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
Something
Shareholders
Fossil-fuel-companies
Soil
Profits
Gas
Campaigners
Shares
Divestment
Extinction-rebellion
Problem
Critics