• PowerCrazy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    One of the high-growth sectors in most american’s 401k’s is “Energy”. This is a euphemism for fossil fuel companies, such as Shell, BP, and the various supporting industries. Another high-growth sector is “home construction,” which is literally an industry that exist to pave over paradises and put in parking lots creating sprawling suburbs in it’s wake that are owned by companies like Blackrock.

    To be fair, you can’t really get away from that, especially since you don’t really have the ability to manage your 401k that way. But passive growing investments absolutely feed Capitalism and directly contribute to the massive polluters.

      • PowerCrazy
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        This isn’t a problem that an individual investor can or should be expected to solve.

          • PowerCrazy
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hard to say what the motivation of this article is, but yea I agree. The article seems listless. They make a grand claim “10% is responsible for 40%!!!” but they dont’ really examine the claim. I absolutely think it’s a true, but without further analysis and a conclusion to be drawn, what is the point? The point of the article as far as I can tell is to advocate for a market based solution that somehow a carbon-based tax will magically make share-holders stop destroying the environment? It’s drivel.