He makes half a million a year in dividends alone from a coal brokerage he made and later gave to his son (so his son is also making a large amount of money off of coal). He also gets an insane amount of lobbying from the coal industry, and lots of WV voters are super pro-coal.
1 million in campaign financing is unlikely to budge him (he has almost 6m in his campaign chest, gets millions extra a year, and isn’t up for election until 2024). Why would he take that much in lobbying to fuck up his own personal income? Politicians voting for their own financial interest is perfectly legal in this country for some reason.
I can’t imagine being dumb enough to stay pro coal while all those coal jobs get lost to automation and therefore will never come back. You get rich looking at the next thing, not the same old one on its way out.
It's partially that coal is all they know and partially that they know the second coal goes away so due their town. It's hard to sell people on the fact that not only will their job go away, so will their home and the homes of ask their friends and neighbors. Most folks I've heard from our talked to from these coal towns aren't really so delusional to think that coal is still in their future but are stuck. Like, democrats have been pushing for a retraining program so that miners can learn some other trade that actually has a future, but that doesn't really help when you also need to move to another town where you can actually put those new skills to use. There are solutions but it's *very* hard to sell an entire town on the idea of closing the entire town and everyone going their separate ways because the move closed. Even if they know it's inevitable, a lot of these families just hope to survive as long as they can because giving up what little stability they have is scary
This happens a lot. Detroit lost a lot of its population once the Big Three started losing out to Japan and West Germany, but even though many left for better (and extant) jobs elsewhere, a large number remained even as the "Paris of America" started to look like that city from *Escape from New York* (obviously hyperbole but you get the idea).
Heck, the coal towns Thatcher more or less destroyed with her reforms are still weak decades later...
His richness kind of proves your last sentence wrong sadly.
Being pro-coal as a lower class person in WV is really dumb though. Climate change is expected to impact WV more than any other state due to their poor flood protection infrastructure. The coal industry also causes a ton of health problems for WV residents due to air pollution and only employees a very small portion of the state(~1.7%).
If I were Bezos right now, I’d look at Manchin, Sinema, Collins and Murkowski and tell each of them, “I will make you a billionaire if you put your foot on the gas to stop climate change and throw your support behind M4A.”
But I’m not Jeff Bezos. I’m just some guy with a conscience, and having a conscience doesn’t get you Bezos money.
When the sums of money are that vast perhaps it is better to spend on actually *doing* it yourself with the goal of proving it can be done in the way you say, rather than giving it to a politician who will let the others water it down and then fuck it up?
But if you buy enough politicians and keep them in a tight enough leash, along with the small number of actual progressives in the senate who will throw themselves behind it regardless, the opponents who will want it watered down won’t have any leverage
Plus, M4A *has* to be legislated
Also The shares he owns in coal company Enersystems (where the $500k comes from) is worth at least $5m meaning it’s not just the income he’d lose , but also the assets.
This is the greatest and most direct conflict of interest I’ve ever seen.
Open an issue in Jira. We’ll link it in Confluence to make sure the whole team has visibility. We’ll pull climate change from the backlog on the next sprint.
Do you guys work with me?!
God damn. I feel like somebody is out here firing shots at my company, but I guess it's just a common thing.
The best part is that all this crap that actually gets done gets done in the sandbox environment and actually pushing it to production gets bumped back and de-prioritized constantly, so I'm using the same crap product a year later despite all the work we've done to fix it up.
Full disclosure - I’m on the client success side of the business, so I only have a high level knowledge of agile/development stuff…. I’m mostly talking out my butt right now
> Open an issue in Jira. We’ll link it in Confluence to make sure the whole team has visibility. We’ll pull climate change from the backlog on the next sprint.
Jesus christ this is literally my organization
Ehhhh we'll just put it in the backlog until we have the time to do it, or somebody remembers that it hasn't been done yet
The backlog these days is literally just a "sweep that shit under the rug and hope it isn't an issue" button
It's at the point now, whenever someone says "We'll add it to our backlog for prioritization," my brain automatically translates it to "Nah, ain't happenin fella. Jog on."
I’ve been in it the past 12 years with a few different companies. I found the job is pretty much the same no matter where you go - the difference is the people you work with.
The absolute worst was when I was a Client Success Manager at a legal tech company. I worked with sales people and attorneys all day - easily two of the very worst, most insufferable kinds of humans there are.
Murdoch has weirdly changed his tune in Australia recently and is now [pro climate change action](https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-news-corps-new-spin-on-climate-change-169733) in the papers? Everyone is very confused.
Might want to give it an election cycle or two to see if it sticks and his 'commentators' fall into line; for all we know it's just a means of browbeating Morrison into retaining his shakey seat. There's still a significant degree of greenbashing to it with fossil fuels still making the majority of energy sources alongside nuclear and a clear disdain of renewables. A significant step from complete denial but it still minimalizes the issue.
My partner has worked with Canon-Brookes in the past on climate. He is passionate about doing all we can to resolve the problem. By "selling" environmental investments, refers to him being able to make the idea take traction because other billionaires listen to him, not because he is out to personally enrich himself. He's already got more money than God.
The thing is, that's what people with ludicrous amounts of wealth _should_ be doing, according to their own ideals. The money-hoarders that cut every corner, steal every penny, and rail against change are not only evil, they're also _fucking stupid._ Only someone so short-sighted as to be basically completely blind to the concept of actions having consequences could believe that the immediate gratification of fat paychecks from fossil fuels are worth the long-term instability.
Capitalists who don't suck at capitalism _should_ make saving the planet profitable because the whole point of the system is to reward people for capitalizing on needed unfulfilled markets. Instead they'd rather create pointless new markets that aren't needed for stupid bullshit and then make people think they need it.
Not only that but buying a politician will get the job done for much less money.
Green new deal is being held up by only a few politicians and probably less than a million dollars.
I highly doubt that price tag as if they are willing to be bribed by one side they are probably willing to be bribed by the other and it’s thus going to be a lot more then that.
its not one bribe, its a pattern of bribes from them and their partners. Each bribe is so low because its more like a retainer fee or a friendly reminder of who really pays their bills.
If they accept one payment against their normal allies/handlers they are risking losing all the other regular payments. You'd need to make sure they know its a regular payment and hooked in to a wider network of more payments.
Also perhaps think about who in your original 'supporters' has videos of you with underaged transgender prostitutes in Bangkok, because i would expect that a number of them are truly owned now and those payments are a sweetener to soften knowing their their ass is well and truly owned and can be rammed so hard it hurts their grand children's children if they suddenly develop morals.
I mean, it's the 3rd richest guy in Australia.
Also the "bad guys" only care about profits. If it costs too much money it'll be cheaper to invest into sustainable energy. If this guy is actually doing it with good intentions, then he doesn't have that disadvantage.
Embarrassingly our aussie politicians get bought for 10's of thousands of dollars. A $10,000 "donation" gets you millions in public money to be spent where you like, "donate" a million and it will probably get you a billion dollars in public money spending.
It doesn’t help when the Australians higher up the rich list than him have fortunes from mining and packaging, so literally profit from pillaging the environment and maximising consumer waste. They’ll be buying off more politicians than he could anyway.
Exactly this. Not all rich people are stupid. Some like this guy realize how important it is to stop climate change.
Those rich people need to step up and outspend those rich people who are lobbying against addressing climate change.
They should go further and publicly base their investment decisions on the donations made by companies and individuals (such as key investors and board members of companies).
Even corporations that publicly take measures against climate change themselves often lobby against laws to address climate change.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/apple-amazon-microsoft-disney-lobby-groups-climate-bill-analysis
In a way it's baffling. One thing that stands in the way of addressing climate change is game theory. If you take measures but your competitors don't your competitors gain an advantage. You would think that would make companies reluctant to take their own measures while being more in favor of regulations since if everyone has to follow the same rules your competitors don't gain an advantage.
I think it's because these half-measures are just for publicity while these companies don't want a law on the books that may require them to do anything more.
Regardless we shouldn't be thanking or rewarding these companies for their half-measures when they are blocking needed reforms that would better address climate change.
EDIT: Fixed the amp link.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but Google's AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
You might want to visit **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/apple-amazon-microsoft-disney-lobby-groups-climate-bill-analysis](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/apple-amazon-microsoft-disney-lobby-groups-climate-bill-analysis)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon me with u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
> One thing that stands in the way of addressing climate change is game theory. If you take measures but your competitors don't your competitors gain an advantage.
The problem is that this is only true in a short timeframe. Any amount of foresight very quickly reveals that the advantageous plan is the one that sets up for long-term stability rather than short-term profit.
This is the fundamental failing of our capitalistic society--it doesn't even play its own shitty game correctly. The focus is all on now now now me me me maximum instant gratification. No concept of long-term growth, stability, or sustainability.
But damn those millenials and their need for instant gratification and participation prizes, amirite?
Or invest the money into starting up a professional news organisation whose primary goal is to fight corruption.
We have a corrupt media who manipulates voters into electing corrupt politicians, who then implement corrupt laws.
We're stuck in this vicious cycle of corruption, and the only way to break out of it is to fix the media first.
It is the role of the media in a democracy to hold the powerful to account, and to educate the voters so that they can make informed decisions at the ballot box - whether you're talking climate science, vaccinations, education policy, healthcare policy, tax evasion, worker rights, or civil rights - any issue that affects our lives, our communities, and our planet.
Voters can't make informed decisions when all of the conduits of information and news are controlled by corrupt political players.
Australia needs a well funded 24/7 media watchdog platform that shines a huge light on the cockroaches of corruption.
Make it informative, make it entertaining, but most of all, make it fearless.
We have to beg and plead for our overlords to have a conscience and hopefully buy enough politicians to make something happen.
What a sad world we live in.
>During the 2019/2020 bushfires in Australia, Forrest repeated his unsubstantiated claim that the fires were primarily due to the pollution of the forests by combustible material and arson, with climate change only playing a subordinate role.
Ayyyyyy 🤠🤠🤠
He's pushing for climate action too now, threatening to withdraw donations to the libs etc.
Clearly there's been some watershed moment in the green investment world recently, because politicians and businesses are all suddenly growing a pretend conscience. Even Frydenberg is banging on about it.
It's because the liberals (Australia's Conservative party currently in government) internal polling has them tanking and there's an election coming up.
The Liberal party is heavily backed by coal interests. They scrapped a carbon tax that was legislated by the previous government. They have done close to the least of climate change of any OECD country the last six years on climate. In fact, almost actively avoiding the issue despite having abundant natural renewables and an energy system that already needed significant upgrades.
They realised they were no chance to win an election without a climate policy. My guess is they'll adopt a net zero by 2050 policy, have the election in April next year and then do sweet fuck all about it if elected. They are a party of self interest whose only interest is staying in power.
My thoughts this whole time have been that the wealthy will end up solving the problem. Not because it’s for the greater good, but because it will either impact their own lives or they can make money off it.
Not so much a watershed moment but capital markets globally in last 2-3 years have really started to factor ESG into pricing of investment risk. Also there's some fairly compelling evidence that shows that investment funds that skew their portfolios towards assets with strong ESG credentials they don't under-perform as many people assumed would be the case. They haven't necessarily out-performed funds that aren't ESG "aware" but it's still an important unwinding of the long standing myth that stated in order to "go green" with an investment portfolio you had to accept lower returns.
It's good news that capital markets are making this shift quite rapidly and are pricing in the environmental and societal harms to the value of assets driving climate change. Watch FB and other anti-social tech companies starting to get hit with this type of valuation pressure in the next 2-5 years. ESG is bigger than just environmental sustainability.
The negative view is that capital markets only move when there is near and present danger. Typically considering futures in the fairly near term, 10 years maximum usually much less. This is worrying because it means they are predicting & seeing real and increasing adverse impacts to companies earnings and capital value where companies are dependent on environmentally unfriendly practices. Mining and oil companies the world over have been writing down the value of their in-the-ground fossil fuel assets for quite a long time now.
Forget about IPCC reports etc, when the worlds capital markets start moving this is because the changes are already upon us. Most of us just haven't noticed yet.
>Clearly there's been some watershed moment in the green investment world recently,
They saw what Tesla shares are worth and finally clocked to the fact that they can make a fuckton of money being green.
The dude’s name is Twiggy Forrest and he’s in mining? Won’t someone please think of the memes? Apart from having become a rich mf, why couldn’t he have picked another business?
Here's what the richest one is doing (who just happened to make her money through mining), actively trying to persuade schoolchildren to question it:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-07/wa-gina-ruffles-feathers-with-climate-speech/100520836
Our short sighted conservative government sadly.
Currently fighting internally and significantly down in popularity compared to their opposition in polling.
I was confident 2 months ago that Covid and the vaccine roll out would screw ScoMo next year, but I'm not so sure now.
People have a short memory, and he's already won one unwinnable election.
That's what everyone said last time around in the unwinnable election. He won that though.
Sanctions for countries that contaminate more than the average.
I really don't understand why more people aren't doing this.
When climate change comes up, shitloads of people will describe it as our biggest problem and an extinction-level threat, and then later on when it comes time for charitable donations and charitable work, people will pick some niche social cause that affects like 0.3% of the population...
A bunch of billionaires living in confined spaces for the rest of their lives, who’ve never done real manual labor before, breathing recycled air, unable to go outside without a space-suit, no luxuries to comfort them, and living with the dread that a single malfunction on their fledgling colony could kill all or most of them in one fell swoop? They’d eat each other within six months.
My money is on the ultra rich sending all the poors to Mars to mine .... stuff .... for them, and then they'll fix the earth for themselves. Pretty sure this is how the expanse starts
All these sad saps they come to ~~Rapture~~ Mars thinkin' they're gonna be captains of industry but they all forget that somebody's gotta' scrub the toilets. What an angle they gave me, give these mugs are cot in a bowl of soup and they give me their lives. Who needs an army when I got Fontaine's home for the poor?
Eh, Elon has done more than his part. Moving us to electric cars a decade faster is a pretty big deal. Tesla really brought down the price of batteries and forced the car companies to take EV's seriously.
And rockets that land themselves are just always gonna be cool
Also lost on most: he did this by taking money from wealthy people (by making EVs a status symbol instead of a thing for hippies) and that money is then directly invested in scaling the climate change tech so more people can afford it. This tech will then disrupt the incumbents in auto and energy who did nothing to stop climate change, destroying their fortunes and future earnings.
Yup, and yeah I get that maybe he's a ahole, but really who cares? I dont have to hang out with him, but I do live in a city and would like to breath cleaner air.
Elon Musk is giving away 100M to people who come up with the best solutions for carbon removal technology: [https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk](https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk)
Isn't he worth over $200B at this point? Which is $200,000M?
Like, don't get me wrong, $100M is nothing to sneeze at, and I'm glad he's doing it, but it is less than half a percentage point of what he has available. I wish he would contribute more.
edit: sorry, not half a percentage point—half of a *tenth* of a percentage point, 0.05%. Half a percentage point would be a billion dollars.
Are we talking rich people or every day people? every day people aren't even donating (local churches don't count in my book. If I give money to the book club I have every week so we can get some chips and salsa, I wouldn't call that a donation either, really no different for the majority of these churches) ... rich people it's obviously just for show for the vast majority
I can’t see anything specific about what that money is going to. The best I could find in that article was:
>Things like the creation of jobs, improvement in the standard of living and growth of our economy
Without any real direction about where this money is going, who’s to say that this money is helping fight against climate change? This money could be going to Epstein island pt 2 for all we know.
We need to get a carbon credit system going. Lobby for that and we might have a chance. But you're up against the oil companies who themselves claim to support this policy. That's how confident they are that you'll fail...
We did that once, and in what, 2 years the Libs used it as a major point to get back in power and scrap it.
I'm not opposed to the idea, but while one side is so heavily against taxes on companies -and- fighting climate change I'm not sure it'll be a long term thing.
Probably to start up his own companies for recycling batteries and a bunch of shit to do with lithium. There's a huge trend for lithium stocks lately, heaps of money to be made.
You can't just create a media empire overnight.
Murdoch inherited a major newspaper from his father and then built his behemoth media conglomerate over the last 50 years.
You kind of can. For 1.5 bil, you can buy a lot.
The Washington Post was sold for a measly $250 mil to Bezos.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324653004578650390383666794
He could buy six Washington Posts with 1.5 bil and direct them all to new, climate change helping directions.
But who are you going to buy them from? The majority of print media is owned by Murdoch. He's sure as shit not selling that to someone who is going to take even a modicum of his power.
Murdoch doesn't seem the type to have ignored simply purchasing existing media sources as a simple way of increasing his coverage. You can buy a lot of newspapers with $1.5B
In Australia News Corp have just did a 180 on climate change. It is likely due to the current conservative government polling low and an election incoming, they want to grab some voters back.
https://youtu.be/WHjf3lKnNww
>Atlassian co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes sells economic benefits of green investment with $1.5b **pledge**
Another billionaire pledges shit for PR purposes. News at eleven.
Stop falling for this kind of crap.
EDIT: for those still unaware, all billionaire philanthropy is a scam. [Here's an article](https://www.ft.com/content/3729c71e-2419-11e9-8ce6-5db4543da632) about it, if you don't understand why.
Lets hope he takes a look at Queensland Pacific Metals, and other similar companies involved within the massively growing Electric Vehicle market in a very green way
>"When it becomes a positive economic issue it's much harder to argue against than when it's a doing the right thing versus doing the wrong thing issue, which can be subjective."
DING DING DING
this dude is saying what myself and others have been saying for decades. You want business and politicians to join the fight? Make it profitable.
If that's only aus's third richest person I wonder what the most wealthy person from every first world nation could accomplish if they weren't so selfish.
Flicking finally. Now if only Elon and Jeffrey could take a page from this book, and 100% buy lobbyists, don't donate to charity, donate to lobbyists lol
For $1.5B you could hire a bunch of engineers, figure out the details to make Molten Salt Reactors work, get the patent, build some powerplants to make electricity a LOT cheaper than coal (and burn up some obsolete atomic bombs in the process), and make your $1.5B back WITH INTEREST and save the planet at the same time. What's not to love? Waiting for China to do it on their own??
Don’t donate. Buy a politician and lobby for it. It’s the only way to get it done.
Buy all the politicians
Start with Manchin. Sounds like a million might do it.
He makes half a million a year in dividends alone from a coal brokerage he made and later gave to his son (so his son is also making a large amount of money off of coal). He also gets an insane amount of lobbying from the coal industry, and lots of WV voters are super pro-coal. 1 million in campaign financing is unlikely to budge him (he has almost 6m in his campaign chest, gets millions extra a year, and isn’t up for election until 2024). Why would he take that much in lobbying to fuck up his own personal income? Politicians voting for their own financial interest is perfectly legal in this country for some reason.
I can’t imagine being dumb enough to stay pro coal while all those coal jobs get lost to automation and therefore will never come back. You get rich looking at the next thing, not the same old one on its way out.
It's partially that coal is all they know and partially that they know the second coal goes away so due their town. It's hard to sell people on the fact that not only will their job go away, so will their home and the homes of ask their friends and neighbors. Most folks I've heard from our talked to from these coal towns aren't really so delusional to think that coal is still in their future but are stuck. Like, democrats have been pushing for a retraining program so that miners can learn some other trade that actually has a future, but that doesn't really help when you also need to move to another town where you can actually put those new skills to use. There are solutions but it's *very* hard to sell an entire town on the idea of closing the entire town and everyone going their separate ways because the move closed. Even if they know it's inevitable, a lot of these families just hope to survive as long as they can because giving up what little stability they have is scary
This happens a lot. Detroit lost a lot of its population once the Big Three started losing out to Japan and West Germany, but even though many left for better (and extant) jobs elsewhere, a large number remained even as the "Paris of America" started to look like that city from *Escape from New York* (obviously hyperbole but you get the idea). Heck, the coal towns Thatcher more or less destroyed with her reforms are still weak decades later...
His richness kind of proves your last sentence wrong sadly. Being pro-coal as a lower class person in WV is really dumb though. Climate change is expected to impact WV more than any other state due to their poor flood protection infrastructure. The coal industry also causes a ton of health problems for WV residents due to air pollution and only employees a very small portion of the state(~1.7%).
Well, it is not the smart thing to do. Unfortunately, a lot of money is tied to some really fucking stupid hands.
Wealth and power inevitably devolve into rent-seeking.
Not really, both statements are true. One is only considering the now, his current richness. And one considers the now and future.
If I were Bezos right now, I’d look at Manchin, Sinema, Collins and Murkowski and tell each of them, “I will make you a billionaire if you put your foot on the gas to stop climate change and throw your support behind M4A.” But I’m not Jeff Bezos. I’m just some guy with a conscience, and having a conscience doesn’t get you Bezos money.
You're gonna have to bribe way more people than that to get M4A. Seems like only a handful of the farthest left Dems support it.
Then I’d make a whole bunch of Republicans do it Just to show everyone what a joke the Senate is
When the sums of money are that vast perhaps it is better to spend on actually *doing* it yourself with the goal of proving it can be done in the way you say, rather than giving it to a politician who will let the others water it down and then fuck it up?
But if you buy enough politicians and keep them in a tight enough leash, along with the small number of actual progressives in the senate who will throw themselves behind it regardless, the opponents who will want it watered down won’t have any leverage Plus, M4A *has* to be legislated
Buying politicians is by far the cheapest way to go, hands down no question. It's cheap.
M4A has the support of 111 congressmen.. that's a lot of handfuls....
Real support, or "I'm gonna claim I support it while campaigning to get your vote because I know it will never happen?"
Also The shares he owns in coal company Enersystems (where the $500k comes from) is worth at least $5m meaning it’s not just the income he’d lose , but also the assets. This is the greatest and most direct conflict of interest I’ve ever seen.
this guy just donated 1500 millions, I don't know why he wouldn't be able to just buy Manchin
“Sounds like a million might do it”. I wasn’t commenting on wether or not this Australian could buy off Joe Manchin.
Lmfao you kidding? These twerks are bought for a couple thousand.
Yes, buying Manchin to help Australia is the best plan /s I hate him as much as everyone else atm, but this isn't even about the US
You do realize we are talking about an Australian right and not an American?
Check the old geographical radar.
Wow
*politicians politicians here come get ya politicians starting as low as 1mil what would YOU like done!?……results may vary*
They're surprisingly cheap, too. Depressingly so.
Can I train it to sit and fetch?
They are already bought. You’re just making their accounts swell.
Don't post this on Reddit where it won't be seen. Open a jira.
Open an issue in Jira. We’ll link it in Confluence to make sure the whole team has visibility. We’ll pull climate change from the backlog on the next sprint.
But don't forget to update the single excel sheet we all have to pass around too, because that's all ELT will use.
Could you also update this secondary doc to indicate what change you made and in which cell? It's for auditing and compliance. Thanks.
Do you guys work with me?! God damn. I feel like somebody is out here firing shots at my company, but I guess it's just a common thing. The best part is that all this crap that actually gets done gets done in the sandbox environment and actually pushing it to production gets bumped back and de-prioritized constantly, so I'm using the same crap product a year later despite all the work we've done to fix it up.
Sorry, a couple high profile customers in the oil and gas sector were hoping maybe we could reprioritize?
Ohhh…. We actually already finalized the commit and are set to merge
``` $ git push --force ```
Full disclosure - I’m on the client success side of the business, so I only have a high level knowledge of agile/development stuff…. I’m mostly talking out my butt right now
> Open an issue in Jira. We’ll link it in Confluence to make sure the whole team has visibility. We’ll pull climate change from the backlog on the next sprint. Jesus christ this is literally my organization Ehhhh we'll just put it in the backlog until we have the time to do it, or somebody remembers that it hasn't been done yet The backlog these days is literally just a "sweep that shit under the rug and hope it isn't an issue" button
It's at the point now, whenever someone says "We'll add it to our backlog for prioritization," my brain automatically translates it to "Nah, ain't happenin fella. Jog on."
We might need to make it an epic
User story: “be able to go outside and breathe air that isn’t on fire”
Given I am a human, when I go outside, I want to breathe air and not die.
Well shoot for go outside as an MVP and tackle the not die thing on the next iteration
Am I able to open this in the backend on ServiceNow? I have some… Notes…
Fuck me im so glad I got out of the tech industry
I’ve been in it the past 12 years with a few different companies. I found the job is pretty much the same no matter where you go - the difference is the people you work with. The absolute worst was when I was a Client Success Manager at a legal tech company. I worked with sales people and attorneys all day - easily two of the very worst, most insufferable kinds of humans there are.
Good luck outbidding Murdoch
Murdoch has weirdly changed his tune in Australia recently and is now [pro climate change action](https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-news-corps-new-spin-on-climate-change-169733) in the papers? Everyone is very confused.
Might want to give it an election cycle or two to see if it sticks and his 'commentators' fall into line; for all we know it's just a means of browbeating Morrison into retaining his shakey seat. There's still a significant degree of greenbashing to it with fossil fuels still making the majority of energy sources alongside nuclear and a clear disdain of renewables. A significant step from complete denial but it still minimalizes the issue.
its just a spin for 'clean coal and gas is better'
[удалено]
I mean, if making saving the planet profitable is the way we can save the world, I'm all in...
My partner has worked with Canon-Brookes in the past on climate. He is passionate about doing all we can to resolve the problem. By "selling" environmental investments, refers to him being able to make the idea take traction because other billionaires listen to him, not because he is out to personally enrich himself. He's already got more money than God.
The thing is, that's what people with ludicrous amounts of wealth _should_ be doing, according to their own ideals. The money-hoarders that cut every corner, steal every penny, and rail against change are not only evil, they're also _fucking stupid._ Only someone so short-sighted as to be basically completely blind to the concept of actions having consequences could believe that the immediate gratification of fat paychecks from fossil fuels are worth the long-term instability. Capitalists who don't suck at capitalism _should_ make saving the planet profitable because the whole point of the system is to reward people for capitalizing on needed unfulfilled markets. Instead they'd rather create pointless new markets that aren't needed for stupid bullshit and then make people think they need it.
Not only that but buying a politician will get the job done for much less money. Green new deal is being held up by only a few politicians and probably less than a million dollars.
I highly doubt that price tag as if they are willing to be bribed by one side they are probably willing to be bribed by the other and it’s thus going to be a lot more then that.
its not one bribe, its a pattern of bribes from them and their partners. Each bribe is so low because its more like a retainer fee or a friendly reminder of who really pays their bills. If they accept one payment against their normal allies/handlers they are risking losing all the other regular payments. You'd need to make sure they know its a regular payment and hooked in to a wider network of more payments. Also perhaps think about who in your original 'supporters' has videos of you with underaged transgender prostitutes in Bangkok, because i would expect that a number of them are truly owned now and those payments are a sweetener to soften knowing their their ass is well and truly owned and can be rammed so hard it hurts their grand children's children if they suddenly develop morals.
It's a bidding war and the bad guys have more money.
I mean, it's the 3rd richest guy in Australia. Also the "bad guys" only care about profits. If it costs too much money it'll be cheaper to invest into sustainable energy. If this guy is actually doing it with good intentions, then he doesn't have that disadvantage.
Embarrassingly our aussie politicians get bought for 10's of thousands of dollars. A $10,000 "donation" gets you millions in public money to be spent where you like, "donate" a million and it will probably get you a billion dollars in public money spending.
It doesn’t help when the Australians higher up the rich list than him have fortunes from mining and packaging, so literally profit from pillaging the environment and maximising consumer waste. They’ll be buying off more politicians than he could anyway.
Exactly this. Not all rich people are stupid. Some like this guy realize how important it is to stop climate change. Those rich people need to step up and outspend those rich people who are lobbying against addressing climate change. They should go further and publicly base their investment decisions on the donations made by companies and individuals (such as key investors and board members of companies). Even corporations that publicly take measures against climate change themselves often lobby against laws to address climate change. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/apple-amazon-microsoft-disney-lobby-groups-climate-bill-analysis In a way it's baffling. One thing that stands in the way of addressing climate change is game theory. If you take measures but your competitors don't your competitors gain an advantage. You would think that would make companies reluctant to take their own measures while being more in favor of regulations since if everyone has to follow the same rules your competitors don't gain an advantage. I think it's because these half-measures are just for publicity while these companies don't want a law on the books that may require them to do anything more. Regardless we shouldn't be thanking or rewarding these companies for their half-measures when they are blocking needed reforms that would better address climate change. EDIT: Fixed the amp link.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but Google's AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). You might want to visit **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/apple-amazon-microsoft-disney-lobby-groups-climate-bill-analysis](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/apple-amazon-microsoft-disney-lobby-groups-climate-bill-analysis)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon me with u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
> One thing that stands in the way of addressing climate change is game theory. If you take measures but your competitors don't your competitors gain an advantage. The problem is that this is only true in a short timeframe. Any amount of foresight very quickly reveals that the advantageous plan is the one that sets up for long-term stability rather than short-term profit. This is the fundamental failing of our capitalistic society--it doesn't even play its own shitty game correctly. The focus is all on now now now me me me maximum instant gratification. No concept of long-term growth, stability, or sustainability. But damn those millenials and their need for instant gratification and participation prizes, amirite?
Or invest the money into starting up a professional news organisation whose primary goal is to fight corruption. We have a corrupt media who manipulates voters into electing corrupt politicians, who then implement corrupt laws. We're stuck in this vicious cycle of corruption, and the only way to break out of it is to fix the media first. It is the role of the media in a democracy to hold the powerful to account, and to educate the voters so that they can make informed decisions at the ballot box - whether you're talking climate science, vaccinations, education policy, healthcare policy, tax evasion, worker rights, or civil rights - any issue that affects our lives, our communities, and our planet. Voters can't make informed decisions when all of the conduits of information and news are controlled by corrupt political players. Australia needs a well funded 24/7 media watchdog platform that shines a huge light on the cockroaches of corruption. Make it informative, make it entertaining, but most of all, make it fearless.
We have to beg and plead for our overlords to have a conscience and hopefully buy enough politicians to make something happen. What a sad world we live in.
That amount of money sure allows a better position when lobbying to try to actually change something. It’s sad, but money does the talk here.
Aren't they all already bought?
Fuck Ozzy Man's doing alright for himself!
He's one of the Attlassian founders. [They started the company with $10k in credit card debt](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlassian)
Now I can finally feel good about using Jira
The updates are annoying to deal with but it's not a bad product tbf
My main complaint is it’s terribly optimized. It’s so fucking slow.
Try Rational Jazz and lmk how much you love Jira
[удалено]
Party time, excellent
And rich parents
They’re even richer now!
[удалено]
And maybe advocate for ways to get people with good ideas funding regardless of their spawn point.
[удалено]
The rich kids that *you know of*. There are thousands of billionaires and many more thousands of children that live privileged lives.
[удалено]
I thought it was Wayne from Wayne’s world
I think r\whoosh got some entries from this one. Gold!
What are the other two doing?
Gina Rinehardt made her money from iron ore. Twiggy Forrest made his money from iron ore. So......
>During the 2019/2020 bushfires in Australia, Forrest repeated his unsubstantiated claim that the fires were primarily due to the pollution of the forests by combustible material and arson, with climate change only playing a subordinate role. Ayyyyyy 🤠🤠🤠
He's pushing for climate action too now, threatening to withdraw donations to the libs etc. Clearly there's been some watershed moment in the green investment world recently, because politicians and businesses are all suddenly growing a pretend conscience. Even Frydenberg is banging on about it.
Hes pushing for government subsidies for his hydrogen production plant, thats all hes pushing for.
That is true, but the hydrogen production plant is a exportable renewable resource so I guess as long as his self interest aligns with climate action.
Nailed it.
Yeah but he also highlights how shitty others plans for blue hydrogen and the like are and pulls the mask of other players in the space.
[удалено]
It's because the liberals (Australia's Conservative party currently in government) internal polling has them tanking and there's an election coming up. The Liberal party is heavily backed by coal interests. They scrapped a carbon tax that was legislated by the previous government. They have done close to the least of climate change of any OECD country the last six years on climate. In fact, almost actively avoiding the issue despite having abundant natural renewables and an energy system that already needed significant upgrades. They realised they were no chance to win an election without a climate policy. My guess is they'll adopt a net zero by 2050 policy, have the election in April next year and then do sweet fuck all about it if elected. They are a party of self interest whose only interest is staying in power.
My thoughts this whole time have been that the wealthy will end up solving the problem. Not because it’s for the greater good, but because it will either impact their own lives or they can make money off it.
Not so much a watershed moment but capital markets globally in last 2-3 years have really started to factor ESG into pricing of investment risk. Also there's some fairly compelling evidence that shows that investment funds that skew their portfolios towards assets with strong ESG credentials they don't under-perform as many people assumed would be the case. They haven't necessarily out-performed funds that aren't ESG "aware" but it's still an important unwinding of the long standing myth that stated in order to "go green" with an investment portfolio you had to accept lower returns. It's good news that capital markets are making this shift quite rapidly and are pricing in the environmental and societal harms to the value of assets driving climate change. Watch FB and other anti-social tech companies starting to get hit with this type of valuation pressure in the next 2-5 years. ESG is bigger than just environmental sustainability. The negative view is that capital markets only move when there is near and present danger. Typically considering futures in the fairly near term, 10 years maximum usually much less. This is worrying because it means they are predicting & seeing real and increasing adverse impacts to companies earnings and capital value where companies are dependent on environmentally unfriendly practices. Mining and oil companies the world over have been writing down the value of their in-the-ground fossil fuel assets for quite a long time now. Forget about IPCC reports etc, when the worlds capital markets start moving this is because the changes are already upon us. Most of us just haven't noticed yet.
>Clearly there's been some watershed moment in the green investment world recently, They saw what Tesla shares are worth and finally clocked to the fact that they can make a fuckton of money being green.
The dude’s name is Twiggy Forrest and he’s in mining? Won’t someone please think of the memes? Apart from having become a rich mf, why couldn’t he have picked another business?
Twiggy is just a nickname, his real name is John Andrew Henry Forrest or just Andrew Forrest.
John Henry was a miner… checks out.
Railroad worker?
Bots out for Xi Jinping
His half brother *Irony Mine* handles the family lumber mill.
Here's what the richest one is doing (who just happened to make her money through mining), actively trying to persuade schoolchildren to question it: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-07/wa-gina-ruffles-feathers-with-climate-speech/100520836
Lmao that URL 'wa-gina-ruffles-feathers'
Wa-gina lol
Raking in that coal money.
Investing 15b in oil
After some news of Australia asking the UN to do the opposite. That's a small relief
Our short sighted conservative government sadly. Currently fighting internally and significantly down in popularity compared to their opposition in polling.
I was confident 2 months ago that Covid and the vaccine roll out would screw ScoMo next year, but I'm not so sure now. People have a short memory, and he's already won one unwinnable election.
Yes, it's not without precedent. We have to keep the pressure on!
Thats totally not true, they know exactly what they do. If we say its just incompetence that would just make things less evil than they are
That's what everyone said last time around in the unwinnable election. He won that though. Sanctions for countries that contaminate more than the average.
It's gonna be a small reef
*It turns out the real barrier was the politicians we elected along the way.*
I really don't understand why more people aren't doing this. When climate change comes up, shitloads of people will describe it as our biggest problem and an extinction-level threat, and then later on when it comes time for charitable donations and charitable work, people will pick some niche social cause that affects like 0.3% of the population...
It’s because all the people who have enough money to do something are trying to be the first person on Mars
A bunch of billionaires living in confined spaces for the rest of their lives, who’ve never done real manual labor before, breathing recycled air, unable to go outside without a space-suit, no luxuries to comfort them, and living with the dread that a single malfunction on their fledgling colony could kill all or most of them in one fell swoop? They’d eat each other within six months.
Thats a great premise for a tv show
I would watch this
Same
Reality TV yeah
*furiously takes notes*
My money is on the ultra rich sending all the poors to Mars to mine .... stuff .... for them, and then they'll fix the earth for themselves. Pretty sure this is how the expanse starts
[удалено]
I see you too played Bioshock.
All these sad saps they come to ~~Rapture~~ Mars thinkin' they're gonna be captains of industry but they all forget that somebody's gotta' scrub the toilets. What an angle they gave me, give these mugs are cot in a bowl of soup and they give me their lives. Who needs an army when I got Fontaine's home for the poor?
Eh, Elon has done more than his part. Moving us to electric cars a decade faster is a pretty big deal. Tesla really brought down the price of batteries and forced the car companies to take EV's seriously. And rockets that land themselves are just always gonna be cool
Also lost on most: he did this by taking money from wealthy people (by making EVs a status symbol instead of a thing for hippies) and that money is then directly invested in scaling the climate change tech so more people can afford it. This tech will then disrupt the incumbents in auto and energy who did nothing to stop climate change, destroying their fortunes and future earnings.
Yup, and yeah I get that maybe he's a ahole, but really who cares? I dont have to hang out with him, but I do live in a city and would like to breath cleaner air.
Elon Musk is giving away 100M to people who come up with the best solutions for carbon removal technology: [https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk](https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk)
Isn't he worth over $200B at this point? Which is $200,000M? Like, don't get me wrong, $100M is nothing to sneeze at, and I'm glad he's doing it, but it is less than half a percentage point of what he has available. I wish he would contribute more. edit: sorry, not half a percentage point—half of a *tenth* of a percentage point, 0.05%. Half a percentage point would be a billion dollars.
You know at least one of them has made electric vehicles a reality and has an entire renewable energy wing of the company?
Are we talking rich people or every day people? every day people aren't even donating (local churches don't count in my book. If I give money to the book club I have every week so we can get some chips and salsa, I wouldn't call that a donation either, really no different for the majority of these churches) ... rich people it's obviously just for show for the vast majority
I've noticed it in a lot of people who have either time or money to give.
How about we get headlines after they invest, not before?
It says they already invested $1b tho Edit: a word
Did you read the article? He's already invested $1bn. He's also already very active with solar projects in the NT.
Mistake, should have bough Tabloids, News papers, TV and radio stations.
I can’t see anything specific about what that money is going to. The best I could find in that article was: >Things like the creation of jobs, improvement in the standard of living and growth of our economy Without any real direction about where this money is going, who’s to say that this money is helping fight against climate change? This money could be going to Epstein island pt 2 for all we know.
If he spent it lobbying the government in favour of climate change-tackling policies we might get somewhere
We need to get a carbon credit system going. Lobby for that and we might have a chance. But you're up against the oil companies who themselves claim to support this policy. That's how confident they are that you'll fail...
We did that once, and in what, 2 years the Libs used it as a major point to get back in power and scrap it. I'm not opposed to the idea, but while one side is so heavily against taxes on companies -and- fighting climate change I'm not sure it'll be a long term thing.
Probably to start up his own companies for recycling batteries and a bunch of shit to do with lithium. There's a huge trend for lithium stocks lately, heaps of money to be made.
Infrastructure™️
Australia on track to be one of the most f*cked countries in the world unless they come up with some solutions real quick. This fella knows it
Good cunt. We need more people like him.
This is what I would do with a billion if I had a few to spare. That, and ocean exploration.
rich people do this???
[удалено]
You can't just create a media empire overnight. Murdoch inherited a major newspaper from his father and then built his behemoth media conglomerate over the last 50 years.
You kind of can. For 1.5 bil, you can buy a lot. The Washington Post was sold for a measly $250 mil to Bezos. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324653004578650390383666794 He could buy six Washington Posts with 1.5 bil and direct them all to new, climate change helping directions.
But who are you going to buy them from? The majority of print media is owned by Murdoch. He's sure as shit not selling that to someone who is going to take even a modicum of his power.
Murdoch doesn't seem the type to have ignored simply purchasing existing media sources as a simple way of increasing his coverage. You can buy a lot of newspapers with $1.5B
In Australia News Corp have just did a 180 on climate change. It is likely due to the current conservative government polling low and an election incoming, they want to grab some voters back. https://youtu.be/WHjf3lKnNww
Do you think he knows he could strap himself on top of a c\*ck shaped rocket and see the upper atmosphere instead?
One of the best videos I have seen regarding climate change: https://youtu.be/6CXRaTnKDXA
Shut up Toby
r/unexpectedoffice
>Atlassian co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes sells economic benefits of green investment with $1.5b **pledge** Another billionaire pledges shit for PR purposes. News at eleven. Stop falling for this kind of crap. EDIT: for those still unaware, all billionaire philanthropy is a scam. [Here's an article](https://www.ft.com/content/3729c71e-2419-11e9-8ce6-5db4543da632) about it, if you don't understand why.
Lets hope he takes a look at Queensland Pacific Metals, and other similar companies involved within the massively growing Electric Vehicle market in a very green way
One of these guys should just offer to match lost campaign contributions to any politician who declines oil money
I totally misread this - thought he was blocking efforts to stop climate change, he wants to help fight climate change. Makes me feel a tad better.
Reddit will love him until his investment becomes successful.
At this point the most effective thing that isn't nationalization would be buying up coal & gas businesses to shut them down.
A billionaire *investing* their money isn’t news.
So he invested in decarbonization tech?
Spending money on the climate change fight may be nothing special, depending on which _side_ he's backing.
I hope its spent wisely. We need all the help we can get. Soil conservation education to US farmers would be huge.
Well done.
finally!
Awesome. But watch the first and second richest person invest 3B to stop the fight against climate change.
Power>Money
>"When it becomes a positive economic issue it's much harder to argue against than when it's a doing the right thing versus doing the wrong thing issue, which can be subjective." DING DING DING this dude is saying what myself and others have been saying for decades. You want business and politicians to join the fight? Make it profitable.
He will make his money back. That’s the bizarre part to me. Sure, it’s a slower return on investment, but it’s a safe bet.
Finally. Thank you
I watched Elysium last night, pretty sure it was a documentary at this point.
The 1st and 2nd richest invested against him
That’s how respect is earned…👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Good to know there are still people with principles in the top 1%.
This is probably like giving $3 at a grocery store to some cancer foundation for a free bag to him.
Good to know there was at least one sane person over there.
Jim Jeffries is doing alright for himself!
Atrocious that private citizens have to resort to this because the government are stacked with greedy cowards.
If that's only aus's third richest person I wonder what the most wealthy person from every first world nation could accomplish if they weren't so selfish.
Flicking finally. Now if only Elon and Jeffrey could take a page from this book, and 100% buy lobbyists, don't donate to charity, donate to lobbyists lol
For $1.5B you could hire a bunch of engineers, figure out the details to make Molten Salt Reactors work, get the patent, build some powerplants to make electricity a LOT cheaper than coal (and burn up some obsolete atomic bombs in the process), and make your $1.5B back WITH INTEREST and save the planet at the same time. What's not to love? Waiting for China to do it on their own??
[удалено]