https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/01/05/why-technology---not-politics---is-the-key-to-fixing-the-climate-crisis/?sh=2bc957577260

False choice.

Without politics, there will always be an area of the economy where it's cheaper to pollute than to not pollute. If you don't put a price on negative externalities, they will not go away. Take her example of direct air capture. With a price on carbon, it begins to look more attractive as costs fall. The estimate is that each ton of carbon emitted costs $50-$100 in increased medical costs, premature death, climate mitigation measures and so forth. If that cost were actually added to the cost of carbon, then the economics of, say, ammonia fuel for container ships and direct air capture change. But putting a price on carbon is a political act. That political act will spur technological change. Technological change can make the politics less painful. You can't separate them.

It is comforting to be a techno-utopian though. It encourages the belief that all you need to do is go buy the right stuff and all the problems of the world fall away.

^{Politics win.}

Greenland permanently bans all oil and gas exploration

https://www.optimistdaily.com/2021/12/greenland-permanently-bans-all-oil-and-gas-exploration/

BTW, this is the exact opposite conclusion that Tariq Fancy, former head of ESG for Black Rock, came to. His logic is simple:

1. Companies have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder returns.
2. If legal pollution or other forms of "dirty play" help them win, they will do so just like a sports team in the absence of rules and referees.
3. Those rules and referees and penalties must be set and enforced by government, aka politics.

He goes further and says that ESG investing is actually damaging, because there is evidence that people who engage in ESG investing often feel like they've done their part and therefore do not push for political change. His advice is to forget about ESG investing, get the best returns you can, then use that dirty money to target political action.

He also points out that almost all shares are bought and sold on the secondary market, so post-IPO you aren't really sending any signal whatsoever to industry. If you divest from Exxon, someone else, by definition has to buy those shares and, in any case, it makes no difference whatsoever to Exxon, who is no longer party to that transaction.

He thinks ESG investing and the divestment movement are tools of industry to make it look like something positive is happening while protecting themselves from meaningful regulation.

QuoteIt's time to accept that there are nine words that we need to hear, because we can only build a sustainable future once we're no longer terrified to hear them.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/24/blackrocks-former-sustainable-investing-chief-says-esg-is-a-dangerous-placebo.html

The Secret Diary of a 'Sustainable Investor' — Part 1
https://medium.com/@sosofancy/the-secret-diary-of-a-sustainable-investor-part-1-70b6987fa139

The Secret Diary of a 'Sustainable Investor' — Part 2
https://medium.com/@sosofancy/the-secret-diary-of-a-sustainable-investor-part-2-831a25cb642d

The Secret Diary of a 'Sustainable Investor' — Part 3
https://medium.com/@sosofancy/the-secret-diary-of-a-sustainable-investor-part-3-3c238cb0dcbf