How the hell can the presidential candidate of the Green Party own a MILLION DOLLARS OF OIL AND GAS SHARES? How can you complain about Israel murdering children in Gaza, when you own shares in Raytheon, which sells and produces weapons for and in Israel?
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
384 points (92.7% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5392 readers
275 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
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
Where are you seeing this?
The article claims that she has total stock market index funds in her retirement account and not individual oil and gas shares…
They even link the full financial disclosure that reveals as much: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/un8w34x8anzochjjik2dw/2024-Stein-PFD.pdf?rlkey=no0vsygaof1096tgm3843kwup&st=10vwoc8x&dl=0
This is literally insulting to anyone with any understanding of “investments”:
In January 2024, Stein reported having between $250,001 and $500,000 invested in the Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund (VXUS), which invests in TC Energy Corp, owner of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Stein profits from the Keystone XL Pipeline she claims to oppose.
This is a super sketchy way to portray a very normal total market index funds…
Surely, if you're the Green party leader, you would simply not invest in that particular index fund, and probably would not invest at Vanguard either. When people say you should "divest from fossil fuels", it obviously also means taking your money out of these index funds.
It's funny how easy it is, but no, let's jump through hoops to justify it.
load more comments
(5 replies)
And everybody knows that total market includes fossil fuel and arms companies. That is why there are ESG funds, which do exclude the really nasty companies. Those are pretty easy to buy and can also cover a large field of investments. She has lobbied for divestement from fossil fuels, so she should very much be aware that those options are around, while this has been pointed out for nearly a decade. So really no excuse for that.
I want to get rid of fossil fuels by investing with a company that gives money to fossil fuels!
Surely you can see the problem there?
load more comments
(1 replies)
My biggest reason for not knowing who Jill Stein is is that Jill Stein doesn't exist a month beyond any elections in either direction.
She is simply a spectre of a false belief in voting practices.
She was a pretty big voice in the Occupy Wall Street movement before she started taking Russian money in force. Now she's a nobody.
Stein and the Greens are also rabidly anti-nuclear, continuing to repeat outdated and debunked nonsense. We can’t plausibly maintain this level of energy use on renewables alone.
That being said, the writer’s claim that Harris is better on climate than Stein is absolutely ridiculous. The Biden/Harris admin set records for fossil fuel extractions, strongly support fracking, waived environmental protections to build Trump’s border wall faster, and want to ban imports of EV’s and solar panels. Plus, their escalating militarism is a carbon nightmare.
Rhetoric won’t save us.
I'm pro nuclear as well but we absolutely can maintain this level of energy consumption on renewables alone.
The question is cost and risk - I'm for diversification of our grid which includes nuclear.
But it is getting to the point where renewables with backups will be cheaper than coal. That's absolutely something you can run the entire grid off of. You can balance storage requirements with excess production capacity that gets shuttered over the summer etc etc
The backup is nuclear.
I don’t really care what it costs. We’re trying to save the habitability of the planet. Damn the cost.
OK, then we just deploy a whole lot of storage capacity as fast as we can to support solar and wind. Nuclear only makes sense if it's cheaper than that, and it's not.
Cheaper long term, yes. Higher upfront cost.
Not quite sure which way you're pointing. Nuclear is ridiculously expensive up front. It has to run for a long time at 100% to make any kind of economic sense.
I’m not concerned about economic sense. I’m worried about keeping the planet habitable.
And we have another path for that. We really don't need nuclear at this point.
load more comments
(12 replies)
I was a Green Party supporter until Jill Stein kinda took over and I began learning how hypocritical she is. That was 10+ years ago
the american green party supports greenbacks, not green nature
view more: next ›