It seems that every day now there’s another editorial, study, rant—even animations!—criticizing the fossil fuel divestment campaign. The pieces, usually written by lobbyists associated with fossil fuel companies, stodgy academics, or conservative politicians, usually cite the same arguments: divestment won’t make a financial difference, it’s a distraction from the “real work” of climate solutions, the world needs fossil fuels and we should be thanking Exxon for their generosity in providing them, etc.
Exactly. I have trouble understanding how divesting of these vaporous form of wealth called "stocks" has anything to do with the physical reality of fossil fuel consumption. But I'd go farther question the need for cars at all in any but rural areas. A city where the private passenger car is gone and the loudest noise is children playing and people laughing, would be wonderful.
A non-fossil powered plane with a practical range and payload capacity is physically impossible - so we really need to be planning for a future world where air transport is only used for critical lifesaving purposes. Someone needs to explain to me how a return to taking 5 leisure-filled days to cross the Atlantic - or a couple days to cross a continent would be so bad for the economy.
Ever heard of these things called trains, powered by electricity, which in turn is produced from fossil-fuel free sources? Even crappy Amtrak can get me from Pittsburgh to Seattle or Sacramento in 2 1/2 days.
Divestment doesn't work. It can't work. If I sell my stock, someone else buys it and I pocket the money. (Except the 15% tax I pay on the gains.) there are still just as many shares on the market, and the oil company doesn't know or care that I sold my shares. They wouldn't care if I just burned the certificates. They made their money when they originally issued the stock. Granted, if I owned enough shares, I could cause a short term dip in share price by dumping them on the market, but the prices would quickly recover.
Instead of divesting, these groups should be buying as many shares as possible with the aim of creating a bloc of like-minded shareholders who could actually force change on the companies.
While it's true that trains have huge electric motors, there are always diesel engine driven generators creating their electricity. If we move all the transportation sector into only one of currently many modes (e.g. trains), we'll simply move the energy consumption of all those people currently in their cars from the cars to the trains. However the energy needed will remain the same.
The real power of the fossil fuels industries lies in our extreme dependence on them. Private ownership of motor vehicles defines middle class status, and class status has more power today than it has had since the Gilded Age. Since at least the 1970s, taxpayers have fought every effort to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. Much progress could have been made if taxpayers hadn't put an end to every effort to invest in building a modern mass transportation system. Americans want solutions, as long as those solutions don't inconvenience them.
The point is that every car or bus can significantly reduce the number of motor vehicles pouring soot and oil particles into the air. Compare the pollution created by one bus carrying 20 people, to twenty cars be driven by those people.
Free or zero point energy has been a reality for many years . As has the technology for splitting water which is oxygen and hydrogen to power internal combustion engines . The truth is the energy industry has become so rich and powerful they stop or suppress these technologies by controlling the patent office or buying off inventors as they perfect their designs , they also control the media so only very little gets out to the public .
Ever heard of the disclosure project , Steven Greer ?.a little research here if your unaware of this and you have an open mind will pay off . The more of us who find out the facts the sooner things will change for the better
Divestment is a step in the right direction .
Oh, dear. Not this one again.
It takes more energy to split a water molecule into its constituent parts than you get when you burn the hydrogen later on. If someone tries to sell you a device that will run your car or your blender using just water as fuel, run away.
Hi Derek, no way am I an expert on this , but you could check out Steven Greer who is andI get his take on Stan Myers for one who developed a car which ran on water . Obviously not using old technology .