Topic: Big money after "sustainability" - page 2. (Read 191 times)

You have to also consider that this comes with some degree of hype with it.

Not all "sustainable" companies are actually doing much better than what traditional companies are doing. They may simply be better at cooking the numbers/their books to reflect a much prettier version of reality.

I'd definitely include ESG as a part of a portfolio, but I would not invest all of my portfolio into ESG stocks.

Most aren't aware of the key political divide hinging on fossil fuels and climate change.

One of the biggest financiers for the republican party in the USA, is big oil. When Donald Trump was elected President in 2016. I think one of the first options he put on the table was cutting tax credits for electric vehicles in america. On behalf of big oil. Years ago, Sarah Palin was famously quoted for her "drill baby, drill" comment about drilling for oil in north america. Big oil and the republican party have been in bed together for many decades. One key reason why climate change has such a polarizing and dividing influence on america.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the biggest supporters of climate change policy are democrats. Al Gore (democrat) won a nobel peace prize for his slideshow on climate change in 2006. Obama (democrat) was one of the loudest voices for supporting the climate change based paris accords. Today Joe Biden (democrat) is one of the most vocal supporters for anti climate change policy.

Sustainability, carbon footprints, fossil fuels, climate change, global warming, the green movement, carbon taxes are all aligned across the political party divide in the united states. Which appears to be one of the most neglected and unacknowledged aspects to it.

It might be but there is no reason to do that if coal power plants are still widely used as well as some other emission sources. Compared to the other emission sources, the emission emitted from bitcoin mining is way lower. There could be some other alternative though but solar power could be one of it and there have been alot of people that actually implemented this instead of just using electricity from powerplants

Quite interesting, I thought the same thing, when energy consumption continues to burn electricity resources, even with mining using solar power there is one thing that has not been touched or has not been touched, it comes to the system of using green which is far relatively environmentally friendly. Could this be an idea to be brought to the mining company court. I once discovered that trees generate electricity just like the Italian Institute of Technology
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181212093308.htm

or it could be from several journals published in 2019 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332947475_TREES_A_GENERATOR_OF_ELECTRICITY_IN_FUTURE

Not really that much in concern about mining activity which does make out some great affect on the eonvironment just as those shitty regulators trying to push on? They've bee throwing lots of shitty reasons that mining is indeed harmful to environtment witihout even trying to look on other old things
which did really make out more emmissions or do something more harmful on ecosystem.It is really just they are trying to push out some issues
which is actually not really that too strong to accuse on.

Industries that are not sustainable, which in most dictionaries nowadays means carbon emissions, are loosing the investors good graces. These activities are considered at risk, since regulations in the future will likely mean that they will have to change or reformulate or undergo serious pressure from regulators.

There has been plenty of literature about bitcoin effects in the environment. While I agree that bitcoin is probably less damaging to the environment than 20 thousand Visa employees commuting to work, there is still plenty to do about the farms and the energy they consume. It may be possible to support green mining over others?