Sure covid-19 has quickened the pace of change, but it’s not the main need to change rapidly. Every day you can find new information, from serious sources, about changes in our climate which translated in changes in the value of stocks.
Climate and stock markets in one sentence? Yep!
The good is that companies with sustainable plans will see their turnover and profit grow. It won’t be a quick win, but well, it’ll be sustainable. Work is needed though!
The bad is companies that will green-wash. Add or delete an additive, replace someting by an organic something and market the stuff. It’s like chickens: They’ll be mover from16 hens per square meter to 12. Which, mathematically is a serious change, but chickens don’t get mathematics, they get eaten.
The ugly are the fossilised companies, refusing to see the urge to change, or lacking the leaderhip, funding or a gooed overview of what’s about to happen. They’ll go down in hte end, but still demand a lot of public money, support and most likely a serious number of lives.
The good: Unilever. Their previous chairman move the behomoth company to a more sustainable approach. Sure, it’ll take time before it’s changed to the max, but without a start nobody will change.
The bad: Royal Dutch Shell. They see the need to change, so they invest in solar, hydrogen and whatever miracles they have in their labs. At the same time, they sell fossil products. Now, I think they are seriously trying to change, so I don’t think they are the baddest of all.
The ugly: Tobacco companies. As in the EU smoking will be for the rich only, cheaper markets are approached succesfully. That is, to my humble opinion, a deadly route.
Alcohol is another dangerous product but not as deadly as tobacco, and there one sees that markets can be influenced. Just making booze is pretty simple and if it’ll be made to expensive, people will make it themselves and increase the death toll more than moderate use. Still, it’s all legal.