Summary Environmental Justice & Information Access Advocates
The Conversation publishes a free, expert-authored analysis of BlackRock's coal divestment decision, a case study in corporate environmental responsibility. The platform itself strongly advances human rights through open-access knowledge democratization (Articles 19, 26) and privacy-conscious architecture, though the article body—missing from provided content—could not be fully evaluated for editorial engagement with environmental justice and climate-related rights.
At this point, this is one of those policies which is both environmentally friendly and makes piles of economic sense. Even without clean energy subsidies, coal is rapidly becoming a bad investment. The cost of running existing coal plants has exceeded the cost of building new solar & wind power plants. Over the next few years, demand for coal is likely to implode.
As bankers and insurers start to internalize this idea, the number of people willing to continue investing, insuring, or financing coal operation is going to vanish and the industry will collapse completely.
The decision whether or not to buy shares in the secondary market will make little difference to existing coal companies (who are largely cash flow positive and trade at near 25% earnings yields). Regulations are what matter. All that secondary investors can do is increase WACC via lowered demand for marginal primary debt/equity issuances. If you want to phase out coal, focus on government regulation instead of secondary investments.
It can (and often does) make sense to invest in industries in terminal decline as price paid for an asset’s cash flow is the primary determinant if returns for the investor. You can buy coal stocks for 25%+ earnings yields. Even if those plants are phased out in 6 or 7 years, one can make solid returns.
Indeed I have invested in cigarette shares in the past while wishing the government would do more to stop smokers. The fact that I hold the equity doesn’t change demand for cigarettes, and only in aggregate does the investor appetite effect WACC. Someone must always hold existing shares. For every buyer there is a seller and vice versa.
Lastly I should mention that metallurgical coal as opposed to thermal coal is a necessary “evil” to smelt steel.
I’ve used this recent hate for coal investments(and weakness in NG) to take positions at high earnings yields in ARCH and HCC.
It's starting to look like "alternative" energies might be more efficient in near future anyway, despite climate change. It seems intuitive (but don't know) that burning organic matter is not the most efficient way to extract energy from nature.
A great article posted in May 2019 by Saul Griffith from Otherlab/Makani/Instructables on decarbonisation[1] and another posted yesterday suggesting the idea of a "climate loan"[2]:
"The future can’t be built on lay-away; we need a loan. America’s strength for much of the 20th century was inventing new financing models and exporting those banking skills to the world. We need to put that to work once again, this time for climate change. The key insight here is to extend infrastructure financing closer to the home where the infrastructure of the 21st century will sit."
Matt Levine, as always, provides the most honest and direct commentary about this. Here's the start, but the whole piece is interesting, as pointed out by a reply.
> Will BlackRock’s decision to send a strongly worded letter about environmental sustainability reshape how corporate America does business? Well, I remember two years ago when Larry Fink sent a strongly worded letter about how companies needed to make society better, and that too was supposedly “likely to cause a firestorm in the corner offices of companies everywhere,” and now, uh, same society really.
> Now BlackRock will send a strongly worded letter to CEOs about the environment. It will arrive on the desk of the CEO of, I don’t know, giant state-owned oil company Saudi Aramco? A company where, according to Bloomberg data, BlackRock is the largest outside shareholder. A company that did a bond offering last year—after the Saudi government murdered and dismembered Jamal Khashoggi, after Fink sent that letter about making society better—in which BlackRock was also a big investor. “We wanted the Aramco bond to be much bigger,” Fink said, way back in April, when his public-relations goal was to butter up Saudi Arabia. Now it is January, and his public-relations goal is to butter up environmentalists, so BlackRock “will make investment decisions with environmental sustainability as a core goal.” Next time a big oil company is looking for money, presumably that will change again.
Australia needs to exit the export coal business. We should go dig some other rocks up out of the ground, we have a lot of them...
We are responsible for 37% of global coal exports. That's massive. If we halt coal exports it would put a squeeze on the coal supply and that raise prices; probably significantly. Coal power plants are already on thin margins. If cost of coal increased for a sustained period (a few years) coal would be considered unviable as a fuel source. We should see a lot of the plants close down.
Australia always talks about its self as being insignificant and anything we could do to help prevent climate change would have no measurable impact. This incorrect relatively and absolutely, we are one of the largest per capita emitters. But we are also the third largest exporter of fossil fuels.
This is Australia's opportunity to actually do something significant to help address climate change.
BlackRock is dumping coal because coal is a dying business. The climate change point is just a convenient PR booster. If coal was still generating lots of free cash flow we wouldn't see this.
With that being said, it's nice to see that the coal industry is losing its economic strength. Hopefully other environmentally unfriendly industries follow suit soon.
There are tons of economic analyses that show that these kinds of boycotts or divestment efforts (usually driven by naive university students) rarely cause any noticeable change in policies or operations at the targeted companies.
What is usually happening is that other technological or consumer behavior is already leading to the decrease in business of some industry, and the divestment push happens simultaneously (because of people's awareness) and is merely a symptom of their final decline.
Take South Africa in the 80s, or the ridiculous grape boycott of the 90s, etc. None of those symbolic acts led to actual changes happening -- those were all consumer or political changes already in flight.
People create much more effect by voting with their dollars than by symbolically calling for divestment. It usually turns out that there is someone willing to take your place as a buyer when you choose to divest. It's only through fundamental change in demand or supply that a business is affected. Stop believing in the effectiveness of the feel-good boycotts. Even Blackrock won't make a difference.
Wouldn't neglect from passive index investors simply mean that active investors pick up such undervalued assets themselves instead? I don't see this sort of divestment as fundamentally altering the price discovery aspects of the market. All that changes are which individuals (or institutions) benefit.
I'm curious who will take the other side(s) of this trade. If you can invest capital in large chuncks (aka. PE/HF) why not just go long? If you can provide enough capital to manage down the business better than where it's priced now... that's an opportunity.
Mass extraction and consumption of oil and coal will happen until these resources are too sparse to warrant building new plants or maintaining existing ones.
I don't really see any future where this doesn't happen. If you remove coal subsidies, or tax them, then some of the energy production currently handled by coal will change to oil, but once the oil becomes expensive enough to extract, coal mines will open back up again.
This just seems inevitable to me. Is there an angle I'm missing?
Whether one likes it or not, for a lot of people this will mean a good investment opportunity.
I would also hesitate to label it a decision made out of moral reasoning. Neither BlackRock nor (the majority of) their clients want to reduce coal exposure because of that. They rather want to reduce their exposure because they expect more regulatory hurting to come for those companies.
> contradiction between the company’s new activist stance and
I don't think I agree with calling BlackRock activists. An activist investor uses investment choices as leverage to apply pressure to achieve some other goal.
But BlackRock's statement seems to say that they are doing this for financial reasons. It says they're doing it because regulation (existing or potential) is making those investments riskier. From BlackRock's letter (as quoted in the article):
> Thermal coal production is significantly carbon intensive, becoming less and less economically viable, and highly exposed to regulation because of its environmental impacts. ... we do not believe that the long-term economic or investment rationale justifies continued investment in this sector
So in other words, BlackRock isn't using pressure to change the world. It's responding to pressure and uncertainty. This is just market forces causing BlackRock to keep its distance purely for financial reasons.
Next they should do the same with natural gas. The data on the investments of nat gas fracking make it doubtful that it will pay back even the last round of capital investment.
Remember that price paid for an asset is the primary driver of returns for the investor. Even as coal implodes, one can make money as the near term cash flow on invested dollars is high enough to offset declines.
Smoking has been in decline for decades yet cigarette companies have been phenomenal investments.
That's not strictly right. If the pool of potential buyers for these coal stock shares dries up, the price of the shares will be much lower than it otherwise would be. This makes in increasingly less attractive for these companies to raise capital for new mines or mine expansions. It even makes merging less attractive. It also makes recruiting and retaining skilled executives harder. All of this surely impacts these companies in the longer term (say 5-10 years from now)-- they are likely to be a lot smaller and to employ fewer people.
> this is one of those policies which is both environmentally friendly and makes piles of economic sense
To a broader point, this is how real change is enacted: make it matter to enough folks, usually by means of economic pressures. I.e., make bad things cost more than good things. Although obviously ham-fisted tariffs, etc. aren't very effective for a host of reasons. You gotta be more subtle than that.
I don’t think I’ve ever read a Levine article and not been impressed. The man’s a national treasure! Also, you can get his articles sent to your inbox to bypass the paywalls.
The big handicap in this for the US is a president that doesn't believe climate change exists at all. Will be interesting to see weather it will mean the US misses the boat on the next big economic development and if so who will jump into that void as a new world power. So far China doesn't look very interested in climate change either and Europe is very divided.
Your post quotes the cynical piece of Levine’s editorial (literally his next three words are “but let’s not”, referring to “being cynical all day”), but it’s worth reading in full for the more nuanced perspective. I found the last two paragraphs surprisingly enlightening:
> The right model of BlackRock is probably that it is mostly an aggregator of preferences, but it is also, at the margin, a shaper of preferences. It passively reflects what investors want generally, but it has some ability to push those investors to want different things. There are other things that BlackRock does—it votes the shares of stock that it owns on behalf of investors, it meets with managers to talk about their sustainability plans, it writes strongly worded letters to CEOs—but I suspect that they’re mostly less important than the basic core function of taking $7 trillion from investors, channeling it where the investors want it to go, and slowly and subtly diverting those channels so that the money moves more in the direction that BlackRock wants it to go.
> This is an unavoidably uncomfortable role. If you want BlackRock to do more on climate change, you will be annoyed that it mostly offers broad passive products that buy all the stocks, including the ones you don’t like. If you want BlackRock to do less on climate change, you will be annoyed that it is pushing its clients into sustainability-focused funds rather than neutrally giving them all the stocks, including the ones BlackRock doesn’t like. Mostly it is an uncomfortably powerful role: BlackRock really is a general aggregator of preferences, so it speaks with the authority of its $7 trillion and its universal ownership, which means that its ability to shape those preferences matters.
> It can (and often does) make sense to invest in industries in terminal decline as price paid for an asset’s cash flow is the primary determinant if returns for the investor. You can buy coal stocks for 25%+ earnings yields. Even if those plants are phased out in 6 or 7 years, one can make solid returns.
For Blackrock, those 25% yields you talk about don't exist. If Blackrock were to retain a significant investment in those companies, share prices would be higher and yield lower.
What makes sense for a small investor often doesn't make sense for large corporate investors.
That said, investments like what you describe have their own risks. At this point it largely depends on contracts and how quickly alternative power sources can ramp up.
You are the second person to mention tobacco, and I think it's a poor comparison. People are literally addicted to tobacco which guarantees long term demand. Even if that demand is decreasing over time, it's predictable and not severe. Coal does not share those characteristics.
"In 2014–15 mineral extraction in Australia was valued at 212 billion Australian dollars. Of this, Coal represented 45,869 million, oil and natural gas 40,369 million, Iron ore 69,486 million, Gold ore 13,685 million, and other metals 7,903 million." [1]
45B is still a lot of money to remove from the economy. It's less than I would have predicted (mining is only 5.8% of economy), but it's still a non-trivial amount. And 45B gets you a lot of lobbyists.
Sure but it has a huge financial impact. Its the second largest source of export earnings and the main source of electric power. The Australian economy has been hugely successful thanks due to coal, there is no way voters will take a big cut to their standard of living, especially with most of them overleveraged into property.
Australia produces ~6% of the worlds coal [0]. That is the only thing nature could care about; figures like % exports and per capita numbers are meaningless. 6% is a big enough slice of the pie for everyone to argue about. The 34% figure specifically is a bit meaningless because it is by value and there is big price (about x4?) difference between met coal (Queensland) vs. thermal coal (NSW). It doesn't make sense to try and compare Australian met coal exports to, say, Indonesian thermal.
Also as a counter argument, attempting to pressure China economically by choking their imports would probably end badly for us.
Disclaimer: I worked for BlackRock for about 3 years on an investment team (but its been a while and I don't have a dog in this fight)
BlackRock is a very simple business to understand. First, they only investment money on behalf of their clients and they take investment fees for making decisions on behalf of their clients (investing their money).
They break the business in to two parts:
Alpha: old school mutual funds, new school quant funds, real estate etc. Anything where managers get paid big bucks to make investment decisions on behalf of clients.
Beta: passive investment vehicles that blackrock tries to deliver for the lowest price with lowest tracking error (i.e. deliver as close to what the index returns as possible).
What BlackRock is doing here, is a VERY, VERY big deal. They are allowing clients to now pick passive investment strategies which exclude coal or other businesses that people find morally objectionable. What that means is that if you care about the environment you can move your money to these new passive investments. As more and more people do it, it will decrease demand for equity in those companies and increase their cost of capital.
On the active side, they already had that feature, and many of their clients already ask BlackRock to exclude investments from their active portfolios and were willing to accept less return. (BlackRock has offered that for a very long time).
I find very few things interesting that asset managers do, but I am going to look at all my passive investments and try to get them moved over. I bet passive funds without coal etc. will outperform while more and more people move money from vanilla S&P500 to S&P500 without coal.
Eventually those coal companies may fall out of indexes all together which will really increase their cost of capital.
That was my thought too. I wonder if they're just dressing up their findings in environmental speak for points. What other industries do they plan to drop in the name of the environment?
I've been wondering lately how and whether Australia could use its position as the biggest exporter to deliberately wreck the global thermal coal market, and consequently, coal usage.
I'm definitely not an economist, but would it be feasible, if coal production could be co-ordinated nationally, to manipulate the market through (I'm guessing) either or alternately dumping coal on it or suddenly cutting it off, possibly in an unpredictable manner? Does Australia have enough weight to make a difference? And would this have any effect greater than cutting off production entirely?
Efficiency is not the factor when considering energy source. People pay money for stable electricity, not cheap electricity.
>b...but we can store energy!
No we can't. Energy storage systems are catching fires like Australian wildfires and until it gets solved, no dice.
Editorial Channel
What the content says
ND
PreamblePreamble
Medium Advocacy Coverage
Article body not provided in truncated content; cannot assess editorial engagement with Preamble's universal dignity framework.
Observable Facts
The Conversation publishes articles free of charge to all readers.
The domain is structured as a nonprofit entity dedicated to accessible knowledge.
Article by identified expert author (John Quiggin) with publication date and topic tags.
Inferences
Free, open-access publishing reflects commitment to equal dignity and universal access consistent with Preamble values.
Nonprofit structure suggests editorial independence rather than commercial pressure.
ND
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Medium Advocacy
Article text unavailable; cannot assess treatment of human equality or freedom from discrimination.
Observable Facts
All articles accessible without user registration or payment.
Comments feature available to all registered users.
Inferences
Universal access model suggests non-discriminatory approach to information dissemination.
ND
Article 2Non-Discrimination
Low Advocacy
Cannot assess without article body.
Observable Facts
Article available equally to all visitors regardless of background.
Inferences
Open-access model provides no basis for discriminatory treatment.
ND
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Low
Title mentions coal/climate ('decision to dump coal'), suggesting potential relevance to right to life via environmental health, but article text required for assessment.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
No observable content related to slavery or servitude.
ND
Article 5No Torture
No observable content.
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
No observable content.
ND
Article 7Equality Before Law
No observable content.
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
No observable content.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
No observable content.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
No observable content.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
No observable content.
ND
Article 12Privacy
Medium Coverage
Cannot assess editorial treatment without article body.
Observable Facts
Cookie domain and consent mechanism configured (.cookie_domain visible).
Recaptcha integration present for bot/privacy protection.
User event collection and tracking systems deployed but with technical privacy safeguards.
Inferences
Privacy-conscious site architecture suggests recognition of Article 12 privacy rights.
Structured data handling (separate collector URL, domain isolation) indicates some commitment to privacy protection.
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
No observable content.
ND
Article 14Asylum
No observable content.
ND
Article 15Nationality
No observable content.
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
No observable content.
ND
Article 17Property
No observable content.
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
No observable content.
ND
Article 19Freedom of Expression
High Advocacy Practice
Article addresses corporate environmental responsibility (inferred from title 'canary in coalmine'), likely providing analysis and information on divestment trends. Cannot fully assess without text, but topic selection indicates engagement with freedom of information on public-interest issues.
Observable Facts
Article is freely accessible without subscription or paywall.
Comments section enabled (though closed as of 2020-01-16), enabling reader expression.
Published by academic nonprofit platform with peer-review-adjacent standards.
Inferences
Free academic publication on business/environmental policy directly supports freedom to seek and receive information on matters of public concern.
Transparent authorship and topic classification facilitate informed consumption of diverse viewpoints.
Nonprofit status reduces commercial incentives to suppress or distort information.
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
Medium Advocacy
Cannot assess editorial treatment without article body.
Observable Facts
Comments feature configured and enabled on article (comments_closed_at: 2020-01-16T04:57:27Z).
Social sharing buttons indicated in page structure (Facebook, Twitter, etc.).
Inferences
Comments feature facilitates peaceful assembly and exchange of views among readers.
Social sharing extends platform for free association.
ND
Article 21Political Participation
Low
Cannot assess without article text.
ND
Article 22Social Security
No observable content.
ND
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
Low
Article topic (coal divestment) may address labor rights of coal workers displaced by transition; cannot assess without article text. Title does not explicitly foreground worker perspectives.
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
No observable content.
ND
Article 25Standard of Living
Low
Article addresses coal/climate divestment, which relates to health and adequate standard of living via environmental protection and climate action. Cannot fully assess without article body, but title and topics suggest potential positive engagement.
Observable Facts
Article tagged with Climate change and Coal topics.
Inferences
Discussion of coal divestment relates to climate change mitigation, which affects Article 25 rights to health and adequate living standards.
ND
Article 26Education
Medium Advocacy
Cannot assess editorial content without article body.
Observable Facts
Articles published free of charge and without subscription barriers.
Academic/expert authorship (John Quiggin is an economist) ensures knowledge quality.
Topics cover matters of public understanding (business, climate, policy).
Inferences
Free access to expert-authored analysis on public affairs supports education rights and access to cultural/intellectual life.
Academic platform positions readers as participants in informed society.
ND
Article 27Cultural Participation
No observable content.
ND
Article 28Social & International Order
Low
Article examines corporate responsibility (BlackRock coal divestment) which relates to establishing social/international order supporting human rights. Cannot assess argument without text.
ND
Article 29Duties to Community
No observable content.
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
No observable content.
Structural Channel
What the site does
+0.60
Article 19Freedom of Expression
High Advocacy Practice
Structural
+0.60
Context Modifier
+0.30
SETL
ND
The Conversation embodies Article 19 through free access to informed analysis on public affairs. Academic rigor, transparent attribution, and nonprofit independence all support freedom of expression and right to information.
+0.50
Article 26Education
Medium Advocacy
Structural
+0.50
Context Modifier
+0.10
SETL
ND
The Conversation's free academic publication platform directly supports right to education and participation in cultural life through democratized access to expert knowledge.
+0.40
Article 20Assembly & Association
Medium Advocacy
Structural
+0.40
Context Modifier
+0.08
SETL
ND
Comments section supports reader assembly and peaceful discussion, though not all features visible in truncated content.
+0.35
PreamblePreamble
Medium Advocacy Coverage
Structural
+0.35
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
The Conversation's open-access model and nonprofit mission embody Preamble commitments to universal human dignity through democratized knowledge access.
+0.25
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Medium Advocacy
Structural
+0.25
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
The platform applies equal terms of access to all users; no visible distinction in treatment by identity.
+0.25
Article 12Privacy
Medium Coverage
Structural
+0.25
Context Modifier
-0.13
SETL
ND
Site implements cookie consent, privacy-aware architecture, and user tracking controls; demonstrates awareness of privacy rights.
+0.20
Article 2Non-Discrimination
Low Advocacy
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No visible discrimination in access or presentation by any protected characteristic.
+0.15
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Low
Structural
+0.15
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
Site does not directly engage with right to life; neutral structural stance.
+0.15
Article 21Political Participation
Low
Structural
+0.15
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
Site does not directly engage with democratic participation mechanisms beyond reader discussion.
0.00
Article 4No Slavery
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No relevant structural signals.
0.00
Article 5No Torture
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No relevant signals.
0.00
Article 6Legal Personhood
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No relevant signals.
0.00
Article 7Equality Before Law
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No relevant signals.
0.00
Article 8Right to Remedy
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No relevant signals.
0.00
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No relevant signals.
0.00
Article 10Fair Hearing
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No relevant signals.
0.00
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No relevant signals.
0.00
Article 13Freedom of Movement
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No relevant signals.
0.00
Article 14Asylum
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No relevant signals.
0.00
Article 15Nationality
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No relevant signals.
0.00
Article 16Marriage & Family
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No relevant signals.
0.00
Article 17Property
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No relevant signals.
0.00
Article 18Freedom of Thought
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No relevant signals.
0.00
Article 22Social Security
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No relevant signals.
0.00
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
Low
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No observable site-level engagement with labor rights.
0.00
Article 24Rest & Leisure
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No relevant signals.
0.00
Article 25Standard of Living
Low
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
+0.22
SETL
ND
Site does not directly address health or living standards; neutral structural position.
0.00
Article 27Cultural Participation
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
+0.15
SETL
ND
No relevant signals.
0.00
Article 28Social & International Order
Low
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
Site does not directly engage with systemic human rights ordering.
0.00
Article 29Duties to Community
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No relevant signals.
0.00
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
ND
No relevant signals.
Supplementary Signals
Epistemic Quality
0.52
Propaganda Flags
0techniques detected
Solution Orientation
No data
Emotional Tone
No data
Stakeholder Voice
No data
Temporal Framing
No data
Geographic Scope
No data
Complexity
No data
Transparency
No data
Event Timeline
15 events
2026-02-26 21:53
eval_success
Evaluated: Mild positive (0.30)
--
2026-02-26 20:01
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: BlackRock’s decision to dump coal signals what’s next
--
2026-02-26 20:00
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: BlackRock’s decision to dump coal signals what’s next
--
2026-02-26 20:00
eval_failure
Evaluation failed: Error: Unknown model in registry: llama-4-scout-wai
--
2026-02-26 20:00
eval_failure
Evaluation failed: Error: Unknown model in registry: llama-4-scout-wai
--
2026-02-26 19:59
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:58
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:57
rater_validation_fail
Validation failed for model llama-4-scout-wai
--
2026-02-26 19:57
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:12
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: BlackRock’s decision to dump coal signals what’s next
--
2026-02-26 19:10
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:08
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:08
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 09:30
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: BlackRock’s decision to dump coal signals what’s next