Trigger Warning: Community contains mostly bad environmental news (not by choice!). Community may also feature stories about animal agriculture and/or meat. Until tagging is available, please be aware and click accordingly.

🪲

Aussie Zone Rules.

Golden rule - be nice. If you wouldn’t say it in front of your ~~grandmother~~ favourite tree, don’t post it.
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. You are allowed to denigrate invasive plants or animals.
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here. Except invasive plants or animals.
No porn. Except photos of plants. Definitely not animals.
No Ads / Spamming. Except for photos or stories about plants and animals.
Nothing illegal in Australia. Like invasive plants or animals. Exotic microbes and invasive fungi also not welcome.
Make post titles descriptive with no swear words. Comments are a free for all using the above rules as a guide. Fuck invasive plants and animals.

🐝

/c/Aussie Environment acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land, sea and waters, of the area that we live and work on across Australia. We acknowledge their continuing connection to their culture and pay our respects to their Elders past and present.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Ethical super funds with Fossil Fuel investments (www.abc.net.au)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

Any super fund that claims to be ethical and or sustainable while investing in fossil fuel should be fined and sued.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

shocked face

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

For example, NGS Super’s policy excludes investment in companies that make more than 30 per cent of their revenue from thermal coal mining.

As a result, BHP is not excluded because the $US3.5 billion it earned mining thermal coal last financial year only accounted for 6.6 per cent of its total revenue.

I can see a case being made for allowing >0, even if I don't really like it myself.

But 30% is ridiculous. It should be more like 10%, with an additional stipulation on maximum total, so a giant company like BHP which produces billions doesn't get away with it just because they also do a bunch of other stuff.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

This is a terrible form of analysis Why would you show these assets in terms of an absolute number? The ngs analysis showed that 3.5% of their assets fell under the fossil fuel category, and some of those companies operate in other areas

If you want to get mad at super funds go ahead but I don't know what you want them to do? If you go fully renewable instantly you're not going to be as attractive as an option, meaning even less people investing in renewable super. Meaning potentially less investment in that space