Not giving my money to the fossel fuel industry

[pwa]

When I posted this, it was as a result of posting pretty much the same Q. on the savings / investment board at the MSE forum. The answers were almost universally along the lines of "If you want to maximise your returns, don't rule anything out..."
I'd been hoping for more nuance - a wider spread of suggestions. I know there's no easy answer. I know we all invest in fossil fuels daily, one way or another - that is, unless you're very left-field, off-grid and somehow self sufficient...
But my sense is that in the fast-moving realm of climate change, the mood is changing and people are begining to ask if there might be ways to lean on the ff industries and I'm wanting to hear the rustle of those tiny green shoots emerging...
Examples are banks like Triodos (based in Bristol), articles in the likes of Forbes and the Times, and the adoption of change by investment as a subject for discussion at COPs. Not so much 'ethical' investment - rather investment for survival.

The fossil fuel industry is there, doing what it does, because you and me buy their wares. My car needs petrol, my motorhome needs diesel, my cooker and central heating need methane, and the plane that takes you on your hols needs avaition fuel. I am not aware of anyone on this forum that feels so strongly about this that they are ceasing all use of fossil fuels, even just for transport. The industry is just doing what we ask them to do through our purchases. Who is the devil? Them or us?

My own personal pension funds are mostly "ethical", which includes not having investments in fossil fuels, so I get one green tick on that score.

[briansnail]

Very well done. I also have got rid of the car and use one of my 5 bikes instead. I think we are all with you. However the developing world is unlikely to to totally depend on solar although they have lots of sunlight. They will use fossil fuels and argue its their turn not unfairly.
I have no shares or the like. However most pension funds are in deficit. The dotcoms are all talk and little profit. However the oil companies help keep all our pensions in good shape.
ps I am against the tobacco companies as they do a lot of harm.
*******************************************
I ride Brompton and a 100% British Vintage

[Biospace]

The fossil fuel industry is there, doing what it does, because you and me buy their wares. My car needs petrol, my motorhome needs diesel, my cooker and central heating need methane, and the plane that takes you on your hols needs avaition fuel. I am not aware of anyone on this forum that feels so strongly about this that they are ceasing all use of fossil fuels, even just for transport. The industry is just doing what we ask them to do through our purchases. Who is the devil? Them or us?

- my emboldening

I mentioned above that for over a decade our cars and home used alternatives to fossil fuels to power and heat them. It wasn't because I feel anger towards the use of FF (although they are going to run out/become absurdly expensive and the emissions aren't great so it seems to make sense to find alternatives), the most satisfying aspect beyond knowing you weren't burning the planet's millions of years old finite carbon store, was the energy independence and (with considerable reserves) not being at the whim of supply networks or prices.

[PH]

The fossil fuel industry is there, doing what it does, because you and me buy their wares. My car needs petrol, my motorhome needs diesel, my cooker and central heating need methane, and the plane that takes you on your hols needs avaition fuel. I am not aware of anyone on this forum that feels so strongly about this that they are ceasing all use of fossil fuels, even just for transport. The industry is just doing what we ask them to do through our purchases. Who is the devil? Them or us?

My own personal pension funds are mostly "ethical", which includes not having investments in fossil fuels, so I get one green tick on that score.

I don't understand this attitude, when was the question all or nothing? I've never heard an environmentalist make that argument. The idea is to use less, sustainably less, which is considerably less. There is a difference between traveling in a diesel train and making the same journey as a single occupant of a large car. But we also have to live in the World as it is rather than as we'd like it, I'd prefer the train to be electric produced from a sustainable source, whilst acknowledging that for some trips the car is the better, or only, option. Where else would you like to go with this? Apples driven up from Kent compared to out of season strawberries flown around the World?
Oil companies don't just provide a need, any more than drug pushers, they promote use, manipulate the market, and lie about the alternatives whilst pretending to support them. They spend fortunes lobbying Governments and employing those with influence in order to be treated favourably. There's no devil here, this is what commercial entities do, act in the interest of their shareholders over all else. It doesn't really matter if you're one of those shareholders or not, the maximising of unearned income, capitalism, is the basis of the World economy, it's that which isn't sustainable and there's zero chance of changing it. I'm not even putting forward any theory about what we could change it to, humanity is so far down this road I don't think there is a way back. What we can do, IMO what we ought to do, is look at our own environment and consider how we might lessen the damage.

[pwa]

The fossil fuel industry is there, doing what it does, because you and me buy their wares. My car needs petrol, my motorhome needs diesel, my cooker and central heating need methane, and the plane that takes you on your hols needs avaition fuel. I am not aware of anyone on this forum that feels so strongly about this that they are ceasing all use of fossil fuels, even just for transport. The industry is just doing what we ask them to do through our purchases. Who is the devil? Them or us?

My own personal pension funds are mostly "ethical", which includes not having investments in fossil fuels, so I get one green tick on that score.

I don't understand this attitude, when was the question all or nothing? I've never heard an environmentalist make that argument. The idea is to use less, sustainably less, which is considerably less. There is a difference between traveling in a diesel train and making the same journey as a single occupant of a large car. But we also have to live in the World as it is rather than as we'd like it, I'd prefer the train to be electric produced from a sustainable source, whilst acknowledging that for some trips the car is the better, or only, option. Where else would you like to go with this? Apples driven up from Kent compared to out of season strawberries flown around the World?
Oil companies don't just provide a need, any more than drug pushers, they promote use, manipulate the market, and lie about the alternatives whilst pretending to support them. They spend fortunes lobbying Governments and employing those with influence in order to be treated favourably. There's no devil here, this is what commercial entities do, act in the interest of their shareholders over all else. It doesn't really matter if you're one of those shareholders or not, the maximising of unearned income, capitalism, is the basis of the World economy, it's that which isn't sustainable and there's zero chance of changing it. I'm not even putting forward any theory about what we could change it to, humanity is so far down this road I don't think there is a way back. What we can do, IMO what we ought to do, is look at our own environment and consider how we might lessen the damage.

But you do understand my attitude, as shown by your last sentence. Simon, just like myself, gives his money to the fossil fuel industry, in spite of the title he gave to this thread. I put petrol in my car, diesel in my motorhome and gas into my central heating boiler. He climbs into a plane and conspires in greenhouse gasses being spewed into the atmosphere, knowingly paying the fossil fuel industry. I don't personally know anyone who isn't doing that, one way or another. Without us, the fossil fuel industry would not exist. We make it. I make it, Simon makes it, you make it. It is ours. Othering it is ignoring our personal responsibility. I'm not a dupe of some fossil fuel industry marketing campaign, I want the benefits that come from their products and I use them fully knowing about the drawbacks, as does Simon. So your last sentence is the big one for me. What can we do about the demand we create for these damaging products?

[Cugel]

Simon, just like myself, gives his money to the fossil fuel industry, in spite of the title he gave to this thread. I put petrol in my car, diesel in my motorhome and gas into my central heating boiler. He climbs into a plane and conspires in greenhouse gasses being spewed into the atmosphere, knowingly paying the fossil fuel industry. I don't personally know anyone who isn't doing that, one way or another. Without us, the fossil fuel industry would not exist. We make it. I make it, Simon makes it, you make it. It is ours. Othering it is ignoring our personal responsibility. I'm not a dupe of some fossil fuel industry marketing campaign, I want the benefits that come from their products and I use them fully knowing about the drawbacks, as does Simon. So your last sentence is the big one for me. What can we do about the demand we create for these damaging products?

There are plenty of things you can do to directly reduce your personal use of fossil fuels, even though it would be quite difficult to reduce that use to anywhere near zero. But some give-it-ups have a large effect - if everyone did it. Everyone not doing it, though, is not an excuse for continuing to do-as-they-do. That kind of thinking can lead to complicity in all sorts of evil practices, from savage racism to full-on genocide.

Many will suggest that if the crowd-following actions are less individually harming, then that's not so bad. True - but still bad. When "everyone" breaks the speed limit in copying all the other limit breakers, most won't run over the unlucky child. But some will.

*************
So what's easy to give up and has quite a large effect? From your own post:

Fuel for motorhoming (and other extensive motorised travel done for entertainment rather than necessity).
Flying (a subcategory of the above but one that gulps huge amounts of petrochemicals).

Those are two big ones that'll also save you a lot of money if you stop doing them.

We can also change our diets a bit. For example, eat 1/3rd the meat you do now; from local sources with sustainable farming practices.

Do lots of marginal-gains things to retain heat in the house (draught proofing, LED bulbs, thermostat down one degree, etc.).

Get things delivered rather than driving to a far away shop for them (one delivery truck servicing 50 buyers better than 50 cars travelling a large combined mileage to go to the shop 25 miles or more away).

Buy second hand rather than new.

Sell or give away no longer wanted stuff rather than binning it.

Learn to maintain all sorts of things you use in addition to the bicycle.

********
There'll be more - things we can all do differently that not only reduce fossil fuel usage (directly and indirectly) but also save money and time to do perhaps better things than travelling about just to be somewhere else or eating tons of meat and risking a greater chance of bowel cancer.

Reducing our fossil fuel consumption can slow the general toxic effects build-up of the filthy stuff but also improve our life in all sorts of ways, like with giving up any bad habit.

Cugel

[pwa]

Simon, just like myself, gives his money to the fossil fuel industry, in spite of the title he gave to this thread. I put petrol in my car, diesel in my motorhome and gas into my central heating boiler. He climbs into a plane and conspires in greenhouse gasses being spewed into the atmosphere, knowingly paying the fossil fuel industry. I don't personally know anyone who isn't doing that, one way or another. Without us, the fossil fuel industry would not exist. We make it. I make it, Simon makes it, you make it. It is ours. Othering it is ignoring our personal responsibility. I'm not a dupe of some fossil fuel industry marketing campaign, I want the benefits that come from their products and I use them fully knowing about the drawbacks, as does Simon. So your last sentence is the big one for me. What can we do about the demand we create for these damaging products?

There are plenty of things you can do to directly reduce your personal use of fossil fuels, even though it would be quite difficult to reduce that use to anywhere near zero. But some give-it-ups have a large effect - if everyone did it. Everyone not doing it, though, is not an excuse for continuing to do-as-they-do. That kind of thinking can lead to complicity in all sorts of evil practices, from savage racism to full-on genocide.

Many will suggest that if the crowd-following actions are less individually harming, then that's not so bad. True - but still bad. When "everyone" breaks the speed limit in copying all the other limit breakers, most won't run over the unlucky child. But some will.

*************
So what's easy to give up and has quite a large effect? From your own post:

Fuel for motorhoming (and other extensive motorised travel done for entertainment rather than necessity).
Flying (a subcategory of the above but one that gulps huge amounts of petrochemicals).

Those are two big ones that'll also save you a lot of money if you stop doing them.

We can also change our diets a bit. For example, eat 1/3rd the meat you do now; from local sources with sustainable farming practices.

Do lots of marginal-gains things to retain heat in the house (draught proofing, LED bulbs, thermostat down one degree, etc.).

Get things delivered rather than driving to a far away shop for them (one delivery truck servicing 50 buyers better than 50 cars travelling a large combined mileage to go to the shop 25 miles or more away).

Buy second hand rather than new.

Sell or give away no longer wanted stuff rather than binning it.

Learn to maintain all sorts of things you use in addition to the bicycle.

********
There'll be more - things we can all do differently that not only reduce fossil fuel usage (directly and indirectly) but also save money and time to do perhaps better things than travelling about just to be somewhere else or eating tons of meat and risking a greater chance of bowel cancer.

Reducing our fossil fuel consumption can slow the general toxic effects build-up of the filthy stuff but also improve our life in all sorts of ways, like with giving up any bad habit.

Cugel

I have my own list of things I need to look at in my own life, the (compact) motorhome being one. It does about 36mpg, about the same as a friend's Landrover Discovery, which is poor for a car but not as bad as you might think for such a blocky vehicle. And we only use it when we really want to have its facilities, not as a stand-in car. So it does relatively few miles. We don't often drive more than 100 miles from home with it. It is a way of enjoying our own nation rather than travelling further. I did some quick calculations and our annual use of the motorhome produces much less greenhouse gas damage than would be incurred if we flew to the South of France once a year instead. So not as bad as one might fear. We don't fly away for our hols, so I reckon we are doing better with our small motorhome than people who do.

Our gas central heating is another bone of contention, and a bigger one at that. Our positive action this winter has been to nudge the thermostat down a couple of degrees. It is hard to know how effective that has been because the mostly mild winter has been flattering to our usage figures.

Our car is fairly fuel efficient and we don't do lots of miles. I think that we are doing fewer miles each year, which is good. But some of that is our kids now being grown up and not needing to be ferried here and there.

Eventually we will have an electric car that, hopefully, we won't use a lot. And a home heated by electiricty? I dread that switch, because it will mean ripping out loads of internal plumbing and resigning myself to even more expensive fuel.

I am already vegetarian and have been since the 1980s, but I consume too much dairy for my health or the environment, so scope for improvement there.

I am fortunate in that I have simple tastes and can live in a simple way if needed, and I think it will be needed. I am going to be financially poorer, as are most people, when we come round to living sustainably.

Your supposition that delivery trucks bringing your grocries to you is less damaging that you collecting them yourself is questionable to say the least. I know delivery drivers who take groceries to front doors and their delivery routes are not as efficient as you imagine. Firstly, when they get to their first costomer they have driven there with the goods of other customers too. And their route is influnenced by the customer's requested delivery time slot, so the van can be going back and forth, up and down the same roads, passing doors it will be stopping at later. So the route taken to get to the last customer, if drawn on a map, could look like a scribble done by a toddler. Driven by a diesel van. We prefer to get our groceries by car, combining the trip with other errands or with returning from work. And our two big supermarkets are only four or five miles away.

For non-grocery items, I agree that having things delivered can make sense. A van driver who has all day to get stuff to you can make an efficient route. So I don't go to Cardiff on shopping trips much anymore.

[Biospace]

I am fortunate in that I have simple tastes and can live in a simple way if needed, and I think it will be needed. I am going to be financially poorer, as are most people, when we come round to living sustainably.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting if being financially poorer will be a direct result of living sustainably or that there will be relatively less money circulating in the future - hence we'll all be 'poorer'?

It's unfortunate our governments have for decades raised so much money on the back of unsustainable consumption, especially direct fossil fuel consumption, other sources will be found. The legacy costs of behaving with little concern for the future will affect us for decades - for example in 2019, Westminster estimated the cost of cleaning up after nuclear power would be £124 billion.

Our gas central heating is another bone of contention, and a bigger one at that. Our positive action this winter has been to nudge the thermostat down a couple of degrees. It is hard to know how effective that has been because the mostly mild winter has been flattering to our usage figures.

Our car is fairly fuel efficient and we don't do lots of miles. I think that we are doing fewer miles each year, which is good. But some of that is our kids now being grown up and not needing to be ferried here and there.

Eventually we will have an electric car that, hopefully, we won't use a lot. And a home heated by electiricty? I dread that switch, because it will mean ripping out loads of internal plumbing and resigning myself to even more expensive fuel.

Heating with an electrically-powered heat pump doesn't mean you can't continue to use existing a wet central heating system, unless it's microbore piping or the radiators only just manage to heat a house even when powered by gas or oil. Underfloor heating and other slow release methods are ideal because they work better at the lower temperatures a HP produces.

If you use a fuel-efficient car and it covers a low annual mileage, replacing it with a new EV would very possibly be less 'sustainable' - Volvo cite a 70% rise in emissions for producing an EV compared with what we're using now. Depending on battery size and your mileage, it could be over a decade before you've broke even environmentally/with emissions.

[pwa]

If you use a fuel-efficient car and it covers a low annual mileage, replacing it with a new EV would very possibly be less 'sustainable' - Volvo cite a 70% rise in emissions for producing an EV compared with what we're using now. Depending on battery size and your mileage, it could be over a decade before you've broke even environmentally/with emissions.

I like making things last, so I'm hoping our exisiting car will be okay for another decade at least. But when it expires it is likely that the transition to all-electric will be underway and we won't have much choice. Electric or nothing.

[Biospace]

If you use a fuel-efficient car and it covers a low annual mileage, replacing it with a new EV would very possibly be less 'sustainable' - Volvo cite a 70% rise in emissions for producing an EV compared with what we're using now. Depending on battery size and your mileage, it could be over a decade before you've broke even environmentally/with emissions.

I like making things last, so I'm hoping our exisiting car will be okay for another decade. But when it expires it is likely that the transition to all-electric will be underway and we won't have much choice. Electric or nothing.

Yes, for all I say about the EV (in order to try and remind people they're nowhere near "Zero Emission" and child slave labour is involved in battery production), I think electric cars themselves are something wonderful.

Why? They simplify the car significantly - no cambelts, oil changes, clutches, injectors or fuel pumps, exhaust silencers, EGR or DPF, ignition coil packs and so on. I never liked the over-electronification of a mechanical device powered along by setting fire to fuel, whereas I see the EV is an electrical and electronic device with wheels. They should be stunningly reliable, until there's little alternative and limiting life expectancy becomes part of the design.

I'm not so keen on hefting hundreds of kilos of battery around for the three or four times a year you really need 250 miles of range, especially so when most trips are under 10 miles and a range of 90 would suffice 99% of the time, but it appears like we'll be stuck with that, for now. We've come to take for granted the wonderful flexibilities of liquid fuel.

I see the rise in price of grid electricity has had some effect on prices, there are fully operational Leafs on sale from £3200 (second hand battery packs sell for not much less) and Musk has lopped £8k off a new Tesla.

[pwa]

........................
Yes, for all I say about the EV (in order to try and remind people of the hard facts) and my huge appreciation of the admittedly stunted-at-birth internal combustion engine, I think electric cars are something wonderful.

Why? They simplify the car significantly - no cambelts, oil changes, clutches, injectors or fuel pumps, exhaust silencers, EGR or DPF, ignition coil packs and so on. I never liked the over-electronification of a mechanical device powered along by setting fire to fuel, whereas i see the EV is an electrical and electronic device with wheels. They should be stunningly reliable, until there's little alternative and the cost accountants set to work...

I'm not so keen on hefting hundreds of kilos of battery around for the three or four times a year you really need 250 miles of range, especially so when most trips are under 10 miles and a range of 90 would suffice 99% of the time, but it appears like we'll be stuck with that, for now. We've come to take for granted the wonderful flexibilities of liquid fuel.

I must also admit that I have my fingers crossed that I will continue to be able to get diesel for the compact motorhome for another decade or so. Yes, it is putting money in the pockets of the fossil fuels industry, and it ain't great for the environment, but we love it. It doesn't do lots of miles, so it is only a small sin. It is less damaging than what lots of folk do to get to more far flung locations. I just hope diesel will continue to be available for as long as we need it. To get us to the Forest of Dean, Carmarthenshire or the more exotic distant lands of Powys, where we can live in comfort for a few days in our own mobile nest in the corner of a field.

[Carlton green]

If you use a fuel-efficient car and it covers a low annual mileage, replacing it with a new EV would very possibly be less 'sustainable' - Volvo cite a 70% rise in emissions for producing an EV compared with what we're using now. Depending on battery size and your mileage, it could be over a decade before you've broke even environmentally/with emissions.

I like making things last, so I'm hoping our exisiting car will be okay for another decade at least. But when it expires it is likely that the transition to all-electric will be underway and we won't have much choice. Electric or nothing.

My bold. That’s actually a very possible situation (electric or nothing) and, whether for ourselves or others, we should all be very concerned about it. The price of new cars has risen somewhat and it’s looking like many people will quite simply be priced off of the road …

[Jdsk]

...
I'm not so keen on hefting hundreds of kilos of battery around for the three or four times a year you really need 250 miles of range, especially so when most trips are under 10 miles and a range of 90 would suffice 99% of the time, but it appears like we'll be stuck with that, for now.
...

I like making things last, so I'm hoping our exisiting car will be okay for another decade at least. But when it expires it is likely that the transition to all-electric will be underway and we won't have much choice. Electric or nothing.

In another decade I think that it will be much more common to use a vehicle that isn't owned personally. That would make it much easier to to select a vehicle that's appropriate to the immediate need.

Jonathan

[Biospace]

In another decade I think that it will be much more common to use a vehicle that isn't owned personally. That would make it much easier to to select a vehicle that's appropriate to the immediate need.

Jonathan

Yes, I hear this increasingly. Do you mean rather than lease-hiring a vehicle as so many do today, they will simply hire a journey?

[Jdsk]

Yes, closer to that but with lots of variety in the contracts, and lots of support for sharing.

And some with and some without summoning of autonomous vehicles.

And it will affect both private and public transport... is a non-owned summoned car-like object a car or a taxi or a bus?

And before the usual personal situations are posted... of course local implementation will vary with population density.

Jonathan