitting around idle, looking for a place to be invested.
And considering that coal is not doing well (and thus has to offer higher rates), much of that money will be invested elsewhere. Sure, some will still be invested in coal but less than it would be if you didn't do that.
This type of argument pops up often: "but there is a small counteracting effect, so it will balance out to not do anything". No, it does not work like that.
Your argument does not show that it won't go up, but only that it won't go from 5% to 15% but rather find some balance at, say, 8%. Mission accomplished, coal is now at a disadvantage compared to what it was before.
> The world is awash with capital right now, money sitting around idle, looking for a place to be invested.
And considering that coal is not doing well (and thus has to offer higher rates), much of that money will be invested elsewhere. Sure, some will still be invested in coal but less than it would be if you didn't do that.
This type of argument pops up often: "but there is a small counteracting effect, so it will balance out to not do anything". No, it does not work like that.
>Your argument does not show that it won't go up, but only that it won't go from 5% to 15% but rather find some balance at, say, 8%. Mission accomplished, coal is now at a disadvantage compared to what it was before.
Or it will settle at 5.01% due to the fact that a middle eastern sovereign wealth fund or two will be bigger than all investors who sign up to this scheme put together.
>And considering that coal is not doing well (and thus has to offer higher rates), much of that money will be invested elsewhere. Sure, some will still be invested in coal but less than it would be if you didn't do that.
But that has nothing to do with global warming or ethics of coal. It's mostly due to natural gas becoming so much more economical, which is mostly due to the shale gas revolution. It's a huge benefit to the planet, but mostly an incidental one. Of course politicians and energy companies will still use it to pat themselves on the back very very publicly.
>This type of argument pops up often: "but there is a small counteracting effect, so it will balance out to not do anything". No, it does not work like that.
Depends on the scale of the pro-acting effect. My guess is that the effect of 'ethical investment' due to ethics/global warming alone, and not due to fundamentals of energy markets that have to do with prices of natural gas, will be close to zero. If I'm wrong, it'll only be because a majority of investors who would have otherwise invested in coal (important distinction) jump on board this campaign, or close to a majority.
Or it will settle at 5.01% due to the fact that a middle eastern sovereign wealth fund or two will be bigger than all investors who sign up to this scheme put together.
>And considering that coal is not doing well (and thus has to offer higher rates), much of that money will be invested elsewhere. Sure, some will still be invested in coal but less than it would be if you didn't do that.
But that has nothing to do with global warming or ethics of coal. It's mostly due to natural gas becoming so much more economical, which is mostly due to the shale gas revolution. It's a huge benefit to the planet, but mostly an incidental one. Of course politicians and energy companies will still use it to pat themselves on the back very very publicly.
>This type of argument pops up often: "but there is a small counteracting effect, so it will balance out to not do anything". No, it does not work like that.
Depends on the scale of the pro-acting effect. My guess is that the effect of 'ethical investment' due to ethics/global warming alone, and not due to fundamentals of energy markets that have to do with prices of natural gas, will be close to zero. If I'm wrong, it'll only be because a majority of investors who would have otherwise invested in coal (important distinction) jump on board this campaign, or close to a majority.
> Or it will settle at 5.01% due to the fact that a middle eastern sovereign wealth fund or two will be bigger than all investors who sign up to this scheme put together.
Which did not sign up at 5%, but at 5.01% it is now totally worth it... . No, it is entirely unreasonable to expect that if the current large investors drop out they will be more than replaced.
It might be the case and even likely that Hohn does not achieve the first step, but if he can convince a few large investors the effect will be much bigger than 5.01%.
> If I'm wrong, it'll only be because a majority of investors who would have otherwise invested in coal (important distinction) jump on board this campaign, or close to a majority.
If "just", say, 10% jump on board, what then?
Which did not sign up at 5%, but at 5.01% it is now totally worth it... . No, it is entirely unreasonable to expect that if the current large investors drop out they will be more than replaced.
It might be the case and even likely that Hohn does not achieve the first step, but if he can convince a few large investors the effect will be much bigger than 5.01%.
> If I'm wrong, it'll only be because a majority of investors who would have otherwise invested in coal (important distinction) jump on board this campaign, or close to a majority.
If "just", say, 10% jump on board, what then?
>It might be the case and even likely that Hohn does not achieve the first step, but if he can convince a few large investors the effect will be much bigger than 5.01%.
No, not a few. Most.
>If "just", say, 10% jump on board, what then?
Then it'll make little or no difference.
No, not a few. Most.
>If "just", say, 10% jump on board, what then?
Then it'll make little or no difference.
That also works in reverse. The higher the interest rate gets from supply and demand, the higher supply will be from defectors. You might be willing to divest if it doesn't cost you much, but if it means losing out on 20% of returns, you might consider otherwise.
Then central banks are poised to unleash a wave of coal on everyone to fight coronavirus as cost of capital is gonna get way cheaper in the coming months.
He just has to convince the big ones first, most just follow.
I see nothing in the article about helping workers who would be out of jobs when coal plants shut down. The headlines will read "Billionaire causes thousands of blue-collar workers to lose their jobs".
Thousands of future people won't die of asthma related illnesses. Most of the older workers will fail to find work but most of the younger workers will succeed. Non-coal energy industries seem to create jobs, your pessimism is possibly overrated. You do know that PV and solar is understood to be net job creating?
Do you actually want us to be drowning in the horse manure, literally tonnes a day, from still depending on horses, because horseless carriages will under employ postboys and farriers?
Do you actually want us to be drowning in the horse manure, literally tonnes a day, from still depending on horses, because horseless carriages will under employ postboys and farriers?
Not arguing that we should avoid clean energy, but if one person with so many resources can effect the coal industry, the least they can do is also help the people who would be affected by it through job retraining, etc.
£1 billion is a lot for one person; yet very little for 3 million people, even when most of them are on Chinese wages.
Please separate the issues. 2 different problems, need 2 different solutions for each.
Similar problems is with state workers in bureaucracies. In my country, citizens spend hours in queues, filling forms etc. when it could all be done online and have simpler laws.
If the purpose is for the state worker to have a job, let her stay at home and get paid, rather than causing more harm just to have a job.
Similar problems is with state workers in bureaucracies. In my country, citizens spend hours in queues, filling forms etc. when it could all be done online and have simpler laws.
If the purpose is for the state worker to have a job, let her stay at home and get paid, rather than causing more harm just to have a job.
How many do actually work in coal industry compared to how many works in the renewable energy industry?
How many jobs for people with only high school diplomas does renewable energy support? How many does coal mining?
At least in my part of the world electrician and other crafts are learned at high school level and not at university, so probably not that much difference. Most of construction, installation, and maintenance don't require higher education
from a capex perspective maybe you’re right, but coal needs miners forever and allow any man with a strong back to put microwaveable food on the TV tray. Don’t need nearly as many people to maintain a wind farm as you do to feed a coal plant or ten.
(I’m not pro coal or anything, but I just don’t share the view that transitioning to higher tech solutions doesn’t have negative externalities—it does but they are borne by people largely outside the conversation, much like global heating).
(I’m not pro coal or anything, but I just don’t share the view that transitioning to higher tech solutions doesn’t have negative externalities—it does but they are borne by people largely outside the conversation, much like global heating).
Except that mining became largely mechanized, especially in the first world, reducing the labor intensity required to mine it: https://wvpolicy.org/blog-series-the-impact-and-future-of-th...
Renewables tend to to be more labor-intensive than coal. So switching to renewables rather creates jobs. Besides the usual benefits of saving the climate, keeping the air clean...
Renewables presently look more labor-intensive because they are still being built at a rapid clip, whereas there are no coal plants under construction in the US. "Coal power jobs" presently include only the permanent employment for operating and maintaining plants that were built in the past, plus associated mining jobs for fuel.
Most wind and solar jobs are temporary construction/installation jobs. It takes a year or two for hundreds of workers to build a solar farm. Then the site can operate for 20 years or more with just a handful of permanent employees. Jobs in manufacturing the equipment used for renewable generation are steadier but also less plentiful. Factories for making batteries, turbines, inverters, and solar modules are already thrifty with human labor and becoming more so over time.
I actually think that these characteristics of renewable generation are benefits, overall. Aging populations benefit from technological developments that enable the same material standard of living with fewer prime-age workers. Low labor intensity also means that renewable electricity prices can fall further until hitting a price floor set by the wages of plant workers.
See a previous analysis here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13750787
Most wind and solar jobs are temporary construction/installation jobs. It takes a year or two for hundreds of workers to build a solar farm. Then the site can operate for 20 years or more with just a handful of permanent employees. Jobs in manufacturing the equipment used for renewable generation are steadier but also less plentiful. Factories for making batteries, turbines, inverters, and solar modules are already thrifty with human labor and becoming more so over time.
I actually think that these characteristics of renewable generation are benefits, overall. Aging populations benefit from technological developments that enable the same material standard of living with fewer prime-age workers. Low labor intensity also means that renewable electricity prices can fall further until hitting a price floor set by the wages of plant workers.
See a previous analysis here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13750787
Especially with how mechanized coal mining has become.
The amount of pollution per work hour is staggering. I don't think it's relevant.
Other sectors can actually even employ more.
He is asking for banks to publicly disclose their coal loan exposures and significantly increase the applied risk-weighting of these coal loans. Sounds prudent to me.