Bill McKibben: “divestment is hitting the fossil fuel industry where it hurts”… NOT!

Guest NOT! by David Middleton

At last, divestment is hitting the fossil fuel industry where it hurts

Trillions of dollars of investments are being taken out of carbon-intensive companies. Governments must now take notice

Bill McKibben

Sun 16 Dec 2018

I remember well the first institution to announce it was divesting from fossil fuel. It was 2012 and I was on the second week of a gruelling tour across the US trying to spark a movement. Our roadshow had been playing to packed houses down the west coast, and we’d crossed the continent to Portland, Maine. As a raucous crowd jammed the biggest theatre in town, a physicist named Stephen Mulkey took the mic. He was at the time president of the tiny Unity College in the state’s rural interior, and he announced that over the weekend its trustees had voted to sell their shares in coal, oil and gas companies. “The time is long overdue for all investors to take a hard look at the consequences of supporting an industry that persists in destructive practices,” he said.

Six years later, we have marked the 1,000th divestment in what has become by far the largest anti-corporate campaign of its kind. The latest to sell their shares – major French and Australian pension funds, and Brandeis University in Massachusetts – bring the total size of portfolios and endowments in the campaign to just under $8 trillion (£6.4tn).

[…]

The Grauniad

Note to Mr. Bill:  Institutions with $8 trillion under management selling their investments in the “fossil fuel industry” does not constitute $8 trillion “being taken out of carbon-intensive companies.”  These “investors” could only sell their investments if there were buyers willing to purchase them.

Let’s just look at one part of the “climate wrecking industry”…

Robust Near-Term Outlook for Oil & Gas US Integrated Industry

Zacks Equity Research November 26, 2018

The Zacks Oil and Gas U.S. Integrated industry comprises stocks having exposure to upstream, midstream and downstream energy businesses mostly in the domestic market.

Upstream activities involve exploration and production of oil and natural gas, while transportation of extracted commodities from wellhead to storage and processing terminals constitutes midstream operations. Through downstream businesses, the integrated energy firms refine raw crude before distributing the end products like gasoline to retail petrol pumps.

With exposure to every facet of energy operations, the integrated firms are relatively immune to volatility in oil and gas prices and hence could reward investors with stable cash flows.

[…]

Industry Outperforms S&P 500 & Sector

The Zacks Oil and Gas U.S. Integrated industry has outperformed the broader Zacks Oil – Energy Sector as well as the Zacks S&P 500 composite over the past year.

[…]

Zacks

The blue is curve is the oil industry. The brown curve is the energy industry, including solar.

Oil & Gas-US Integrated has taken a beating lately along with the rest of the market; but it has outperformed both the S&P 500 and Oil-Energy (which includes solar) over the past year… despite a steep drop in oil prices.

There is no lack of investment capital for the fossil fuel industry because… REALITY EXISTS.

Source: BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy

As long as there is a demand for fossil fuels, there will be investors.

So BIll… maybe you should stick to writing about things that fall within your area of competency.

Bill McKibben of 350.org makes a fool of himself on private property

 

149 thoughts on “Bill McKibben: “divestment is hitting the fossil fuel industry where it hurts”… NOT!

    • Weepy Bill McKibben

      It was 2012 and I was on the second week of a gruelling(sic) tour across the US trying to spark a movement.

      I’ve got good news for you Bill, Try Ex-lax the nest time you need a movement, trying to spark one …electricity only causes the sphincter to tighten

  1. We have offspring working in remote gas and ore production, they are always receiving job offers, conditions and salaries are very good, employers fight to keep people like them because they are skilled, safety-conscious, reliable and drug-free., ompete t to be supervisors of work crews.

    Don’t writemAustralian mining off, regardless of what Greens and GetUp are pushing.

  2. Yes, this was the great Guardian campaign to persuade everyone to sell their fossil fuel shareholdings on the grounds that this would have some effects on the use of those fuels. They never explained how exactly A was supposed to cause B, probably because there is no obvious mechanism by which it could.

    I recall reading claims to the same effect on Ars Technica – claims to the effect that there had been massive selling and divestment.

    The absurd thing is that for every seller there is a buyer. So the selling of these shares would not make much difference, it would simply change the ownership.

    Whereas, if they are serious, what the divestment people are trying to achieve is the cessation of use of the fuel, and the driving of these companies out of business by preventing them from selling.

    Or maybe they are hoping that if everyone divests, no-one will own the shares, so no-one will lose when the companies are driven out of business. That must be it. There will be no owners after all the sales.

    Say what? Did I really write that? Do they really think that? I guess so, its the only reason they could be behaving the way they do.

    • It seems that the eco-loons are merely demonstrating that there is yet one more thing they have no understanding about.

    • Should some company in the fossil fuel industry decide to issue new stock in the future for the purpose of raising funds. Having fewer potential buyers could potentially reduce the price that the new stock would sell for, by a small amount.

      As in regards to stock already in circulation, it’s price doesn’t impact the company much.
      Also, any drop in price while these SJW institutions are selling will quickly dissipate, as long term stock prices are determined by company worth and potential dividends, neither of which is impacted by such sales.

      • Note to self: refresh and reread comments before making my post – others are making same points, often better written, while I am reading.

        SR

        [No, read and write. Everyone’s contributions help others. Some by refuting, some by reinforcing, others by revising or re-writing and requesting clarity. .mod]

    • Even more absurd, divestment does nothing to the operating balance sheet, and in some cases, (including a stock that I owned), it fed right into a period of a company buy-back. Again, these socialist-leaning eco-freaks know nothing about how things really work.

      • It’s all about the feelings with them. divestment makes them “feel good” about “making a difference” the fact that they aren’t making a difference (except, at best, to lower their own ROI) doesn’t matter to them.

    • Michel – December 18, 2018 at 7:14 am

      Yes, this was the great Guardian campaign to persuade everyone to sell their fossil fuel shareholdings on the grounds that this would have some effects on the use of those fuels.

      You are right, Michel, millions of people wrongly believe that said divestment of stocks will have an effect on the sale of fossil fuels (or whatever product or service is involved).

      And millions of people wrongly believe that said divestment of stocks will cause the price/share of said stock to decrease significantly.

      But what tens of millions of people don’t realize is that “stock markets” are the biggest legalized Poker Games ever devised my man …… and the per se “house” takes a “cut” out of every hand that is played (bought or sold). Basically, the person who places a “buy” order is betting the “stock price” will increase, and the person who places a “sell” order is betting the “stock price” will decrease.

      • As Mosh would say:

        Wrong!

        Of course the people who buy a stock do so expecting it to rise. But those who sell may be taking profits at a time when they need cash or see a less risky opportunity. They don’t necessarily expect the price to drop and don’t “win a bet” if it does drop. (Ignoring short sales).

        Unlike a casino, which destroys value, the stock market facilitates real creation of value which improves real people’s lives, even those who do not participate in the equity markets. And as for commissions, they are a trivial percentage in the modern stock market.

        • Rich Davis – December 18, 2018 at 5:42 pm

          Unlike a casino, which destroys value, the stock market facilitates real creation of value which improves real people’s lives, even those who do not participate in the equity markets.

          “WOW”, you must be a pretty smart fellow, Rich Davis, …. so tell me, …. was the stock market facilitating real creation of value …… or …… destroying value, ….. beginning on 10-24-29? To wit:

          The stock market crash of 1929 was a four-day collapse of stock prices that began on October 24, 1929.

          The crash wiped people out. There were forced to sell businesses and cash in their life savings. Brokers called in their loans when the stock market started falling. People scrambled to find enough money to pay for their margins.
          https://www.thebalance.com/stock-market-crash-of-1929-causes-effects-and-facts-3305891

          Whatta ya thunk about those apples, ……. Rich Davis?

          • And a few years later, the stock market had recovered everything it lost.

            Not everything you don’t understand is a scam.

          • Not everything you don’t understand is a scam.

            The “big” board Members and traders can pretty much “scam” the public whenever they take a notion too.

          • Umm, Samuel C Cogar “iffen” that be yer real name…

            The stock market doesn’t create value based on prices of financial instruments like stocks fluctuating. It enables real people working in real companies to make real things and sell them to real people. When real materials are processed to make real things, value is created. Stock markets allow companies to raise funds (selling shares) to buy equipment that allows them to create value. When companies do that, products are available for purchase that improve the quality of people’s lives. The employees being more productive can be paid more money and enjoy better standards of living. Other people in the community at large, even if they have no connection to the company or its employees and even if they do not invest in the company’s stock, will still benefit when their neighbors have more money to spend on the products and services that they produce.

            People can and do act recklessly in just about every aspect of life. Investing on margin is just one such foolish behavior. People who invested a modest amount of their savings in stocks in September 1929 saw a big paper loss for several years, but did not need to lose their homes and businesses on account of having made a stupid decision to treat the market like a casino. If they were investing prudently, they actually had the opportunity to buy low and make a huge return. So far, every major market correction has proved to be a buying opportunity. Why? Because so far we haven’t succumbed entirely to the siren song of socialism. We still have a productive economy creating value, and despite wild fluctuations, that is ultimately what determines the price of stocks.

            Well anyway, Merry Christmas to you, old man.

          • Rich Davis – December 20, 2018 at 5:03 pm

            The stock market doesn’t create value based on prices of financial instruments like stocks fluctuating. I

            “WOWEE”, …. Rich D, so you finally realized the “err in your thinking” and decided to agree with my comment.

            And Rich, this discussion was never about IPOs ….. or companies offering more of their own stock holdings to be sold on the “market” to acquire needed capital for the betterment of the company.

            And Rich D, iffen it’s a productive economy that is responsible for determining the price of stocks, …….. then explain why many stocks are “sold/selling @ 5 to 20 times earnings” ……. and/or why stock market prices were so high during the Obummer Presidency?

            Umm, Samuel C Cogar “iffen” that be yer real name…

            Yup, my real name,
            Cheers, Samuel C Cogar

        • Well that depends on the market and commodity/stock Rich.

          For instance i want the price to drop after i back a horse at 10am at 12/1 for £100.
          I Bought a guaranteed return of £1300.
          I am going to sell that before the race starts at 2pm.

          I.E. lay a a bet of £140 at say 8/1, a sell…liability 8 x 140 =1120

          A ] Horse wins return 1300 – 100 stake = 1200 minus lay/sell liability of 1120 = £80 profit

          B } Horse loses return 140 – 100 win/buy stake = profit £40.

          So either + 40% or 80%, as i nearly always enter with a buy.

          If the horse lengthens in price i lose, because i’m trading a commodity [a guaranteed return] not betting, so i sell and take the hit.
          I Have parameters i work to on buys that are going south.

      • Poker is pure chance. When it comes to the stock market, those who study it, do very well. Always have, always will.

        • MarkW – December 19, 2018 at 12:50 pm

          Poker is pure chance.

          Shur nuff, MarkD, ….. and so is Bridge just pure chance, …… right? And Chess, same pure chance?

          When it comes to the stock market, those who study it, do very well. Always have, always will.

          That’s because you, MarkW, only hear about the ones that “do very well”.

    • I remember when “divestment” was all about supporting genocide in the Middle East. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions
      (That is, the BDS movement wanted to support genocide OF Jews, not BY Jews.)
      To be fair to the anti-reality anti-semites running that movement, they weren’t *just* after divestment. (I’ve often wondered if the cravens who did divest their investments in Israel sold them to Saudis, who knew a good deal when they saw one.)

  3. Oh, so exxonknew.tumblr.com?
    As I commented on a recent BBC article whingeing about the rules governing porn on tumblr, anyone spending significant time on tumblr has much worse problems than porn.

    Poor Bill.

  4. “There is no lack ( of ?) investment capital for the fossil fuel industry because… REALITY EXISTS.”

    Great post as always David.. : )

    • Marcus, Billie Mck lives in the “Land of Make Believe”. Chuck Mangione composed a perfect theme song for their Fantasy Land, you should check it out. But for the evil spawn of fossil fuel creators, it is filled with unicorns and rainbows and enlightened man thrives on wheat grass and sprouts and the universe is a peaceful place in perfect balance and non-threatening. The Climate would, if not for the evil spawn of man, seek its natural balance and nowhere on earth would any being be hot or cold or need to traverse large distances to live long and prosper.

      These people need adult supervision for they are not only dangerous to themselves but when allowed to roam free pose a serious threat to mankind.

      • McKibbon and his ilk will fall prey to the laws of natural selection.

        The left is now posing a threat to society. In time it will be crushed, only to rise again, and be crushed again.

        The destiny of the left is subversion to the right because it is a contrived political movement with no regard to the natural order of humanity which is freedom of trade, choice and expression.

        Nasty little gnats, the left. Can we get a spray or something?

        Nope, I’m definitely finished the beer for the night. I’m getting philosophical, talking about leftist dispersant sprays (tear gas?) in hand canisters for us all to carry in our pockets. In fact, I’m leaning towards it being an offence to be found not to have a can in your pocket!

        I think I’ll call it Spleft……….The Monster Bug Spray!

        I’ll get my pyjamas on the way out.

  5. “So BIll… maybe you should stick to writing about things that fall within your area of competence.”

    There’s a topic in which I have zero interest.

    Bill’s delusions are extreme and seriously damage his perspective on reality.

  6. I find it quite funny that anyone would not invest in gas and oil and coal because that is what we are living on. The sales are real as opposed to stock market gambling. Fossil fuels will continue to keep people alive much longer than anything else has or will.

      • And since Bill is both “green” and “leftist,” that’s clearly him without makeup on the LEFT.

      • Hmm, I notice on Willie’s Offical Biography page, it doesn’t even list where he graduate from, when he graduated, or what his degree is in. it does, however, list this distinguished recognition:

        In 2014, biologists honored him by naming a new species of woodland gnat— Megophthalmidia mckibbeni–in his honor.

        • V. interesting – about the gnat.
          Have you ever studied them in a late afternoon sunbeam as they dance in a current of warm air? They bounce around, flitting up and down, shooting off left (mainly left) and right and generally using up a lot of energy; not actually achieving much – until a swift or swallow comes along and plucks them from the air.
          I don’t care what form of energy McKibben wants to rid the world of, the fact that he wants to deprive anyone of the key component of (their) life on earth is to be condemned – not pitied or ridiculed. The man is a dangerously demented activist and needs to be treated not unlike anyone who would do grave harm to his country and his fellow countrymen.

        • Phil R

          See my above post on SPLEFT! My new anti left gnat spray!

          Damn! Before I saw your post I had my doubts it would be a success but you have emboldened me sir.

          Coming to a supermarket near you soon. SPLEFT…….Anti left gnat spray for the masses.

          I’m on a roll with this one guys!

          • another +42. Went back and read your above post. I’m in and don’t put the beer down (the only reason I did is because it’s empty). 🙂

    • Julian, I had the same question for David.

      David, thanks for the answer, but doesn’t acting require the audience to find the actor to be credible in their role? Then again, doesn’t 350 org. bring in a lot of cash from suckers? So his acting must appeal to some.

      Regards, and a premature Happy Holidays to you and yours,
      Bob

      • And flying about. On nearly every occasion he describes how he just traveled to/from so and so. From Asia to Europe to the U.S. and back again through Australia. He likely travels between in excess of 150,000 miles annually.

    • Hey, he’s an English major from Harvard. That means he knows everything about everything! Why then does he keep showing that, “he don’t know nuthin bout nuthin?”

      • An English Major from Harvard? Says a lot about the competence of Harvard.
        The reputation of academia is really taking a beating these days.

        • “Fight fiercely Harvard, fight, fight, fight.
          Show them our prowess and skill…”
          – Tom L

          Not!

        • Forgive my ignorance; what does a Major in English actually study?
          Is it the language?
          Is it the English culture?
          Is it the English history?

          • How do you study reading and writing? Ok, I better go and look it up.

            Ok, after reading all about it, it’s all rather obtuse as to what they study.

            From wiki: “The English Major (alternatively “English concentration,” “B.A. in English”) is a term in the United States and a few other countries for an undergraduate university degree focused around the consumption, analysis, and production of texts in the English language.”

            And after reading through the Harvard program description, it seems to focus on writing and cataloging of books, as well as reaching methods.

    • I presume he is being well paid for his “activism.”

      So his area of expertness is conning money out of gullible fools.

      Not sure how he is befitting from the disinvestment concept, perhaps he hopes to buy the shares cheap.

      • The benefit is in the virtue signaling (and a bit of PR for his org). If he’s hoping to buy the shares cheap that would be hypocrisy on top of the virtue signaling. While I’m sure he’s not beyond engaging in a bit of hypocrisy (and I’m also sure long time watchers of the weepy bill show can provide plenty of examples of where he has engaged in hypocrisy), I don’t think that’s what’s going on here in this particular case. This is all about the virtue signaling and making PR noise as far as I can tell.

        • Fact is, ALL of the “Eco-Nazis” are hypocrites, because they all enjoy the benefits of what is provided through the use of fossil fuels.

          Unless, of course, they are cave dwellers running after their next meal wearing only the skins of their past meals likewise acquired using nothing more than a stick sharpened on a rock.

          • as a generalization, I agree. But I was talking more of specific actions by the weepy one. buying fossil fuel stocks on the cheap would be a specific action (one I don’t think he’s engaging in). Flying on a Jet to the latest eco-nut gathering would be another specific action (one I suspect he has engaged in on more than one occasion).

  7. Group Insanity (“non compos mentis”) definition:

    Insanity, craziness, or madness is a spectrum of both group and individual behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. … “sound of mind”), and a euphemistic term for insanity is “non compos mentis”.

    Get well soon, Bill

  8. Thanks David. I saw a link to this Grauniad story in a comment to a previous post and once I saw Bill McKibben was the author I realized it was totally bogus, but I couldn’t dig up the stock history to prove it.

    So BIll… maybe you should stick to writing about things that fall within your area of competence.

    Any idea what that might be?

    • What a loony idea! If you encourage a group to sell their shares all at once without an underlying economic reason to do so, you are guaranteeing that the group will lose money on the transactions and you are creating an artificial bargain price for the buyers. I say don’t criticize them. I would like to load up on more BP and Suncor shares. I love the dividends!

    • If Bill McKibben stuck to writing in his areas of competence, it would be a very thin pamphlet.

      “I’m a fanatical one-trick pony, and also a bonehead. I hate, hate, HATE fossil fuels. HATE ‘EM! (Never mind my flying all over the place browbeating people about why they shouldn’t fly.)

      “Did I ever tell you how much I hate ’em? HATE ‘EM!” And I want to punish everyone I can get my hands on. PUNISH! PUNISH, did I tell ya? Poor? Rich? They can all go to hell, because I HATE ‘EM! Torquemada was a pussy cat compared to me.”

      Even with splashy graphics, made from non-renewable minerals and petrochemical inks, McKibben’s whole shtick would only take up a page or two.

  9. Shhhh!

    As long as the kids are busy playing with the harmless stuff, they can’t cause any REAL trouble.

    But -if they DO figure out that this is pointless, let’s encourage them to start #Hashtag campaign

  10. McKibben is a modern-day Rasputin whose ravings have captured the attention of a very small group of anxiety and guilt-ridden trust fund beneficiaries. It is beyond my comprehension that Middlebury College, an otherwise respectable (though hypocritical) academic institution, employs this fraud and charlatan.

    Vermont is notorious for its faux farmer, trust-funded neo-hippies. The state’s economy is a shambles and ordinary people find it nearly impossible to make a living there (which explains their exodus from the state).

  11. It’s a good thing when funds self-identify as believing that virtue signaling is more important than ROI.

  12. My oh my, Billy Bob, you’ve come a long way from arranging other people’s children on schoolyards. Bravo.

  13. Alex Epstein debated Mckibbon a few years ago and had to pay McKibbon ten grand to show up as wellas also paying twenty five grand to cover expenses at the venue.Slick Willy M. may be stupid but he and the rest of the climate hucksters know how to make a buck.

  14. So BIll… maybe you should stick to writing about things that fall within your area of competence.

    Question: Have we found any of those yet?

  15. Actually it would have been a good thing to sell your fossil fuel stocks six months ago. The commodity price of fossil fuels have sunk DUE TO AN OVERSUPPLY. We just keep pumping this stuff out of the ground willy nilly.

    Hopefully the oversupply of oil and oil products will be used up, the commodity price will return to where the drillers can make some money and we can all reinvest in fossil fuels and go buy an SUV.

    • That’s how it works outside of OPEC. Rising prices drive up drilling, which drives up production, which eventually outpaces demand, which drives down prices, which drives down drilling, which drives down production, which eventually falls behind demand, which drives up prices, ad nauseum… hence the miracle of hedging.

  16. So BIll… maybe you should stick to writing about things that fall within your area of competence.

    well his area of competence is certainly not writing signs. His poorly written “Pump” looks, at first glance like “Rump”. cue jokes about his rump being closed.

  17. 2 questions:
    1) I thought only the initial purchase of a stock issue funded the corporation issuing the stock, and subsequent sales of that stock funded only the latest owner of that stock. Am I wrong?

    2) In the photo, Bill appears to be holding a sign saying “This Rump temporarily closed…” Am I wrong?

    SR

  18. Regarding the 8 trillion, I understand that to be the total size of portfolios and endowments, of which only a portion was previously invested in fossil interests, therefore only a portion was divested.

      • Yep it actually increased dramatically last and this year a fact agreed by everyone.

        If Bill keeps having this sort of success wonder what failure looks like?

  19. People who want to immediately ban oil and gas seem to live in a world where they do not need heat, plastics, gasoline, or electricity or anything that takes the above to manufacture or deliver to them. In other words they live in an alternate fantasy world. If gas prices hit $5 they would freak out, and this would only be for a small impact. Ideology: it’s a hell of a drug.

  20. I’m convinced that Bill is a cartoon character, not a human. Humans (especially those that matriculated from Harvard) are not this stupid. Am I right?

  21. Good lord, what an idiot. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge regarding the stock market would understand that selling a stock is a zero sum activity. For someone to sell, there has to be someone to buy. That doesn’t hurt the company. If someone dumps a very large quantity of stock at once it may drive the share price down temporarily, which would hurt the seller more than the company.

    PS. I do wish that Bill would explain how his food gets delivered to the store without the use of fossil fuels.

  22. Actually it may be a brilliant plan. The sort of operation that needs a large investor.

    Divestiture drops the stock price short term. A large investor with advance information could make billions.

    We’ve seen these sort of destabilization ploys before on currency trading where some have made billions.

  23. Each owner of the stock could dump the stock certificate down the toilet and it would have no effect on the company. The company only issues more stock after the price keeps rising. In a down market the company borrows to finance operations. The more the company is profitable, the less the stock price’s effect on long term capital investment decisions. Companies are not going to refuse to make money. Their objective is to be as large and as profitable as they can. As Harrison McCain of McCain Foods (annual sales of $8.5 billion) once said “A company can never be big enough”

    • It’s both, as all those institution that McKibbles gets to sell, there are other institutions out there buying up those shares You can’t sell without someone else buying.

  24. One might as well sell their house to bring down the high price of real estate.

    So long as there is no practical alternative to oil and gas, divestiture will have the same effect as sea level rise on real estate prices.

    It creates bargains for the unscrupulous to take advantage of the unsuspecting.

  25. The biggest risk to the petroleum industry is the switch from gasoline to electric cars. And it won’t be to reduce carbon but because they are better.

    • They’re great for short commutes, but they aren’t better if you are travelling long distances. So bottom line is if you are a city dweller, you probably think they’re swell but if you are an rural driver, not so much.

      • Even if they were better, they don’t pose a risk to the oil & gas industry on any meaningful time scale.

          • And if you don’t live in a really cold climate (Like Canada?) where you have to use battery power to warm the interior, defrost the windshield, and overcome the viscous lubricants.

          • Depends on the rest of your needs. If you live and commute in the city (or even the nearest of suburbs), rarely venturing out of that urban environment, your needs don’t require a second car as you can rent one much more cheaply for those rare long distance trips. If you live in the rural areas of the country, where you need to drive long distances on a regular basis, than an EV is not of much use, period.

            That said, many city dwellers won’t have easy access to a charge. (if you live in an apartment and have to park in the street, where do you charge?) so EVs are really only good for a very small niche of the market – those with short commutes and easy access to a place to charge. Not so great for everyone else.

      • Currently, Audi is introducing its first all-electric model – the e-tron – which will be able to charge from 0 to 80% in around 30 minutes. That’s at 150 kW …

        [ … ]

        The third model – Audi e-tron GT – built on a second BEV platform and equipped with tech from Porsche, will be capable of charging at 350 kW. 80% state of charge should be achievable in 12-minutes.

        https://insideevs.com/audi-electric-cars-charge-80-in-12-minutes/

        The site, which will open next year, will serve as a waypoint between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, enabling electric cars with ranges of 200 miles or more to comfortably make the 270-mile trip without skimping on climate control or lowering cruising speeds. [ … ] Under 350-kW fast charging, a vehicle with a maximum range of about 310 miles would be able to gain 80 percent, or nearly 250 miles, in less than 20 minutes.

        https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15343724/first-u-s-350-kw-charging-station-will-allow-speedy-l-a-vegas-ev-road-trips/

        Clearly it’s still a chicken or the egg situation but the car manufacturers are building chickens while the electricity suppliers are installing eggs.

        In the Midwest US, Teslas are rare enough that we say, “Look!
        A Tesla.” In Seattle they’re as common as BMWs.

      • David
        Schlumberger (SLB) soared up to 130 in May 2014.
        So getting out was good timing, it was V. overbought.
        Now at the 38 level it is equally oversold. On our work we call it a Downside Capitulation.
        The line with today’s report that just went out.
        “No matter how its pronounced,Schlumberger is a tradable buy”
        🙂

  26. These “investors” could only sell their investments if there were buyers willing to purchase them.

    I think that is my favorite retort in the article.

    • Even Soros was biding on the Coal mines going bankrupt a few years ago.
      Obviously he knew what would happen.

      • Of course he did, his foundations were backing politicians and pushing for policies that would kill coal.

  27. I have recently had an exchange with the Bishop of Salisbury who leads for the Synod of the Church of England on the environment because of their policy to disinvest in fossil fuels, enclosing a photo I took of a Hmong trobal boy cooking the family lunch in the hut on twigs and dung. He was not moved- the fellow believes that the recent IPCC paper ha huge influence around the world. The idiot

  28. Hmm…I’m not economist (just ask my wife who handles our books), but it seems to me that since the demand for fossil fuels has not really diminished then “dumping” fossil fuel investments on the market just gives others a chance at picking up a bargain.
    (I wonder how many of those bargains Al Gore picked up?)

  29. Say what you want about Bill McKibbon, it doesn’t matter.

    On the AGW climate change issue he is a very respected authority, his review of Jonathan Franzen’s book “The End Of The End Of The Earth” is in this week’s New York Times Book Review.

    Do these people have a clue? Apparently not…last time I checked science had a rigour, an adherence to methodology that required a theory to be falsifiable, in other words a quality to be proven right or wrong.

    Well, as we all know…by definition AGW climate change fails…period. A theory, to be scientific must be falsifiable…so what?…It turns out it’s the message, not the science…less people as a goal?…I’m guessing,
    only time will tell.

    • On the AGW climate change issue he is a very respected authority

      only by his fellow Kool-Aid drinkers. the skeptic community has no respect for him or his authority, and the great unwashed masses don’t know who he is and don’t give a fig in either direction about him or what he has to say.

  30. Companies sell stock to raise capital. Once it is sold, it is no longer theirs. Except for treasury stock, whatever happens to publicly traded stock has nothing to do with the company. Nothing. Whether their stock is 10 or a hundred, it has nothing to do with the company.

    There are reasons why companies want their stock to do well. But if someone, or some institution, dumps their stock, it has NO AFFECT ON THE COMPANY. How third parties trade their stock is of no interest to them.

    ‘He was at the time president of the tiny Unity College in the state’s rural interior, and he announced that over the weekend its trustees had voted to sell their shares in coal, oil and gas companies. “The time is long overdue for all investors to take a hard look at the consequences of supporting an industry that persists in destructive practices,” he said.’

    Sold. Didn’t burn them; sold them. Which accomplished what?

    ‘Six years later, we have marked the 1,000th divestment in what has become by far the largest anti-corporate campaign of its kind. The latest to sell their shares – major French and Australian pension funds, and Brandeis University in Massachusetts – bring the total size of portfolios and endowments in the campaign to just under $8 trillion (£6.4tn).’

    The stock still exists. In someone else’s hands. So fvcking what? What have you accomplished?

    • As someone else pointed out, the funds were worth $8Trillion, they didn’t sell $8T in fossil fuel industry stocks. And as Gamecock and others have pointed out, selling the stocks doesn’t hurt the companies, it only hurts those who are selling for political, rather than economic reasons.

      • ExxonMobil’s largest shareholder, the Vanguard Group, holds 7.7% of XOM. The Vanguard Group has over $5 trillion under management. Their XOM position is currently worth about $27 billion.

        McKibben boasted about 1,000 entities with $8 trillion under management divesting fossil fuels… an average of $8 billion per entity.

    • if someone, or some institution, dumps their stock, it has NO AFFECT ON THE COMPANY.

      exactly. At most it creates a minor blip in the sale price of the stock. There are plenty of other buys who will gladly snap up the stock cheaply when the institution foolishly dumps their stock for non-economic reasons, but the price will quickly bounce back because it’s price is ultimately determined by the value of the company *NOT* the other way around.

      The stock still exists. In someone else’s hands. So fvcking what? What have you accomplished?

      again, you have it exactly right. In order for those institutions to sell the stock that means there are others that are buying it. And the company doesn’t care either way as they already got their money when they initially offered the stock in the first place.

      • I would imagine that most of the companies are glad that those shares of stock are now in the hands of rational investors. IE, ones that will be introducing trash resolutions at each share holder meeting, and who will be voting their shares in what they consider to be, the best interests of the company, as opposed to using those votes to make political statements.

  31. I cut Bill some slack. He’s just doing his job. Imagine having to sit around all day thinking up the stuff he does so he can get paid. I couldn’t do it.

    The paymasters are going to find someone to do the job he does. If it weren’t Weepy Bill, it would be someone else. Bill seems to be doing OK – has a bit of a knack for doom mongering – so they keep him on.

    Now, it’s close, but I think he’ll come sliding into home plate and a comfy retirement before the wheels come off the Climate Change gravy train. That’s his hope, I’m pretty sure. I don’t really care, though.

    So… I don’t weep for Weepy Bill. I do weep for those he has misled.

    • Having re-read the comments, I don’t see anyone weeping for Weepy Bill. He seems to engender other emotions in people.

  32. Hmmm… I just reviewed my comment and I must confess that it is somewhat less than a full on pitbull defense of Weepy Bill. But it’s the best I could do given what I had to work with.

  33. If people really think that fossil fuels are bad then they should stop making use of all goods and services that make use of fossil fuels. After all it is their money that is keeping the fossil fuel companies in business. But they are not doing that. For example I am sure that thy are eating food, wearing clothes, and using other products that were transported by the use of fossil fuels. If you think that the use of fossil fuels is bad and you are connected to a power grid that includes fossil fuel based energy sources then you should turn off the main breaker to your home and leave it off.

  34. Blubbering Bill lives in a fantasy world .
    I know its sad but humans and cow farts are not driving the climate .
    Never have never will .
    Eco anarchists never seem to go fossil free but blab on about what others should do .
    The only thing Exxon knew is they continue to sell products that have done more to
    improve the quality of life than any climate charlatans .

  35. What people like McKibben and his ilk fail to realise is that the fossil fuel industry as an industry puts out less CO2 into the atmosphere than many other industries. They merely produce their products as required by other industries and domestic users that burn the stuff to satisfy the various needs enjoyed by us all. Presumably he drives a car, is a consumer of manufactured goods, and travels by air for his lecturing against the fossil fuel industry. How does he feel he can operate in this world if he succeeds in his stupid aim of killing the hand that feeds him? Perhaps he should give a lecture on how the modern world can operate without oil, coal and gas for when his silly dreams come to pass.

  36. In Australia, a number of virtue seeking companies sold there coal mines. A Chinese controlled company got them cheap. Australian investors weren’t interested. So the company is selling share in Hong Kong now.

    The coal price is up. The share price is up. Dividends are up. Virtue seeking Australians miss out.

    I’ve often wondered who is paying McKibbon. Someone is investing a lot of money in his projects.

    • I’ve often wondered who is paying McKibbon. Someone is investing a lot of money in his projects.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if the name Soros isn’t in there somewhere.

Comments are closed.