Fossil Fool Divestment Achieves New Level of Really Stupid and Futile Gesturing!

Guest “Ron White impression” by David Middleton

Published on Monday, September 09, 2019 by Common Dreams

‘People Power Is Winning’: Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement Celebrates $11 Trillion Milestone
“We would not have smashed our divestment targets without the thousands of local groups who have pressured their representatives to pull out of fossil fuels.”

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer

Ahead of an historic summit in Cape Town this week and the global climate strike planned for Sept. 20, the environmental group announced Monday that the international movement demanding divestment from fossil fuels and investment in clean energy had secured commitments from more than 1,110 institutions with over $11 trillion in assets.


Common Dreams

Are these people so stupid that they actually think they’ve eliminated $11 trillion worth of fossil fuel assets? Even if all of the “1,110 institutions with over $11 trillion in assets” actually divested a significant volume of fossil fuel companies’ stock, they could only do so if there were investors willing to purchase that stock.

Why would they even think that “1,110 institutions with over $11 trillion in assets” is significant? That’s an average of about $10 billion per institution. As of August 2018, just the two largest institutions, BlackRock and Vanguard, had $11.4 trillion worth of assets under management (AUM). The top nine investment firms had $28.34 trillion worth of AUM, averaging over $3 trillion each. None of these firms have even expressed an interest in joining the “Fossil-Free” movement. Yes, these idiots are so fracking stupid that they call it “fossil-free.”

350 dot org and the #FossilFree movement are clearly in Ron White country.

While you really can’t fix stupid, you can edit it out…

The world’s richest institutions invest in fossil fuels. […Really futile and stupid gesture snipped…].
Divestment is one of the fastest-growing movements in the fight against climate change. It’s only getting started.

By Umair Irfan Updated May 15, 2019

[…Really futile and stupid gesture snipped…]

There’s still money to be made in fossil fuels

[…Really futile and stupid gesture snipped…]

Clearly, there remains a large and growing market for fossil fuels. They remain vital for the global economy and a critical raw material for products like plastics. Much of the technological progress humanity has made to date can be traced to cheap, abundant resources like coal, oil, and natural gas. Our current trajectory has us consuming even more.
“The day after, if we were to divest, we’re still going to turn on the lights,” said Harvard President Lawrence Bacow at a forum on fossil fuel divestment. “We would still be dependent on fossil fuels.”

But Harvard and similar institutions have argued that it’s not about the money. Rather, they argue that divesting from fossil fuels would politicize their portfolios, and they have better ways to fight climate change.

“The University’s position, as it has stated previously, is that it should not use the endowment to achieve political ends, or particular policy ends,” wrote a Harvard spokesman in an email. “Harvard is committed to influencing public policy on climate change through scholarship and research.”

[…Really futile and stupid gesture snipped…]

Yale University, which sits on a mountain of money $29.4 billion tall, didn’t respond to a request for comment. However, David Swensen, the school’s chief investment officer, said last year he doesn’t support fully divesting from fossil fuels on moral grounds.

“If we stopped producing fossil fuels today we would all die. We wouldn’t have food. We wouldn’t have transportation. We wouldn’t have heat. We wouldn’t have air conditioning. We wouldn’t have clothes,” he said. “It’s very nice to protest the fact that we have fossil fuel producers in the portfolio, but the real problem is the consumption, and every one of us in the room is a consumer. I guess it’s a little bit harder to look in the mirror and say ‘I’m part of the problem’ as opposed to pointing the finger.”

[…Really futile and stupid gesture snipped…]

Divestment isn’t moving the needle — yet — but it’s changing the conversation
Despite gains in divestment, global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. Some fossil fuel companies are indeed struggling, particularly coal mining firms. But others are still making tons of money. Exxon Mobil generated $279 billion in revenue in 2018. Shell made $388.4 billion. BP made $303.7 billion. Aramco made $355.9 billion.

Analysts agree that the $8 trillion that’s been divested or pledged to withdraw to date from fossil fuels is still a small slice of the overall share of the $100 trillion-plus global capital market. “At present, [divestment] has had a pretty minimal impact on the industry,” said Richard Taylor, an oil and gas industry analyst at Fitch Solutions.

[…Really futile and stupid gesture…]

Still, the overall market impacts are minimal because the amount of money floating around right now is so vast and the inertia is immense. “They aren’t changing their behavior, that’s for sure,” said John Thieroff at Moody’s Investors Service. “Like it or not, we’re going to continue to consume oil and gas for while. There’s no switch that’s going to get flipped in the next year or two that’s going to let us walk away from oil.”

[…Wailing and teeth gnashing snipped…]


Really, the only passages of the Vox article that made any sense at all were these two quotes…

“The day after, if we were to divest, we’re still going to turn on the lights. We would still be dependent on fossil fuels.”

Harvard President Lawrence Bacow

“If we stopped producing fossil fuels today we would all die. We wouldn’t have food. We wouldn’t have transportation. We wouldn’t have heat. We wouldn’t have air conditioning. We wouldn’t have clothes,” he said. “It’s very nice to protest the fact that we have fossil fuel producers in the portfolio, but the real problem is the consumption, and every one of us in the room is a consumer.”

David Swensen, Yale University chief investment office

It is a fossil fueled world…

Data from BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy

And fossil fuel divestment is “a really futile and stupid gesture”…

Bluto (John Belushi): What the **** happened to the Greentards I used to know? Where’s the spirit? Where’s the guts, huh? This could be the greatest night of our lives, but you’re gonna let it be the worst! “Ooh, we’re afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble.” Well, just kiss my @$$ from now on! Not me! I’m not gonna take this! ExxonMobil, dead! Chevron, dead! Shell—
Otter (Tim Matheson): Dead! Bluto’s right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part.
Bluto: And we’re just the guys to do it.

Paraphrased from National Lampoon’s Animal House (1978)
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John V. Wright
September 18, 2019 2:30 am

Fossil fuel divestment has ‘zero’ impact, says Bill Gates.

Reply to  John V. Wright
September 18, 2019 3:29 am

Oh, it has an impact.
Pension funds are selling well performing assets and investing in windmills. This will reduce consumer spending of senior citizens and will harm local economies. While enriching bankers, “green” investors and lobbyists.

Reply to  John V. Wright
September 18, 2019 7:46 am

Has the stock value or valuation of any of these “fossil fuel” corporations gone down or been diminished by any of these divestitures?
All this does is make it easier to identify the fools. They might as well wear hats with bells on them.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Rocketscientist
September 18, 2019 9:55 am

Further cementing the reality, Rocket, that environmentalism is a mental illness. These people need to be institutionalized for their own protection.

Bryan A
Reply to  Rocketscientist
September 18, 2019 12:15 pm

Perhaps tall pointed hats with a certain 5 letter “D” word written down the face

Reply to  Rocketscientist
September 18, 2019 2:21 pm

Even if it did, sales wouldn’t go down (world needs energy). Result: low stock cost + high earnings -> great P/E

September 18, 2019 2:30 am

I’ll say it again for these very slow Greens – you can only sell if somebody buys. So fine, you no longer own the stock, but somebody does. The company doesn’t care (much) and the “investment” amount stays exactly the same.

So what’s the point? I really don’t think they understand how it works.

Reply to  David Middleton
September 18, 2019 5:39 am

As Harrier pilots described being outnumbered.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  David Middleton
September 18, 2019 8:22 am

Perhaps we can suggest they rather destroy their share certificates and “eliminate them! The question is how dumb are supporters?

“…they could only do so if there were investors willing to purchase that stock.” Well, duh! Divestment means no longer supporting. Ok, fine, we got your memo years ago. The surprise is that “supporters” of the goals of still own trillions of $ worth of such shares.

I am an abstainer and don’t invest in companies that sell alcohol. I have a principle and I walk my walk. I do not punish others for doing what they choose. So, let and its followers do the same. Get off fossil fuels and “live that life”. Show the way. Do as you preach, Sell off your stock holdings. You have literally nothing to lose.

If you drive the stock value down by half, then it will be twice as attractive to other investors.

Reply to  Phoenix44
September 18, 2019 5:07 am

The are leftist idiots, what do you expect, logic? Good grief, these idiots have zero logic.

Reply to  Phoenix44
September 18, 2019 5:30 am

Remember the motto of inventing stupid. “Buy high, sell low”

AGW is not Science
Reply to  rakman
September 18, 2019 8:57 am

investing stupid?

mark from the midwest
Reply to  Phoenix44
September 18, 2019 6:09 am

It’s just the product of the socialist mindset, move money around from productive activity to less productive activity just because it sounds socially correct. Socialists only care about “who” has the money, not how productive it is. So if I have a million dollars invested in a small business that employs people and pays wages the socialist wants to take 70% so they can support socially useful causes, like street theater, or more bike paths for people who commute by bike, (.03% of the working public).

Reply to  mark from the midwest
September 19, 2019 2:56 am

Remember that old saying “If socialists understood economics they wouldn’t be socialists”. Greenies are socialists by and large.

Earl Jantzi
Reply to  Phoenix44
September 18, 2019 7:47 am

If “they” understood how things work, they wouldn’t be “greenies”. They don’t understand that you aren’t going to melt the ice of the continent of Antarctica where the Average Daily Temperature is 59 degrees BELOW ZERO F with a few degrees of warming. DUH.

September 18, 2019 2:38 am

heard on Aus news today that esso? is divesting/selling ALL its aussie assets leases and offshore rights
no idea why but suspect costs and greentards combo
so another multnat oilco will step in and then we can bitch again re foriegn ownership

oh and they want to put Victorias oceans ion the ugly basket with windturbines offshore
Daniel Andrews just got a 28k a yr payrise
what he should get is a kick in the butt

Gary Pearse
Reply to  ozspeaksup
September 18, 2019 9:08 am

Oz:I’m sure foreign companies closed up shop in Russia when the bolsheviks took over and it certainly happened in Bolivia and other “centrally panned” economies. I hope Australians get it that blowing up coal-fired plants and losing aluminum and other huge industries because of electricity prices 3x that of the US and it being intermittent to boot doesn’t make for an attractive investment climate.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
September 18, 2019 9:53 am

” … so another multnat oilco will step in …”

Probably Chinese …

Ed Zuiderwijk
September 18, 2019 2:54 am

Time to buy shares in Shell.

September 18, 2019 3:00 am

For every share in fossil fuels which is sold , there has to be a buyer.

Now there is much talk from the Greenies for the use of batteries, to file in
for when their windmills and solar panels do not produce energy. Despite
their oft stated hatred of Dams, they are now embracing the very expensive
use of them as batteries re. pumped Hydro storage, forgetting that it will
take a lot of energy.

But what about Coal, its Natures big battery, a large pile of coal by a power
station does not require expensive batteries or pumped Hydro. It contains all
of that stored energy from long ago, which back then via vegetation extracted
large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. So whets not to like about coal

I myself think that its a pity that we have to burn coal, thus destroying all of the
valuable minerals, which among other things helps us to manufacture Plastics,
a essential part of our modern civilisation. But for at least the next 50
years we need it before going to Nuclear, the obvious fuel of the future.

And lets not forget that we also need liquid fuel for among other source of
energy its needed for transportation such as flying and shipping. No doubt
thy will dream up a electric powered aircraft, filled up from a windmill or two.


Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Michael
September 19, 2019 3:17 pm

On top of that, coal is old biomass. Biomass is, ultimately, renewable and CO2 neutral. When they find out that oil and gas are produced at depth in the mantle, they will have to add them as renewable too, and their production is far beyond (below) our ability to control it.

David Tallboys
September 18, 2019 3:14 am

Why do so many scientists and others who should know better go along with all the CO2 alarmism?

My neighbour’s son has a PhD in chemistry, his wife one in botany yet the couple of times I’ve asked them what they think about global warming and carbon dioxide I get a rather indifferent – “Yes, it looks quite serious” or “Well it probably won’t happen in our lifetime.”

The wife is now pregnant so perhaps I should question why they seem indifferent to the deliberate impoverishment of their future offspring’s life.

Reply to  David Tallboys
September 18, 2019 5:11 am


Reply to  David Tallboys
September 18, 2019 5:29 am

I have a lefty ‘friend’ who also has a phd in some sort of science, I am not even sure. Perhaps chemistry and they are hoodwinked right along with the rest of them. I argued the facts many times with him but if you mention anything from Watts or Heritage he immediately discounts it. Good lil leftist scientist he is. I unfriended him long ago on FB (a platform I rarely use any more because of sheet like him). Yet he has a huge house, several cars (loves using energy to work on them and drive them and heat/cool his mansion). So yes, a leftist hypocrite like the rest of them. Ick. Haven’t talked to him in 5yrs, thank GAWD!

Reply to  Cosmic
September 18, 2019 5:50 am

It sounds like he’s already joined the organic fuel movement.

Not a lefty, but I too only burn organic based fuels in my car, lawnmower, etc. and I only fly on airlines that use organic jets fuels, like Jet A and I’m particularly fond of Jet A1 for those long flights.

michael hart
Reply to  David Tallboys
September 18, 2019 5:40 am

I think most of them
a) can’t be bothered to spend the time finding out the reality for themselves and
b) tend to assume that climate “scientists” and those reporting them are both competent and as honest as they themselves are.

There’s also a large helping of that phenomenon (the name escapes me at the moment) whereby one reads a newspaper article in which you are very knowledgeable about the subject and usually find it to be riddled with inaccuracies, mistakes, half-truths and outright lies. Then you turn the page to read a different article on a different topic and believe it to be largely true, when your own experience of a few seconds previously suggests you shouldn’t believe a word of it.

Ron Long
September 18, 2019 3:16 am

Good move, David! Paraphrasing Animal House has a chance to reach those sufficiently stupid (or intoxicated) to engage in “buy high and sell low” divestment strategies.

September 18, 2019 3:23 am

Hey Greens. How about investing in solar powered dirigibles?

I’m sure Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio, AOC, and U.N. officials would all use them.

Could be a real money maker. 🙂

Elon are you listening?

Walt D.
September 18, 2019 3:38 am

If their intention was to deliberately tank the stock of say ExxonMobil, doesn’t this constitute conspiracy to manipulate the market, which would be illegal under SEC rules?
(Their actions obviously would be unsuccessful, but the intent to manipulate would remain.)

Mark Broderick
Reply to  Walt D.
September 18, 2019 4:46 am

It does discourage new investments, so yes, it probably is illegal…IMHO

September 18, 2019 4:33 am

“But what about Coal, ”

Coal as a source of fuel is extremely useful. It is still used in the steel industry as coking coal:

Doing away with it eliminates construction of all those insular highrises / skyscrapers / BUILDINGS, etc that these birdbrains think are the answer to population housing. (Thanks, but no, thanks, I like my little house and tiny lawn.)

It’s also used in producing electricity, but to a much smaller extent.

The problem with coal is that it produces a residue called ASH, a side product of anything solid that is combustible, including wood. Coal ash is not the easiest thing to dispose of, and you really can’t just dump it into the nearest pond. The other residue, when it’s used for heating a home as we did in the 1950s, is that the stuff left behind – the clinkers – was big chunks of cinder that were completely useless. Find a use for that, such as pulverizing it for putting on the roads in the winter, is one answer, but that stuff piles up.

However, coal as an industrial product is the source of thousands of common products that we all take for granted: Thousands of products are made with coal or coal by-products, including aspirins, soap, dyes, solvents, plastics, and fibers such as rayon or nylon. Coal is an important ingredient in production of products that require activated carbon, carbon fiber or silicon metal.

So my response to these ignorant souls is simple: put together a list of products made from fossil fuels – things that they absolutely take for granted, and ask them to read it out loud. Tell them they can find those sources online, as well. It may or may not flatten their angst, but it could also keep them busy deciding whether or not they really want to wear fabrics made of synthetic materials derived from carbon-based resources like oil and coal. Just how dedicated are they?

Reply to  Sara
September 18, 2019 5:31 am

Sara, if you ask them the simple question of “where will our food come from” they go quite. They all use fossil foods, even greta the co2 seeing child had her lunch covered in plastic, bread loaf and three other things (photo is on her twitter).. if the greens think that by stopping fossil fuels in the uk and usa, the weather will is perfection, they are sadly mistaken… it will rain, it will be warm and the wind will blow

Reply to  Sunny
September 18, 2019 7:17 am

Old Farmers Almanac is predicting a warm, wet winter in many areas. They have forecasts for each area, and they’re including Canada now.

For Those People, including Greta. their lack of understanding is not in their favor.

I’m looking forward to the first snowfalls and the opportunity to bake an apple pie. 🙂

Reply to  Sara
September 18, 2019 5:54 am

Coal ash is great stuff.
Fly ash in concrete – makes a very high grade product. Used especially in high end designs where the engineers really want things right.
Your clinkers – used in concrete blocks called cinder blocks. More expensive but stronger. Same chemistry and physical properties as fly ash in concrete. Haven’t heard of them in decades, pity.
Ash – Used as the grit in roofing shingles. Cheap and durable.

The Obama administration reclassified these various ashes as Hazardous Waste. This invoked literally thousands of regulations governing such things. This deliberate “Ban The Byproducts” or “Ban By Expense” was part of that administration’s notorious War On Coal.

Reply to  TonyL
September 18, 2019 7:10 am

I know about all that. I was just making a point, TonyL, that’s all.

Coal is a useful source for a whole range of products, including the grit in shingles, that not one of the birdbrained Greenbeans and ecohippies knows anything about. Same with oil – the list of products that come out of crude oil is ever-expanding, and the ecohippies/Greenbeans use all of it.

They have to be flooded with input about it. It’s the only way to shut off their rhetoric. And if they are faced with their hypocrisy, it frightens them.

Here’s a reference regarding how coal ash may still be in use today for creating what we used to call cinder blocks:

The objective is to enlighten the uninformed and get them to understand how dependent THEY are on carbon-based (oil, coal, etc.) sources for the things they take for granted, including those phones and tablets they are addicted to.

Grumpy Bill
Reply to  TonyL
September 18, 2019 10:53 am

The reason you no longer hear about cinder blocks is that they were garbage. Not strong enough to meet today’s specifications. Very low weather resistance.

Reply to  TonyL
September 18, 2019 11:34 am

Just for the record, the alternative to coal-related fly ash is volcanic ash. The Romans used it to build harbors underwater, since it will harden in water. They used it for other construction as well.

Here’s a link to an article about it.

Mark Broderick
September 18, 2019 4:35 am


“BlackRock and Vanguard, had $11.4 trillion worth of assets under management (AUM). The top nine investment firms had $28.34 trillion worth of AUM, averaving averaging over $3 trillion each. “

Mark Broderick
Reply to  David Middleton
September 18, 2019 7:05 am

We gotta keep your posts perfect ! (getting harder to find boo boo’s though, maybe my eyes are going..) lol

September 18, 2019 4:52 am

“..secured commitments from more than 1,110 institutions with over $11 trillion in assets.”

I would expect that is total assets managed, not fossil assets pre-divestment. The actual divestment is much smaller, based on the percent of each portfolio previously in fossil fuels.

Mark Broderick
Reply to  MJB
September 18, 2019 5:16 am

Yes, the lefties are never very good with numbers….or thinking logically. Heck, most of them live in La La Land !

Reply to  David Middleton
September 18, 2019 6:06 am

Apologies David, I didn’t see where the percent of total point was made. Thanks for another informative and entertaining article.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  David Middleton
September 18, 2019 9:03 am

Less than that. Top is ExxonMobil at 307B, # 8,9,10 are each less than 100B.

Steven fraser
Reply to  David Middleton
September 18, 2019 9:19 am

Saudi Aramco IPO will shed some light, too, on market Liquidity.

Bruce Cobb
September 18, 2019 5:06 am

Once, when I was about 4, I became very angry with my mother (don’t remember why), and in a fit of rage exclaimed to her “I’m going to die all your trees!” (I knew the word “die”, but hadn’t acquired the k-word yet). I was referring to a stand of apple trees, part of what used to be an apple orchard, which I knew she loved. This “divestment” program reminds me of that incident. They want to “die” all the oil companies.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 18, 2019 5:41 am

But they still eat the apples.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Scissor
September 18, 2019 9:32 am

And if they succeeded in accomplishing their “goals,” the would somehow manage to be surprised that there weren’t any more apples, and be looking for someone else to blame for that fact.

Mark Broderick
September 18, 2019 5:09 am

Date: 17/09/19Graham Lloyd, The Australian
“Despite a global push for more action on climate change, momentum has drained away.”

Great read…..

Gary Mount
September 18, 2019 5:12 am

Yesterday on The Five talk show on Fox, Juan Williams said that the fossil fuel industry spends huge amounts of money funding climate skeptics. Greg Gutfeld said this was fake news, Juan responded “oh just stop”.

Mark Broderick
Reply to  Gary Mount
September 18, 2019 7:10 am

Hmmmm, still waiting for my $$$ !

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Gary Mount
September 18, 2019 10:18 am

Usually Greg is pretty quick, but a better response in this instance would have been, “Oh really, do you have any data to back that up?” I like to cite the Apollo program’s motto: “In god we trust; all others bring data.”

September 18, 2019 5:24 am

These people have either forgotten or don’t care that fossil fuels, specifically kerosene saved the whales.
Not conservation, not protests, but a better, cheaper product came along.

Kevin kilty
September 18, 2019 5:27 am

To be thorough one might mention that a divestment movement large enough (that is the sticky point) could reduce the liquidity of fossil fuel stocks — make them more thinly traded. Yes, for every stock sold there is a stock purchase, but in a thinly traded stock the spread between bid and ask might become significant; perhaps significant enough to impact project financing.

Those two quotations from the article make me relieved somewhat that not everyone in the upper management of universities is a total dope. Usually the dopes drift into the less important roles of college president, dean of students, VP of academics, and chief diversity officer.

September 18, 2019 5:31 am
Reply to  richard
September 18, 2019 6:54 am

All fields of endeavor have their fringe groups. Science is no different. Science also has a close proximity to Science Fiction, and also a whole cadre of people who cannot tell the difference. Worse, because science challenges the imagination (as does science fiction), you get the “way out there” fringe group. This is your Lunatic fringe.

The work your link describes is not from the Lunatic Fringe. Perhaps it is more like “What you get when an English Major does Science”. Not really worth taking apart past this point.

Reply to  TonyL
September 18, 2019 7:45 am

And the experiment with the test tube ? One comaring atmos amounts of CO2 Vs test tube with 500,000- 1,000,000 ppm CO2. This meets with your approval.

Regarding the vacuum test. Can you illustrate what it is that you do no like rather than weak ad hom attack.

Reply to  richard
September 18, 2019 8:29 am

Not really sure just what he is doing.
1) Clarity. Explain just what you are doing, so others can follow.
He says the probe is in contact with the bulb. (???)
2) He is measuring the temperature of the light bulb, apparently. What does this have to do with anything???
He then goes on to make two references to measuring the temperature of the Vacuum(!)
3) The temperature of a vacuum is an impossible concept.
If he is doing anything at all, he is comparing the different heat capacities of the various gasses he used.
4) He seems to not know this as he does not mention this aspect of the tests anywhere. He seems unaware that gasses have different heat capacities.

You wanted a comment, you got a comment.

Mark Broderick
Reply to  richard
September 18, 2019 7:03 am

I’d like to see Anthony reproduce this test as he’s done before..Should be very interesting.

September 18, 2019 5:34 am

Herd animals. They gather together and join with the group, and with the group identity. We see it all over the place. Often enough, people will declare that they are “joiners”. Which indicates that they have no more capability for independent thought than your basic cow or sheep.

The Left:
Over and over, we see that the people on the Left believe that everybody else in the world is just like themselves and thinks just like themselves. Of course a herd animal will think that. As far as any individual in the herd can see, they all do the same thing at the same time. They all think the same, they all act the same. This is all part of the most fundamental nature of the herd mentality.

Here is the fun part. In a psychotically intense episode of delusions of adequacy, these people imagine themselves to be the Leaders of the herd. As they lead, they expect the rest of the investment world will simply follow along. In their world view, everybody is part of the herd, so they must follow along. This is why they actually believe they are accomplishing something.
Hilarity Ensues.

Allow me to digress:
It is often pointed out that the Right considers the left to be wrong, and perhaps misguided. On the other hand, the Left Hates the right, and considers them to be Absolute Evil.
Why the dichotomy?
The Left is a herd, with herd instincts. Anything not of the herd is a potential predator. It is a primal fear. The wolf circling around the sheep. The lion stalking the antelope. Fear and Hate. They are incapable of thinking in any other way.

Rudolf Huber
September 18, 2019 5:34 am

This has a sunny side. All the virtue signallers force themselves to divest from some of the most profitable businesses that exist. This means their own profitability takes a hit. Life without fossil fuels is not possible so this means moe and better business for the more balanced among us. I like it.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  Rudolf Huber
September 18, 2019 12:04 pm

And, a market with motivated sellers produces temporarily lower prices. Some companies have their own stock-buy-back programs, to lower the number of shares outstanding and bolster the per-share earnings. Who knows, perhaps the divesting funds are unwittingly helping 😉

September 18, 2019 5:38 am

Toga Party !!!! 😉

Coeur de Lion
September 18, 2019 6:38 am

Again again again I raise the phenomenon of the Synod of the Church of England whose members – all bishops- intend to disinvest fossil fuels unless companies conform to the Paris Agreement with the intention of keeping global temperatures below 2degsC over pre- industrial levels. In my protracted correspondence with the Bishop of Salisbury who leads on the environment for the Synod it became clear that he believes in the truth of the IPCC’s SR1.5 study despite it having been eviscerated by numerous responses _”unsuitable for policy- making” is the politest. He was incoherent on the question of how an oil company was to “conform to the Paris Agreement”. I can’t see how , personally. He would not comment on the PA’s record to date. He says we are on the road to a ‘carbon free’. civilisation . He refused to examine any sceptical arguments. As far as I know he had not looked at BP’s annual analysis and forecast for energy production and consumption to 2050. Interestingly, Synod rejected a proposal to disinvest unless companies promised to cease exploration within four years. Lunatic of course, but reveals a deep hypocrisy- if they are SERIOUS they would surely pass such a resolution. So not just ignorant virtue signallers but cowards as well. I forwarded my recent photo of a Laotian Hmong tribal ten year old cooking lunch on twigs and dung in his hut and blamed his upcoming death on the synod of the Church of England. I expect readers will detect that I’m moderately cross. Tried all this on our exemplary local priest. Umm – he says post of his pension comes from elsewhere.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
September 18, 2019 7:19 am

Is he aware that wood is a carbon-based fuel and people will burn wood in their fireplaces to keep warm if the vaunted wind stops blowing and the sky is too overcast to produce sun-driven electricity?

Nicholas McGinley
September 18, 2019 6:41 am

I wish there was a way to shame these idjuts into becoming aware of how idiotic they sound when they claim they are “fighting climate change”.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 18, 2019 9:49 am

Might as well be “fighting the incoming tide.” It’s just as futile.

September 18, 2019 7:33 am

We should stop using coal as soon as we learn to extract
the massive supply of natural gas hydrates stored within
the legal boundaries of the US. The massive store of natural
gas hydrates could be cracked into portable fuels such as

These natural gas hydrates form deep in the earth, and more
will rise as the existing pressure cap is reduced.

For those who do not believe (David) that hydrocarbons
form deep in the earth, please read the abstract which
describes inclusions containing hydrocarbons in
diamonds which forms 360+ km deep in the earth.

September 18, 2019 7:34 am

I think that it would be unwise to disabuse the disinvestment- activists of their belief that they are having enormous success in destroying the oil, gas and petrochemical industry and thereby returning us to that Garden of Eden existence (where we were told to always go round butt-n*ked and never eat apples).
If they were ever to think that their present schemes were having no real effect they would resort to activities with which we are all to familiar: strikes , disrupting commerce and personal travel , vicious email campaigns on persons associated with those industries , maybe even something more lethal through the letter box.
Leave them alone to dream their dreams and leave the rest of us in peace.

Reply to  mikewaite
September 18, 2019 11:11 am

So you missed that protest a few months ago in London, during which people glued themselves to manhole covers and fences and buildings? They bogged down commuter traffic but good.

Reply to  Sara
September 18, 2019 11:38 am

True, Sara. But if they are encouraged to think that their actions so far have effectively achieved nothing , what then?
It might seem a policy of appeasement, even of cowardice, to pat them on the head and make vaguely admiring noises, but any alternative requires confirmation that there will be support from the forces of Law and Order to prevent the actions that you consider, probably correctly, are blackmailing the investment institutions.
From what I read every judge in US is on their side and don’t expect, in England, any help from the Police. In Manchester’s disruptive demo they (the Police) said that ” we will do everything we can to facilitate the demo”. They kept their word, and looked the other way.

Reply to  mikewaite
September 18, 2019 1:24 pm

“…every judge in US is on their side….” Not necessarily. On a weekend, perhaps they might get away with it, but during a work week, unless it’s a wimpy city like San Fran or Seattle, it might not go over very well.

I will admit that in the winter, in a city like Chicago or one of those eastern cities that gets whacked with snow (e.g., Buffalo, NY, or Washington, DC), it would be interesting to see just how long they’d last in the cold. They’re all warm-weather critters, you know.

Reply to  mikewaite
September 18, 2019 11:35 am

Sorry, I misread your post. My bad.

Earl Jantzi
September 18, 2019 7:50 am

If “they” understood how things work, they wouldn’t be “greenies”. They don’t understand that you aren’t going to melt the ice of the continent of Antarctica where the Average Daily Temperature is 59 degrees BELOW ZERO F with a few degrees of warming. DUH.

Rod Evans
September 18, 2019 8:36 am

There is a way to stop this collective madness now being exhibited by the Green Socialist movement.
Each and every one of them, should be asked as a condition of continuing to supply them energy, to confirm, they accept their energy is coming from primarily fossil fuel sources and will continue to do so.
Any one not willing to accept this statement of fact, would be disconnected from the supply.
This would be an echo of the cookies acceptance request we now get on every site we visit.
If you wish to continue receiving our service please confirm you are happy to do so with fossil fuel being an integral and essential part of this energy service.
Click here, or disconnection will be initiated.

Mark Broderick
September 18, 2019 8:39 am

“Trump administration revokes California’s authority to set auto mileage standards”

About time…

September 18, 2019 10:21 am

Divesting for a day and then reinvesting or re-balancing the portfolio in a another reporting period amounts to churning or day trading. This too works fine in a virtue signaling context.

September 18, 2019 10:52 am

10 year US treasury note, 1.75%.

Exxon dividend 4.79%; BP, 6.3%; Shell, 5.49%…..

Of course, their next complaint will be that the rich get richer while they get poorer, with the accusation being that the rich are stealing from them. Their p poor decisions have nothing to do with it (sarc).

Oil isn’t about to disappear. Oil companies make billions and pay out good dividends. There are plenty of investors and funds who add to their oil company shares whenever the stock price dips.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  jtom
September 18, 2019 12:31 pm

LONDON, Sept. 16, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — Royal Dutch Shell plc (the ‘Company’) (NYSE: RDS.A) (NYSE: RDS.B) announces that on September 16, 2019 it purchased the following number of “A” Shares for cancellation.

Story at:

Total of shares bought (from the itemization); 1,294,500.

They did a similar transactiongroup on Sept. 10 to buy back 1,608,104 shares.

Total buyback for the 2 days: 2,902,604 shares.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  jtom
September 18, 2019 12:34 pm

And the P/E ratios are very attractive.

Steve Z
September 18, 2019 11:54 am

How Capitalism works:

College A: Let’s divest our pension funds from fossil fuels and invest in solar panels and windmills!

College B: We like our pension funds the way they are, thank you!

(5 years later)
College A Professor: I quit to join College B–they have better pensions!

%d bloggers like this: