You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
6 points

https://youtu.be/NJ7W6HFHPYs - This video from Climate Town explains how the bank or credit union only keeps a fraction of your money in reserve when you deposit your money in a savings account, certificate of deposit, or other bank account. The bank/CU is investing the majority of your money, and ecological harm is not a consideration when they are choosing investments. When you deposit money with a financial institution it is almost certain that some portion of your money is being invested in ecologically harmful organizations.

Similarly, your 401k funds are likely in index funds or mutual funds that hold significant shares in ecologically and socially harmful companies like ExxonMobil, Nestle, Chevron, Coca-Cola, et. al.
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment funds exist that ideally exclude ecologically & socially harmful industries, but every ESG fund I have ever encountered is not nearly exclusive enough and has significantly higher fees.
For example - the Vanguard ESG International Stock ETF VSGX excludes adult entertainment, recreational drugs, gambling, weapons, nuclear power, and fossil fuels, yet Nestle is the second largest holding in the fund, and many of the other stocks in the fund likely contribute to environmental and social harm indirectly.

Consider investing in small-businesses and organizations in your local community instead. It is truly bizarre and unique to our time that investing on Wall Street is more accessible than investing on Main Street.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

By contributing to demand for a stock you increase the valuation of that stock. Securities Based Lending is often how companies and executives secure loans and avoid taxable events. By contributing to demand for a stock we facilitate additional funding for the issuer of the stock and it’s largest shareholders.

I absolutely agree, cash flow is a much more immediate concern to any company, but one wealthy shareholder divesting can have the same financial impact as ten thousand average citizens boycotting. Local investing is more difficult and risky, but also more rewarding and necessary. It is not just about a monetary return, it is about building social capital and local resiliency.

You’re arguing that people should give no consideration to the long-term social and ecological harms of their investments beyond what will make them the most money. By directing our actions in that purely incentivized way we sacrifice everything unprofitable, and that alienation is exactly what causes so many chronic societal issues. I agree that an individual can have very little impact alone, but capitalism places this burden at the individual level.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

It means nothing to the actual company other than a scoreboard they can point to, as the stock should reflect the performance and outlook of the company.

Except that scoreboard is exactly what they point to when they need a loan or other capital investment to grow their business. Better stock value = bigger/better loans.

Oh, and also the companies are able to release additional stock to raise capital outside of their IPO.

And their executives are rewarded for having high stock value.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply

Green - An environmentalist community

!green@lemmy.ml

Create post

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!


RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith


Related communities:


Unofficial Chat rooms:

Community stats

  • 210

    Monthly active users

  • 607

    Posts

  • 2.7K

    Comments