[99052882514569]

It's self-correcting. At 6%, more interest will be shown by other sources of funding, who will then enter the game and lower the interest rate as a result.

The world is awash with capital right now, money sitting around idle, looking for a place to be invested. Just look at how much money is being thrown at startups, how low interest rates are for countries who were bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy <10 years ago. This scheme is guaranteed to fail right now. Maybe in another credit crunch it has a chance?

[diffeomorphism]

That is not what "self-correcting" does.

Your argument does not show that it won't go up, but only that it won't go from 5% to 15% but rather find some balance at, say, 8%. Mission accomplished, coal is now at a disadvantage compared to what it was before.

> The world is awash with capital right now, money sitting around idle, looking for a place to be invested.

And considering that coal is not doing well (and thus has to offer higher rates), much of that money will be invested elsewhere. Sure, some will still be invested in coal but less than it would be if you didn't do that.

This type of argument pops up often: "but there is a small counteracting effect, so it will balance out to not do anything". No, it does not work like that.

[99052882514569]

>Your argument does not show that it won't go up, but only that it won't go from 5% to 15% but rather find some balance at, say, 8%. Mission accomplished, coal is now at a disadvantage compared to what it was before.

Or it will settle at 5.01% due to the fact that a middle eastern sovereign wealth fund or two will be bigger than all investors who sign up to this scheme put together.

>And considering that coal is not doing well (and thus has to offer higher rates), much of that money will be invested elsewhere. Sure, some will still be invested in coal but less than it would be if you didn't do that.

But that has nothing to do with global warming or ethics of coal. It's mostly due to natural gas becoming so much more economical, which is mostly due to the shale gas revolution. It's a huge benefit to the planet, but mostly an incidental one. Of course politicians and energy companies will still use it to pat themselves on the back very very publicly.

>This type of argument pops up often: "but there is a small counteracting effect, so it will balance out to not do anything". No, it does not work like that.

Depends on the scale of the pro-acting effect. My guess is that the effect of 'ethical investment' due to ethics/global warming alone, and not due to fundamentals of energy markets that have to do with prices of natural gas, will be close to zero. If I'm wrong, it'll only be because a majority of investors who would have otherwise invested in coal (important distinction) jump on board this campaign, or close to a majority.

[diffeomorphism]

> Or it will settle at 5.01% due to the fact that a middle eastern sovereign wealth fund or two will be bigger than all investors who sign up to this scheme put together.

Which did not sign up at 5%, but at 5.01% it is now totally worth it... . No, it is entirely unreasonable to expect that if the current large investors drop out they will be more than replaced.

It might be the case and even likely that Hohn does not achieve the first step, but if he can convince a few large investors the effect will be much bigger than 5.01%.

> If I'm wrong, it'll only be because a majority of investors who would have otherwise invested in coal (important distinction) jump on board this campaign, or close to a majority.

If "just", say, 10% jump on board, what then?

[99052882514569]

>It might be the case and even likely that Hohn does not achieve the first step, but if he can convince a few large investors the effect will be much bigger than 5.01%.

No, not a few. Most.

>If "just", say, 10% jump on board, what then?

Then it'll make little or no difference.