this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
55 points (98.2% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5383 readers
390 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
55
How I Can Green Up My Investments | It’s not that hard, and there’s a bonus: Portfolios without fossil fuels have generally performed just as well as the broader market. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Steve@communick.news 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (7 children)

DISCLAMER

Owning fossil fuel stock as part of a broad index fund isn't an "endorsement". Not owning fossil fuel stocks does nothing to hurt fossil companies. They made their money from the stock in the IPO. Any trading afterwards doesn't effect their bottom line at all.

Even if they have similar performance, the eco-friendly funds charge you much more every year. The article mentions VTSAX (Vanguards total stock market index) fund. It has an expense ratio of 0.04%. That's how much they charge you each year to own it. AMAGX (Amana Growth Investor) fund on the other hand has an expense ratio of 0.87%. They charge you more than 20x as much; Which more than erases the slightly better performance they've had.

If it helps you sleep at night, that's fine. That's great! It's well worth it for that alone. But don't for a moment think this is helping the environment at all. The only functional outcome it will have is putting a 0.5% or more drag on your portfolio.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You've gone from a passive fund to an active fund there I think, with the associated far higher expenses. You can get close to divested from the fossil fuels industry via the Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund would get you an expense ratio of 0.14%, which is about where index funds were charging when they didn't have the same economies of scale they do today.

[–] Steve@communick.news 1 points 3 weeks ago

True. That was just the first fund (That doesn't require 100K) on the first link in the article.

load more comments (5 replies)