That said, you're not fairly representing the context of my comment. The parent comment made this exaggerated critique, saying that "all of modern capitalism" can be considered tainted based on PRIOR behavior (assuming the grandparent's comment were valid.)
This is not only a strawman, but absurd.
I'm pointing out that it isn't limited to prior behavior for what we're talking about. Here, we have a petro-state with 2/3 of its exports STILL in O&G (aka "dirty technology") taking a stance on coal because coal's not Environment Friendly™. This contrasts with countries that were built on "dirty tech/slavery/whatever" and are no longer utilizing similar means.
To clarify, nobody's saying NOR can't change course or exhibit environmental leadership. I'd argue NOR's investment implications and the $2.3B change in allocation aren't significant.
That said, you're not fairly representing the context of my comment. The parent comment made this exaggerated critique, saying that "all of modern capitalism" can be considered tainted based on PRIOR behavior (assuming the grandparent's comment were valid.)
This is not only a strawman, but absurd.
I'm pointing out that it isn't limited to prior behavior for what we're talking about. Here, we have a petro-state with 2/3 of its exports STILL in O&G (aka "dirty technology") taking a stance on coal because coal's not Environment Friendly™. This contrasts with countries that were built on "dirty tech/slavery/whatever" and are no longer utilizing similar means.
To clarify, nobody's saying NOR can't change course or exhibit environmental leadership. I'd argue NOR's investment implications and the $2.3B change in allocation aren't significant.