Banks are funding climate chaos. You don't have to(not-ship.com)
not-ship.com
Banks are funding climate chaos. You don't have to
https://www.not-ship.com/banks-are-funding-climate-chaos-you-dont-have-to-2/
4 comments
what a crazy idea
either: 1. you spend all the effort and time (and money - it's not free to drive around, and there are often join fees) to switch banks and it makes no difference whatsoever, or 2. the overall energy consumption remains the same, and everyone levels out, because that's just how much energy banks require per customer
I'm all for saving the earth but I don't see how making my life more difficult will change this situation one iota - meanwhile, I have limited time to live, limited resources of my own.
either: 1. you spend all the effort and time (and money - it's not free to drive around, and there are often join fees) to switch banks and it makes no difference whatsoever, or 2. the overall energy consumption remains the same, and everyone levels out, because that's just how much energy banks require per customer
I'm all for saving the earth but I don't see how making my life more difficult will change this situation one iota - meanwhile, I have limited time to live, limited resources of my own.
This feels like a weak argument to me. At the end of the day, nearly all cash flow, good or bad, moves through banks.
And unlike speculative investing like VC or public equities, banks lend against fundamentals: cash flow, collateral, debt coverage, repayment history. Their fiduciary responsibility to deploy deposits into relatively safe, income-generating assets.
As long as a fossil fuel business is financially sound (ie the pipeline manufacturer with stable cash flow and strong collateral) it’s hard to expect a bank to categorically refuse them as a customer.
And unlike speculative investing like VC or public equities, banks lend against fundamentals: cash flow, collateral, debt coverage, repayment history. Their fiduciary responsibility to deploy deposits into relatively safe, income-generating assets.
As long as a fossil fuel business is financially sound (ie the pipeline manufacturer with stable cash flow and strong collateral) it’s hard to expect a bank to categorically refuse them as a customer.
It isn't weak. For years, banks have been granting big loans to fossil fuel projects, not to green projects. There is a demonstrable bias that goes beyond fiduciary responsibility. The logic of banks is like saying that it's okay for VCs to not fund female founders because they present a fiduciary risk claiming that male founders simply are known to work out. As such, they're as strongly in favor of climate chaos as they can be.
I'd rather not let someone else have custody over my funds when I have a perfect way to handle them by myself. Not to mention they suck for payments.