"If Madam felt misrepresented by my comment, I am sure he/she would be Madam or Adam enough to say so -""I have on a few occasions said you presume to present my position without knowing me or without the proper basis for doing so. Yet to continue... as you have done in this latest post.
Of course, just because I don't continue to point out that you are misrepresenting me, doesn't mean I don't believe you do.
Rather, I have far better things to do with my time than to continuously counter frivolous, ideologically-based assertions about my motives or character, made by some anonymous person(s) on the internet.
"Also, perhaps stating the obvious, anyone keen to profit from rising oil prices can hardly argue that they are seriously concerned about man made climate change? Are you?!? How does that work? That would be just as hypocritical as Biden curtailing domestic fossil fuel production and then asking other OPEC nations to increase production, no?"Manifestly, you aren't content with any world view that doesn't align almost perfectly with your own narrow one.
For full edification, my position is this:
1. Being grounded in empirical evidence, I observe the planet is warming.
2. However, I am agnostic as to whether that is due to human activity.
(Frankly, again due to my empirical evidence grounding, my understanding of physics, mathematics and statistics has taught me that ultra-long dated forecasts involving highly-complex, chaotic, multi-variate physical systems, such as the climate, cannot be considered to be anywhere near as prescriptive as certain people involved in the debate make them out to be.)
3. Anyway,
Point 2 is a completely moot argument, because I happen to think it is a very, very good thing for humans to pollute and consume less, and I endorse and support technological change that protects and preserves the environment, including renewable energy (heck, I've had solar panels on my roof for almost a decade... to the extent that I now need to replace them because my energy guy tells me that they are no longer performing anywhere near to what they were specced up to do).
4. However - despite my unqualified support for changes in human behaviour for the better - I observe that those changes often causing distortions in the markets for certain utilitarian economic goods, those distortions creating investment arbitrage opportunities on which I seek to capitalise.
You seem to have ideological issue with that philosophical position, and appear intent on labeling me as some kind of rapacious Capitalist intent only on profiteering.
In doing so, your blinkered lens of ethical judgment seems to suggest that it is impossible to be concerned about the environment and own an oil stock at the same time.
Yet, if you think about it for a minute, my objectives are actually closely aligned with those environmental activists who are calling for the likes of BP, Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron to cease investing in new oil capacity. Because it is exactly that influence which is forcing of the global oil supply curve to the left, and which forms the central tenet of my investment thesis.
In other words:
1. Don't build more mines, don't drill for more oil, stop all business development.
2. Just harvest all the surplus capital and return it to the shareholders.
The core financial outworking of that is that if an industry doesn't build more mines, and doesn't drill for more oil - when demand for coal and oil continues to rise, coal and oil pricing gets maximised, and - accordingly - so does the surplus capital that gets generated by the operating coal or oil company.
I'm merely capitalising on that financial outworking.
Are you suggesting I should desist from doing so?
As for your, "
Some posts that might give a clue, though as usual not stating a clear position (hence my attempt to put facts on the table to which we either agree or disagree): #55215062""
From that post:
"Global carbon emissions will start reducing once the planet's largest emitters, which are also the fastest growing emitters, reduce their emissions. It's a mathematical truism."It was a truism at the time it was posted, and it remains a truism today.
.
