This is pretty obtuse and I see a ton of problems with it. Validity - Ethically sourced "x" has always been a marketing term more than a reality. TONS of supposedly green or healthy or ethical...
This is pretty obtuse and I see a ton of problems with it.
Validity - Ethically sourced "x" has always been a marketing term more than a reality. TONS of supposedly green or healthy or ethical products, in practice, still just do the same.
How banking works - Even worse, with how loans and assets and what not are constantly shuffled through banks, there's basically 0 way to ensure your money doesn't go towards some kind of loan you don't want.
How business/black markets work - If you can solve the first two, now you've got the issue of the companies adapting. Shell corps, llc's, various shufflings, etc. All in some grey area, and in general, if you can't stop banks from accidentally giving money to criminals and terrorists (or intentionally in some cases) you're sure as hell not going to be able to handle "preference" situations.
Adoption - These kinds of companies aren't going to mom and pop credit union to get their loans. They're going to wells fargo and other giants for their fleets of tankers and oil rigs or refineries or whatever. There is 0 way enough people move away from those kinds of banks over this, when wells for example has been caught multiple times with horrific practices that directly effect clients, and still continues to operate.
There is some progress though, check out the global alliance on banking on values. There are a lot of small to mid-sized banks out there that are showing the way. It pretty much boils down to not...
There is some progress though, check out the global alliance on banking on values. There are a lot of small to mid-sized banks out there that are showing the way. It pretty much boils down to not only saying what you are going to do, but also showing it, be it by external auditing, transparency on the loan book, or certification. Their growth compared to the market is pretty high, just not the big bang we came to expect from the IT world (and their return on equity is lower). But they're out there, and there is plenty of opportunity as a customer to guide the world to a better place by our choices.
The name of the study is "Saving (For) The Planet: The Climate Power of Personal Banking." I debated whether to use that headline or come up with my own. I prefer desensationalized titles; do...
The name of the study is "Saving (For) The Planet: The Climate Power of Personal Banking." I debated whether to use that headline or come up with my own. I prefer desensationalized titles; do others agree/disagree?
Clickbait titles make me assume the article as a whole is BS. If the article is actually good and somebody's editor just made them slap a shitty title on it then I guess I appreciate the head's up...
Clickbait titles make me assume the article as a whole is BS. If the article is actually good and somebody's editor just made them slap a shitty title on it then I guess I appreciate the head's up that it's worth reading. I kinda still don't like the idea of clicking on it at all though because whoever came up with the title thinks their crap worked and I don't want to encourage more of it.
Found this via this Ars Technica repost of a Wired article summarizing this Project Drawdown study. The Ars Technica comment section was highly skeptical that this was worth anything, but...
Found this via this Ars Technica repost of a Wired article summarizing this Project Drawdown study. The Ars Technica comment section was highly skeptical that this was worth anything, but commenters there almost always tend toward cynicism, so I thought I'd see what Tildes thinks.
The main thrust of the study is that consumers' deposits serve as a basis for bank loans, that these loans go disproportionately toward fossil fuels companies instead of green energy, and that the climate impact of where you keep your savings account is surprisingly strong. They claim that the climate impact of moving $8,000 from a climate-intensive to a climate-responsible bank is twice that of adopting a vegetarian diet.
Some of the criticisms I saw at Ars Technica:
Moving your money to a climate-responsible bank won't really make it harder for fossil fuels to get loans; they'll just get the money somewhere else. I think this is part of a mindset that wants One Big Solution to climate change; I think many small solutions working together is more likely to achieve results.
Making it more difficult for fossil fuel companies to get loans will push them into the arms of private equity firms; it's better for transparency and accountability for fossil fuel companies to remain public.
Debates over whether the study's methodology makes sense. I'm hoping some of you can comment on this.
A large, public company that wants to borrow money could sell bonds, no private equity needed. There’s no particular reason for them to borrow from banks.
A large, public company that wants to borrow money could sell bonds, no private equity needed. There’s no particular reason for them to borrow from banks.
This would be a lot easier to do as an investor. I haven’t really looked at them, but there is a whole industry of “ESG” funds. Also, did you know that you can buy CD’s from many different banks...
This would be a lot easier to do as an investor. I haven’t really looked at them, but there is a whole industry of “ESG” funds. Also, did you know that you can buy CD’s from many different banks through a brokerage account? These have same same protection as savings accounts.
So, if you have more money than you need (beyond an emergency fund) sitting in a bank you don’t care for, moving it to a brokerage might be the way to go.
Though, what one person does doesn’t matter that much. The market will adjust; someone else will buy what you sell.
It’s like a boycott where you need to get a lot of people to participate to make a difference. Or maybe compare with economic sanctions? It takes pretty extreme measures to stop buying Russian oil and gas.
It seems like the scale is all wrong for individual action on climate change, and even grassroots efforts probably don’t have the necessary scale. This is the sort of thing governments need to coordinate.
This is pretty obtuse and I see a ton of problems with it.
Validity - Ethically sourced "x" has always been a marketing term more than a reality. TONS of supposedly green or healthy or ethical products, in practice, still just do the same.
How banking works - Even worse, with how loans and assets and what not are constantly shuffled through banks, there's basically 0 way to ensure your money doesn't go towards some kind of loan you don't want.
How business/black markets work - If you can solve the first two, now you've got the issue of the companies adapting. Shell corps, llc's, various shufflings, etc. All in some grey area, and in general, if you can't stop banks from accidentally giving money to criminals and terrorists (or intentionally in some cases) you're sure as hell not going to be able to handle "preference" situations.
Adoption - These kinds of companies aren't going to mom and pop credit union to get their loans. They're going to wells fargo and other giants for their fleets of tankers and oil rigs or refineries or whatever. There is 0 way enough people move away from those kinds of banks over this, when wells for example has been caught multiple times with horrific practices that directly effect clients, and still continues to operate.
There is some progress though, check out the global alliance on banking on values. There are a lot of small to mid-sized banks out there that are showing the way. It pretty much boils down to not only saying what you are going to do, but also showing it, be it by external auditing, transparency on the loan book, or certification. Their growth compared to the market is pretty high, just not the big bang we came to expect from the IT world (and their return on equity is lower). But they're out there, and there is plenty of opportunity as a customer to guide the world to a better place by our choices.
The name of the study is "Saving (For) The Planet: The Climate Power of Personal Banking." I debated whether to use that headline or come up with my own. I prefer desensationalized titles; do others agree/disagree?
Your title is much better, IMO. And I also prefer to edit sensationalized/clickbait titles to be less so, too.
Clickbait titles make me assume the article as a whole is BS. If the article is actually good and somebody's editor just made them slap a shitty title on it then I guess I appreciate the head's up that it's worth reading. I kinda still don't like the idea of clicking on it at all though because whoever came up with the title thinks their crap worked and I don't want to encourage more of it.
Found this via this Ars Technica repost of a Wired article summarizing this Project Drawdown study. The Ars Technica comment section was highly skeptical that this was worth anything, but commenters there almost always tend toward cynicism, so I thought I'd see what Tildes thinks.
The main thrust of the study is that consumers' deposits serve as a basis for bank loans, that these loans go disproportionately toward fossil fuels companies instead of green energy, and that the climate impact of where you keep your savings account is surprisingly strong. They claim that the climate impact of moving $8,000 from a climate-intensive to a climate-responsible bank is twice that of adopting a vegetarian diet.
Some of the criticisms I saw at Ars Technica:
A large, public company that wants to borrow money could sell bonds, no private equity needed. There’s no particular reason for them to borrow from banks.
This would be a lot easier to do as an investor. I haven’t really looked at them, but there is a whole industry of “ESG” funds. Also, did you know that you can buy CD’s from many different banks through a brokerage account? These have same same protection as savings accounts.
So, if you have more money than you need (beyond an emergency fund) sitting in a bank you don’t care for, moving it to a brokerage might be the way to go.
Though, what one person does doesn’t matter that much. The market will adjust; someone else will buy what you sell.
It’s like a boycott where you need to get a lot of people to participate to make a difference. Or maybe compare with economic sanctions? It takes pretty extreme measures to stop buying Russian oil and gas.
It seems like the scale is all wrong for individual action on climate change, and even grassroots efforts probably don’t have the necessary scale. This is the sort of thing governments need to coordinate.