Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't have enough time to write a thorough post, but the most obvious flaw in their logic is that utilities and auto-makers are unlikely to be disrupted completely by switching from fossil-fuel technologies to renewable+battery technologies. Since the switch will take an estimated 20 years, they have plenty of time to invest in renewables.

A few things (like shale oil drilling investments) might be impacted in a "death spiral" way, but I don't believe that is anywhere near the 25% they claim by invoking everything that touches oil.

Also, bonds have a finite lifetime and are often for equipment with depreciation. Even if 25% of bonds today were for oil infrastructure, many would be re-paid before the disruption had significant financial implications.

TLDR: the headline is egregious clickbait of a regurgitated article.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: