We've actually seen this demonstrated, though not via BlackRock (because the idea that they were somehow responsible was another lie pushed by the media to give people someone to hate). ESG campaigners have successfully discouraged investment in new fossil fuel extraction in much of the world. The world's consumption of fossil fuels is now being strangled at the source, exactly as publications like the Guardian campaigned for them to be. The consequences? Fossil fuel corporation profits at record highs and ordinary people unable to afford food and heating - which is of course exactly what you'd expect to happen when there's insufficient supply, with prices being driven up until people are forced to reduce their use of fossil fuels and the profits going to those that chose to carry on produciung and not starve and freeze the poor further.
Obviously, the end consumer profits from cheap energy. However, the energy from fossil fuels is only cheaper because it massively destroys our planet, a cost which is not currently paid by those producing or using those fossil fuels. Also, renewable energy nowadays would be cheaper than fossil fuels even if you ignore the reparation costs, if there were enough of them built yet. However, some politicians (in cooperation with fossil fuel companies) do what they can to prolong this process because they want to profit from fossil fuels as long as possible.
So what's your game plan, then?
Continue to burn fossil fuels and guarantee +5Cº and up? This is death for our descendents and for a million non-human species.
---
Also, I note a large number of claims about the real world, claims which seem wildly false, yet none of them do you actually prove with facts, data, citations or anything.
Given that your basic argument is, "We can't afford not to kill our ecosystem," I think you are going to need more than that.
You can see how he quantifies carbon emissions. https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/sustainabl...
If he was only concerned with making money, you'd think he'd have jumped into digital currencies.
He stated here that he wouldn't put in more money than he's comfortable in losing 80% in: https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/our-though...
I do not read any clear recommendation for or against Bitcoin in the link you have given (maybe I did not read it carefully enough).
It might be my understanding of Bridgewater that is wrong, but I think of them as mainly targeting institutional investors and high net-worth clients. So when Mr. Dalio writes “Bitcoin looks like a long-duration option on a highly unknown future that I could put an amount of money in that I wouldn’t mind losing about 80% of.” I do not think of that as dissuading an allocation to bitcoin at all, he is merely warning about the size of the allocation, in contrast in the same letter he talks about Bitcoins gold like properties and he has generally been quite vocal about the benefits of an allocation to gold, so I take that as a positive overall impression.
Though I think the daily observations from 2022-01-14 is much clearer as a recommendation for bitcoin. In it they write about how Bitcoin and Ether are now large and liquid enough for them to be worth the time of institutional investors to look into. And they write that they think institutional adoption is likely to pick up in coming years.
I might be reading too much into it, but when I read the piece I got the clear impression that it was a recommendation to make a small allocation to bitcoin. After all who does not want to get in before the big institutional investors?
1: https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Inc-Corporate-Americas-Justice/d...
Any chance of a tldr for that? The linked blog is too purile for my taste.
He also summarizes his thoughts on Doug Henwood's podcast: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9zaG91dC5sYm8tdGF...