🇳🇱
Love this new tool I've been using from Interactive Brokers. I tell it what I care about ethically and it grades my stock portfolio based on the companies I invest in and their adherence to my moral preferences. Its a great way to invest and ensure you do so with an ethical motivation.
This is one of the portfolios I use for algorithmic trading. I'm trying to program into the algorithms a sense of ethics in how it trades and it seems to be working.
Avoiding "hazardous waste" *and* "greenhouse gas emissions" looks quite contradictory 🤔 so I'm a bit concerned that this "caring ethically" is nothing more than a selling point targeted a specific customer sector.
@2ck @kravietz Yea that confused me as well. If i prop up a wind turbine, which is little more than some metal blades, some wire, and a magnet, I am clearly reducing green house gas emissions.. Yet I wouldnt suddenly out of no where be dumping toxic waste in a river as a consequence of this decision... makes no sense, not sure what he really means.
Life-time of PV panels and wind turbines is 20-30 years.
After which they become, well, "toxic waste" with high content of metals such as cadmium. They require careful decommissioning, recycling and waste management.
Failed PV farms did contaminate vast areas with heavy metals in the past.
@kravietz @freemo I hadn't really thought about recycling PV panels since I've never been in the position of acquiring them. PV recyclers do exist http://www.pvcycle.org/press/pv-cycle-and-recycle-pv-solar-announce-integrated-partnership-for-recycling-in-usa/ . Reclamation is much lower than it could be, but are you saying that you think these efforts will fail? If not, continuing to invest in solar and expanding the portfolio to include solar recycling seems like an appropriate course of action.
The recycling of solar panels and wind turbines is a perfectly reasonable concern.. but to call them "toxic waste" is a bit of a leap. A wind turbine is essentially a bit of copper wire, a magnet, and some metal, there is little if anything toxic about it. As for solar panels, they to have very little toxic components, particularly if they are RoHS compliant in which case they wont even have lead (pretty much the only significant toxic component).
So really we are talking about regular old waste here, not toxic waste. Like i said while that should be addressed its hardly a counter point considering the massive amount of things we use in our daily life and toss that are far more concerning in terms of waste. Hell every personal computer has far more lead in it than a wind turbine or solar panel.
Toxic waste is waste which is significantly poisonous to humans, by definition.
Gearbox oil would be considered toxic waste for example, and obviously is miniscule compared to the amount of oil it prevented the consumption of in its lifetime. Plus we already have good recycling infrastructure when it comes to used oil. So there is that added benefit that the oil isnt even being consumed in that case and just gets recycled anyway.
In such case some PV panels certainly count as "toxic waste" when large PV farms were abandoned and contaminated ground with cadmium specifically
https://fee.org/articles/solar-panels-produce-tons-of-toxic-waste-literally/
Sure thats fair, but you need to understand the perportions here. Cadmium makes up a very very small fraction of a solar panel, far less than 1% of its weight. So while there are some toxic materials in minute quantities that only becomes significant when you have very large amounts of waste, which of course will happen when everyone is using solar panels. But the point is the amount of toxic waste in terms of percentages is infinitesimal, not that it should be ignored, but that ratio is important when evaluating a solution that is going to have minimal negative impact.
@kravietz @2ck @freemo I can't be bothered to read that article since it's locked in CloudFlare, but just wanted to add that solar panels are made by cooking coal and quartz until they fuse. That process can't be good for the air quality. But solar panels will evolve past that so it still makes sense to invest in the R&D. While investing in the production of today's solar tech is a bit of a hypocrisy.
thats not the best way to reason about it.. how much coal and quartz needs to be cooked, on average, to make one panel. How does that compare to the amount of CO2 put in the air to generate the same amount of electricity that panel will generate in a lifetime from a coal power plant?
Being able to point out that there are pollution concerns with solar panels is fine, and valid. But when that pollution is orders of magnitude less than the same energy production through coal its a moot point.
@freemo @2ck @kravietz W.r.t. the OP, the #InteractiveBrokers impact tool is a great idea. At the same time I also have to say that the Morgan Stanley #ESG data that feeds the tool seems highly questionable. E.g. #Microsoft is terrible for the environment (fossil fuels) despite a high environmental rating.
Two of them are political and not particularly relevent (I really dont care that my broker didnt happen to lobby for CISPA and stuck to brokering).
In fact the only thing on that list that I'd even consider a black mark against the company is the forced drug testing of their employees. In one case that appears to even gotten a firm on the list.
So yea in that case that list means pretty much 0 to me.. though your earlier points about the validity of the ethical issues could be valid id have to look into that.
@freemo @kravietz @2ck The effect of #CISPA was to circumvent the 4th amendment & abuse ppls privacy. It's a matter of both politics and ethics. You may not care about privacy or the 4th amendment, but certainly it has a bearing on ethics. But it is a minor factor amid the data collected, and more a measure of willingness to work against their clients interests.
No thats not what I said. I never said I dont care about CISPA/CISA or the laws themselves.. What I said is that I do not expect companies to lobby for me or for laws. Regardless of how I feel about a law I will **not** hold it against a company when they dont lobby, in my mind that would be absurd. I do not expect or want companies to lobby for laws, that isnt their place.
@freemo @2ck @kravietz the problem with CISPA is not lack of pro-humanity action. If they did nothing that would have been fine. These are companies that proactively spent money on political lobbying that works against the interest of natural humans. That's the problem. They should have stayed out of politics.
So basically if i understand you:
* Y - they lobbied for CISPA (Bad because they lobbied, double bad because they supported CISPA)
* N - They were neutral and did not lobby in either direction (Good because they didnt lobby, doubly good because they didnt support CISPA)
* N for Mozilla specifically - They actively lobbies against CISPA (Bad because they lobbies at all, but better than companies with a Y because at least if they lobbied they lobbied for the ethical choice)..
Pressuming I understood you correct then the list still seems questionable as companies with a Y for "supported CISPA" (the worst of the three options) appear in the white list category, well, at least one broker does (E*Trade)
Ahh I see, then what were the factors that determined if they showed on one list or the other?
> Are you not an ethical consumer?
I am, and being an ethical consume means not letting money buy politics and being opposed to lobbying. If a see a company isnt lobbying that is a good thing, if they are it is a bad thing. I dont make exceptions just because the money is buying politics for the things I agree in, that isnt democracy.
> holding Dupont accountable for toxic waste dumping in the river by diluting w/enough water to be at a legal min.
If a company is dumping toxic waste in a river then I will not invest in them, and I will vote for laws that prevent them from doing it. I will not, however, accept others using money to buy that vote, and that means no lobbying.
> If you're an ethical consumer, then you're putting the ethical issues that matter to you above profits.
Correct, I am, and again, that means not standing for lobbying. That means that the fact that many of those brokers on taht list didnt engage in lobbying is a good thing, not a bad thing.
> These are companies that proactively spent money on political lobbying that works against the interest of natural humans.
If that is the case then that may be concerning.. So IB is listed as not having supporting CISPA, you suggest that is claiming they lobbied **against** CISPA (rather than simply not lobbying)... can you share the evidence specifically that shows IB lobbied against CISPA? If they lobbied then that would be an issue.
However you have CISPA backwards regardless. CISPA specifically would have given the US government the ability to spy on communications and share that information freely with ISPs.. The ethical thing is and was to be **against** CISPA not for it. So while I would not approve of IB lobbying in either direction for CISPA the truth is if someone is going to support CISPA or not the ethcial choice is to **not** support it.
All the more reason the list is bogus as one of the white listed companies actually actively supported CISPA.
I must admit this compulsory drug testing is one of these things that make people from Europe look at the US like some "Futurama" dystopia... 😉
@kravietz @2ck @freemo yeah it was a big plus to working in Europe. Europe treats workers like adults. Doctors, not employers, demand drug tests & the doctor only tells employers if someone is unfit to work. It's a good policy that respects worker privacy and dignity. European employers are also not anal about drinking at work. A glass of wine with lunch is allowed.
@freemo @2ck @kravietz contrast that with the US where we must sign to receive wine shipments. Since I work during delivery times, I had my wine delivered to my office. I always bring it straight to the car. Someone spotted the wine shipment & tattled. I got sent to HR, like a kid being sent to the principle's office, to explain why alcohol is on the premises. So yeah, big difference between US & EU.
@koherecoWatchdog please leave me off your mentions. OP was weeks ago and this has nothing to do with that
No idea why it gets the rating it does id have to look into it. they do offer a break down on the aspects that influences its rating, have you checked to see what those are?
I have put little to no effort into checked how accurate the tool is, thanks for bringing up those points.
> obviously is miniscule
This is a tempting heuristic, but nothing is obvious in the energy industry.
The reason is we're now comparing terawatt-scale nuclear and fossil installations with megawatt-scale PV and wind installations.
While issues such as air pollution or coal ash are widely visible at the terawatt scale - because of the scale - they only start becoming visible for the emerging technologies.
Yes ultimately you'd have to do what most science papers on the topic do.. Evaluate toxic waste produced by a solar panel with the amount of energy it produces in a life time.. the amount of toxicwaste per watt hour, then do the same with fossil fuels... As becomes obvious fossil fuels are many many orders of magnitude higher.
Nuclear is another matter though, I see nuclear as mostly green and put it in a similar category s wind and solar.
100% agreed with the former postulate and this is partly captured by surface power density and GHG emissions because both indicators are calculated for life cycle, which includes mining, operations and decommissioning, each stage producing waste. Indirect, but I think it's strongly correlated.
And when they become visible people suddenly start protesting against wind and PV farms simply because they are noisy and take vast amount of space, much larger than any other power plants.
I think a honest comparison of energy sources today should be only done based on the best estimation of the following parameters:
* lifecycle surface power density
* lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions
* capacity factor
* levelized cost of energy (but not top priority)
Space consumption in my eyes is a far more valid concern for wind and solar than toxic waste is. It is one reason I tend to support nuclear, as I dont like the idea of wind turbines taking over what little space we have.. Solar i dont mind as it mostly tends to take up roof tops so it doesn't tend to consume space we aren't already consuming. but wind turbines tend to take up new land and I dont like that.
That may or may not be a bad thing.. They tend to be made of glass or carbon composite so im not sure there is much need to recycle them as we have a surplus as it. I'd have to investigate a bit more to have strong opinion on this particular case but in general recycling for the sake of recycling isnt always the best answer, sometimes that makes things worse and does nothing to help (as is the case with most plastics).
@freemo @2ck
We need to look at lifecycle outputs, just as with CO2. This article for example models material inputs for theoretical PV, wind and battery scenarios and the required increases in metal supplies (=which means in mining) are quite shocking. This is purely because of very low surface power density and capacity factor of both energy sources and cannot be improved significantly by technology improvements.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518302726