No, that's the opposite of what I want to happen. If they "divest" that means they're selling their stake in the company to someone else, who likely cares less about climate change. The company stock doesn't just disappear. Shareholders are the only ones in our current system who can have a meaningful impact on companies they own shares in. The people who hold companies to climate expectations are exactly the ones I want holding stock in those companies.
I’m not very familiar with how public companies work, but I’m surprised that a shareholder with only 3% of ownership can make such demands and can excel such control. I understand they’re the largest shareholder, but I could imagine a large portion of the remaining 97% would pay for now following the Paris accords since it may main less money for all investors on the future.
A recent study (still in peer review phase last I saw but the people who wrote it and good work) showed that the 1C rise in temperatures vs pre-industrial times (which we're already past) lowered GDP by 12% or more globally. The current 3C that many climate scientists are warning we're on track for could lower GDP by 50% or more.
Not following the Paris accords or stricter is actually going to hit stockholders hard if the study is accurate.
That's the part that I'm banking on, that 12% has already happened. That's 12% they've lost out on in the short present term. I'm hoping they see that and decide they want that money back. I know they're probably doing a cost benefit analysis of cost to combat climate change versus potential lost GDP. But still, I'll take any arrow in the quiver against them.
Add comment