Does your bank invest in fossil fuels?

If you'd like to check out whether your bank invests in fossil fuels, how much they invest and who you can switch to, check out this site:
http://www.marketforces.org.au/banks/compare

Other divestments: I've recently switched my electricty to Powershop as they support renewables. Next thing is to check out Super fund investments and see if I can choose the fossil free option.

I know this might not be for everyone. Most people may not give a ****. But it's really got me thinking about making big business accountable for their actions. And the right thing for me to do is, put my money where my mouth is!
 
Thanks, I just sent an email to Westpac from the site.
Unfortunately, it seems that most of Somersoft doesn't give much of a hoot for the environment! That's going by most of us being "Liberal" supporters.
 
Yes, I figure I may have different ideals to the Somersoft 'norm'. But that's ok. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and having the conversation can change minds. Plus, what's the point of making money if you have no planet to spend it on?! :) Catastrophic weather events are damn expensive!
 
Settle down, using words such as catastrophic is simply over dramatising things.

This world is a product of itself and all it's contents.

If you are afraid of armeggedon then you are fraught with subservience to the screaming hand wringers.

IMO.

We will fix things well and good before they are required. Always have and always will. This place is bigger than you think, stronger and mightier than anything you care to throw at it. And it will remain a product of its own contents at all times. Think about it.
 
I've already made changes to the way I live. However, I've only just realised how counter-productive it is if my money is off doing the opposite on a larger scale.

Ask the people of the Philipines how they'd describe Typhoon Haiyan if not catastrophic? Not here to argue mate, just posting a link that may be of interest to some.
 
I dont really understand how this works...

so public pressure results in the withdrawal of funding to mining companies forcing them to close ...

As a result people lose their jobs, the economy goes into recession and we power our houses with some warm inner glow?
 
I dont really understand how this works...

so public pressure results in the withdrawal of funding to mining companies forcing them to close ...

As a result people lose their jobs, the economy goes into recession and we power our houses with some warm inner glow?

Power doesn't come out of thin air, the people just need to find jobs in the industries that replace the fossil fuels.
 
Power doesn't come out of thin air, the people just need to find jobs in the industries that replace the fossil fuels.

cant they just eat cake ?

sorry Im being extremely naughty.

I get what you are saying here, problem is that much of our alternative industry is very much driven by "the subsidy".

When you live by the subsidy from a job/business perspective, you also die by the subsidy.

Jobs in the replacement areas are hard to come by.

ta
rolf
 
Settle down, using words such as catastrophic is simply over dramatising things.

I think if anything "catastrophic" is understating the situation when it comes to climate change.
I honestly believe that it will be responsible for more deaths than the holocaust. And on top of that, the destruction of many important ecosystems.

Obviously I'm hoping that I'm wrong, but from the scientific studies that I've read it doesn't seem that it will be the case. :(
 
Power doesn't come out of thin air, the people just need to find jobs in the industries that replace the fossil fuels.



If we stopped fossil fuels, right now, where is the power going to come from?

What are these viable alternative sources that can power an entire country at an affordable price?
 
Onion would be quite happy driving a horse and cart , using candles , and internet ... Devils Spawn .

Wouldn't you onion :)

I listened to an interview with a CEO of a mining company last week when this story first broke that was being targetted. Problem was his company wasn't involved in Fossil fuels .

Now we have self appointed experts imposing their view on how the world should work and guilting people into following " their " vision.

Another bunch of ******s ...

Cliff
 
cant they just eat cake ?

sorry Im being extremely naughty.

I get what you are saying here, problem is that much of our alternative industry is very much driven by "the subsidy".

When you live by the subsidy from a job/business perspective, you also die by the subsidy.

Jobs in the replacement areas are hard to come by.

ta
rolf

Rolf? Is that a codename for Marie Antoinette? :D

I note your points, I don't think it's a perfect system. Mining will still occur, just not coal, and the industries living by subsidies will hopefully become self-sufficient with technological improvements. Fossil fuels have a 200+ year head-start.
 
If we stopped fossil fuels, right now, where is the power going to come from?

What are these viable alternative sources that can power an entire country at an affordable price?

I'm not advocating for that, in fact I didn't advocate for anything. I'm interested in watching the developments in renewables, but I doubt we can ever rely entirely on them. I recognize it's not a zero-sum game either, even if that were possible.

The actual benefits of ethical investing actually tend to be that the extra time spent researching the intricacies of a company means you better understand their business, and thus their value.

For someone who doesn't like emotive words like catastrophic, it's remarkable you're still happy jumping to the most extreme consequences immediately in all your posts.
 
cant they just eat cake ?

sorry Im being extremely naughty.

I get what you are saying here, problem is that much of our alternative industry is very much driven by "the subsidy".

When you live by the subsidy from a job/business perspective, you also die by the subsidy.

Jobs in the replacement areas are hard to come by.

ta
rolf

Here here, lets get rid of subsidies. Energy companies receiving subsidies are sucking the community dry and subverting a market driven economy. We all lose when the public wears the costs for one industry to profit over another.

Except that the biggest subsidies by far are given, or were given, to existing energy industries, mining companies and the like.

Im all for the market, capitalism is great, one of the greatest systems humans have. However it has a tendancy to be warped by some of its users, and their cultural and political biases.

Which government in their right mind would subsidise a new coal plant when they can take advantage of the subsidies given by the chinese government for cheap solar panels?

Which subsidy was wrong? The subsidy the state governments gave when they built the electricy system, (and then sold it to the private sector) or the one the chinese government did for R&D and production of cheap solar panels?

Dont get me started on negative gearing.....
 
If we stopped fossil fuels, right now, where is the power going to come from?

What are these viable alternative sources that can power an entire country at an affordable price?

Naughty naughty. That's a straw man argument.

"A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument."
 
cant they just eat cake ?

sorry Im being extremely naughty.

I get what you are saying here, problem is that much of our alternative industry is very much driven by "the subsidy".

When you live by the subsidy from a job/business perspective, you also die by the subsidy.

Jobs in the replacement areas are hard to come by.

ta
rolf

What is the subsidy? As someone who knows this game you can easily tell when people don't know what they're talking about.

The whole electricity transmission system was built to the coal fields, using public money that was also used to build the power stations, at costs of capital that the private sector can only dream of. The reality though is that today:

- wind and solar are considerably cheaper than the cost of new coal power stations, or gas for that matter
- it would be considerably cheaper for everyone to have solar with batteries in their house than it would be to build the power grid with today's dollars, for the same power quality
- I could go on but you get the drift

The only reason renewables require a "subsidy" is because power networks are a mandated monopoly and the forty year old coal power stations were built using yesterday's dollars and don't owe their owners anything anymore. So they hold them together with sticky tape and ear wax hoping to get another few decades out of them than they were designed for.

So we build our nation building energy policy on the back of forty year old power stations and power lines that are mostly going to need replacing soon ( which is why network charges are skyrocketing with no reprieve in sight).

Nothing like getting on the front foot and transitioning to the lower cost technology in an orderly way like we used to do. Now we have to wait for the incumbents to utterly fail before we let the next technology have a go. We just have to hope they can ramp up fast enough.

But there used to be a time in the history of Australia when governments saw we had to make a transition to cheaper sources of energy production and distribution and put in place the necessary subsidies for that to happen, so the incumbents could be put out to pasture. That time is clearly not now - as governments around Australia mostly own the incumbents or are trying to sell them they are doing everything possible to protect them.
 
Naughty naughty. That's a straw man argument.

"A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument."

Not sure about that . Sounds a pretty realistic statement ...

Personally , my biggest disappoint,net with the Abbott government is the lack of vision in terms of investing in research for alternative energy sources , but that doesn't mean you have to take a stick to the current fuels .

Cliff
 
Fossil fuel investments, particularly coal are at a major risk of becoming stranded assets. At the moment, we need to leave close to 80% of known reserves in the ground in order to achieve a "safe" 2 degrees of warming. Prudent fund managers will be starting to think about selling while prices are good. We could see a sharp decline in the value of assets after the global climate conference in Paris next year.

It wasn't so long ago that your average consumer didn't have solar panels, now the uptake is massive. The next disruptive technology is storage. Battery tech is improving all the time. People in various forums are already discussing how they store their generated power. 15 years ago, they discussed how to use solar panels. We also now have Elon Musk and the gigafactory which will produce lithium ion batteries. He will not just change the automotive industry, he will change the power industry.

Consider this...an area 20k * 20k with solar panels could power all of Australia.

BTW...my panels yesterday generated 19.9kw of power, worth about $6. Not to shabby :)
 
Back
Top