"Why Extinction Rebellion is wrong about BlackRock"

We noted the kickoff of Izabella Kaminska's experiment at FT Alphaville, the 'Holier than Dow' series, in January 9ths "And Why, Observant Yet Wary Reader May Be Asking, This Flurry Of (slightly off-kilter) Posts On ESG and Such?":

If it's good enough for the professionals it's good enough for us.
You have to see the comments on this FT Alphaville post.

It's like the entire capitalist readership did ecstasy and wanted to share the love.*

Here's a January 15 installment:

Last week, the world’s largest fund manager BlackRock finally yielded to high-level pressure to step up its activism on matters ESG and climate. On Wednesday the asset manager further announced it had offloaded $500m in shares from companies that generate a quarter or more of revenue from thermal coal.

But according to an emailed statement from Extinction Rebellion (XR) on Tuesday, BlackRock’s decision to sign up to the Climate Action 100+ initiative isn’t enough, because:

BlackRock remains waist-deep in fossil fuel investments and the world’s top backer of companies that destroy the Amazon rainforest and ignore the rights of indigenous people. BlackRock can rest assured that we will continue to pile on the pressure until they act to protect our children and the natural world.

The comment was followed by XR’s usual stance that:

Time has almost entirely run out to address the ecological crisis which is upon us, including the sixth mass species extinction, global pollution, and abrupt, runaway climate change. Societal collapse and mass death are seen as inevitable by scientists and other credible voices, with human extinction also a possibility, if rapid action is not taken.

XR’s motives and objectives are good. But climate pressure groups like it are much more likely to inspire investor-led change if they acknowledge the bitter truth that “societal collapse and mass death” is equally likely to occur if fossil-fuel producers are deprived of financing too quickly, or are shamed into dropping core operations in favour of renewables before cost-comparable options are amply available. This is especially the case for renewable sources that aren’t yet competitive with fossil fuel (ie most of them) and which thus, ironically, demand the expenditure of more fossil fuel in the short term than there would otherwise be if they weren’t being manufactured at all.
Meeting the climate change challenge is essential. Obviously....

....MUCH MORE

And again, there are quite a few erudite comments as well.