especially when there are big short—term profits to be made from oil and gas? or is it better, as some other campaigners like extinction rebellion argue, to pressure shareholders to simply sell their shares in fossil fuel companies, something known as divestment? some critics say a problem with divestment and shareholder activism in general is that state—owned fossil fuel companies like the national iranian oil company or the china national petroleum corporation would simply fill any globalfossilfuel production gap created. it's worth noting that listed multinational oil companies in which ordinary people might find their pensions invested — the likes of shell, total, exxon and bp — only produce a quarter of the world's oil supply. 0thers argue shareholder pressure on fossilfuel companies is an unhelpful diversion and that it's better to pressure governments to curb emissions through regulation and taxation as well as subsidy for new clean technologies. in other words, focus on cutting demand for fossil fuels rather than the supply.
Related Keywords
Something , Shareholders , Fossil Fuel Companies , Soil , Profits , Gas , Campaigners , Shares , Divestment , Extinction Rebellion , Problem , Critics , Shareholder , Activism , National Iranian Oil Company , Fossil Fuel , General , China National Petroleum Corporation , People , Bp , Shareholder Pressure , Worth , Globalfossilfuel , Oil Companies , Oil Supply , Pensions , Shell , Likes , Total , World , Exxon , 0thers , 0 , Emissions , Demand , Words , Regulation , Fossil Fuels , Pressure Governments , Diversion , Supply , Subsidy , Fossilfuel Companies , Technologies , Taxation , Focus On Cutting ,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.