European 'Green' Investments Hold Billions in Fossil Fuel Majors (theguardian.com) 42
An anonymous reader shares a report: European "green" funds holding more than $33 billion of investments in major oil and gas companies have been revealed by an investigation, despite fossil fuels being the root cause of the climate crisis. Some of these investment funds used branding such as Sustainable Global Stars and Europe Climate Pathway.
Over $18 billion was invested in the five biggest polluters: TotalEnergies, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron and BP. These topped a 2023 Carbon Majors ranking for oil and gas production among shareholder-owned firms. Other investments by funds following EU sustainable finance disclosure regulations (SFDR) included those in US fracking company Devon Energy and Canadian tar sands company Suncor, the investigation by Voxeurop and the Guardian found.
Investors claim that holding a stake in a company allows them to influence the firm's pursuit of climate goals. However, no major oil and gas producer has plans consistent with international climate targets and many companies have weakened their plans in the last year, according to a report from Carbon Tracker in April. The investment firms with the biggest stakes in fossil companies in their green funds were JP Morgan, BlackRock and DWS in Germany.
Over $18 billion was invested in the five biggest polluters: TotalEnergies, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron and BP. These topped a 2023 Carbon Majors ranking for oil and gas production among shareholder-owned firms. Other investments by funds following EU sustainable finance disclosure regulations (SFDR) included those in US fracking company Devon Energy and Canadian tar sands company Suncor, the investigation by Voxeurop and the Guardian found.
Investors claim that holding a stake in a company allows them to influence the firm's pursuit of climate goals. However, no major oil and gas producer has plans consistent with international climate targets and many companies have weakened their plans in the last year, according to a report from Carbon Tracker in April. The investment firms with the biggest stakes in fossil companies in their green funds were JP Morgan, BlackRock and DWS in Germany.
Re: (Score:3)
Everything I said was and is true. You not liking that, doesn't change it. Now, do the adults a favor and shut the fuck up little NPC... While they tax you into submission for things they cannot prove, that you are fucking stupid enough to swallow...
you say, but it's worth showing where it's false
Was your lie. There's no such mathematical impossibility and the taking of carbon from a solid state in the ground to a gaseous state as CO2 in the atmosphere obviously can change climate. There's the same amount of carbon on earth, but instead of being passive as coal in the ground it's now actively reflecting
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
when you factor in 3 sextillion tons of atmosphere on top of them
The total mass of Earth’s atmosphere is about 5.5 quadrillion tons, or roughly one millionth of Earth’s mass, according to a number of at least vaguely credible sources (wikipedia, Britannica).
Also, I don't think anyone is claiming that climate change is impacting the Earth's core, so the mass of the planet doesn't really come in to this. We are pretty much exclusively interested in the bits humans/the majority of biosphere lives in, and that's within a couple of hundred feet of ground level,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I think the argument about the crust being the only earth mass you are considering as in scope is a bit tenuous as well. I think it's safe to say that we aren't too worried about the impact of climate change more than a a few
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
our 250 million tons of pollutants per year
~35 BILLION tons of CO2/year (you are off by a factor of 100 this time, you are getting closer) There's also non-CO2 greenhouse gases, which brings it up to effectively the same as 50 BILLION tons of C02/year. Also, these don't spontaneously go away after a year. Some decompose into something less problematic, but not all. Each year, it's the new additions as well as whatever is left over from last year, the year before that, and so on.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Are we learning yet?
Nope, I don't think WE are learning at all.
Even that math still leaves it at fractions of a thousandth of possible level of effect
Is that a scientific term?
Hows about we start with some basics:
- Do you agree that CO2 in the atmosphere has the ability to impact climate as witnessed by the biosphere?
- Do you believe that additional CO2 in the atmosphere (regardless of source) could have a negative impact on the climate?
- Do you think that if something is bad, having more of it (regardless of how much) is unquestionably harmless?
For what it's worth, I don't think climate change is un
Re: (Score:1)
Re: "Fossil Fuels" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The fossil fuels you incurious lazy chump
If I dig up a bunch of coal and burn it what happened to the carbon
Nevermind, you act stupid but you are a liar. A bald faced dumfuck malicious liar. Stop lying.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts Vice President Al Gore /s
Organic (Score:2)
Fossil fuels are organic so they're automatically green, right?
Fossil Fuel Majors ?? (Score:4, Funny)
Is that a degree in energy management specialising in coal, oil and NatGas?
Or what happens when you promote a Fossil Fuel Captain?
Re: (Score:2)
"Or what happens when you promote a Fossil Fuel Captain?"
A Fossill Fuel Admiral?
A Fossill Fuel Admiral? (Score:2)
No, you would get that by promoting a Fossil Fuel Commodore.
Come to think of it, all (Holden) Commodores ran on Fossil fuels, though some of them may have been converted from petrol to CNG or LPG (which are still fossil fuels even though they contain less carbon.
Isn't it funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it interesting that when investors have their own money on the line, the environmental virtue signaling goes out the window.
Suddenly the Green Energy initiatives of Exxon and BP should be given more credit.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it interesting that when investors have their own money on the line, the environmental virtue signaling goes out the window.
Suddenly the Green Energy initiatives of Exxon and BP should be given more credit.
There's nothing logical about your post. Like... nothing at all. There is no virtue signalling - the investment in fossil fuels companies is in the green divisons of those companies.
Even the second part of your statement is baffling. Exxon was infamously laggard as the only oil industry major that didn't do any meaningful green energy work, and the green darling bp has pivoted away from green energy massively recently ... because it didn't make enough money.
Based on your logic you might have invested in the German Wehrmacht and not the SS during WW2.
Supposedly the German Wehrmacht and specifically the Heer were not dirty like the SS.
Multiple history books printed after the 1980s have generally proven that was a fairy tale spun by captured German Heer officers after the war was over to differentiate themselves from the SS and ingractiate (suck up) themselves to their Western captors, basically to avoid trial at Nuremburg.
Re: (Score:2)
If I were interested in their capabilities than sure.
Re: (Score:2)
That's simply not true. The relative greenness of an oil and gas company depends a lot on their practices. There are quite a few who are good actors limiting fugitive emissions, and then there are plenty who will outright vent methane to atmosphere (not even flare it) since it's in the way of oil they are pumping, just as an example. There are other practices that vary in greenness as well such as some operators still running oil lances in their furnaces rather than using natural gas, the result of which ma
Not enough green investments to go around (Score:2)
The ESG/green investing products have the same problem as any targeted investment in a particular area. There is not enough places to invest the money beyond a given total dollar amount.
The remaining money goes to companies 'allied' to the ESG/green movement even if the allied companies have have run non-green business for decades.
This is stupid (Score:2)
A firm doesn't need to have plans consistent with climate goals in order for an investment in that firm to produce results consistent with climate goals. The reason oil and gas companies got such a large share of green investment is because they ... invested it in green energy.
Yeah in the past year they've all backed off, but that didn't mean that BP wasn't one of the biggest wind producers in America, or one of the largest solar companies in Europe, or that Shell doesn't have a *massive* EV charging networ
Re: (Score:2)
A firm doesn't need to have plans consistent with climate goals in order for an investment in that firm to produce results consistent with climate goals. The reason oil and gas companies got such a large share of green investment is because they ... invested it in green energy.
Yeah in the past year they've all backed off, but that didn't mean that BP wasn't one of the biggest wind producers in America, or one of the largest solar companies in Europe, or that Shell doesn't have a *massive* EV charging network, or that Total isn't at the forefront of floating windfarms or that Chevron isn't building massive amounts of green hydrogen generation.
The investment here is in engineer, and fossil fuel companies are the undisputed leaders in execution of major energy engineering projects.
It's all about power and control. If you don't pledge fealty to the climate targets, you can't be controlled by them, and thus we must put you on blast as being on the naughty list.
33 billion is not much (Score:2)
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
It may well be the money these green funds have invested is a mistake, but in no way would that investment ever be missed. It is a tiny drop in the barrel, as it were.
Re: (Score:2)
And, thus, the argument that they are somehow controlling the industry from the inside by holding those shares is absolute nonsense and they should just sell them off.
Re: (Score:2)