“They found that while most investors aren’t climate change deniers, they tend to see the associated risks of their portfolios as reputational and ethical in nature rather than physical or financial. In other words, public disapproval and the possibility of government intervention are seen as more significant factors than the direct effect of climate change on businesses’ sales and profits. Only 26% of those asked incorporate climate risks into their valuation models and 25% hedge against them.”
So let me get this straight. Investors, some of the most educated people in our society, aren’t really climate change “deniers” according to the writer. He then goes on to say that only 25% even consider climate change in their investment decisions. HA HA HA HA!
In other words: intelligent, well-read people putting their own money at risk with no one putting PC pressure on them largely think Climate Change is not a threat serious enough to consider when investing.
Deniers? You bet. Even better, these investors see “public disapproval” (ie. Politically Correct BS) as more of a threat, along with government intervention in the companies they invest in.
Talk about a reality check. All those Scary Monster stories don’t seem to be doing the trick.
Not considering it in your investment decision doesn’t mean you don’t believe in it. You simply don’t believe that it will have an impact on your investment. This is not the same thing.
If public disapproval is what makes them at least think twice before investing, then that is awesome.
Look whether you believe climate change is happening or not, caused by man or not, why would anyone push against doing better things for the environment. We as a humans can clearly make a difference. Just look at the difference between when you grew up in LA in the 70s, and now. All those environmental protections made a difference. The hole in the ozone layer is shrinking. Again, due to regulations and changes in behavior.
We can make a difference, but we have to be willing to accept that the status quo isn’t good enough.
“…why would anyone push against doing better things for the environment . . .”
Dude, things cost money and sometimes jobs. I love all the altruism when it comes to the environment but in a world of limited resources, people have to make decisions on what to spend their money and time on. And most of the proposals from the Climate Zealots are not only expensive as hell but don’t really address the issue anyway.
Raising gas taxes on the poor in California? If California disappeared from the planet it would only reduce greenhouse gas production by .0001 of the total. Like, Dude, get real. And that’s only one of hundreds of dumb ideas from people who don’t care to solve the problem OR give their own money to the cause.
From the article:
“They found that while most investors aren’t climate change deniers, they tend to see the associated risks of their portfolios as reputational and ethical in nature rather than physical or financial. In other words, public disapproval and the possibility of government intervention are seen as more significant factors than the direct effect of climate change on businesses’ sales and profits. Only 26% of those asked incorporate climate risks into their valuation models and 25% hedge against them.”
So let me get this straight. Investors, some of the most educated people in our society, aren’t really climate change “deniers” according to the writer. He then goes on to say that only 25% even consider climate change in their investment decisions. HA HA HA HA!
In other words: intelligent, well-read people putting their own money at risk with no one putting PC pressure on them largely think Climate Change is not a threat serious enough to consider when investing.
Deniers? You bet. Even better, these investors see “public disapproval” (ie. Politically Correct BS) as more of a threat, along with government intervention in the companies they invest in.
Talk about a reality check. All those Scary Monster stories don’t seem to be doing the trick.
So much to unpack here.
Not considering it in your investment decision doesn’t mean you don’t believe in it. You simply don’t believe that it will have an impact on your investment. This is not the same thing.
If public disapproval is what makes them at least think twice before investing, then that is awesome.
Look whether you believe climate change is happening or not, caused by man or not, why would anyone push against doing better things for the environment. We as a humans can clearly make a difference. Just look at the difference between when you grew up in LA in the 70s, and now. All those environmental protections made a difference. The hole in the ozone layer is shrinking. Again, due to regulations and changes in behavior.
We can make a difference, but we have to be willing to accept that the status quo isn’t good enough.
“…why would anyone push against doing better things for the environment . . .”
Dude, things cost money and sometimes jobs. I love all the altruism when it comes to the environment but in a world of limited resources, people have to make decisions on what to spend their money and time on. And most of the proposals from the Climate Zealots are not only expensive as hell but don’t really address the issue anyway.
Raising gas taxes on the poor in California? If California disappeared from the planet it would only reduce greenhouse gas production by .0001 of the total. Like, Dude, get real. And that’s only one of hundreds of dumb ideas from people who don’t care to solve the problem OR give their own money to the cause.