[ced]

> It's ridiculous to think that clicking a sell button on some assets will fix global warming, that's not how the world works.

It's ridiculous to think that reduced demand for some stock will not reduce its price.

More concretely, the more banks and people make gestures like this, the easier it is for politicians to reduce subsidies / increase taxes for fossil fuels, which will definitely reduce the amount of oil burned.

[gruez]

>It's ridiculous to think that reduced demand for some stock will not reduce its price.

That's the point. Stocks are priced according to discounted future earnings. if the price goes down but the future earning prospects hasn't changed, it means I can get future earnings for cheaper. In other words, my rate of return has improved.

[H8crilA]

My point is that the stock price has nothing to do with the amount of oil burned. Exxon Mobil could trade for $0.01, doesn't matter, they will still sell oil.

The second part is true, it is shaping the narrative somewhat. We'll need much more hardcore stuff than just twiddling the narrative, though.

[perl4ever]

Well, it is possible that there will be real restrictions on producing or selling fossil fuel that will progressively eliminate demand for their product. In which case, their assets are not worth what they might previously be assessed at.

P/E is either backwards looking or based on estimates of future earnings, and the future often changes.

I can't say who's got a more accurate view of the future, but the Aramco IPO suggests that the Saudis are anticipating people getting serious about global warming before too long and they want to at least test the waters.

[H8crilA]

Of course there will be pressures. Europe is already taxing oil at +100% compared to the US (i.e. the prices of gasoline are 2x higher).

But my point still stands - humanity needs energy.

Also, of course, this is not an investment advice! You may lose 100% of money yada yada.