Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Divesting from FF funds may actually be counterproductive from a green point of view as it is the “responsible” investors who withdraw - the very same people who might have been expected to steer the companies towards more green policies. The balance in the boardrooms will shift away from green policies to more traditional profit generating strategies.

I believe that theory, like 'trickle down economics' has been busted over and over. In fact I seem to remember the CoE using exactly that claim to justify their holdings in a company that also developed arms, in an episode of the Mark Thomas Experience, or Project, or something like that. This was probably about 20yrs ago.

He pointed out to them that over the time they'd held shares, the arms part of the company had grown. I also seem to remember him asking if he could enter a float in the Lord's Mayor Parade on their behalf, and we watched as a truck/low loader with a small tank on board rolled up behind them. They were not impressed!

But busted theories aside, the main argument for getting out of FF investments is that they've become a bad investment over time, multiple US coal companies have gone bust, or lost around 99% of their value this decade. So 'getting out' is simply a good idea. And that's before any litigation in the US is potentially successful, since at that point things could get painful.

More on this thread:

Perhaps worthy of support?

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I believe that theory, like 'trickle down economics' has been busted over and over. In fact I seem to remember the CoE using exactly that claim to justify their holdings in a company that also developed arms, in an episode of the Mark Thomas Experience, or Project, or something like that. This was probably about 20yrs ago.

He pointed out to them that over the time they'd held shares, the arms part of the company had grown. I also seem to remember him asking if he could enter a float in the Lord's Mayor Parade on their behalf, and we watched as a truck/low loader with a small tank on board rolled up behind them. They were not impressed!

But busted theories aside, the main argument for getting out of FF investments is that they've become a bad investment over time, multiple US coal companies have gone bust, or lost around 99% of their value this decade. So 'getting out' is simply a good idea. And that's before any litigation in the US is potentially successful, since at that point things could get painful.

More on this thread:

Perhaps worthy of support?

Last time you conflated tobacco and oil; this time it is arms. What next pornography?

So was the advice contained in that link good advice about divesting? That depends on which newspaper you read but that right wing rag Money Observer pointed out “According to research from fundexpert.co.uk only three ethical funds out of 35 make it into the top performing 20 per cent of all funds over 10 years.“

I’ll stick with my own experience though. I have for many years managed my own pension and in December 2015 invested in Investec Global Energy who mainly invest in oil majors. My total return since December 2015 has been 32%. I can live with that.

zeupater

JKenH wrote: »

Last time you conflated tobacco and oil; this time it is arms. What next pornography?

So was the advice contained in that link good advice about divesting? That depends on which newspaper you read but that right wing rag Money Observer pointed out “According to research from fundexpert.co.uk only three ethical funds out of 35 make it into the top performing 20 per cent of all funds over 10 years.“

I’ll stick with my own experience though. I have for many years managed my own pension and in December 2015 invested in Investec Global Energy who mainly invest in oil majors. My total return since December 2015 has been 32%. I can live with that.

Hi

Conflated? ... maybe 'analogised' would be more appropriate as it was used as an example using a similar set of circumstances so as to assist understanding .... as analogies go, it seems to represent many of the same issues regarding health (etc) & deliberate misrepresentation by vested interest groups, so I can't follow any representative logic for disagreement with the position .... doubt many others would either of they took a little time to think about what was said and the overwhelming evidence which would support it!

HTH
Z

JKenH

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Conflated? ... maybe 'analogised' would be more appropriate as it was used as an example using a similar set of circumstances so as to assist understanding .... as analogies go, it seems to represent many of the same issues regarding health & deliberate misrepresentation by vested interest groups, so I can't follow any representative logic for disagreement with the position .... doubt many others would either of they took a little time to think about what was said and the overwhelming evidence which would support it!

HTH
Z

And what particular overwhelming evidence would that be?

The substance of Mart’s case was

“
In fact I seem to remember the CoE using exactly that claim to justify their holdings in a company that also developed arms, in an episode of the Mark Thomas Experience, or Project, or something like that. This was probably about 20yrs ago.

He pointed out to them that over the time they'd held shares, the arms part of the company had grown. I also seem to remember him asking if he could enter a float in the Lord's Mayor Parade on their behalf, and we watched as a truck/low loader with a small tank on board rolled up behind them.”



You suggest having seen such overwhelming evidence no one could possibly do other than agree with Mart’s argument. I am surprised at that comment but perhaps if I explain a little more all will become clear.

You referred to vested interests but I am not sure which vested interests you refer to. This term seems to be a catch all for anyone and everybody involved in FFindustries.

If we are discussing a multinational corporation then the interests represented by the board of directors and the management are those of the shareholders. The shareholders appoint the board members who appoint the directors. At the AGM the board has to account to the shareholders. So the only vested interest I can see is that of the shareholders.

(Despite what the green lobby may believe this is how big corporations work. There is no conspiracy.)

If the institutional investors are ethical they can direct the board to uphold ethical principles. If on the other hand the investors are money grabbing capitalists they will have no issue with the company operating in an unethical manner to maximise profits. As there are usually a significant number of investors with different interests the composition of the board will reflect this and the direction of the company’s travel will be determined by the balance of the board.

My argument was simply that if the ethical (green) investors divest their interest in the company the composition of the board will change in favour of non ethical investors who are then free to implement strategies that favour profit maximisation rather than, say, environmental issues. So it is in the interests of the environmental lobby that ethical investors should retain an interest in the oil majors and steer their direction from within.

I do hope now that you and others can follow the logic of my position. I apologise if it was not originally clear.

Maybe if the argument had been put by someone other than me it would have been easier to understand. I am increasingly coming to the view that group think is taking over this thread.

Group think is described in Wikipedia as


Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".


It is an unfortunate symptom of groupthink that the members of the group are unable to recognise or accept its existence.

michaels

Am I wrong in thinking that if we had one of those big Tesla batteries like they do in Aus then this probably wouldn't have happened?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49300025

Seems pretty unlikely that the two generators would have gone offline simultaneously resulting in the frequency collapse - related failure or cyber attack?

zeupater

JKenH wrote: »

And what particular overwhelming evidence would that be?

The substance of Mart’s case was

“
In fact I seem to remember the CoE using exactly that claim to justify their holdings in a company that also developed arms, in an episode of the Mark Thomas Experience, or Project, or something like that. This was probably about 20yrs ago.

He pointed out to them that over the time they'd held shares, the arms part of the company had grown. I also seem to remember him asking if he could enter a float in the Lord's Mayor Parade on their behalf, and we watched as a truck/low loader with a small tank on board rolled up behind them.”



You suggest having seen such overwhelming evidence no one could possibly do other than agree with Mart’s argument. I am surprised at that comment but perhaps if I explain a little more all will become clear.

You referred to vested interests but I am not sure which vested interests you refer to. This term seems to be a catch all for anyone and everybody involved in FFindustries.

If we are discussing a multinational corporation then the interests represented by the board of directors and the management are those of the shareholders. The shareholders appoint the board members who appoint the directors. At the AGM the board has to account to the shareholders. So the only vested interest I can see is that of the shareholders.

(Despite what the green lobby may believe this is how big corporations work. There is no conspiracy.)

If the institutional investors are ethical they can direct the board to uphold ethical principles. If on the other hand the investors are money grabbing capitalists they will have no issue with the company operating in an unethical manner to maximise profits. As there are usually a significant number of investors with different interests the composition of the board will reflect this and the direction of the company’s travel will be determined by the balance of the board.

My argument was simply that if the ethical (green) investors divest their interest in the company the composition of the board will change in favour of non ethical investors who are then free to implement strategies that favour profit maximisation rather than, say, environmental issues. So it is in the interests of the environmental lobby that ethical investors should retain an interest in the oil majors and steer their direction from within.

I do hope now that you and others can follow the logic of my position. I apologise if it was not originally clear.

Maybe if the argument had been put by someone other than me it would have been easier to understand. I am increasingly coming to the view that group think is taking over this thread.

Group think is described in Wikipedia as


Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".


It is an unfortunate symptom of groupthink that the members of the group are unable to recognise or accept its existence.

Hi

And the relevance of that to the substance of the case is what? ....

The case in a nutshell is simply ..

... Like Big Tobacco, if Exxon / Big Oil start to lose litigation, then we could see a far more rapid shift away from FF's, simply due to the end of mis-information campaigns ...

... that's both the basis & substance of the position posed, nothing to do with supposed 'groupthink' or any other excuse which could be applied in any form of diversionary way ... it's simple, it's factual and it's as close to irrefutable as a simple analagous statement could be on the subject, so I don't really see a logical reason to refute it ...

HTH
Z

JKenH

Z

This is the exchange I was responding to about FF divestment.

“
Aksherly,l I think you'll find that the movement by pension funds to divest from fossil fuels has gone quite a way already and is accelerating. Admittedly this started with coal, but the funds are definitely piling in to RE now, even if, like Neil Woodford they can't change their funds as fast as they would like..
Originally posted by silverwhistle
”







#2752 9th Aug 19, 3:11 PM
“
Divesting from FF funds may actually be counterproductive from a green point of view as it is the “responsible” investors who withdraw - the very same people who might have been expected to steer the companies towards more green policies. The balance in the boardrooms will shift away from green policies to more traditional profit generating strategies.
Originally posted by JKenH



”
I believe that theory, like 'trickle down economics' has been busted over and over. In fact I seem to remember the CoE using exactly that claim to justify their holdings in a company that also developed arms, in an episode of the Mark Thomas Experience, or Project, or something like that. This was probably about 20yrs ago.

He pointed out to them that over the time they'd held shares, the arms part of the company had grown. I also seem to remember him asking if he could enter a float in the Lord's Mayor Parade on their behalf, and we watched as a truck/low loader with a small tank on board rolled up behind them. They were not impressed!

But busted theories aside, the main argument for getting out of FF investments is that they've become a bad investment over time, multiple US coal companies have gone bust, or lost around 99% of their value this decade. So 'getting out' is simply a good idea. And that's before any litigation in the US is potentially successful, since at that point things could get painful.

More on this thread:

Perhaps worthy of support?
Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Last time you conflated tobacco and oil; this time it is arms. What next pornography?

There's no need to get so aggressive all the time with me just because I support RE and support support for RE.

You have your opinions, I have mine. You support GA's opinions, who likes to suggest coal emissions aren't harmful, ICEV emissions aren't harmful, and Fukushima was an over reaction, but I don't.

You clearly don't agree with divestment, that's fine, but your argument/theory has never been shown to work, that's all I was pointing out, sorry if it upsets you.

Recently you've spent a considerable amount of time and effort trying to undermine my comments on the grounds I'm no green warrior, but that too was doomed to fail since I've never pretended to be, and can't hold a candle to many others on here with excellent thermal stores, or rainwater harvesting, or minimal energy imports.

What I do, partly to make up for my practical limitations on being 'greenish' is to devote some of my spare time to posting RE news, and pushing back against false negatives. That's what I do, so I apologise for past upsets I've caused you, and in advance for the many more to come, if you don't share my views, or those of the vast majority of the UK public (and dare I say World) on the need and benefits of shifting as fast as possible to a low/zero carbon economy.

BTW, if I recall correctly, it has after all been 20yrs, Mark Thomas on noting that the CoE's corporate involvement (to guide the company) had led to the opposite effect, suggested they try the !!!!!! industry next ...... :rotfl:

Here you go:

Mark Thomas Comedy Product Series 2 Episode 2 Church Money

Funnier and also more serious than I remembered. If you're seriously interested in the subject of investing in something 'bad' to change a companies direction, and have a sense of humour you'll love it. Enjoy.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

My argument was simply that if the ethical (green) investors divest their interest in the company the composition of the board will change in favour of non ethical investors who are then free to implement strategies that favour profit maximisation rather than, say, environmental issues. So it is in the interests of the environmental lobby that ethical investors should retain an interest in the oil majors and steer their direction from within.

I do hope now that you and others can follow the logic of my position. I apologise if it was not originally clear.

I completely follow your logic, and recognised the argument instantly, I was simply pointing out that that argument has been used for decades, but doesn't work.

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

Am I wrong in thinking that if we had one of those big Tesla batteries like they do in Aus then this probably wouldn't have happened?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49300025

Seems pretty unlikely that the two generators would have gone offline simultaneously resulting in the frequency collapse - related failure or cyber attack?

Maybe, and every little would at least help and buy time. The Big Aus batt did step in a year or so back when a generation failure in the neighbouring state caused a drop in frequency. I think it reacted in a fraction of a second, whilst the 'old' kit took 10+ secs to step in.

Since it didn't need to help, there were suspicions I think, that it had been set up that way to kind of show off how good it was/is.

Edit - Here you go, and the 'old' specilaised kit only took about 4s (sorry):

Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units after Loy Yang trips

Last Thursday, one of the biggest coal units in Australia, Loy Yang A 3, tripped without warning at 1.59am, with the sudden loss of 560MW and causing a slump in frequency on the network.

What happened next has stunned electricity industry insiders and given food for thought over the near to medium term future of the grid, such was the rapid response of the Tesla big battery to an event that happened nearly 1,000km away.

Even before the Loy Yang A unit had finished tripping, the 100MW/129MWh had responded, injecting 7.3MW into the network to help arrest a slump in frequency that had fallen below 49.80Hertz.

Data from AEMO (and gathered above by Dylan McConnell from the Climate and Energy College) shows that the Tesla big battery responded four seconds ahead of the generator contracted at that time to provide FCAS (frequency control and ancillary services), the Gladstone coal generator in Queensland.

But in reality, the response from the Tesla big battery was even quicker than that – in milliseconds – but too fast for the AEMO data to record.

Importantly, by the time that the contracted Gladstone coal unit had gotten out of bed and put its socks on so it can inject more into the grid – it is paid to respond in six seconds – the fall in frequency had already been arrested and was being reversed.