DIVEST2
SEE THREE
recover lost again 9/5/15?
see how most bank upped oil invest since paris?
see shareholder and pension
see bak5/20
===
see BDS on palestine
---
ymail 8 2 donziger
For several weeks in my hometown of New York City, increasingly large protests have descended on Citibank at its towering headquarters in lower Manhattan. Called “Summer of Heat,” these actions have forced Citi to order the arrests of almost 500 peaceful protestors.
As Citi becomes more frustrated by the direct action, many of the movement’s leaders have been detained on what appear to be bogus charges that are a central part of a corporate playbook to “criminalize” the climate movement.
For those who don’t know, without financing from banks the expansion of fossil fuels would largely grind to a halt. And of the many offending banks, Citi is probably the worst. They have put up $360 billion for fossil projects since the Paris Accords were signed in 2015. They are now the largest funder of fossil fuel expansion in the world. ....
Students at six universities filed legal complaints on Monday accusing their colleges of breaking a little-known law by investing in planet-heating fossil fuels, the Guardian has learned.
Campus organizers from the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Chicago, Tufts University, Pomona College, Washington University in St Louis and Pennsylvania State University wrote to the attorneys general of their respective states to ask officials to scrutinize their universities’ investments. Each filing elicited signatures of support from dozens of faculty and staff members, alumni and local, national and international climate-focused groups.
The students argue that by investing in coal, oil and gas, the schools are violating their obligations as non-profit organizations to prioritize the public interest.
“Fossil fuel companies have long engaged in a well-documented campaign to undermine climate science and distort public debate about how to deal with the climate crisis – including through efforts targeting Penn scientists and researchers,” University of Pennsylvania students wrote in their filing. “The industry’s spread of scientific misinformation undermines the work of Penn faculty and students who are researching and designing solutions for a sustainable future.”
The filings estimate that each of the schools has tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars invested in fossil fuels.
“If universities say, ‘We’re climate leaders, we stand for justice,’ but then on the other hand financially contribute to the climate crisis, we just see that as unacceptable,” said Moli Ma, an undergraduate student at Tufts, who helped lead the complaint against her university. “There’s an incongruence there. It doesn’t match up.”
The six complaints follow more than a dozen similar initiatives at colleges around the US, beginning with Boston College in 2020. The filings were written with help from the Climate Defense Project, a non-profit environmental law organization.
State officials have not affirmed any of the legal filings, but several schools – including Harvard, Cornell and Stanford – said they would divest from fossil fuels shortly after complaints against them were filed.
“We feel like this might have been the last straw that really pushed Harvard’s administration over the edge on divestment,” said Ma, who is part of the Tufts Climate Action student group. “We wanted to replicate the success that happened there.”
Four of Monday’s filings allege that schools breached the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act, a law adopted by 49 states requiring non-profit institutions to consider their “charitable purposes” in their investments and to do so with “prudence” and “loyalty”.
Pennsylvania has not passed such a law, so students’ legal complaints against the University of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania State University are based on similar regulations that fall under the state’s Decedents, Estates, and Fiduciary Code.
In interviews, the student organizers noted that the climate crisis had wreaked havoc on each of their universities’ home states, whether through more frequent and severe wildfires in Pomona College’s California or more devastating heatwaves in Washington University in St Louis’s Missouri. Those disasters often disproportionately harm youth, poor communities and people of color, the complaints note.
Another key argument in each complaint: investing in fossil fuel stocks not only harms the climate and threatens human health, but also creates financial risk.
“We make the case that fossil fuels from a purely financial point of view are a very bad investment,” said Ted Hamilton, a lawyer with the Climate Defense Project who has worked on each of the legal filings. “This sector is very volatile. It’s been underperforming lately, and especially for long-term institutional investors like universities, it has a very bad value thesis [for] the coming decades.”
The complaints build on pre-existing fossil fuel divestment efforts at each of the six universities. Students said they had heard college officials defend their continued financial backing of fossil fuels in various ways, from touting their existing efforts to clean up investments to arguing that investment should not be governed by specific political agendas.
“Investing in fossil fuels is a political statement,” said Clara Dutton, a student organizer at Washington University in St Louis. “And it’s a hypocritical one.”
Bill McKibben, the veteran environmental activist and author, supports the students’ efforts.
skip past newsletter promotion
Sign up to First Thing
Free daily newsletter
Our US morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters
“Some of these institutions have produced world-class climate science, all of them are in places facing huge climate threats, and yet they’re still trying to profit off the most dangerous thing humans have ever done,” said McKibben, who has been calling for fossil fuel divestment – including from universities – for more than a decade.
Each of the six schools has also made pledges to boost sustainability and engaged in climate research, but Hamilton said that does not undercut the validity of the legal claims.
“The fact that they are doing these wonderful, sustainable things is a recognition that this was part of their charitable mission, part of the reason why they’re raising money and promoting their vision of the public good,” he said.
Ron Ozio, spokesperson for the University of Pennsylvania, said his institution’s board of trustees has “thoughtfully reviewed” requests to divest from fossil fuels.
In a November 2022 statement, University of Pennsylvania officials said: “Selling fossil fuel investments does not end fossil fuel production or create clean energy alternatives, and it risks transferring ownership to buyers who may care little for the environmental consequences of their actions.”
The students, however, said they do not believe their colleges divesting their endowments from fossil fuels would cause oil and gas to collapse. But refusal to do so represents a tacit endorsement of an industry that is fueling planetary destruction, they said.
The action comes amid rising pressure on institutions to cut ties with fossil fuel companies. This fall, New York University pledged to divest from coal, oil and gas firms following years of pressure from activists. About 250 US educational institutions have divested from fossil fuels, according to data from Stand.earth and 350.org.
In an email, Pomona College said it was still reviewing the legal filing, but stated it was “strongly committed to environmental sustainability and to reaching carbon neutrality for our campus by 2030”.
Even in the absence of legal complaints, McKibben said he expects more universities to divest from fossil fuels, but added that he hoped the students’ action can “hustle them along”.
“The planet is running out of time for their games,” he said.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/03/30/despite-splashy-net-zero-vows-big-banks-dumping-trillions-fossil-fuels
no lnx
Despite 'Splashy' Net-Zero Vows, Big Banks Dumping Trillions Into Fossil Fuels
"With Wall Street banks leading the charge, these financial institutions are directly complicit in undermining a climate-stable future for us all."
JAKE JOHNSON
March 30, 2022
That's according to the latest edition of :{Banking on Climate Chaos:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, an annual report that tracks the banking industry's funding of oil and gas initiatives that are threatening global hopes of reining in carbon pollution and averting climate disaster.
:{
}:
Flouting their public vows to put themselves and their clients on a path to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, the world's 60 largest private banks have provided a total of $4.6 trillion in financing for the fossil fuel industry since the Paris Agreement entered into force in 2016.
That's according to the latest edition of Banking on Climate Chaos, an annual report that tracks the banking industry's funding of oil and gas initiatives that are threatening global hopes of reining in carbon pollution and averting climate disaster.
"Any further expansion of fossil fuels risks locking humanity into generations of climate catastrophe."
Authored by Oil Change International, the Rainforest Action Network, the Indigenous Environmental Network, and other groups and endorsed by hundreds of organizations from around the world, the report published Wednesday spotlights the marked contrast between banks' public commitments to net-zero emissions targets and their actions, which reflect a continued stake in fossil fuel development.
In 2021 alone, the report finds, the world's biggest private-sector banks financed oil and gas to the tune of $742 billion.That year, the 60 banks featured in the new analysis poured $185.5 billion into the 100 companies doing the most to expand the fossil-fuel sector worldwide through offshore drilling, fracking, coal mining, liquefied natural gas infrastructure, and more.
The worst offenders in the banking industry, according to the report, are the U.S. financial behemoths JPMorgan Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America, which together accounted for 25% of all fossil fuel financing identified over the past six years.
The report highlights a number of specific projects, including the Mountain Valley Pipeline(funded by JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America), drilling in offshore Guyana (funded by JPMorgan Chase, Citi, and Bank of America), and the Line 3 Pipeline (funded by TD, Scotiabank, and the Bank of Montreal), efforts that have drawn fierce resistance from Indigenous communities.
"Indigenous peoples have long been leading the fight for the sacredness of the land, water, and Earth," Mea Johnson, divestment campaign coordinator with the Indigenous Environmental Network, said in a statement Wednesday. "Mother Earth has always given us what we need to thrive. We will not back down until our natural balance is restored and anyone helping fund the extractive destruction of our communities will be held accountable."
Alison Kirsch, research and policy manager at the Rainforest Action Network, added that "any further expansion of fossil fuels risks locking humanity into generations of climate catastrophe, yet the top fossil clients of the world's largest banks are still being showered with tens of billions of dollars even as they actively expand drilling, mining, fracking, and other fossil fuel development unabated."
"With Wall Street banks leading the charge," Kirsch added, "these financial institutions are directly complicit in undermining a climate-stable future for us all and must immediately end their support of any further fossil fuel infrastructure expansion."
[Related Content
Coal plants
Rich Nations Must Cut Off Oil and Gas by 2034 to Keep Climate Hopes Alive: Report]
The banks' financing decisions fly in the face of their own pledges to bring their policies into line with critical climate goals, such as achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a benchmark that 44 of the 60 banks profiled in the new report have backed.
"Despite their splashy climate pledges, big banks have largely continued with business-as-usual."
According to the International Energy Agency, reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 would mean ensuring "no new oil and gas fields."
"But global banks have massively supported the companies doing the most to open new oil and gas fields," notes the new report. "Banks with net-zero commitments last year... financed the top 20 upstream oil and gas expansion companies, potentially helping to lock the planet into decades of climate-warming emissions."
Adele Shraiman, a representative for the Sierra Club's Fossil-Free Finance campaign,said Wednesday that the analysis "makes it clear that banks must clean up their act and stop funding the expansion of dirty fossil fuel projects like fracked gas exports, tar sands pipelines, and offshore drilling in order to align with what the science demands and what their own commitments require."
"Despite their splashy climate pledges, big banks have largely continued with business-as-usual and actually increased their overall fossil fuel financing since the Paris Agreement," said Shraiman. "As we look ahead to shareholder season, we'll be keeping up the pressure on the banks and their investors to take these critical reforms seriously and stop bankrolling the fossil fuel industry's reckless expansion plans."
==
omg
no lnx
How Republicans Are ‘Weaponizing’ Public Office Against Climate Action
A Times investigation revealed a coordinated effort by state treasurers to use government muscle and public funds to punish companies trying to reduce greenhouse gases.
Riley Moore stands in an office wearing a dark suit jacket unbuttoned with a white collared shirt without a tie. On the walls hang portraits of presidents and other officials.
Riley Moore, the West Virginia treasurer, announced last week that several major banks would be barred from government contracts with his state.Credit...Kristian Thacker for The New York Times
By David Gelles
Gelles reviewed more than 10,000 pages of documents and emails while reporting for this article.
Aug. 5, 2022
Nearly two dozen Republican state treasurers around the country are working to thwart climate action on state and federal levels, fighting regulations that would make clear the economic risks posed by a warming world, lobbying against climate-minded nominees to key federal posts and using the tax dollars they control to punish companies that want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Over the past year, treasurers in nearly half the United States have been coordinating tactics and talking points, meeting in private and cheering each other in public as part of a well-funded campaign to protect the fossil fuel companies that bolster their local economies.
Last week, Riley Moore, the treasurer of West Virginia, announced that several major banks — including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Wells Fargo— would be barred from government contracts with his state because they are reducing their investments in coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel.
Mr. Moore and the treasurers of Louisiana and Arkansas have pulled more than $700 million out of BlackRock, the world’s largest investment manager, over objections that the firm is too focused on environmental issues. At the same time, the treasurers of Utah and Idaho are pressuring the private sector to drop climate action and other causes they label as “woke.”
And treasurers from Pennsylvania, Arizona and Oklahoma joined a larger campaign to thwart the nominations of federal regulators who wanted to require that banks, funds and companies disclose the financial risks posed by a warming planet.
:{
}:
At the nexus of these efforts is the State Financial Officers Foundation, a little-known nonprofit organization based in Shawnee, Kan., that once focused on cybersecurity, borrowing costs and managing debt loads, among other routine issues.
Then President Biden took office, promising to speed the country’s transition away from oil, gas and coal, the burning of which is dangerously heating the planet.
The foundation began pushing Republican state treasurers, who are mostly elected officials and who are responsible for managing their state’s finances, to use their power to promote oil and gas interests and to stymie Mr. Biden’s climate agenda, records show.
The New York Times reviewed thousands of pages of internal emails and documents obtained through public records requests by Documented, a watchdog group, that shed light on the treasurers’ efforts since January 2021.
At conferences, on weekly calls, and with a steady stream of emails, the foundation hosted representatives from the oil industry and funneled research and talking points from conservative groups to the state treasurers, who have channeled the private groups’ goals into public policy.
The Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute and the American Petroleum Institute are among the conservative groups with ties to the fossil fuel industry that have been working with the State Financial Officers Foundation and the treasurers to shape their national strategy.
Many Democratic state treasurers support efforts to combat climate change and want banks and investment firms to be clear about risks posed to returns for retirees and others.Democratic lawmakers in California and New Jersey are working on legislation that would require their state pension systems to divest from fossil fuels.But Democrats have not mounted anything like the national campaign being orchestrated by the State Financial Officers Foundation.
The Republican treasurers skirt the fact that global warming is an economic menace that is damaging industries like agriculture and causing extreme weather that devastates communities and costs taxpayers billions in recovery and rebuilding. Instead, they frame efforts to reduce emissions as a threat to employment and revenue, and have turned climate science into another front in the culture wars.
“This is a departure from their traditional roles,” said Robert Butkin, the former Oklahoma treasurer and a professor at the University of Tulsa. “There used to be a strong nonpartisan and bipartisan ethic among treasurers, but you’ve seen a lot of that erode over the past several years.”
‘Politically motivated’
In November, as major banks and corporations at a global summit in Glasgow were promising to take climate action, the Republican state treasurers were huddling at a State Financial Officers Foundationconference in Orlando, Fla., talking about ways to stop them.
:{
}:
At the meeting, the group’s chief executive, Derek Kreifels, made a presentation about a new law that had been signed by Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican. It prohibited state agencies from investing in businesses that have cut ties with fossil fuel companies.
The Biden Administration’s Environmental Agenda
President Biden is pushing stronger regulations, but faces a narrow path to achieving his goals in the fight against global warming.
[Long-Sought Climate Action: After decades of failed attempts, Congress is on the cusp of passing the nation’s first major climate law. The bill avoided the political pitfalls of past legislative attempts by offering only incentives to cut climate pollution, not taxes.
Extreme Heat: President Biden said that he would expand existing federal programs to help Americans cope with the extreme heat wrought by climate change, stopping short of declaring a national emergency.
Supreme Court Ruling: By limiting the Environmental Protection agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions, the court made it much harder for the president to achieve his climate goals.]
Within weeks, Mr. Moore was working with legislators in West Virginia to write a similar bill, which became law in March. While Texas officials have been slow to enforce their law, Mr. Moore was quick to put it into action.
Last week, he notified five major financial institutions — Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley — that they are barred from doing business with West Virginia because they have intentionally wound down their dealings with coal companies.
“If a bank, for instance, decides to say they have a no-lending policy as relates to thermal coal, well, then we’ll find a bank that doesn’t have that policy,” Mr. Moore said in an interview.
Mr. Moore went on to offer a classic denial of the overwhelming scientific consensus that the continued burning of oil, gas and coal will lead to planetary catastrophe.
“The climate has been changing in the world since Earth was created,” Mr. Moore said. “Whether these greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to the warming of the globe, I’m not sure I necessarily agree with that.”
The banks targeted by Mr. Moore say they are not boycotting the fossil fuel industry. All of them still do substantial business with oil and gas companies, but in the long run, they say, moving away from fossil fuels makes economic sense. West Virginia, for example, is the second-largest coal-producing state in the country, but production has declined significantly during the past two decades.
“He’s trying to counter pressure that’s coming from progressives on the left,” said Loren Allen, general counsel of the West Virginia Bankers Association, which lobbied against the new law celebrated by Mr. Moore. “Our banks are tied up in the center of a battle that no one can really win.”
Mr. Kreifels declined an interview but said in a statement that concerns over issues like climate change were “putting politics over profits, and likely reducing shareholder value.”
Kentucky, Tennessee and Oklahoma have passed similar laws this year.“Kentucky joins our growing coalition of states that have taken concrete steps to push back against the woke capitalists who are trying to destroy our energy industries,” Mr. Moore said in a news release praising the moves by the states.
Republican lawmakers in more than a dozen other states, including New York, Oregon and Virginia, are trying to advance similar legislation.
The laws could cost taxpayers. A recent study found that Texas cities, where some financial institutions have voluntarily left the market because of laws targeting companies that embrace environmental, social and governance priorities, collectively known as E.S.G., are likely to incur up to $532 million in higher interest costs in less than a year because of the legislation.
“These officials are using the public finance market to make political statements,” said Daniel Garrett, a finance professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the authors of the study. “They can use these laws as a carrot or stick as they desire, but the costs can be potentially quite large.”
The treasurers are increasingly going after individual financial institutions.
In addition to the banks targeted by Mr. Moore, the treasurers of Utah and Idaho are criticizing plans by S&P Global, the ratings agency, to integrate climate risk into its credit ratings of states. And BlackRock, which manages some $8.5 trillion, has been the target of withering attacks for its stance on environmental issues.
Larry Fink, the BlackRock chief executive, has been outspoken in his desire to steer away from fossil fuels and toward what he considers a more sustainable, greener economy.
:{
}:
“Every government, company, and shareholder must confront climate change,” Mr. Fink wrote in a public letter in 2020 in which he described the integration of climate risk into investment decisions as “a fundamental reshaping of finance.”
:{
}:
In response, Mr. Moore’s office stopped using BlackRock to help manage West Virginia’s operating funds, withdrawing about $20 million.
:{
}:
“Larry Fink has stated it very clearly that he thinks capitalism has the power to shape society,” Mr. Moore said. “But my state doesn’t want the same shape of society that Larry Fink does.”
:{
}:
Other treasurers followed suit. In March, the Arkansas treasurer, Dennis Milligan, pulled $125 million from BlackRock. And in April, the treasurer of Louisiana, John Schroder, emailed Mr. Moore and Marlo Oaks, the Utah treasurer, and boasted about withdrawing more than $600 million from BlackRock accounts. Mr. Schroder said he had also blocked Citibank, Bank of America and JPMorgan from almost $1 billion in bond financing.
:{
}:
“That’s excellent, John!!!” Mr. Moore replied, according to emails reviewed by The Times. “Great work!!!”
BlackRock declined to comment.
Mr. Milligan, the Arkansas treasurer, emailed a statement in which he said, “I feel a strong sense of responsibility to do my part in not allowing the liberal ‘woke’ agenda to disadvantage the very people I was elected to serve.” Mr. Schroder and Mr. Oaks declined requests for interviews.
Withdrawals by a few states represent a tiny slice of BlackRock’s business. But inside banks and investment firms, there is mounting concern that the state bans could spread to pension funds, which account for nearly $4 trillion in investments across the country.
“We already have a lot of divisions in this country,” said Noah Friend, the former general counsel for the Kentucky treasurer. “I don’t like the idea that if you’re a Republican you have to bank with this company and if you’re a Democrat you have to bank with that company. Everything becomes this politicized decision about who you do business with.”
‘A coordinated attack’
Julie Ellsworth, the Idaho treasurer, asked the State Financial Officers Foundation to distribute a memo that misrepresented the position of banks on environmental, social and governance issues.]
Behind the treasurers and the State Financial Officers Foundation is a complex web of conservative groups linked to the fossil fuel industry, as well as some of the biggest names on Wall Street.
In March, Julie Ellsworth, the Idaho treasurer, asked Mr. Kreifels to distribute a memo about the fossil fuel boycott bills to other state treasurers, according to the emails.
The memo had been prepared using research from the Heartland Institute, a think tank with a history of denying climate science, and it misrepresented how banks and other financial institutions were implementing their E.S.G. strategies.
“If you’re a small-business owner with a gasoline powered car, you’re eventually going to be phased out of banks’ portfolios, unless you switch to electric vehicles, of course,” the memo said in a section about how banks would use E.S.G. to force businesses to change. “Similarly, if you want to buy a house in the future that runs on natural gas, you, too, won’t be able to get a mortgage until you put solar panels on the roof.”
No banks have proposed such measures. Ms. Ellsworth declined to comment.
The Heartland Institute has also worked to amplify the treasurers’ message and connect them with influential conservative media personalities including Glenn Beck, records show.
Other groups supporting the treasurers’ efforts include the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that has long opposed action to combat climate change and that has received substantial funding from the oil billionaires Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch.
The State Financial Officers Foundation this year hired CRC Advisors, a conservative strategy firm that was founded by Leonard Leo, who has led a multiyear effort to stack federal courts with judges who oppose climate action. In recent months, CRC Advisors has helped coordinate media responses for treasurers, including Mr. Oaks of Utah, according to emails reviewed by The Times.
And the State Financial Officers Foundation shares many ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a conservative group with longstanding ties to the Koch brothers.
The American Legislative Exchange Council chief executive, Lisa Nelson, is on the State Financial Officers Foundation board, and ALEC’s chief economist, Jonathan Williams, is a senior policy adviser to the foundation.
Last July, the State Financial Officers Foundation hosted a conference in conjunction with ALEC, and the two groups have even shared blocks of discounted hotel rooms for their event. Mr. Moore and Mr. Kreifels were among the treasurers attending ALEC’s annual meeting in Atlanta last week.
“The State Financial Officers Foundation is a key node in a network of political groups waging a coordinated attack on climate policy,” said Jesse Coleman, a senior researcher at Documented, the watchdog organization that obtained the emails. The group is working “to weaponize state treasurers’ offices against federal appointees, regulations, and corporate policies that address climate change,” he said.
As a nonprofit organization, the State Financial Officers Foundation is not legally required to disclose its funders. A partial list of the organization’s financial supporters on its website shows that it gets funding from not only conservative groups but also from some of the biggest companies in the world, many of which say they are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They include JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, Visa, Mastercard, Fidelity, Federated Hermes and SAP — all of which have publicly embraced E.S.G. principles.
Most of the sponsors declined to comment, and many of their contributions were relatively small. In a statement, Beth Richek, a Wells Fargo spokeswoman, acknowledged the bank’s support for the group. “While we may not agree with every position they take, our mutual engagement is important for our company, employees, and customers,” she said.
Blocking federal appointees
Saule Omarova, President Biden’s first nominee to lead the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, withdrew after treasurers portrayed her as a “radical extremist.”Credit...Sarahbeth Maney/The New York Times]
Mr. Biden came to office with a vision: the entire federal government would be focused on reducing the country’s emissions, with new rules implemented across federal agencies staffed by political appointees who embraced the effort.
Among the obstacles Mr. Biden didn’t anticipate were the state treasurers.
:{
}:
An early sign of turbulence came in May 2021, when 15 treasurers sent a letter to John Kerry, Mr. Biden’s climate envoy, raising concerns about what they said was the administration’s hostility toward the oil and gas industry.
:{
}:
“Reckless attacks on the fossil fuel industry ultimately cut off paychecks for workers and take food off the table for hard-working middle-class families,” the letter read.
By the end of the year, the treasurers were publicly lobbying against a bevy of proposed rules and nominees.
:{
}:
Among their first targets was Saule Omarova, Mr. Biden’s nominee for comptroller of the currency. Ms. Omarova was heavily criticized by Republican senators, some moderate Democrats and the banking industry for her desire to limit speculative trading by banks and to open the Federal Reserve to retail banking.
:{
}:
But she drew the ire of the treasurers for saying that if fossil fuel companies went bankrupt it would help fight climate change. The State Financial Officers Foundation issued a letter signed by more than 20 financial officers calling her a “radical extremist.”
When Ms. Omarova withdrew her nomination in December, Mr. Kreifels sent an email to the treasurers congratulating them. “It’s an honor to work along side you all,” he said in an email titled “VICTORY!”
:{
}:
Two months later, the treasurers focused on another nominee: Sarah Bloom Raskin, whom Mr. Biden had nominated to be the Federal Reserve’s head of bank oversight. Ms. Raskin, a former Federal Reserve and Treasury official, has argued that financial regulators should police climate risks more diligently.
Mr. Kreifels urged the treasurers to speak out against Ms. Raskin, describing her as an “anti-energy climate change alarmist.”
In emails to state treasurers, the foundation provided draft tweets and other messaging strategies. “We must make as much noise about this as possible,” Mr. Kreifels wrote. “Make this THE ‘kitchen table’ issue in your state for the week.”
Like Ms. Omarova, Ms. Raskin withdrew her nomination. “Sarah was subject to baseless attacks from industry and conservative interest groups,” Mr. Biden said in a statement.
The treasurers have also set their sights on new federal rules and regulations intended to strengthen the government’s ability to act on climate change.
Late last year, the State Financial Officers Foundation worked with the Heritage Foundation to respond to proposals from the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a government panel assigned to minimize risk in the financial sector, on ways to reduce the threats posed by climate change, records show.
And soon after that, Mr. Oaks, the Utah treasurer, drafted a letter opposing a potential Department of Labor rule that would allow retirement plans to consider risks from global warming in their investment strategy. Mr. Kreifels distributed the draft to the foundation’s members, and more than a dozen treasurers signed the final letter. The Department of Labor has not decided whether to implement the rule.
This year, the treasurers targeted the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. After the agency proposed a rule to require banks to consider climate-related financial risk, executives from the Heritage Foundation sent Mr. Kreifels and Mr. Oaks a memo outlining their opposition. Within weeks, dozens of state treasurers and attorneys general from Republican-led states submitted comments objecting to the proposed rule.
“This special concern for and attention to climate-related risks is irrational,” one comment read.
And in May, Mr. Kreifels organized a call with the treasurers to discuss regulations proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission that would require companies to publicly disclose climate risks to investors. The featured guest was a representative from the American Petroleum Institute, the lobbying arm of the fossil fuel industry.
:{
}:
The next month, the State Financial Officers Foundation sent a 20-page letter signed by more than a dozen treasurers, calling the S.E.C.’s proposed rule, which has not yet been enacted, “irrational climate exceptionalism, elevating climate issues to a place of prominence in disclosures that they do not deserve.”
ref carbon bombs GUK
https://yyy.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive**/2022/may/11**/fossil-fuel-carbon-bombs-climate-breakdown-oil-gas
no lnx GUK
the world’s biggest fossil fuel firms are quietly planning scores of “carbon bomb” oil and gas projects that would drive the climate past internationally agreed temperature limits with catastrophic global impacts, a Guardian investigation shows.
The exclusive data shows these firms are in effect placing multibillion-dollar bets against humanity halting global heating. Their huge investments in new fossil fuel production could pay off only if countries fail to rapidly slash carbon emissions, which scientists say is vital.
The oil and gas industry is extremely volatile but extraordinarily profitable, particularly when prices are high, as they are at present.ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Chevron have made almost $2tn in profits in the past three decades, while recent price rises led BP’s boss to describe the company as a “cash machine”.
The lure of colossal payouts in the years to come appears to be irresistible to the oil companies, despite the world’s climate scientists stating in February that further delay in cutting fossil fuel use would mean missing our last chance “to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all”. As the UN secretary general, António Guterres, warned world leaders in April: “Our addiction to fossil fuels is killing us.”
Details of the projects being planned are not easily accessible but an investigation published in the Guardian shows:
The fossil fuel industry’s short-term expansion plans involve the start of oil and gas projects that will produce greenhouse gases equivalent to a decade of CO2 emissions from China, the world’s biggest polluter.
These plans include 195 carbon bombs, gigantic oil and gas projects that would each result in at least a billion tonnes of CO2 emissions over their lifetimes, in total equivalent to about 18 years of current global CO2 emissions. About 60% of these have already started pumping.
The dozen biggest oil companies are on track to spend $103m a day for the rest of the decade exploiting new fields of oil and gas that cannot be burned if global heating is to be limited to well under 2C.
The Middle East and Russia often attract the most attention in relation to future oil and gas production but the US, Canada and Australia are among the countries with the biggest expansion plans and the highest number of carbon bombs. The US, Canada and Australia also give some of the world’s biggest subsidies for fossil fuels per capita.
The dozen biggest oil companies are on track to spend every day for the rest of the decade
$103m
At the UN’s Cop26 climate summit in November, after a quarter-century of annual negotiations that as yet have failed to deliver a fall in global emissions, countries around the world finally included the word “coal” in their concluding decision.
Even this belated mention of the dirtiest fossil fuel was fraught, leaving a “deeply sorry” Cop president, Alok Sharma, fighting back tears on the podium after India announced a last-minute softening of the need to “phase out coal” to “phase down coal”.
Nonetheless, the world agreed coal power was history – the question now was how quickly cheaper renewables could replace it, and how fair the transition would be for the small number of developing countries that still relied on it.
But there was no mention of oil and gas in the Cop26 final deal, despite these being responsible for almost 60% of fossil fuel emissions.
Furthermore, many of the rich countries, such as the US, that dominate international climate diplomacy and positioned themselves as climate leaders at the conference, are big players in new oil and gas projects. But unlike India, they avoided criticism.
That lack of scrutiny prompted the Guardian to spend the months since Cop26 piecing together the clearest picture possible of forthcoming oil and gas exploration and production.
Code red
The world’s scientists agree the planet is in deep trouble. In August, Guterres reacted strongly to a stark report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s leading authority on climate science. “[This report] is a code red for humanity,” he said.
The IPCC states carbon emissions must fall by half by 2030 to preserve the chance of a liveable future, yet they show no sign of declining.
Experts have been warning since at least 2011 that most of the world’s fossil fuel reserves could not be burned without causing catastrophic global heating.
In 2015, a high-profile analysis found that to limit global temperature below 2C, half of known oil reserves and a third of gas had to stay in the ground, along with 80% of coal.
“Simply put, they are lying and the results will be catastrophic,” said Guterres. “Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness.”
Today, the problem is even more acute. A better understanding of the devastating impacts of the climate crisis has led to the internationally agreed limit for global heating being lowered to 1.5C, to cut the risks of extreme heatwaves, droughts, and floods.
In May 2021, a report from the International Energy Agency, previously seen as a conservative body, concluded there could be no new oil or gas fields or coalmines if the world was to reach net zero by 2050.
More warnings soon followed. An updated scientific analysis found the proportion of fossil fuel reserves that would need to stay in the ground for 1.5C jumped to 60% for oil and gas and 90% for coal, while the UN warned that planned fossil fuel production “vastly exceeds” the limit needed for 1.5C.
In April, shocked by the latest IPCC report that said it was “now or never” to start slashing emissions, Guterres launched an outspoken attack on companies and governments whose climate actions did not match their words.
“Simply put, they are lying, and the results will be catastrophic,” he said. “Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness.
“Climate activists are sometimes depicted as dangerous radicals. But the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels.”
The reaction to Russia’s war in Ukraine has pushed oil and gas prices even higher, further incentivising bets on new fields and infrastructure that would last decades.
The failure of countries to “build back greener” after the Covid-19 pandemic or the 2008 financial crash was not a good omen, and Guterres said: “Fossil fuel interests are now cynically using the war in Ukraine to lock in a high-carbon future.”
Assessing future oil and gas developments is challenging: the sector is complex and often secretive, public information is scarce and hard to find and assess. But a global team of Guardian environment reporters has worked with leading thinktanks, analysts and academics across the world over the past five months and now we can answer a series of questions that reveal the scale of the sector’s plans.
First, how much production is due to come from the projects that are likely to start drilling before the end of this crucial decade?
Next, where exactly are the biggest projects around the world, the so-called carbon bombs that would explode the climate?
We also followed the money: how much is going to be spent on oil and gas that cannot be burned safely, rather than invested in clean energy? And who benefits most from the fossil fuel subsidies that hide the true damage they cause?
The answers to these key questions lead to an inescapable conclusion: if the projects go ahead, they will blow the world’s rapidly shrinking cap on emissions that must be kept to enable a liveable future – known as the carbon budget.
For all the promises made by many oil companies, the data shows they remain committed to their core business despite the consequences.
The Sacramento Bee
Pension funds CalPERS, CalSTRS must divest from fossil fuels
How California's pension funds can invest in the future by ... in California are demanding divestment and standing up for climate justice.
.1 month ago
MarketWatch 4 22
CalPERS backs Berkshire shareholder measure to remove Warren Buffett as chairman
Influential pension fund also backs proposal for Berkshire to report its climate impact. Warren Buffett, seen speaking in 2013, has been both...
sac bee
OPINION AND COMMENTARY
Editorials and other Opinion content offer perspectives on issues important to our community and are independent from the work of our newsroom reporters.
VIEWPOINTS How California’s pension funds can invest in the future by divesting from fossil fuels BY LENA GONZALEZ SPECIAL TO THE SACRAMENTO BEE APRIL 20, 2022
The CalPERS building in downtown Sacramento. JAY MATHER Sacramento Bee file
As the state and economy make the transition to cleaner energy sources to help reach a global goal of zero net emissions by mid-century to stop global warming, a growing number of institutions worldwide are choosing to divest trillions of dollars from fossil fuel companies. This is the ethically and financially responsible choice, and more union members in California are demanding divestment and standing up for climate justice.The California Faculty Association passed a resolution calling for the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) to divest from fossil fuels. Their members count on them to make healthy financial decisions about their funds for retirement. The faculty group was joined in calling for divestment by state associations representing higher education faculty, the academic senates at California State University and the University of California, and local chapters of unions representing teachers in cities from Los Angeles to Oakland. ...
an 3 22
Students in Montgomery, County Maryland are asking the school system to greenify their campuses by abandoning fossil fuels as sources of power.
The young activists drafted a petition with an itemized list of demands, including that Montgomery County Public Schools "get serious about climate change." Hundreds of people have already added their names in support of the campaign.
"MCPS must act on the climate crisis. We, the students, will face widespread crop failure, yards of sea level rise, and increased natural disasters. To avert runaway warming and an even worse crisis, every level of government must take sweeping action immediately. But our schools are only making the climate problem worse," the document states.
"Currently, only 38% of MCPS’ energy is purchased from renewable sources, and MCPS still builds schools with fossil fuel furnaces. Their so-called progress to install solar panels in schools has inched up to 17 of MCPS’ 209 schools. The Board of Education claims to commit to continuous improvement, but they lack the action necessary for this. The Board recently committed to reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2027 and 100% by 2035 -- but they took no action to make this happen. MCPS’ inaction actively hurts their students, especially students of color and low-income students," the petition continues. "Through MCPS’ continued use of fossil fuels and their inertia and resistance to any positive change, they endanger the young people whom they have committed to educating. It is time for MCPS to start treating climate change as the crisis it is."
There are six key goals:
- Buy ONLY renewable energy.
- Electrify (stop using fossil fuels to heat) any new buildings and find the money to switch those under construction or in planning.
- Install solar panels at every school, either on rooftops or over parking lots, by 2027.
- Increase energy efficiency which can be done at no cost to MCPS due to energy savings.
- Demand necessary funding from state/federal sources to retrofit gas-heated schools with electric systems.
- Provide good “prevailing” wages, a fully just transition, and targeted hiring from low-income, MoCo communities for all MCPS-funded work.
Janani Krishnamurthy, a sophomore at Thomas S. Wootton High School in Rockville, Maryland, told DCist.com that "we want to ensure that while our schools are educating us, that we have a future to be educated on. We definitely cannot learn on a dead planet."
Krishnamurthy added that the actions that MCPS have taken thus far are "definitely not enough."
Students across Montgomery County have held protests and rallies while holding banners that say, “Fossil free schools now,” and “Can’t learn on a dead planet.”
The local Sunrise Movementgroup and the Montgomery County Green New Deal Internship worked in tandem with the activists, according to DCist.com.
===
===
yikes bill tracker
https://projects.propublica.org/trump-midnight-regulations/
small eg# finalized 1220
Loosening Efficiency Standards for Clothes Washers and Dryers
This rule would loosen water and energy efficiency standards by creating a separate class of clothes washers and dryers based on how long they take to complete a load. More efficient washers use less water, and take longer, because they require more time for the soap to penetrate soiled clothes. Major manufacturers oppose the change, but small-government conservatives still want to slash regulation.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy • Read more: regulations.gov
FINANCE
This rule has moved ahead since Election Day
Loosening Restrictions on Banks Acquiring Deposits Through Brokers
This rule would loosen restrictions on banks accumulating deposits by acquiring them from other banks through brokers. Financial reform advocates have raised concerns about allowing less well-capitalized banks to grow to an unsafe size.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation • Read more: fdic.gov
FINANCE
This rule has moved ahead since Election Day
Confining Retirement Fund Pressure on Corporations
This rule would constrain the ability of private retirement fund managers to vote on shareholder resolutions that influence the behavior of public companies. Critics such as Investor Advocates for Social Justice and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System say it will reduce corporate accountabiltiy and oversight.
Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration • Read more: regulations.gov
OTHER
This rule has moved ahead since Election Day
Bolstering the Position of Faith-Based Organizations in Government Grants
===
https://theintercept.com/2020/12/13/indigenous-pipeline-oil-gas-insurers/
as OIL AND gas projects expand across the United States and Canada, often imperiling Indigenous land without ever obtaining consent, land defenders are increasingly pressuring the financiers of fossil fuel infrastructure — banks, insurance companies, and asset managers — to respect their sovereign land right. Amplifying the calls of this grassroots movement, the largest organization representing American Indians and Alaskan Natives passed a historic resolution last month calling on “private insurance companies to end their underwriting of the expansion of tar sands oil, Arctic oil and gas, and LNG export terminals.”
The resolution, put forward by the National Congress of American Indians, or NCAI, also asks insurance companies to adopt policies on “free, prior, and informed consent.” This principle, enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,is “really just a fancy way of saying that any corporation, any bank, any agency that wants to engage in a project that impacts Indigenous lands and treaty lands must get consent from that particular tribal nation or Indigenous community,” said Matt Remle, who is Lakota and the primary author of the resolution. “And if the community says no, that project doesn’t happen.”
Remle is also the co-founder of Mazaska Talks, an Indigenous-led organization focused on campaigns to divest from projects that violate human rights and treaty rights abuses, which came out of an effort that began about five years ago to defund the Dakota Access pipeline.This movement pushed the city of Seattle to divest $3 billion from Wells Fargo in 2017, one of the main backers of the pipeline, and sparked similar campaigns throughout the country. More recently, every major bank has agreed to not fund drilling in the Arctic after facing pressure from Stop the Money Pipeline, a coalition of over 130 organizations which includes Mazaska Talks.
most Wall Street banks at least publicly acknowledge free, prior, and informed consent while still financing projects, like the tar sands pipelines, that face Indigenous-led opposition. Yet no major U.S. insurance companies, the biggest insurers of oil and gas projects across the globe, have released publicly facing statements about Indigenous rights, let alone the principle of free, prior, and informed consent, according to Elana Sulakshana, energy finance campaigner at Rainforest Action Network. This is, in part, why there has recently been more intense scrutiny of insurance companies’ enablement of fossil fuel projects on Indigenous land.
Activists demand the city of Seattle to divest its money and banking business from Wells Fargo, over the company’s investment in the Dakota Access pipeline, in 2016.
Photo: Alex Garland]
The resolution’s passage builds on the grassroots Indigenous movements underway that have been pressuring insurance companies, as one tool among many, to defend their land.
For instance, last month, the Gwich’in Steering Committee wrote aletter asking insurers to not back the destruction of the sacred calving grounds in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife refuge.Drilling in the calving grounds threatens the migratory Porcupine caribou, which in turn “threatens the Gwich’in existence and way of life.” The letter calls upon oil and gas companies, banks, and insurance companies to “stand with the Gwich’in Nation by not initiating any oil and gas development in the Arctic Refuge.”
This letter was prompted by the Trump administration rushing to auction off drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge before President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration. Under federal law, all agencies are required to respect Indigenous nations’ right to self-governance, which means consulting with communities about drilling projects. The Bureau of Land Management, the agency that administers federal land, did not engage in any form of meaningful consent, said Bernadette Demientieff, the executive director of the Gwich’in Steering Committee. She noted that the agency held public meetings in only three of the nine Gwich’in communities in Alaska and did not hold meetings in communities accessible only by boat or plane.
“They only had hearings in certain communities. They did not have the government-to-government consultation that they’re supposed to,” said Demientieff. “They basically came to our community and told us what they were going to do. That was it.”
The Bureau of Land Management pushed back against the claim that it did not engage in government-to-government consultation, stating that it held more than 25 meetings “with tribal governments with the potential to be directly affected by an oil and gas leasing program.”
The Gwich’in Steering Committee also reached out individually to the 22 insurance companies addressed in the public letter to request a meeting. So far they’ve had one meeting, with Swiss Re, in which Demientieff spoke about the environmental devastation they have been witnessing, she said, such as the erosion of the land beneath coastal villages and “thousands and thousands ofdead fish in our lakes and rivers.” On December 14, the committee announced that Swiss Re had committed not to “provide coverage or investment support for projects related to exploration, drilling or production of oil or gas in the Arctic, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”
OTHER INDIGENOUS NATIONS have also been seeking to meet with insurance companies. On September 2, the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen’s Association, which represents 16 tribal nations, sent a letter to David Long, the CEO of Liberty Mutual, urging the insurance company to “immediately end its relationship” with the Keystone XL pipeline. This pipeline is expected to carry bitumen oil from Alberta’s tar sands into the United States in a proposed route that would violate Indigenous treaty rights and sacred sites. Long and Liberty Mutual did not respond to requests for comment.
Liberty Mutual is providing financial backing to the Keystone XL pipeline with a publicly filedsurety bond worth $15.6 million. An additional $15.6 million bond is required after construction begins....
===
===
https://www.alternet.org/2020/12/arctic/
6 big banks divest
===
===
https://stopthemoneypipeline.com/raymond-gets-demoted/
under Pressure, JP Morgan Chase Demotes Former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond from Board Leadership Role
New York, NY — Bowing to pressure from climate and shareholder activists, JP Morgan Chase will be demoting former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond from his Lead Independent Director position on the bank’s board. The news was buried in a filing with the SEC released on Friday.
Stop the Money Pipeline, a coalition of over 100 groups working to pressure Wall Street institutions to stop financing fossil fuels, have been pressuring JP Morgan Chase for months to kick Raymond off the board entirely.
Tens of thousands of activists with organizations such as the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and others have sent messages in recent months calling on Chase to remove Lee Raymond from the board. Tens of thousands more have sent messages to Chase’s largest shareholders — BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street — to vote against Lee Raymond at the bank’s upcoming annual general meeting.
“Shareholders have demanded that JPMorgan Chase be held accountable for its failure to address the systemic risks presented by climate change, and the announcement to remove Raymond from the lead independent director position is a clear victory for long-term shareholder value and the mitigation of climate risk. JPMorgan Chase shareholders will be best served when Raymond is removed from the board entirely,” said Eli Kasargod-Staub, executive director of Majority Action.
On April 24, Bill McKibben, an environmental author and a leader of the Stop the Money Pipeline campaign, wrote an editorial in the New York Times calling for Chase shareholders to vote against Raymond at the bank’s upcoming shareholder meeting.
McKibben reacted to today’s news by saying, “This is the man who, more than any other, exemplifies the fossil fuel industry’s decades of climate denial. That he’s retreating under pressure from the climate movement is a moment of real historical significance.”
The effort to remove Raymond from the board gained an important ally when NYC Comptroller Scott Stringer announced that he would be urging JPMorgan Chase & Co shareholders to vote against Raymond’s re-election. The comptrollers of Pennsylvania and New York state soon followed his lead.
“This move helps ensure improved oversight of the board and the company’s long-term strategy when it comes to transitioning to a low carbon economy. But our work does not stop here,” said Comptroller Stringer. “JPMorgan has been the largest global lender and underwriter to the fossil fuel sector, providing $269 billion in financing to fossil fuel expansion from 2016 to 2019. The company needs to move away from financing the dirty fossil fuels of the past and toward the big, strategic clean energy investments of the future. There must be no place for a climate change denier and former Exxon CEO on JPMorgan’s board.”
Stop the Money Pipeline is celebrating today’s news as a win, while vowing to keep up pressure on JP Morgan Chase to kick Raymond off the board entirely and move forward on climate. JP Morgan Chase is the world’s number one banker of fossil fuels, having dumped over $268 billion into coal, oil and gas since 2016 according to the Banking on Climate Change report.
Members of the Stop the Money Pipeline Coalition reacted to the significance of today’s announcement:
“Lee Raymond’s demotion is a testament to the power of the growing movement calling on Chase to get its act together on climate,” said Sierra Club campaign representative Ben Cushing. “Removing one of the world’s leading climate deniers from the bank’s Lead Independent Director position is a sign of progress. Our movement will keep up the pressure to vote him out entirely and push Chase to stop the flow of money to the polluters driving the climate crisis.”
“My family lost everything in Sandy, which was a climate change disaster. More than maybe any other corporate executive, Lee Raymond is responsible for climate change. JP Morgan Chase should clean up its dirty act and its shareholders should boot this climate denier off the bank’s board of directors, not just sideline him as lead independent director,” said Rachel Rivera, a Sandy survivor and member of New York Communities for Change.
“The ousting of Lee Raymond from his leadership role on the JPMorgan Chase board is a historic win for climate activists against the fossil oligarchs and climate deniers who once held sway over Wall Street,” said Paddy McCully, Climate and Energy Program Director of Rainforest Action Network. “JPMorgan Chase shareholders now need to vote Raymond right off the bank’s board and vote for the resolutions that would force Chase to reckon with the reputational damage from its tar sands and Arctic oil and gas financing, show how they will align with the Paris Agreement, and stop Jamie Dimon from being his own boss due to his positions as both CEO and board chair.”
“Lee Raymond’s demotion loosens Big Oil’s stranglehold on Chase, another signal that the power of the oil industry is waning. But Raymond’s tenure at Chase not over until this climate-denying fossil fool is kicked off the board completely,” said Doug Norlen, Director, Economic Policy Program, Friends of the Earth U.S.
“It’s a good step, but let’s remember that Lee Raymond bears criminal responsibility for the climate crisis. The fact that he isn’t being removed from the board entirely shows where Chase’s priorities remain,” said Alec Connon, 350 Seattle
“People power got us to this point and people power is what will eventually force JP Morgan from its pedestal as the largest banker of fossil fuels in the world. There’s no place for a climate denying mastermind on the board of any bank. This is a first step in the right direction to clear him out. All JP Morgan shareholders should be paying close attention to this defensive move by the bank and vote to unseat Lee Raymond.” said Richard Brooks, Campaign Coordinator with 350.org.
“While the demotion of Lee Raymond is good news for climate progress at JP Morgan Chase, it does not absolve BlackRock of the need to demonstrate that it will actually act upon the climate commitments it made in January. To pass the climate test, BlackRock must vote pro-climate on resolution and board votes at JP Morgan, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and more,” said Moira Birss, Climate and Finance Director at Amazon Watch.
===
===
https://www.crediblecarbon.com/news-and-info/news/fossildespite-emergency-belligerent-exxon-refuses-to-act-on-climate-at-agm-oil-change-international/
Despite Emergency, Belligerent Exxon Refuses to Act on Climate at AGM – Oil Change International
MAY 28, 2020
BY ANDY ROWELL BLOG POST C: 350.org
*Yesterday, Big Oil behemoth Exxon held its Annual General Meeting, where the company and its shareholders once again fundamentally flunked the climate test.
For years, activists and progressive shareholders have been trying to get the company to act on climate and divest from oil and gas and transition swiftly into renewables.*
*They have pointed to the fact that Exxon has known for decades about climate change but still carried on drilling, whilst funding a huge network of right-wing groups to deny the science over climate.
But Exxon is an oil company to its black core. Other oil majors, such as Shell and BP , may be trying at least make the symbolic gesture of going carbon neutral by 2050, even though critics say the plans are flawed and not ambitious enough. :{But no so Exxon, it cannot be bothered to even do that.
The company is still blinded by a “*drill, baby, drill”* mentality that is hurtling us toward climate catastrophe. }:It is also losing its shareholders billions in investments as the company’s share price has plummeted due to COVID-19.*
Exxon still has the most radical expansion plan of any oil major, despite a longstanding campaign of investor groups to bring the company in line with climate goals.
*.
The Challenge establishes a clear “climate-safe” boundary for any financing to the fossil fuel industry. It outlines simply how companies such as Exxon should only be eligible for investment if they commit to stop expansion of fossil fuels and release a detailed plan for a phase out.*
One of the organizations signing on was Oil Change International (OCI). Hannah McKinnon , the Energy Transitions and Futures Program Director from OCI, said: “Maintaining a safe climate requires an ambitious just transition away from fossil fuel production starting now.” McKinnon added that “New production is not Paris-compatible and investors should plan a fast exit from any company that says otherwise.”
The disinvestment campaign has been joined by BlackRock, the world’s largest fund manager, often seen as a climate villain itself, which is one of the company’s largest shareholders. The investment company, which owns about 5 per cent of Exxon, lodged multiple votes against the oil giant over the oil company’s failure to make progress on its climate change targets.
BlackRockalso voted in favor of a shareholder motion that proposes splitting the role of chief executive and chairman, something campaigners have been calling for decades trying to make the oil company more accountable for its disastrous climate policy.
However, according to *Reuters* underCEO Darren Woods, the company “blocked six climate resolutions from this year’s ballot.” Moreover, only a third of shareholders backed the proposal to split the CEO and Chairman.
This means that Exxon, which has been bruised, battered, and bloodied by a catastrophic collapse in the oil price, and is hemorrhaging money, wants us all to drive over a climate cliff too. It is reckless corporate behavior, which the executives must know will cost lives.
*Indeed with a timing that is deeply ironic, the morning of the AGM, the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre, one of the leading climate research institutes in the world, concluded that the “human fingerprint on the climate is now unmistakable” after 30 years of tracking the impact of humans on our changing climate.
Peter Stott, a Professor and expert on climate attribution science at the Hadley Centre, told the *Guardian* : “The climate now is completely different from what we had 30 years ago. It is completely outside the bounds of possibility in natural variation.”*
He added “Reality has proven that what we were saying 20 to 30 years ago was right. As scientists, that is vindication… The worry is that we are now taking risks globally that we don’t fully understand… there will be no winners of climate change if we continue.”
And more than most it is Exxon’s dirty fingerprints all over our climate catastrophe. By the time the Hadley Centre was set up in 1990, Exxon knew that its emissions were causing climate change. It could have acted. But it did not. Instead it did the opposite and funded decades of denial. By doing so its finger have slowly tightened around our collective necks. It is time to break their dangerous grip before it is too late.
==
==
fossil free ca
CalPERS Receives 0's and 1's
(out of 10) in Coal Policy
Reclaim Finance released the Coal Policy Tool on Tuesday rating global financial institutions' coal policy. CalPERS ranked among the worst in the world despite their claims to be sustainable.
Check out our blog article on the US Finance Sector Lagging on Coal Policy
--
Monday, we will be releasing a scathing report highlighting CalPERS' ongoing investments in coal. The report uncovers CalPERS's continued investments in coal and coal-related stocks despite the SB185 law regulating their investment in thermal coal. Keep Reading
==
June 5, 2013
The Statistical Assessment Service's Jon Entine (STATS Senior fellow and Executive Director of the Genetic Literacy Project) is a signatory toCenter for Industrial Progress' letter titled, “:{Don’t Divest:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:, Educate—An Open Letter to American Universities.” [22]
In the letter, Alex Epstein and several other notable climate change deniers, including Peter Ferrara, J. Scott Armstrong, Steve Goreham, S. Fred Singer, David Schnare, Richard Lindzen, and Matt Ridley, proclaim that they are “proud to stand in favor of fossil fuels.” [22]
The “undersigned scientists, philosophers, energy experts, and economists” of the letter ask for a “more rigorous education on energy and environmental issues,” and “are willing to debate anytime, anywhere to defend what [they] believe is right.” [22]
April, 2008
==
Banks’ Vows to Restrict Loans for Arctic Oil and Gas Development May Be Largely Symbolic BY: NICHOLAS KUSNETZ Financial institutions rarely provide such loans and with oil prices at rock bottom, the Arctic is not a priority for the energy industry. |
| Read More |
==
ew 12/19 arctic, others follow?
https://www.ecowatch.com/goldman-sachs-big-bank-divests-2641609193.html
==
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/citing-climate-change-blackrock-will-start-moving-away-from-fossil-fuels
===
4/27/20
aha sys fail insanity: no brainer to stop subsidizing ?! banks keep loaning $ to frack tho NEVER MADE A PROFIT?! NOW GOV'T BAILOUT HAMM ETP KELCY; EXXON AND CHEVRON LOOKING TO BANKRUPT SMALL INDEP [THAT DJT CLAIMS TO CARE ABOUT] BUY UP ASSETS CHEAP METHANEWHICH ARE FRYING THE PLANET; MEANWHILE COVIS DEMOS FAIL OF LIBTARD, WE HAVE WINDOW GND, WAY CHEAPER THEN CLEAN UP COVID MESS WHICH HIT US B/C WE TAKE OUT HABITAT AND EAT WILD ANIMALS
icn 420
*super-Polluting Methane Emissions Twice Federal Estimates in Permian Basin, Study Finds
BY: PHIL MCKENNA
The methane is a byproduct of fracking for oil, often burned off at well heads or emitted into the atmosphere instead of being captured for use as fuel.*
covid bail bill
cf antonia juhaz bakken bailout? oil -40$ bakken, 200b$ debt; in 2008 oil 150$, many poor cty could not afford, helped trigger Gt Recession?
==
==
amazonwatch 320
Last week, we released a groundbreaking report exposing five major financial institutions – JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, BlackRock, HSBC and Goldman Sachs – which continue to pour billions into oil extraction in the western Amazon despite their recently celebrated climate commitments.
===
220 ew
https://www.ecowatch.com/jp-morgan-economists-climate-crisis-2645218658.html
no lnx many
Julia Conley
Climate campaigners on Friday expressed hope that policymakers who are stalling on taking decisive climate action would reconsider their stance in light of new warnings from an unlikely source: two economists at J.P. Morgan Chase.
Extinction Rebellion spokesperson Rupert Read revealed Thursday that he had obtained a report, entitled "Risky Business: Climate and the Macroeconomy," by J.P. Morgan economists David Mackie and Jessica Murray. The report issued warnings to bank clients similar to those promoted by climate action groups — describing extreme weather events and global conditions that could result from the continued extraction of fossil fuels.
In doing so, the economists implicated the bank's own investment activities in the potentially catastrophic effects of the climate crisis.
J.P. Morgan is the world's largest financial backer of fossil fuel companies, helping to fund fracking, pipeline projects, and Arctic oil and gas exploration. The company has contributed $75 billion to such projects since the Paris climate agreement was forged in 2015. The agreement called on governments to reduce fossil fuel emissions to help limit global heating to 1.5° Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures.
:{
}:
If activities like the ones funded by J.P. Morgan continue to release fossil fuels into the atmosphere, Murray and Mackie wrote, "We cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened."
Failing to move away from global systems that scientists agree are causing the planet to warm "would likely push the Earth to a place that we haven't seen for many millions of years," they added.
On Twitter, Read pointed out the incongruity of such "radical truth-telling" coming from J.P. Morgan.
Others highlighted the report as one that might catch the attention of others in the financial services industry and people who believe bold climate action is a cause embraced by a minority of extremists.
"Hardly a bank you could call communist now, is it?" tweeted journalist Dom Phillips.
Citing reports by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the authors note that with the status quo kept in place, the planet is expected to reach a temperature 3.5° above pre-industrial levels.
In addition to major impacts on the world economy, the authors wrote, the climate crisis will affect human health, water supplies, and migration.
The report comes just weeks after CNBC host Jim Cramer announced fossil fuel investments are "in the death knell phase" and that "the world's turned on" the industry as it did on tobacco as understanding grew about the risks of smoking.
"It is clear that the Earth is on an unsustainable trajectory," reads the report. "Something will have to change at some point if the human race is going to survive."
The authors advocated for a global carbon tax but said, "This is not going to happen anytime soon" and called the continued investment in climate-warming fossil fuels a global problem with "no global solution ... in sight."
Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, suggested that as one solution, the economists "might want to talk with the Chase bankers who are guaranteeing [climate catastrophe] will happen by lending oil companies endless cash."
Activist Becky Brunton said the report offers the latest evidence that those with the power to stop supporting fossil fuel projects are fully aware of the damage their investments are doing to the planet.
"They know. They ALL know," tweeted Brunton. "But the now (profits) outweighs the future (earth)."
Reposted with permission from Common Dreams.
===
==
https://www.ecowatch.com/youth-activists-calstrs-2645003302.html
ew 120
no lnx many
Youth Activists Call on California State Teachers Retirement System to End 'Toxic Relationship' With Fossil Fuel Companies
Common Dreams 38 minutes agoENERGY
Alex Milan Tracy / Anadolu Agency / Getty Images
By Eoin Higgins
Youth climate activists in California descended on the state's capitol Sacramento on Thursday to demand divestment from the fossil fuel industry from public school teachers' pension system.
"You want to be in a relationship with fossil fuel companies?" Sujeith, a sixth-grader from Oakland, asked the board of the California State Teachers' Retirement System, or CalSTRS. "What have they done before other than pollute the planet? That sounds like a toxic relationship."
Thursday's action was aimed at pressuring the board of CalSTRS, which manages pensions for the state's public school teachers, to divest from fossil fuels. The fund has claimed that divestment would be a financial burden on its members.
"CalSTRS is playing roulette with our pensions and our children's future by holding onto these doomed assets," said CalSTRS member Paula Buel, a retired teacher who volunteers with climate advocacy group Fossil Free California.
As Common Dreams reported, perceiving fossil fuels as "doomed assets" is no longer unique to the climate movement. CNBC anchor Jim Cramer called the industry "in the death knell phase" on Friday and announced he was no longer recommending investing in fossil fuels.
While CalSTRS did vote on Thursday to institute "Belief 9," a policy statement on the risks of climate investment, that's no substitute for real action, said Fossil Free California executive director Vanessa Warheit.
"We appreciate CalSTRS' efforts to engage corporations to help mitigate their climate-related risk," said Warheit. "But engaging with the energy sector — which is currently 100% comprised of fossil fuel companies — is a waste of staff time and resources."
Reposted with permission from Common Dreams.
British Medical Journal Praised for New Fossil Fuel Divestment ... ›
Young activists drag 'oil tanker' down Capitol Mall in protest CalSTRS ›
===
https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/heres-why-climate-change-has-become-a-lightning-rod-for-business-and-finance-leaders-report/
no lnx
Here’s why climate change has become a ‘lightning rod for business and finance leaders’: report
Written by Alex Henderson January 24, 2020
Countless articles have focused on the environmental and safety aspects of climate change, especially in liberal and progressive publications. But Dino Rabouin and Amy Harder, in an article published by Axios on January 24, discuss and analyze climate change from a business standpoint — explaining that climate change has “suddenly become a lightning rod for business and finance leaders around the world.”
Drawing on data Axios received from the High Lantern Group, Rabouin and Harder report that climate change “generated the highest degree of public pressure on corporations by activists, policymakers and journalists” in 2019 — which was a 77% increase from 2018.
High Lantern’s data, according to Rabouin and Harder, “includes analysis of more than 6 million tweets.” Rob Gluck, managing partner for High Lantern, notes that “the vast majority of relevant public actors” are “using (Twitter) to communicate.”
“In recent months,” Rabouin and Harder observe, “the world’s foremost economic institutions have advocated for policies cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This trend is driven by a confluence of factors, including more extreme weather and greater public pressure.”
Institutions that have been discussing climate change, Rabouin and Harder point out, include “major central banks” as well as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). In a research paper released on January 20, BIS warned that climate change could cause “potentially extremely financially disruptive events that could be behind the next systemic financial crisis.”
According to BIS, “This complex collective action problem requires coordinating actions among many players, including governments, the private sector, civil society and the international community.”
IMF head Kristalina Georgieva, in a speech last week, asserted that the IMF “ought to begin to build standards for disclosure of climate risks” — and that includes “mandatory disclosure standards.”
Journalist Josh Holland addressed climate change’s financial costs in a September 2019 article for The Nation, stressing that a Green New Deal wouldn’t be nearly as costly as the effects of climate change. Holland noted that in a 2015 report, the Economist Intelligence Unit warned that “the asset management industry — and thus the wider community of investors of all sizes — is facing the prospect of significant losses from the effects of climate change.”
Rabouin and Harder also note that “BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, says it’s making climate change a pillar of its investment strategy, and even Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase are calling for a price on carbon emissions.”
The Axios reporters emphasize, however, that “all this rhetoric should be scrutinized carefully and often” because “talking about supporting policies addressing climate change is quite different from actually doing something about it.”
===
djt mnu condescenion may backfire? they feel davos a safe space for assholery/denial? or she is such a threat must be swatted down? plus woman uppity is irresistable target?
https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/foreclosure-king-steve-mnuchin-tells-greta-thunberg-to-go-study-economics/
no lnx
‘Foreclosure King’ Steve Mnuchin tells Greta Thunberg to go study economics
Written by Jake Johnson / Common Dreams January 23, 2020
During press briefing Thursday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, former Goldman Sachs banker and current U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin dismissed Greta Thunberg’s call for complete divestment from fossil fuels and condescendingly told the 17-year-old climate activist to go study economics.
“Is she the chief economist? Who is she? I’m confused,” Mnuchin said. “After she goes and studies economics in college, she can come back and explain that to us.”
Critics immediately hit back at Mnuchin’s suggestion that one need have a degree in economics to understand the severity of the climate emergency and the steps necessary to avert global catastrophe.
“Here’s what Mnuchin learned from economics studies: as the ‘foreclosure king,’ he ran a company that booted elderly residents from their homes due to onerous loans and technicalities,” tweeted Miller Center fellow Chris Lu, referring to Mnuchin’s destructive tenure as CEO of OneWest Bank.
Author and environmentalist Naomi Klein pointed to the thousands of academics who have echoed Thunberg’s call for fossil fuel divestment:
Naomi Klein
@NaomiAKlein
Somebody should tell Mnuchin about the hundreds of Harvard faculty members - and thousands at other universities - who have called for fossil fuel divestment too. https://harvardfacultydivest.com/ https://twitter.com/AP/status/1220294681663287296 …
Faculty Petition for Fossil Fuel Divestment
For a Fossil Free Endowment
harvardfacultydivest.com
The Associated Press
?
@AP
U.S. Treasury chief says it's ''a joke''' when asked about climate activist Greta Thunberg's recommendation that the public and private sectors should divest from fossil fuels. He says she can't give economic advice until she gets a college degree. http://apne.ws/Px1YqDW
Other critics piled on:
Peter Daou
?
@peterdaou
Look at #Mnuchin, this smug clown. #GretaThunberg has more integrity and wisdom in her pinky toe than a thousand Mnuchins.
These Trump cronies are wretched people, truly.https://www.thedailybeast.com/mnuchin-patronizes-greta-thunberg-saying-go-study-economics-then-well-talk …
Mnuchin Patronizes Greta Thunberg: Go Study Economics, Then We’ll Talk
The Treasury secretary was asked if he should listen to teen climate-change activist’s advice on divesting from fossil fuels.
thedailybeast.com
David Dayen
@ddayen
Steve Mnuchin thinks Greta Thunberg needs an economic education, where she can take courses like "strip-mining Sears assets 103" and "forging signatures to take homes away from people 204" https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/23/davos-2020-mnuchin-criticizes-thunberg-says-she-should-study-economics-at-college.html …
Mnuchin says Thunberg can tell us what to do 'after she goes and studies economics in college'
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin sharply criticized the financial credentials of Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg on Thursday.
cnbc.com
Mnuchin’s swipe at Thunberg came after the Swedish activist warned Tuesday in a speech to the World Economic Forum that global elites are “fueling the flames” of the climate crisis “by the hour.”
“We demand at this year’s World Economic Forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions, and governments: Immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction. Immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies. And immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels,” said Thunberg. “We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030, or even 2021. We want this done now.”
Anticipating attacks from elites like Mnuchin, Thunberg added: “It may seem like we’re asking for a lot. And you will of course say that we are naïve. But this is just the very minimum amount of effort that is needed to start the rapid sustainable transition.”
“So either you do this or you’re going to have to explain to your children why you are giving up on the 1.5-degree target,” said Thunberg. “Giving up without even trying. Well I’m here to tell you that, unlike you, my generation will not give up without a fight.”
new 120 an
Foreclosure King’ Steve Mnuchin tells Greta Thunberg to go study economics
==
===
https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/greta-thunberg-and-20-youth-climate-activists-call-on-davos-attendees-to-abandon-the-fossil-fuel-economy/
no lnx
Greta Thunberg and 20 youth climate activists call on Davos attendees to ‘abandon the fossil fuel economy’
Written by Roxanne Cooper January 11, 2020
As climate groups launched a new campaign targeting Wall Street’s funding of the dirty energy industry and school strikers took part in weekly #FridaysForFuture protests across the globe, Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg and 20 fellow youth activists published an op-ed calling on world leaders to “abandon the fossil fuel economy.”
“History has not shown thecorporate world’s willingness to hold themselves accountable. So it falls on us, the children, to do that.”
—youth climate activists
Business and government leaders will come together in Davos, Switzerland later this month for the 50th anniversary of the World Economic Forum. This year’s theme is “stakeholders for a cohesive and sustainable world.” Thunberg and her co-authors explain in the Guardian that “young climate activists and school strikers from around the world will be present to put pressure on these leaders.”
“We demand that at this year’s forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions, and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies, and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels,” the op-ed declares. “We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021, we want this done now—as in right now.”
The youth activists point out that despite the “climate and environmental emergency,” banks have collectively poured at least $1.9 trillion into the fossil fuel industry since global governments adopted the Paris climate agreement in December 2015, according to an analysis from the Rainforest Action Network and other advocacy groups.
“The world of finance has a responsibility to the planet, the people, and all other species living on it. In fact, it ought to be in every company and stakeholder’s interest to make sure the planet they live on will thrive,” says the op-ed. “But history has not shown the corporate world’s willingness to hold themselves accountable. So it falls on us, the children, to do that.”
“Anything less than immediately ceasing these investments in the fossil fuel industry would be a betrayal of life itself,” the op-ed concludes. “Today’s business as usual is turning into a crime against humanity. We demand that leaders play their part in putting an end to this madness. Our future is at stake, let that be their investment.”
Thunberg’s co-authors are Jean Hinchliffe, Australia; Danielle Ferreira de Assis, Brazil; Joel Enrique Peña Panichine, Chile; Robin Jullian, France; Luisa Neubauer, Germany; Licipriya Kangujam, India; David Wicker, Italy; Julia Haddad, Lebanon; Oladosu Adenike, Nigeria; Iqbal Badruddin, Pakistan; Arshak Makichyan, Russia; Holly Gillibrand, Scotland; Alejandro Martínez, Spain; Isabelle Axelsson, Sweden; Sophia Axelsson, Sweden; Ell Jarl, Sweden; Mina Pohankova, Sweden; Linus Dolder, Switzerland; Vanessa Nakate, Uganda; and Tokata Iron Eyes, the United States.
The op-ed was welcomed as “incredible” and a “barnburner” by adult climate leaders.
“Brilliant article by youth strikers from around the world,” tweeted the U.K. grassroots movement Labour for a Green New Deal. “We need to ditch fossil fuels immediately and build a new economy for people and planet. The ruling classes will never do it, so it’s up to us.”
Some organizers of Stop the Money Pipeline—which officially launched at Jane Fonda’s final #FireDrillFriday event on Capitol Hill—noted that the op-ed’s message aligned with theirs. As Common Dreams reported Thursday, the new campaign demands that banks, insurers, and asset managers cut ties with the fossil fuel companies that are wrecking the planet.
Moira Birss, finance campaign director at Amazon Watch, shared Stop the Money Pipeline’s website and the op-ed from youth activists in a series of tweets Friday:
Author and activist Bill McKibben, who co-founded the environmental group 350.org, was among a small group ofStop the Money Pipeline organizers arrested Friday for occupying a D.C. branch of JPMorgan Chase, one of the campaign’s top targets.
McKibben pointed to the op-ed in a Twitter thread about the Chase action:
“The world has two power centers, political and financial,” McKibben said in a statement Friday. “And we have to go after both if we have any hope of slowing down the pace of global heating.”
“Now truly, it is daunting to take on the sort of central pillars of global capital… These people are huge and strong and powerful,” McKibben said on the most recent Fire Drill Friday teach-in, which was livestreamed on Facebook Thursday night.
“On the other hand,” he added, “if we can get them to begin to bend, the effects will be rapid and global because all the money in the world is concentrated in a few places.”
===
==
guk 1119
https://yyy.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/23/harvard-yale-football-game-protest-fossil-fuels
==
===
https://yyy.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/15/european-investment-bank-to-phase-out-fossil-fuels-financing
guk
European Investment Bank has agreed to phase out its multibillion-euro financing for fossil fuels within the next two years to become the world’s first ‘“climate bank”.
The bank will end its financing of oil, gas, and coal projects after 2021, a policy that will make the EU’s lending arm the first multilateral lender to rule out financing for projects that contribute to the climate crisis.
The decision to stem the flow of capital into fossil fuel projects has been welcomed by green groups as an important step towards the EU’s aim to be carbon-neutral by 2050.
The EIB, the world’s largest multilateral financial institution, described its decision as a “quantum leap” in ambition. “Climate is the top issue on the political agenda of our time,” said the bank’s president, Werner Hoyer. “We will stop financing fossil fuels and launch the most ambitious climate investment strategy of any public financial institution anywhere.”
==
lil sis 1019
Private prison industry now faces 87.4% financing gap
Due to popular pressure from below, major banks - eight of them, as of September - are publicly vowing to end any future financing arrangements with the private prison industry. As a member of the Families Belong Together coalition, we’ve been working to uncover the complicity of big banks in propping up this industry by providing massive lines of credit and term loans. Now private prisons face an astounding87.4% financing gap, downgraded credit ratings, and tanking stocks, as banks continue to flee under public scrutiny. The story has garnered widespread media attention including reports fromCBS News andForbes.
==
$41 trillion in worker pension, need scale places to put in
green energy (wind) now cheaper than nat'l gas, thus massive stranded assets
local power grid resilient b/c it's local, not dependent on larger system.
3rd industrial revo non-hier; must be glob-LOCAL; feed-in tariffs let local ppl go to bank and get loan b/c knew could repay
merkel
china big green grid investment 12 wks after mtg w/ Jeremy Rifkin wrote The Green New Deal: Why the Fossil Fuel Civilization Will Collapse by 2028, and the Bold Economic Plan to Save Life on Earthaudio interview 9/19.
rifkin
===
==
CalSTRS, the largest public teachers’ pension fund in the country, currently invests over $6 billionin the fossil fuel industry—an investment that is both immoral and financially under-performing. Divesting this fund from fossil fuels will improve teachers’ retirement income, and send a huge message to global financial markets that *fossil fuel investments are no longer acceptable. Reinvesting those funds in the clean energy economy will give our kids’ futures a fighting chance.*
So this year #YourTeacherHasHomework. We want teachers to tell CalSTRS to divest from fossil fuels; and we want teachers to tell their union chapter to pass a resolution for CalSTRS to divest.
What You Can Do to Help
- Contact your teachers’ union and ask it to endorse a resolution to divest CalSTRS.
- Add your voice to the thousands who have already urged CalSTRS to divest: Sign our petition
- Want to gather petition signatures? Download Blank Petition
- Want to contact the Board directly? Send a personal message to the CalSTRS Board at board@calstrs.com
https://fossilfreeca.org/campaigns/#CalSTRS
May 8th, Fossil Free California teamed up with students from Youth vs. Apocalypse and Earth Guardians to bring our message straight to CalSTRS—divest from fossil fuels! More than 20 students skipped school that day to tell the CalSTRS Investment Committee to stop investing in the destruction of their future.
CalSTRS was so taken aback that they attempted to censor the youths' testimony by refusing to record it on their video live-stream. That didn't stop the word from getting out, however, as several radio stations covered the event, including KPFA: listen here.
Inspired by this success, the students have promised to return to CalSTRS' meetings in July and September, and FFCA has hired a part-time organizer to make sure that many more students join us at these next meeting
==
CMD?
In a victory for environmental and shareholder activists, the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) has denied ExxonMobil’s request to prevent a shareholder vote on a resolution requiring the oil giant to disclose its political spending, including “dark money” contributions to advocacy groups and trade associations.
The SEC ruling comes on a shareholder proposal brought by the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) that would require Exxon to compile a semiannual report on its “political contributions and expenditures (direct and indirect) with corporate funds,” as well as related company policies, and post it on the company’s website.
The SEC also rejected Exxon’s attempt to prevent a vote on a resolution brought by an activist shareholder to create a board-level committee to review and oversee the company’s strategy on climate change.
The SEC rulings were first reported by Climate Liability News.
Dark Money
Dark money is money used to influence elections that is passed through trade associations and advocacy groups in a way that obscures its true source. These groups can take money from corporations, unions, and individuals, and, for example, air TV ads to influence elections, without disclosing where the money came from.
In trying to deny the resolution’s place on the shareholder ballot, to be voted at its May 29 annual meeting, Exxon claimed that it did disclose its policies having to do with political contributions. UUA correctly noted, however, that Exxon only discloses direct contributions to candidates, candidate committees, PACs and party committees. Money run through other nonprofit groups is not disclosed.
According to the Climate Investigation Center, fossil fuel and corporate trade groups spent $1.4 billion on PR firms and ad buys between 2007 and 2018. How much of that money is Exxon’s is unknown.
Taking Climate Change Seriously
The climate shareholder proposal, brought by Arjuna Capital, calls for Exxon to create a new board committee to “assess the company’s responses to climate related risks and opportunities, including the potential impacts of climate change on business, strategy, financial planning, and the environment.”
Exxon claimed that it already considers climate change through a committee with a broad mandate to evaluate the company’s health and safety and environmental performance.
According to Climate Liability News, Arjuna Capital argued that Exxon “has no specific mention of climate change in its charter and while it may address climate change to an extent, the wide array of issues under its jurisdiction do not provide the specialized focus necessary to address the ‘more strategic climate change issues concerning investors, including the emissions associated with burning the company’s product.'”
Most people would think that Exxon has a committee at the board of director level to tackle climate change by itself, but it does not.
Arjuna Capital noted that with only one climate expert on its board, the company is ill-prepared to deal with the biggest threat to its business and shareholders in this century....
===
==
demog UK
Norway’s sovereign wealth fund — a state-owned investment fund worth approximately a trillion dollars — recently announced it was divesting from oil and gas exploration companies around the world. Not surprisingly, many oil and gas stocks declined following the announcement.
While this is good news for the climate, this was simply a smart business decision. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, known as the Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG), primarily exists due to Norwegian oil production. And the fund will continue to be a major investor in companies like Exxon.
It appears it’s just cutting its losses on money-losing endeavors like fracking in America, tar sands oil production in Canada, and frontier exploration by UK companies in Africa and South-East Asia.
==
The beginning of the end of the age of oil moved a step closer Friday, with Norway's government recommending that its $1 trillion wealth fund should divest from upstream oil and gas producers.
==
https://www.ecowatch.com/ireland-fossil-fuels-divestment-2621293680.html
no lnx
Ireland to Become World's First Country to Divest From Fossil Fuels
Ireland's landmark Fossil Fuel Divestment Bill passed the Seanad, or upper house, on Thursday, putting the Emerald Isle on track to become the first country in the world to divest from fossil fuel-related funds.
The bill—which requires the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund to sell off about €318 million ($361 million) investments in coal, oil, gas and peat assets over a five year period—now heads to President Michael D. Higgins for signature, where it will likely become law by the end of the year, according to the Irish Times.
Alice-Mary Higgins, an Independent Senator and the president's daughter, was jubilant about the bill's "swift passage" in the Seanad.
President Higgins told Green News in July that Ireland has a role in tackling climate change. He said the bill, first introduced by independent Donegal Deputy Thomas Pringle in 2016, was "greatly" needed and a "testament to cross-party cooperation and support."
"While we are a small nation, we have a huge impact on the most vulnerable citizens in the world. It's morally imperative that we urgently respond to climate change as it's those most vulnerable who cannot afford to wait for us to act accordingly," he added.
The bill's passage is a major step for Ireland, which ranks last among European Union countries in the 2018 Climate Change Performance Index.
Green Party Senator Grace O'Sullivan welcomed the final passage of the bill.
"Ireland can finally hold its head up high on an issue of climate policy, as the first country in the world to put a national divestment strategy into place," O'Sullivan said in a press release. "This bill will help protect us from climate change, will allow us to stand as an example to the world and protect Irish tax payers from massive losses as the world moves to a post-carbon future."
RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB
Blood coal: Ireland's dirty secret | Noel Healy | Environment | The ... ›
Towards an Oil Exploration Ban in Ireland - Oil Change ... ›
Church of Ireland to end investments in fossil fuel companies ›
Fossil Fuel Divestment Debates on Campus Spotlight Societal Role ... ›
===
City of Angels Funds Some Hellish Fossil Fuel Projects
By Doug Norlen
This month the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a startling report, which finds that severe impacts of climate change are happening much sooner than previously expected, and that countries must take far more aggressive actions to avoid the most catastrophic impacts. The report finds that the burning of fossil fuels must be curbed sharply.
The harmful role Wall Street banks play in propping up fossil projects around the world is increasingly known. Yet there is much less awareness of the role major cities play when they place billions of dollars of their public funds into these same Wall Street banks. According to L.A. city records, as of July 2018, Los Angeles had banking and/or investment relationships with several Wall Street banks, many of which are notorious for their financing of fossil fuel and human rights debacles around the world, including JP Morgan Chase, Citi, Bank of America and Wells Fargo.
According to Banking on Climate Change, a fossil fuel finance report card, between 2015 and 2017 these Wall Street banks collectively provided over $50 billion in financing for tar sands, ultra-deep water drilling, coal mining, coal power and liquid natural gas projects around the world. These projects contribute vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and many of them have severe local environmental, social and human rights impacts as well.
But in 2018, cities have more ethical options. Rather than investing the public's money in environmental and human destruction, cities can establish public banks. When properly structured and operated, public banks can prohibit the use of their funds for fossil fuel and other harmful projects. Instead, they can fund renewable energyand other green enterprises, affordable housing, education and low-cost loans to job-creating entrepreneurs—all while avoiding paying hundreds of millions of dollars in exorbitant fees to Wall Street banks.
The movement to establish public banks is growing nationwide. California is at the forefront, with efforts to pass state-wide legislation allowing establishment of municipal banks as well as campaigns to establish public banks in San Francisco, Oakland and other East Bay cities, Los Angeles and other municipalities.
When Los Angeles voters go to the polls next week, they will decide whether to approve Charter Amendment B, which amends the city's charter to enable it to take affirmative steps to establish a public bank. And Los Angeles is a great case study on the need for public banks. According to Public Bank L.A., the city maintains bank accounts with between $4 billion and $12 billion in cash, and manages up to $45 billion in investments through large commercial banks.
The enormous sum of public funds that L.A. entrusts to fossil fuel banks undercuts the climate leadership of city officials. For example, this past August L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti joined a coalition of hundreds of mayors across the country to condemn Donald Trump's plans to weaken vehicle efficiency standards and rescind California's waiver right to set stronger greenhouse gas regulations. In December 2016, Garcetti joined other mayors to denounce Trump's decision to walk away from the Paris agreement. The city council has shown progressive streaks on banking issues as well. In December 2017, the Council unanimously voted to enforce both federal and state Community Reinvestment Act ratings disqualifying Wells Fargo from submitting a Request for Proposal for the city's commercial banking services. And yet, the city still banks with Wells Fargo.
If L.A. voters approve Charter Amendment B, the city will be one step closer to creating a municipal bank and redirecting its billions of dollars of public funds to environmentally sound, fiscally smart, sustainable community needs. In doing so, L.A. will serve as a beacon of progress to inspire the larger national movement to establish public banks.
For a sense of why Los Angeles so badly needs to approve Charter Amendment B, we've included descriptions of just a handful of the harmful projects Los Angeles is currently supporting by keeping its money in fossil fuel banks (based on publicly available information). Here is a sample of some of the projects that LA's banks support:
Dakota Access Pipeline (United States):
- Citi — $235 million in project finance
- MUFG — $235 million in project finance
- Wells Fargo — $120 million in project finance
The Dakota Access Pipeline, or DAPL, extends over 1,000 miles across several U.S. states, damaging Native American ancestral lands and water. Passing within just a half-mile of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, the pipeline has destroyed sacred sites and threatens the tribe's drinking water with potential oil spills. Beginning in 2016, Native American water protectors, including Standing Rock Sioux tribal elders and members, led opposition to DAPL. Supported by thousands of allies, this grew into one of the largest and most iconic movements in the world to halt fossil fuel pipelines. In response to peaceful, prayerful resistance, police from several states and agencies, members of the U.S. National Guard and armed private security forces used military equipment and tactics, including attack dogs, to intimidate, assault, arrest and otherwise commit grievous human rights abuses against water protectors and their allies. Opposition to the pipeline expanded far beyond the project site and supercharged the growing global movement against financial institutions that support fossil fuel projects.
Atlantic Coast Pipeline (United States):
- Bank of America — $673.5 million in corporate loans (13)
- Citi — $673.5 million in corporate loans (14)
- JP Morgan Chase — $648 million in corporate loans (15)
- MUFG — $1.182 billion in corporate loans (16)
- Wells Fargo — $673.5 million in corporate loans (17)
The proposed 600-mile Atlantic Coast Pipeline, running from West Virginia through North Carolina, is the third longest gas pipeline in production or in some phase of development over the past 20 years in the U.S. Trees have been cleared along the pipeline route and infrastructure development has begun. Although two lawsuits against the pipeline are now pending in federal and North Carolina courts, federal law allows pipelines to be constructed prior to the resolution of all litigation. The ACP was the only oil or gas pipeline to be on Donald Trump's list of 50 Priority National Security Projects prior to his election.
According to published reports, the central purpose of the ACP is to enter South Carolina and eventually reach Elba Island, Georgia where gas will be exported from a liquid natural gas facility now under construction. This recognition raises serious concerns regarding the use of eminent domain to take privately owned property for private gain instead of public use.
The ACP threatens the livelihood of more than 30,000 indigenous peoples that live along the pipeline route. In May 2018, an alliance of community, statewide and national groups filed a complaint to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Civil Rights Compliance Office, alleging that the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality discriminated on the basis of race and color in issuing permits and certifications to the ACP as part of the permitting process. In September 2018, environmental groups filed legal challenges in an appeals court against federal permitting agencies.
Kusile Power Station (South Africa):
- Bank of America — financial advisor
- JP Morgan Chase — financial advisor
- MUFG — part of 705 million euro corporate loan to South Africa's state power company, Eskom, to purchase boilers from Hitachi Power Europe for the Kusile coal power plant
Once completed, the 4,800-megawatt Kusile coal plant in South Africa will be one of the largest coal plants in the world. The estimated annual greenhouse gas equivalent emissions of the plant—30 million tons—would increase South African energy sector emissions by 12.8 percent and the country's total contribution to climate change by 9.7 percent. South Africa already has the distinction of being among the top global greenhouse gas emitters per capita. The Kusile project area already exceeds permitted ambient levels of hazardous air pollutants that create soot and smog, which cause harm to respiratory, cardiovascular and nervous systems, leading to heart disease, cancer, stroke and chronic lower respiratory diseases, according to Physicians for Social Responsibility. If completed, Kusile will increase the cost of electricity for the poor and household consumers to compensate for Apartheid-era "special pricing agreements" that give large industrial users, which consume most of South Africa's electricity, guaranteed rates that are among the lowest in the world. The cost of Kusile, which in 2007 was estimated by Eskom to be 80 billion rand, had more than doubled to 172 billion rand by 2016. It is "expected to further strain Eskom's financial resources, and place upward pressure on Eskom's electricity price trajectory in the years ahead." In 2015 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charged Hitachi with violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in connection with contracts to build Kusile and Medupi (another enormous coal plant in South Africa), resulting in a $19 million settlement.
Long Phu-1 Coal Plant (Vietnam):
- MUFG and JP Morgan Chase — among the lead financial arrangers, with potential combined $650 million in finance
Long Phu-1 in Vietnam would emit an estimated 6.3 million tonnes of CO2 per year. As a "supercritical" coal power plant, Long Phu-1 is prohibited from being financed by most official government export credit agencies (ECA), including the U.S. Export-Import Bank. However, the former director of the EPA's Air Enforcement Division, Bruce Buckheit, revealed that the project consulting firm Environmental Resources Management doctored the coal plant's greenhouse gas emissions estimates to make Long Phu-1 appear to be a more efficient "ultra-supercritical" plant, which would be allowed under ECA coal financing restrictions. Analysis of Long Phu-1 by Friends of the Earth U.S. reveals that the project violates other international policies, including requirements to analyze alternatives, identify cumulative and associated risks and impacts, evaluate labor and working conditions, prevent pollution, protect community health, provide safety and security, and ensure biodiversity conservation. In February 2018, the New York Times reported that U.S. Export-Import Bank financing for Long Phu-1 had collapsed after it was revealed that project financiers included Vnesheconombank, a Russian bank that is on the U.S. government's sanctions list and is part of a federal investigation into possible collusion between the Russian government and the Trump presidential campaign. It was also reported that a top Long Phu-1 project official had been sentenced to prison for corruption. MUFG and JP Morgan Chase, like the U.S. Export-Import Bank, must also comply with U.S. sanctions. However, it remains unclear whether these banks continue to be potential financiers of Long Phu-1.
==
918 supertyphoon 28 coal plants, 28 more coming, CA PP $ kpfa
==
ew 918
London and New York Mayors Call on Other World Cities to Divest from Fossil Fuels
==
World’s Largest Sovereign Wealth Fund Raises Standards for Oceans, Sustainability
Norway's $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund, the largest in the world, released two documents Wednesday stating it wants the companies it invests in to follow more rigorous rules on oceanplastic pollution and overall sustainability, Reuters reported.
Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), which manages the fund that invests in more than 9,000 companies in 72 countries, said it expected companies to consider ocean sustainability when creating strategy, take ocean-related risks into account and be transparent and responsible in managing the oceans, CNBC reported.
"The ocean is a vital part of the biosphere and an important part of the global economy," NBIM CEO Yngve Slyngstad said in a statement reported by CNBC. "We expect companies to manage the challenges and opportunities related to sustainable use of the ocean."
The fund's ocean "expectation document" is focused on companies that benefit from or impact the ocean in some way, from plastic producers to fisheries to shipping. These companies are worth $56.5 billion total and represent around 8 percent of the fund's global equities portfolio, Reuters reported.
Ocean plastic pollution has emerged as a major environmental problem in recent years, and plastic producers make up about half of the companies targeted by the new document.
==
Church of England to Divest From Companies That Neglect Paris Agreement Goals
==
1st good act?!
e American Medical Associationhas voted to take on two major public health issues: gun violence and climate change. During its annual meeting in Chicago this week, the AMA voted to support nearly a dozen gun control measures, including a ban on the sale and ownership of assault-style weapons. Former AMA President Dr. David O. Barbe said in a statement, “In emergency rooms across the country, the carnage of gun violence has become a too routine experience. … It doesn’t have to be this way, and we urge lawmakers to act.” TheAMAalso voted this week to divest from companies that get the majority of their income from fossil fuels. Climate activist Bill McKibben celebrated the news, tweeting, “The AMA is saying to the dirty fuels industry what it said to tobacco a generation ago: You are killing our patients and we will not allow it anymore.”
==
Pension Fund Integrity (IPFI
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/25/fossil-fuel-industry-secretly-behind-new-campaign-against-fossil-fuel-divestment
Last week a newly formed organization, The Institute for Pension Fund Integrity (IPFI), published its first “white paper” on the topical issue of “getting politics out of pensions”.
Reviewing the report, the headline on the Institutional Investor website summed up the main finding: “New Pensions Group Says Forget About Climate Change”.
“Pension funds should focus solely on getting the best investment returns and ignore issues such as climate change and other political issues”, continued the Institutional Investor.
Which really is a polite way of saying “forget about your and your kid’s future, make as much money as possible now.”
So what does the report actually say? The IPFI report warns that “politically driven divestment is a growing movement across the country”. It continues: “Much of the push is for public pensions to divest from industries with negative externalities, including being damaging to the environment; being unhealthy; and otherwise being perceived as a social ‘bad’. While this is not a novel concept, current movements focus on groups pushing for divestment from fossil fuel companies given their perceived negative impact on the climate and environment.”
“Other examples” it adds, “include divesting from tobacco companies, soda companies, gun manufacturers, and the military and nuclear industrial complex.” The report’s final conclusion is clear: “get politics out of public pension management.”
So who is behind the report warning against the burgeoning fossil fuel disinvestment movement?
The author of the report and founder of the IPFI is Christopher Burnham, a former Treasurer of the State of Connecticut, and former United Nations Undersecretary. He is also a former “energy investment banker” and chairman of an advisory / PR company, CambridgeGlobal Advisors. He has also, most recently, served as a member of Donald Trump’s Presidential Transition Team at the Department of State.
Burnham has previously written for Cambridge Global Advisors on the subject of pensions saying that “a new era of activists, without any regard to fiduciary responsibility, is injecting politics into pension systems, yet again, by trying to make states, counties and municipalities across the country divest of shares in energy companies. Why would we seek to undermine the integrity of a secure retirement for our teachers and government employees?”
But let’s dig a little deeper. The IPFA’s address is exactly the same as the East Port Analystics, on which board Burnham sits. However, its phone number is the same as Cambridge Global Advisors, although Cambridge does not give out its full address on its website, so it's probably all the same office.
Maybe a greater clue is who is behind the Institute’s website. The IPFI website was set up last month by Burnham himself on March 22. Two days later records show that Burnham was showing as the registrant name. However by April 9, the contact for the website had been changed to Fred Wollenberg from the Bergman Group, which is an advertising company.
According to his biog on Bergman’s website, it says Wollenberg “joined the Bergman Group, where he has developed speciality marketing for ExxonMobil, Sandler Training, CapTech, American Express, Martha Jefferson Hospital, DCI Group, Beaumont Hospitals of Detroit, Wells Fargo, VCU Health System, the National Audubon Society, American Enterprise Institute, the George W. Bush Foundation and Capital One.”
Now this maybe a total coincidence, but Wollenberg just happens to have developed “speciality marketing” for Exxon as well as the DCI Group, the PR firm linked to the Republican Party, which has a long history of being involved in anti-climate change work and also which has been accused of being behind another anti-fossil fuel disinvestment campaign.
As *Bloomberg* reported last year, there is another anti-divestment campaign which is called “Protect Our Pensions isn’t what it appears to be … much of the writing is actually done by public affairs firms operating in the shadows”.
It continued: “But there are clues pointing to the involvement of DCI Group LLC, a Washington public affairs firm known for its work with the energy industry and for building grass-roots coalitions that sometimes obscure their funders.”
Bloomberg noted that the group’s website, “www.helpprotectourpensions.org, is linked to the same internet protocol address as DCI’s corporate website, according to reverse IP lookup tools. Shared IP addresses can sometimes be a coincidence, but of the 11 other sites connected to that address, at least eight are for coalitions or projects related to DCI clients.”
DCI neither confirmed or denied to Bloomberg that they worked on the Protect our Pensions campaign, and they will probably say the same here about another uncannily similar initiative.
by Andy Rowell, crossposted from Oil Change International
hard-right conservative movement that began building in the 1960s has now entirely colonized the GOP. Right-wing media, which has no incentive to compromise and every incentive to stoke outrage, is in the driver’s seat. The imperative for Republican politicians, most of whom come from safe seats, is to satisfy their radicals, lest they face a primary challenge.
The McKibben effect: a case study in how radical environmentalism can work
Extreme proposals can shift polarized debates.
By David Roberts@drvoxdavid@vox.com Updated Nov 17, 2017, 10:01am EST
Bill McKibben, in effect. Photo by Jason Merritt/Getty Images for Environmental Media Association
One of the perennial debates in politics is over the role of radicals — activists with positions and demands outside the current mainstream. Think hard drug legalizers, advocates for a universal basic income, or, on the right, those who want to repeal the 17th Amendment. (Yes, this is a thing on the right now.)
Gov. Mike Huckabee
?
@GovMikeHuckabee
Time to repeal 17th Amendment. Founders had it right-Senators chosen by state legislatures. Will work for their states and respect 10th amid
The question can be boiled down to this: When a radical faction makes extreme policy demands, what effect does it have on the larger policy debate?
Does it discredit the moderates on the same side, by association? Or does it legitimate them, by contrast? Do advocates for cocaine legalization tarnish advocates for marijuana legalization, by making “legalization” in general seem radical? Or do they have the effect of making marijuana legalization seem like the safe, centrist choice?
Based on their behavior, the two US political parties have different answers to these questions.
The hard-right conservative movement that began building in the 1960s has now entirely colonized the GOP. Right-wing media, which has no incentive to compromise and every incentive to stoke outrage, is in the driver’s seat. The imperative for Republican politicians, most of whom come from safe seats, is to satisfy their radicals, lest they face a primary challenge.
The left has always been more wary of its activists. The relationship between the party and the left end of the spectrum is notoriously contentious, as was rehearsed repeatedly throughout the Obama years and yet again in the 2016 primary.
Part of that is the corrosive effect of big money on the party establishment. Part of it is cultural and temperamental; Dem voters look more kindly on compromise and Dem elites venerate technocratic expertise. And part of it is structural. The left has to stitch together a much broader and more diverse coalition than the right to win — more a collection of interest groups, discrete voting blocs, than a coherent ideological movement. The Democratic Party has always had to rein itself in to hold onto moderates and balance the demands of competing factions. And since its activists tend to be more siloed than the right’s, they are less organized and exert less collective power.
The latest chapter of this drama is playing out right now, as the left pushes single-payer health care. Will pulling Dem politicians onto that bandwagon get them all dismissed as socialist? Or will it strengthen the hand of moderates who want to, say, lower the age of eligibility for Medicare?
As it happens, social scientists have studied this stuff. They call the effects of radicals on the debate “radical flank effects.” A negative radical flank effect is when radicals tarnish and discredit moderates by association. A positive radical flank effect is when radicals strengthen the bargaining position of core actors in their broader coalition.
A new paper, forthcoming in the journal Organization & Environment, takes a fresh look at this dynamic in the context of the climate movement. Specifically, it seeks to chart the effects that Bill McKibben, his organization 350.org, and their campaign to get big institutions to divest from fossil fuels have had on the public climate change debate.
(Update, November 17: The New York Times reports that Norway’s $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund may divest in international petroleum companies in what is “potentially the biggest advance yet for [350.org’s] global fossil-fuel divestment campaign.”)
Is there a McKibben Effect — a radical flank effect on the US climate debate? And is it positive or negative?
Thanks, McKibben
Todd Schifeling (of Temple University) and Andrew John Hoffman (of University of Michigan) set out to examine this question empirically.
Their starting point is that much research has been done on the direct interactions of activist interest groups and business/academic/political groups, but much less has been done on the indirect effects of radical flanking. It may be that a radical campaign does not succeed at achieving its own stated goals, but causes important shifts elsewhere in the debate.
This, more or less, is what they speculate is true of McKibben/350.org’s divestment campaign. Shortly after the 2010 midterms, students began advocating that their universities divest from investments in fossil fuels. McKibben and 350 took up the charge and popularized it, to the point that, as of today, 749 institutions are participating, worth about $5.53 trillion in investments.
Schifeling and Hoffman acknowledge that the divestment movement has not — and, realistically, probably cannot — accomplish its goal of substantially affecting the financial health of large fossil fuel companies.
But that was not its only aim. It also set out to remove the “social license” of fossil fuel companies to operate, to cast them as moral outlaws like cigarette makers. And it was paired, in 2012, with McKibben’s widely read “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math,” which made clear that the vast bulk of existing fossil fuel reserves could not be developed in a climate-safe world — that fossil fuel companies’ interests were at odds with humanity’s interests.
On Earth Day, revisit our 2012 feature on global warming's terrifying new math: http://rol.st/1Gjx9hi #longreads
1:14 PM - Apr 22, 2015
To measure the indirect effects of that radical framing, Schifeling and Hoffman compiled an enormous database of newspaper stories about climate change published between 2011 and 2015. Using software wizardry (uh, details in the paper), they analyze the stories in three steps.
First, they look for the rise of mentions of the radical flank — the actors (McKibben and 350) and their policy demand (divestment). Second, they look at the process by which the demand becomes dissociated from the actors and enters mainstream dialogue. And third, they look at other changes in the structure of the debate.
I don’t pretend to understand the statistical tools involved — they produce something called “eigenvectors,” which is fun — but here’s how the authors sum up what they found:
Prior to the second half of 2012, conservative and liberal issues share a moderate level of centrality, while the radical flank occupies a more peripheral position. Transitioning from 2012 into 2013, the radical flank and liberal issues rise dramatically to dominate the network. Despite a slump from 2014 Q4 to 2015 Q2, these two groups hold a more elevated place in the network throughout the remainder of the time period.
The “conservative” position (more on that in a second) is “deny everything, do nothing.” As McKibben’s radical ideas pushed their way in, they carried liberal ideas (carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, clean energy subsidies, etc.) to the center of the debate along with them. The conservative position got crowded out, at least partially.
The radical position of divestment helped recenter the US climate debate around alternative solutions (rather than “do nothing” versus “do something”) in an enduring way — or at least enduring so far (more on that in a second too).
That’s pretty much the definition of a positive radical flank effect.
Why some radical flank efforts work and some don’t
The key question, obviously, is why some radical flank effects are positive and some are negative.
Schifeling and Hoffman get at this a little bit with a comparison of divestment to Naomi Klein’s book This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, which came out in 2014 and was similarly radical, but had much less effect on the larger debate.
Why is that? They propose a possible answer: The radicalism must be close enough to mainstream views to be bridgeable. Klein’s direct assault on capitalism was a bridge too far — there was no way to translate it into terms that could be adopted beyond the radical flank.
Here, divestment and “terrifying math” had a key advantage. Mainstream institutions were able to translate them into the language of stranded assets, a “carbon bubble,” and shareholder risk — terms the business community could understand and process. “Although it may be too early to tell,” Schifeling and Hoffman write, “a similar act of translation would seem unlikely for Klein’s anti-capitalism message.”
They don’t do too much with this idea, but I find it quite intriguing. It suggests that the key to success for radicals is to consciously find avenues through which their ideas can be dissociated from them and enter the mainstream.
The right has been extremely effective in this regard. They have a whole infrastructure of think tanks, media outlets, and advocacy groups designed to shuttle ideas from the fringe to the mainstream of the GOP. (Climate denial is but one of many examples.) If anything, that voyage has become altogether too short and easy on the right.
But the left’s infrastructure is less developed in that regard. There’s less cooperation, less synchronization, between activists and the mainstream. This paper suggests that the left should study the hand-off, the transfer, through which divestment and “leave it in the ground” came to be a lecture from the Bank of England on stranded carbon assets.
There is much to learn. (For instance, how might “100 percent renewable energy” follow a similar path?)
divestment commitments
Divestment so far. (FossilFree)
Two important caveats
It would be irresponsible to leave this study behind without noting two key caveats.
First, the US debate on climate change is unusual.
The assignment of these issues to ideological positions was specific to the climate change debate in the U.S., where the conservative position was anchored in denial, the liberal position was associated with policy response, and the emergent radical position called for the abolition of fossil fuels.
That is not the landscape of debate in most countries. The US Republican Party is the only major political party in the developed world that denies climate change — and rejects all attempts at solutions — as a matter of party orthodoxy.
That “do something, anything” is coded as the “liberal” position is a function of the lopsided US debate. “Keep it in the ground” is radical anywhere, but it appears unusually radical in the US, because the Republican Party is nuts.
Second, this is a fairly short-term study: 2011 to 2015. You might have noticed that US political circumstances changed quite radically in 2016.
Going forward, it will be important to see whether progress in the public debate reverts to its state prior to the radical flank or whether changes persist and moderate any attempts to reverse U.S. climate policy.
Yes, that will indeed be important! The American body politic may worry less about climate change as the chances of, say, a nuclear exchange with North Korea rise. As yet, is unclear how much the US climate debate has really advanced and how much it, like so many other American norms and debates, will collapse in the face of Trumpian chaos.
Early signs are positive, with cities and states rising to fill the federal gap. But if the last year has taught us anything, it’s that predictions are futile in the face of resurgent irrationalism and illiberalism. It remains to be seen whether the McKibben effect endures.
==
bill mck 9/2016 update
https://newrepublic.com/article/136987/recalculating-climate-math
future of humanity depends on math. And the numbers in a new study released Thursday are the most ominous yet.
Those numbers spell out, in simple arithmetic, how much of the fossil fuel in the world’s existing coal mines and oil wells we can burn if we want to prevent global warming from cooking the planet. In other words, if our goal is to keep the Earth’s temperature from rising more than two degrees Celsius—the upper limit identified by the nations of the world—how much more new digging and drilling can we do?
Here’s the answer: zero.
That’s right: If we’re serious about preventing catastrophic warming, the new study shows, we can’t dig any new coal mines, drill any new fields, build any more pipelines. Not a single one. We’re done expanding the fossil fuel frontier. Our only hope is a swift, managed decline in the production of all carbon-based energy from the fields we’ve already put in production.
The new numbers are startling. Only four years ago, I wrote an essay called “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math.” In the piece, I drew on research from a London-based think tank, the Carbon Tracker Initiative. The research showed that the untapped reserves of coal, oil, and gas identified by the world’s fossil fuel industry contained five times more carbon than we can burn if we want to keep from raising the planet’s temperature by more than two degrees Celsius. That is, if energy companies eventually dug up and burned everything they’d laid claim to, the planet would cook five times over. That math kicked off a widespread campaign of divestment from fossil fuel stocks by universities, churches, and foundations. And it’s since become the conventional wisdom: Many central bankers and world leaders now agree that we need to keep the bulk of fossil fuel reserves underground.
But the new new math is even more explosive. It draws on a report by Oil Change International, a Washington-based think tank, using data from the Norwegian energy consultants Rystad. For a fee—$54,000 in this case—Rystad will sell anyone its numbers on the world’s existing fossil fuel sources. Most of the customers are oil companies, investment banks, and government agencies. But OCI wanted the numbers for a different reason: to figure out how close to the edge of catastrophe we’ve already come.
Scientists say that to have even a two-thirds chance of staying below a global increase of two degrees Celsius, we can release 800 gigatons more CO2 into the atmosphere. But the Rystad data shows coal mines and oil and gas wells currently in operation worldwide contain 942 gigatons worth of CO2. So the math problem is simple, and it goes like this:
942 > 800
“What we found is that if you burn up all the carbon that’s in the currently operating fields and mines, you’re already above two degrees,” says Stephen Kretzmann, OCI’s executive director. It’s not that if we keep eating like this for a few more decades we’ll be morbidly obese. It’s that if we eat what’salready in the refrigerator we’ll be morbidly obese.
What’s worse, the definition of “morbid” has changed in the past four years. Two degrees Celsius *used* to be the red line. But scientists now believe the upper limit is much lower. We’ve already raised the world’s temperature by one degree—enough to melt almost half the ice in the Arctic, kill off huge swaths of the world’s coral, and unleash lethal floods and drought. July and August tied for the hottest months ever recorded on our planet, and scientists think they were almost certainly the hottest in the history of human civilization. Places like Basra, Iraq—on the edge of what scholars think was the Biblical Garden of Eden—hit 129 degrees Fahrenheit this year, approaching the point where humans can’t survive outdoors. So last year, when the world’s leaders met in Paris, they set a new number: Every effort, they said, would be made to keep the global temperature rise to less than 1.5 degrees. And to have even a 50–50 chance of meeting that goal, we can only release about 353 gigatons more CO2. So let’s do the math again:
...
In the United States alone, the existing mines and oil wells and gas fields contain 86 billion tons of carbon emissions—enough to take us 25 percent of the way to a 1.5 degree rise in global temperature. But if the U.S. energy industry gets its way and develops all the oil wells and fracking sites that are currently planned, that would add another 51 billion tons in carbon emissions. And if we let that happen, America would single-handedly blow almost 40 percent of the world’s carbon budget.
This new math is bad news for lots of powerful players. The fossil fuel industry has based its entire business model on the idea that it can endlessly “replenish” the oil and gas it pumps each year; its teams of geologists are constantly searching for new fields to drill. In September, Apache Corporation announced that it has identified fields in West Texas that hold three billion barrels of oil. Leaving that oil underground—which the new math shows we must do if we want to meet the climate targets set in Paris—would cost the industry tens of billions of dollars.
For understandable reasons, the unions whose workers build pipelines and drill wells also resist attempts to change. Consider the current drama over the Dakota Access oil pipeline. In September, even after pipeline security guards armed with pepper spray and guard dogs attacked Native Americans who were nonviolently defending grave sites from bulldozers, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called on the Obama administration to allow construction to proceed. “Pipeline construction and maintenance,” Trumka said, “provides quality jobs to tens of thousands of skilled workers.” The head of the Building Trades Unions agreed: “Members have been relying on these excellent, family-supporting, middle-class jobs with family health care, pensions, and good wages.” Another union official put it most eloquently: “Let’s not turn away and overregulate or just say, ‘No, keep it in the ground.’ It shouldn’t be that simple.”
She’s right—it would be easier for everyone if it weren’t that simple. Union workers have truly relied on those jobs to build middle-class lives, and all of us burn the damned stuff, all day, every day. But the problem is, it is that simple. We have to “turn away.” We have to “keep it in the ground.” The numbers are the numbers. We literally cannot keep doing what we’re doing if we want to have a planet.
“Keeping it in the ground” does not mean stopping all production of fossil fuels instantly. “If you let current fields begin their natural decline,” says Kretzmann, “you’ll be using 50 percent less oil by 2033.” That gives us 17 years, as the wells we’ve already drilled slowly run dry, to replace all that oil with renewable energy. That’s enough time—maybe—to replace gas guzzlers with electric cars. To retrain pipeline workers and coal miners to build solar panels and wind turbines. To follow the lead of cities like Portland that have barred any new fossil fuel infrastructure, and countries like China that have banned new coal mines. Those are small steps, but they’re important ones.
Even some big unions are starting to realize that switching to renewable energy would add a million new good-paying jobs by 2030. Everyone from nurses to transport workers is opposing the Dakota pipeline; other unions have come out against coal exports and fracking. “This is virtually unprecedented,” says Sean Sweeney, a veteran labor and climate organizer. “The rise of ‘climate unionism’ offers a new direction for the labor movement.” And if it spreads, it will give Democratic politicians more room to maneuver against global warming.
But to convince the world’s leaders to obey the math—to stop any new mines or wells or pipelines from being built—we will need a movement like the one that blocked the Keystone pipeline and fracking in New York and Arctic drilling. And we will need to pass the “Keep It in the Ground Act,” legislation that would end new mining and drilling for fossil fuels on public land. It’s been called “unrealistic” or “naïve” by everyone from ExxonMobil to the interior secretary. But as the new math makes clear, keeping fossil fuels in the ground is the only realistic approach. What’s unrealistic is to imagine that we can somehow escape the inexorable calculus of climate change. As the OCI report puts it, “One of the most powerful climate policy levers is also the simplest: stop digging.” That is, after all, the first rule of holes, and we’re in the biggest one ever.
This is literally a math test, and it’s not being graded on a curve. It only has one correct answer. And if we don’t get it right, then all of us—along with our 10,000-year-old experiment in human civilization—will fail.
https://www.alternet.org/environment/why-nobel-foundation-investing-fossil-fuels
==
https://www.ecowatch.com/insurance-companies-climate-change-2547518560.html
U.S. Insurance Companies Underwrite Fossil Fuels, Deny Homeowners
U.S. insurance companies are trying to have it both ways on climate change, underwriting and investing in fossil fuel companies but raising premiums or denying coverage to homeowners impacted by increased floods and wildfires, Jacques Leslie wrote in an Op-Ed for The Los Angeles Times Tuesday.
Leslie pointed to a December 2017 study by California's Department of Insurance which showed that instances in which insurance companies refused to renew coverage to homeowners in fire-prone counties increased by about 15 percent between 2015 and 2016.
"Insurers are increasingly using computer models to assess the risk of fires for individual homes and deciding that homes in some areas face too high a risk," Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones said in a press release about the study.
Jones recommended legislation that would ensure Californians living in high-fire-risk areas could continue to insure their homes.
Meanwhile, a 2014 Ceres study found that the investment portfolios of the 40 largest U.S. insurance companies contained a higher proportion of oil and gas bonds than average, Leslie wrote.
The attitude of U.S. insurance companies is particularly striking because, internationally, insurers are waking up to the real risks posed by fossil fuels.
An insurance scorecard published in November 2017 by Unfriend Coal, which Leslie cited, found that 15 insurance companies are divesting $20 billion from coal companies and declining to underwrite coal projects.
"The shift of insurers away from coal is now gathering momentum and may be approaching a tipping point," the scorecard's executive summary said.
However, that shift hasn't reached the U.S. "So far, no American insurer has taken meaningful action on coal and climate change, and even industry giants such as Berkshire Hathaway, AIG and Liberty Mutual have remained completely silentabout the catastrophic climate risks affecting their clients," the summary continued.
Leslie suggested the U.S. insurance industry could pay financially for its selective denial about fossil-fuel risks. If climate-related lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, such as the suit brought by Oakland and San Francisco against Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell, succeed, then insurers might have to pay up on behalf of their clients.
The choices of insurance companies are important, because they have the power to stop new or existing fossil fuel projects by denying coverage.
"Although some large coal companies might be able to self-insure if their mining operations lost coverage, others would be forced to close," Leslie wrote.
==
==
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01022018/new-york-pension-fund-doubles-climate-investment-investors-risk-summit
whoohoo, tipping pt?
https://www.ecowatch.com/nyc-divestment-2524285373.html
...
"This is a first-in-the-nation step to protect our future and our planet—for this generation and the next," said Comptroller Scott M. Stringer.
Stringer announced last month that he would soon bring a proposal to the trustees of the pension funds that included divestment. Following through on that promise, a statement from the city released Wednesday says that he and Mayor Bill de Blasio"will submit a joint resolution to pension fund trustees" to begin the steps needed to purge the funds from the dirty industry, which will first entail an analysis on the financial impacts to be carried out by the City Comptroller's Bureau of Asset Management.
350.org co-founder Bill McKibben said in a tweet responding to the news that it was "One of the biggest days in 30 years of the climate fight."
The city's five pension funds hold $189 billion in assets, and roughly $5 billion of that amount are held in the securities of over 190 fossil fuel companies, the city said.
The new lawsuit names BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell and seeks billions of dollars in damages for harm already inflicted on the city as a result of the climate crisis as well for preparing for effects yet to come, including "imminent threats to its property, its infrastructure, and the health and safety of its residents."
New York's lawsuit follows similar suits filed by seven cities and counties in California.
The city's statement references the industry's deliberate misinformation campaign to cover up the effects of fossil fuels.
"We're bringing the fight against climate change straight to the fossil fuel companies that knew about its effects and intentionally misled the public to protect their profits," de Blasio said in a statement. "As climate change continues to worsen, it's up to the fossil fuel companies whose greed put us in this position to shoulder the cost of making New York safer and more resilient."
Daniel Zarrilli, the city's senior director of Climate Policy and Programs and Chief Resilience officer, echoed that statement, saying, "Today, after a decades-long pattern of deception and denial by fossil fuel companies, New York City is holding them to account. By seeking damages for the investments necessary to protect New Yorkers from the impacts of climate change, and divesting our pension funds from fossil fuel reserves, we are taking the largest action by any city to confront the growing climate crisis and demonstrate the leadership necessary to win this fight against fossil fuels and the damages they've caused."
Among the state lawmakers praising the city's action was Democratic Sen. Liz Krueger who said, "Divestment sends the clear message that it is no longer acceptable to support companies whose fundamental business model puts our entire society at risk."
Climate campaigners heaped praise on the city as well.
McKibben said in a statement, "New York City today becomes a capital of the fight against climate change on this planet."
"With its communities exceptionally vulnerable to a rising sea, the city is showing the spirit for which it's famous: it's not pretending that working with the fossil fuel companies will somehow save the day, but instead standing up to them, in the financial markets and in court," he added.
The announcements also drew praise from Carroll Muffett, president of Center for International Environmental Law, who said they marked "a watershed in corporate accountability for climate change and a wake-up call to investors that the risks facing fossil fuel companies are real, material, and rapidly growing."
The city's move also follows New York State's announcement last month that it was putting forth a "a de-carbonization roadmap" that included divesting from fossil fuels.
With NYC becoming the first major U.S. city to call for divestment—a call more than 800 institutions have heeded—and a growing number of municipalities filing suit against the industry, climate activists say it's clear "the global tide is turning."
...
==
NAS ~
Inside Divestment - National Association of Scholars
https://www.nas.org/projects/divestment_report
2.
https://www.ecowatch.com/us-bank-dapl-2519145269.html
U.S. Bank Quietly Joins $4B Deal With Dakota Access Owner After Declaring End to Oil and Gas Pipeline Loans
By Sharon Kelly
At a shareholder meeting this past spring, U.S. Bank announced it would be the first large American bank to completely stop issuing loans for oil and gas pipeline construction projects.
Environmental groups, indigenous activists and divestment advocates hailed U.S. Bank's announcement as a triumph.
Yet that triumph—and the bank's commitment—seems less sure with the news that U.S. Bank has entered into a new $4 billion loan deal with the company behind the contentious Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL).
For months, the bank had been under fire for financing the Dakota Access pipeline by providing over a quarter billion dollars worth of funding to its builder, Energy Transfer Partners (ETP). Environmentalists famously dropped a banner calling on U.S. Bank to divest from DAPL at the New Years 2017 Minnesota Vikings and Chicago Bears football game.
The language of the bank's new policy seemed blunt.
"The company does not provide project financing for the construction of oil or natural gas pipelines," U.S. Bancorp, parent company of U.S. Bank, wrote in its April 2017 Environmental Responsibility Policy.
Divestment advocates cheered. "We applaud this progressive decision from U.S. Bank," an Honor the Earth representative said in a statement, as the bank's new policy made headlines.
Some advocates remained skeptical, however, pointing out that the line of credit extended to Energy Transfer Partners wouldn't be covered by that language, because it could be considered a loan for the company as a whole, not the more specific "project financing." And U.S. Bank's CEO told shareholders that his bank wouldn't end its existing Energy Transfer Partners deal, saying that instead it would "fulfill that contract and commitment."
"We know there are always loopholes through which banks will try to pass off responsibility," Rachel Heaton of Mazaska Talks and a Muckleshoot Tribe member told Yes Magazine, "but we will continue to resist until these banks completely divest from all pipeline and fossil fuel corporations and incorporate the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of Indigenous peoples into their corporate lending structures."
Even if that specific contract wasn't going to be torn up, environmental groups hoped that in the future, the bank would limit its funding of fossil fuel projects.
CEO Andy Cecere "strongly implied that the bank would pull back from pipelines and ETP in particular—aside from its obligations under its 'contract with ETP' (i.e. its existing credit facility)," Brant Olson, Program Director at ClimateTruth.org, told DeSmog.
U.S. Bank's new environmental policy added that any new deals the bank did with companies in the oil and gas pipeline industry would have to undergo additional scrutiny, including a look at their environmental record.
"We want to confirm that a firm's policies and processes are sound and effective as they relate to the environment and the community in which it operates," the policy adds. "In accordance with our environmental responsibility commitment, we prohibit relationships with customers who participate in any illegal activities."
Transferring More Money to Energy Transfer Partners
That's why it was so striking when Energy Transfer Partners quietly announced in a Dec. 1 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing that U.S. Bank was part of ETP's new $4 billion credit deal.
ETP's projects include numerous controversial fossil fuel pipelines nationwide, including not only Dakota Access, but also Mariner East 2, Rover, Bayou Bridge, and the Energy Transfer Crude Oil pipeline.
Asked whether Energy Transfer Partners had passed muster during the additional due diligence in U.S. Bank's much-lauded environmental review policy, U.S. Bank's spokesperson Cheryl Leamon declined to comment. "As a matter of policy, we do not discuss customer relationships," she told DeSmog in an email.
Environmentalists hoped that this was a chance for U.S. Bank to end its dealings with ETP. StopETP.org, a coalition of national and local environmental and indigenous rights groups, wrote a letter to the bank in November, urging it to use the chance to cut ties with ETP, which was seeking to renew its $4 billion credit line in a deal involving numerous major banks.
But U.S. Bank has apparently refused, said Food and Water Watch senior researcher Dr. Hugh MacMillan, "after having scored praise back in May for its new pipeline finance policy."
U.S. Bank did not respond when asked about the types of law-breaking that might cross the line and cause a borrower to fail the bank's new due diligence requirements.
Illegal Activities
The bank's professed wariness of fossil fuel companies had drawn an angry response from the Energy Equipment and Infrastructure Alliance, which had fired off a letter to U.S. Bank protesting the new policy. "This creates the presumption that firms and people involved in these areas, including those providing construction, equipment, materials, services or other support to these operations, are more likely than all others to be 'bad actors'," the trade group wrote, "thus requiring a higher level of scrutiny."
That additional environmental record review was widely expected to be particularly bad news for Energy Transfer Partners, which has an environmental record that includes more than 300 pipeline incidents in the past decade, causing over $67 million dollars in property damage, according to data from the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
"From January 2010 through June 2017, ETP spilled hazardous liquids near water crossings more than twice as frequently as any other pipeline company in the United States this decade [and w]as responsible for almost 20 percent of all hazardous liquid spills near water crossings," a recently published report by the Waterkeeper Alliance noted.
In November, one of Energy Transfer Partners' pipeline projects was was sued by Ohio's Environmental Protection Agency over 13 violations of the state's environmental laws, including spewing millions of gallons of drilling fluid into the state's wetlands.
"Among other things, ETP has caused seven industrial spills during the construction of the $4.2 billion natural gas pipeline through Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Michigan," Reps. Frank Pallone, Jr. and Maria Cantwell, ranking members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and Energy and Natural Resources, respectively, wrote in a July 27, 2017 letter to federal regulators decrying ETP's track record on complying with environmental laws.
The company's spill record has even drawn concern from investors, with The Street reporting, "'Energy Transfer seems to have an approach where they stick to the minimum requirements instead of exceeding them,' Genscape natural gas analyst Colette Breshears said."
Sunoco Logistics, which merged into ETP last year, had the worst oil spill record of any company in the industry, a 2016 Reuters investigative report found.
==
Dakota Access Pipeline Bill Authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra Signed By Governor
Monday, October 9, 2017
SACRAMENTO – Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill (AB) 20 authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose), requiring the state’s two largest pension systems to submit a report on investments in the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL).
==
https://www.ecowatch.com/banks-tar-sands-paris-agreement-2505848938.html
At the start of next week, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the U.N.'s negotiating body on climate change, will meet in Germany to discuss next steps after the historic agreement by 195 countries to curb global climate change to 1.5° Celsius, or 2° at most—an agreement whose only logical conclusion is that the world cannot afford expansion of the fossil fuel industry.
Various players in the financial industry have talked a big game on their commitments to the Paris agreement. But their business practices prove otherwise.
According to the new report Funding Tar Sands: Private Banks vs. the Paris Climate Agreement, in the first three quarters of 2017, major international banks have financed the extraction and transportation of tar sands at levels one and a half times higher than in the whole of 2016.
How can it be that in the last nine months, $32 billion has gone to an extreme fossil fuel whose development is flatly incompatible with meeting the goals of the Paris agreement?
Moreover, banks continue to stand behind their clients whose proposed tar sands projects, from Teck Resources' Frontier open-pit mine, to Enbridge's Line 3 pipeline, would further damn our climate and infringe upon indigenous rights.
When President Trump announced he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris agreement, he drew a line: the Paris agreement's goal of limiting climate change to 1.5°C on one side, and his administration on the other.
On what side of the line do banks fall? Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, said, "I absolutely disagree with the administration on this issue." And yet, JPMorgan Chase has increased its financing for tar sands this year, banking on major companies as they acquire new tar sands assets. Meanwhile, the bank's policy grade comes in at a disappointing D+. JPMorgan Chase's actions declare its support not for the Paris agreement and the world's desperate need to stymie climate change, but rather for the Trump administration's pro-fossil fuel agenda.
Financial institutions have shown that they are able to make significant steps toward aligning their businesses with the goals of the Paris agreement. Three weeks ago, BNP Paribas published a new policy restricting its financing for tar sands oil, among other extreme fossil fuels, in a move that the Wall Street Journal called "one of the clearest signs yet the banking industry is re-evaluating its relationship with the oil sector."
It's a relationship that direly needs reevaluation. Banks can't keep funding business as usual expansion of fossil fuels, especially when it comes to the carbon bomb that is the tar sands.
Like it or not, we can't meet the goals of the Paris agreement without the financial industry on board, especially as governments like Trump's loosen the reins on the fossil fuel industry. Banks must take the immediate step of exiting the tar sands sector. Independent of governments, these major multinational institutions must say they're on board with the Paris agreement—and then prove it.
==
https://www.ecowatch.com/faith-institutions-divest-2492836438.html
Record Fossil Fuel Divestment Announced by Catholic Church
Wednesday, a coalition of 40 faith institutions on five continents have jointly just announced their divestment from fossil fuels. This is a big moment for both the global divestment movement and faith community, and we need to keep this momentum going strong.
This commitment well and truly quadruples the one announced in May, when nine Catholic organizations divested. We need to celebrate it and also seize the opportunity to build upon this moment.
In the words of Domenico Sorrentino, the bishop of Assisi-Nocera Umbra-Gualdo Tadino:
St. Francis (Pope Francis) encouraged us to live humbly, simply, and with true reverence for the Creator and Creation. Divesting from fossil fuels and making new investments in clean energy sources is our way of following St. Francis's example.
Pope Francis has prominently voiced his concerns about climate change and the fossil fuel industry. But while Vatican officials have acknowledged the call for fossil fuel divestment, the Vatican has not committed to divest its money from the industry that is destroying Creation—yet.
In the wake of this announcement, people from all over the world are uniting during the Season of Creation and urging the World Bank to stop financing fossil fuels and support for renewable energy instead. Please join and add your voice to the global call.
Now more than ever we need institutions to stand together on the right side of history against an immoral industry whose climate impacts we see and experience daily.
As we celebrate this inspiring show of moral leadership, let's make sure the World Bank puts its mouth where its money is and stops funding the fossil fuel industry and climate disasters.
A full list of all the institutions which have divested as part of this commitment can be found here.
==
http://www.alternet.org/environment/first-american-college-divest-fossil-fuels-has-outperformed-average-investment-return
==
http://www.alternet.org/environment/your-bank-funding-climate-disaster
Less than two months ago, the CEOs of JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs signed an open letter to Donald Trump, urging him to keep the United States in the Paris climate accord, which provides “a framework to manage climate change” and achieve emissions reductions while also expanding markets for “clean, energy-efficient technologies which will generate jobs and economic growth.”
To be clear, it is highly commendable to see corporations willing to stick their necks out for a principle. However, in order for the actual practice of these banks to align with these public principles—and specifically, to align with the Paris Agreement ambition of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees—the banking sector needs to address the billions they continue to pour into the most problematic fossil fuel sectors in the world.
In 2016 alone, that figure is $86.6 billion. That means the biggest global banks signed deals to the tune of$86.6 billion for the dirtiest of oils such as tar sands, Arctic, and ultra-deepwater oil; for coal and coal-fired power plants; and for liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals that drive fracking projects upstream and release massive amounts of methane, which is many times more potent than carbon dioxide.
As the top Western funder in this arena, JPMorgan Chase alone funneled more than $6.9 billion to extreme fossil fuels last year. Chase is number one in tar sands oil, Arctic oil, ultra-deepwater oil, coal power and LNG export. And it’s getting worse. In fact, Chase’s funding to extreme fossil fuels actually increased from 2015 to 2016, the first full year after the adoption of the Paris Climate Accord.
Simply put, financing extreme fossil fuels needs to end.
Banks need to accept that these activities are bankrupting all of us, economically, environmentally and ethically. The hard truth is that any bank that facilitates capital for extreme fossil fuels has no grounds to call itself socially responsible. The examples mount daily—tar sands pipelines face unified opposition from 122 Indigenous tribes and First Nations through the Treaty Alliance Against Tar Sands Expansion.
Less than two weeks after President Trump approved the Keystone XL pipeline, the Seattle City Council voted to divest from banks that finance TransCanada, the company behind the pipeline. In February, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio told 17 banks to withdraw from financing the Dakota Access Pipeline. “The people of Standing Rock should not be threatened by the greed of a few wealthy oil industry executives.”
And it’s not just oil—the Rio Grande Valley, in South Texas, is facing three planned liquefied natural gas export terminals that would destroy the coastline, threaten children’s health, trample Indigenous cultural sites, and threaten the critical tourism economy.
There is a silver lining: 2016 saw an actual decrease in this extreme sector funding from the previous year. Over the past three years, global bank financing to more than 150 extreme fossil fuel companies went from $92.3 billion in 2014, up to $111.0 billion in 2015—and down to $86.6 billion last year. While positive news, it is far from enough. This decline needs to not only continue—it needs to accelerate. And banking institutions need to play their part. They can no longer profit in the shadows by financing projects like the Keystone XL, Dakotas Access or Trans Mountain pipelines.
The fact is that banks do not have strong policies in place to ensure this downward trend accelerates. The only sector that has even halfway-decent policy safeguards is coal mining, in which many U.S. and European banks have made commitments to move away from the sector. Thanks to a six year long campaign by activists across the country, Bank of America was the first bank to adopt a policy to reduce its funding for coal mining—and though Bank of America’s overall extreme fossil fuel investment has increased over the past three years, their coal mining numbers have dropped. Remarkably, Bank of America was the number one funder of coal mining just five years ago.
Without policy guardrails in other sectors, we could see extreme fossil fuel funding reverse direction — especially with the current administration in the U.S. issuing dangerous promises to “bring back coal” and “unleash fossil fuels.” The truth is, if we extract all the oil, gas, and coal in the fields and mines that are already in production, we would blow the world past the Paris Agreement’s 2 degrees goals on global warming. In fact, even if we stopped burning coal completely—today—currently operating oil and gas fields alone would tip us over the 1.5 degrees goal.
Expansion in the extreme fossil fuel sector will not only decimate our environment but will stunt our investment in emerging clean technologies. A January Department of Energy report made the facts clear: In 2016, the solar industry employed 373,807 Americans. Coal? 160,119.
..
==
GOP threatens to sue Calif. over climate rule for insurers
Benjamin Hulac, E&E News reporter
Published: Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Twelve Republican attorneys general and Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin (R) demanded Monday that the California insurance commissioner halt a program requiring companies to disclose their investments in fossil fuels.
:{
}:
They called the program misguided and inflammatory, and they threatened to file a lawsuit if it continues to be used. The Republican officials made their demands related to the Climate Risk Carbon Initiative in a letter yesterday to California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones.
Jones announced the climate disclosure effort in January 2016. He said falling coal prices present financial hazards, and he asked insurance companies to "voluntarily" sell their stakes in thermal coal. He also required insurers to turn over data about their fossil fuel investments.
That has chafed Republicans, who claim that California's requirements are heavy-handed and ideological. They say the program is not about the financial stability of insurers — the traditional jurisdiction of insurance regulators.
"Rather, your call for divestment and attempt to publicly shame those who invest in American energy appears to be driven by politics unrelated to insurance regulation, animus towards the fossil fuel industry and those who depend on it, and a desire to discriminate against those who transact in commerce that mostly takes place outside your state (e.g. coal mining and coal power generation)," the letter reads.
If Jones does not end the program, Bevin and the attorneys general said, "we will be forced to consider the legal avenues of relief available to protect our insurance carriers, energy producers, and consumers."
Jones said threats of lawsuits would not get him to shut down the program.
"For those climate-denying politicians of red states who threaten to sue me, I will happily defend my obligation as California's insurance commissioner to make sure insurers are addressing climate change related risks and to protect California consumers," he said in a statement.
The interstate spat highlights the massive financial clout California wields in American insurance markets. To do business nationwide, insurers often need to comply with regulations set down by the California Department of Insurance.
The attorneys general of Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wyoming signed the letter.
Representatives for Bevin and Jones did not respond to requests for comment.
About 650 insurance firms have responded to the disclosure program. More than 300 said they have analyzed their "carbon risk," while 272 declined to do so, according to figures from the California insurance commission.
The data show that insurers surveyed have invested about $240 billion in the oil and gas industry and roughly $10.5 billion in thermal coal.
"This misguided policy is negligent, politically driven, unrelated to insurance regulation and is risking a certain lawsuit," Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter (R), the letter's author, said in a statement.
Alex Gerszewski, a spokesman for Hunter, said the attorney general has not spoken to Jones about the issue but was motivated by his experience in the energy industry and by his conversations with the Oklahoma insurance commissioner.
Hunter succeeded Scott Pruitt, who now serves as U.S. EPA administrator, as Oklahoma's attorney general earlier this year.
==
==
Even as the Dakota Access Pipeline inches toward completion, multiple cities including Seattle, San Francisco, Albuquerque, Raleigh, and Philadelphia have spoken with their wallets, severing ties with the oil pipeline-funding banks—in particular, Wells Fargo.
On May 31, New York City became the latest city to join the effort, when Mayor Bill de Blasio and comptroller Scott Stringer announced that they will vote to stop New York City from entering into new contracts with Wells Fargo and strip the bank of its role as book-running manager for NYC's General Obligation and Transitional Finance Authority bond sales.
Seattle was at the forefront of the movement back in February, when a coalition of activists convinced the city council to pass an ordinance that, as the Nation explained, "would effectively bar the local government from doing business with or investing in Wells Fargo in the future. It was an ambitious ask: Seattle was deeply intertwined with the bank, cycling about $3 billion through the institution each year."
==
15 Top Groups Divest from 'Pipeline Banks'
Coming on the heels of last week's announcement to abandon the Paris climate accord, a group of leading national social change organizations announced Tuesday that they are divesting funds from "pipeline banks" and instead banking in alignment with their values. This growing international movement represents the next wave of institutions and individuals refusing to do business with banks financing risky fossil fuel infrastructure projects like the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), Keystone XL, Trans Mountain and others.
The 15 U.S.-based organizations represent more than 13 million combined supporters. These groups have either already moved organizational money out of banks that finance DAPL and/or other tar sands pipelines, are in the process of doing so or never held an account in such banks in the first place. They currently, or will soon, use banks that they consider more socially responsible in principle and practice.
The groups include: 350.org, Climate Hawks Vote, CREDO, Earth Guardians, Friends of the Earth, Green America, Honor the Earth, Institute for Policy Studies, League of Conservation Voters, The Hip Hop Caucus, Oil Change International, Potlach Fund, Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club and the U.S. Climate Action Network (USCAN).
"Shifting investments away from fossil fuels can help banks improve not just their social license but their bottom line—investments in clean, renewable energy have proven to be a boon to both our economy and our environment," Lena Moffitt, senior director of the Sierra Club's Our Wild America Campaign, said. "The people are watching where and what banks sink their funds into, and they will not back down until every last one commits to investing in a future that benefits their communities, their economies and their health."
According to Shorting the Climate, a report documenting big bank support for fossil fuel infrastructure, the top global and U.S. banks provided $785 billion for fossil fuel infrastructure such as coal and tar sands development from 2013 through 2015. Advocates are taking action to ensure that banks do not continue to finance and lock in infrastructure that will push the world past the Paris climate agreement objectives.
"Now, more than ever, organizations and individuals are waking up to the troubling reality of what their banks are supporting with their money," Vanessa Green, campaign director for DivestInvest Individual, said. "It's time for everyone to invest in our future and divest from projects and businesses that harm our environment. If our President won't do the right thing, then we all need to step up and do it ourselves."
After recent bank protests and a burning global spotlight, several banks have dropped investments in DAPL or have committed, as U.S. Bank recently did, to revisit their financing of future fossil fuel projects threatening Indigenous sovereignty, water and land. But as one form or other of bank financing continues for existing and proposed pipelines, efforts to defund them continue.
"For too long decision-makers have put the profit of polluters over the lives of real people," Mustafa Santiago Ali, senior vice president of Climate, Environmental Justice & Community Revitalization for the Hip Hop Caucus, said. "Divesting in those who support those decision-makers and polluters is a way we are fighting back."
Last month, a coalition of grassroots Indigenous groups from across Turtle Island and 121 First Nations and Tribes of the Treaty Alliance Against Tar Sands Expansion launched an expanded pipeline divestment campaign. With a focus on 17 primary target banks, they call on "individuals, businesses, organizations and governments to withdraw their money from these banks" until they stop financing Enbridge, Kinder Morgan and TransCanada, the companies behind the Dakota Access Pipeline and four proposed new tar sands pipelines projects. The Mazaska (Money) Talks campaign and aligned public petition are catalyzing account closures—currently over $3.6 billion—to tally the business lost due to the banks' continued involvement.
"Divestment has been a hugely successful tactic in confronting the global climate crisis and is now shining a bright light on the assaults on the sovereignty, land and water of First Nations people perpetuated by fossil fuel billionaires and their dirty pipelines," Jenny Marienau, U.S. campaigns director at 350.org, said. "Just this May during 350.org's Global Divestment Mobilization, thousands of people attended over 260 events in 45 countries on six continents to put pressure on institutions to break their financial ties with fossil fuel companies."
Most major banks are invested in fossil fuel companies and infrastructure projects like pipelines, refineries and export terminals, among other risky industries. A growing number of online resources exist to help account holders identify alternatives like small and medium-sized banks, credit unions, CDCUs and CDFIs that support a clean and equitable energy transition, local economic development, fair housing, sustainable food systems and more.
==
http://www.ecowatch.com/dapl-esg-investing-2353847023.html
The McKinsey Global Institute's report, The Power of Parity: How Advancing Women's Equality Can Add $12 Trillion to Global Growth, concluded that, "Gender inequality is not only a pressing moral and social issue but also a critical economic challenge. If women … do not achieve their full economic potential, the global economy will suffer."
The report identified three elements that are essential for achieving the full potential of gender parity: gender equality in society, economic development and a shift in attitudes. According to the report, 95 percent of company CEOs are still male and of the 22,000 global firms that were reviewed, 60 percent failed to have any women on their boards.
Facing this disparity head on the Intentional Endowments Network (IEN) held the first webinar on Gender Lens Investing: The Business Case, Opportunities and Action. Gender Lens Investing is defined as "the integration of gender into investment analysis" and it makes a strong business case for more female CEOs. Panelists, Kathleen McQuiggan at Pax World and Julianne Zimmerman at Reinventure Capital, shared research on the business case for investing in women. The conclusion was that the case for gender investing has never been stronger and that companies where women are better represented in leadership simply perform better.
...
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/05/15/us-bank-stop-funding-pipelines-divestment-movement-expands-worldwide
As a nearly ten-days-long global mobilizationcalling for divestment from fossil fuels comes to an end, climate campaigners are celebrating a major victory stateside: U.S. Bank has announced that it will no longer finance fossil fuel pipeline construction.
The announcement came during the company's April shareholder meeting, reported MN350, a state arm of international climate justice group 350.org, on Monday.
As a result of the new policy, MN350 observes that the bank will no longer provide "project financing for the construction of oil or natural gas pipelines," and will also apply "enhanced due diligence processes" to oil and gas industry clients.
"U.S. Bank's new policy is an important step in protecting the environment and moving towards a fossil free future," said Wichahpi Otto, a MN350 volunteer, who attended the shareholder meeting in Nashville. "We applaud them for responding to the community and contributing to worldwide efforts to address climate change."
The group writes:
This move comes after ongoing pressure on U.S. Bank locally from MN350 and from the Minnesotans for a Fair Economy coalition, and on banks nationally from indigenous groups including Honor the Earth, the Indigenous Environmental Network, and the Dakota Access resistance movement.
Beginning in 2015, a regional partnership of climate, labor, and indigenous rights advocates has urged that U.S. Bank divest from fossil fuels, in particular from Enbridge Energy, and move its financing into the clean energy economy. Local actions have included letter-writing, account closures, and social media campaigns. In response, in May 2016 the bank made changes to their Environmental Policy restricting lending to coal.
"We applaud this progressive decision from U.S. Bank," said Tara Houska, National Campaigns Director of Honor the Earth. "A strong message is being sent to the fossil fuel industry: we are consumers, we have agency and the right to know how our money is being invested. Move to a green economy and a future that does not profit off the destruction of Mother Earth and our communities."
Meanwhile, 260 events in 45 countries saw people worldwide campaign for banks to divest from fossil fuel projects. The Global Divestment Mobilization (GDM) ran from May 5 to May 13, and included events in Europe, Africa, Australia, Asia, and South America.
"Divestment is a powerful act of solidarity and justice for the world's most vulnerable people, a defense of nature and our planet," said Lidy Nacpil of the Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) in a statement.
"We urgently need a transformation in the global energy system, away from the fossil fuel dependence that drives climate change, and challenge fossil fuel corporations that oppose progress in climate action and prioritize profits over people and planet," Nacpil continued. "Divestment has proven to be one of the most effective ways to push for this much needed transformation."
"During the GDM citizens and respected institutions across the world were able to enact an immediate and a much needed transformational form of climate leadership," wrote 350.org. "This included the announcement from nine Catholic organizations from around the world about their decision to divest their portfolios from fossil fuels in the largest joint Catholic divestment to date. A total of 27 Catholic institutions have now divested. Meanwhile in Brazil over 3000 people participated in prayers in a vigil outside the Umuarama Cathedral, to voice their hopes for a fossil fuel free future."
The organization went on to describe the varied actions in far-flung locations around the world:
Across Europe, the links between municipalities and fossil fuel companies came under scrutiny. Over 1,000 people marched in Munich, Germany and demonstrations took place across the UK including rallies at 14 Town Halls across London demanding divestment. Campaigners also put pressure on universities pension funds, faith, health and cultural institutions such as the Louvre in Paris, the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam and the British Museum.
The battle to safeguard people and planet is linked worldwide, the money in one part of the world is linked to infrastructure projects being built elsewhere. Hundreds gathered in Jakarta to listen to community representatives from Indramayu recount the struggles they encounter living in the shadow of a coal power plant. During an event in Japan case studies of Japanese banks financing coal power plants in Indonesia and oil pipelines in the United States were highlighted to put pressure on Japanese banks to pull out of fossil fuels.
In New Zealand and Australia campaigners targeted Australian coal-giant Adani by calling on the banks that invest in it, including CommBank to stop its funding. Australia's Great Barrier Reef has suffered a large bleaching for the second year in a row. Any mining expansion would jeopardise it even further.
Meanwhile in New York 150 activists rallied inside Trump Tower, to call on New York City officials to cut their ties with the dirty oil and gas companies that control the White House. In the face of federal government climate denial and the possibility of the U.S. leaving the Paris Agreement, demonstrating that local leaders can show impactful climate leadership, while other parts of the country are suffering from severe flooding.
"There is no question we are currently in a state of emergency on climate change. Day in day out people are dying from the effects of climate change," said author and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben in a statement. "There are many ways to confront this emergency and divestment allows us to get in the way of the money financing the fossil fuel projects behind this crisis. The fact that the fossil fuel divestment movement has grown exponentially in the last few years is the best news ever."
"From the Pacific Islands to South Africa, from the United States to Germany, people are standing up and challenging the power of the fossil fuel industry," McKibben added.
==
==
http://www.fossilfreeuc.org/
Contacts:
Spokesperson: Celeste Argueta, 559-901-1328, celiarg@sbcglobal.net
Spokesperson: Cassie Macy, 714-813-5437, cassiemacyy@gmail.com
Media coordinator: Emily Williams, 408-318-4356, emilylynnwilliams@gmail.com
UC Santa Barbara’s Chancellor Yang Becomes First UC Chancellor to Call for UC’s Divestment from Fossil Fuels
Student Sit-In Results in Bold Action on Eve of Next UC Regent’s Meeting
SANTA BARBARA, Ca.- May 11 at noon in Cheadle Hall, the UCSB campus administration building, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Margaret Klawunn issued a statement on behalf of Chancellor Henry T. Yang both endorsing the fossil fuel divestment campaign, Fossil Free UC, and pledging to collaborate on the issue with fellow chancellors across the UC system. The public endorsement comes after 350 students maintained a 3 day sit-in inside the administration building, with the endorsement by over 25 faculty members of the action, calling upon UC Regent Richard Sherman to divest the university’s $2.8 billion currently invested in fossil fuel companies. The endorsement is the first of its kind from a UC chancellor on the issue of fossil fuel divestment and students expect it will help push the UC towards accomplishing the campaign’s goal of full divestment from the fossil fuel industry.
The chancellor’s full statement said the following: “I stand by our students who have been sitting in calling for fossil fuel divestment this past week and support their aims. I furthermore wish to acknowledge the professors and staff at this campus and across the University who deeply care about the moral, political, economic, and scientific imperative of moving away from fossil fuel dependency. Finally, I am pleased to support the incredible efforts the UC has already made toward tackling climate change and providing leadership and solutions that we will all depend on. In the coming week, I look forward to working with my fellow chancellors in support of a thorough and transparent discussion on divestment from fossil fuels as part of the UC’s approach to combating the climate crisis.”
Fossil Free UCSB spokeswoman and UCSB first year, Celeste Argueta, said “Chancellor Yang’s endorsement of our campaign is a historic victory for all the students who have taken part in the sit in and for the UCSB student community more broadly, making it clear that our campus will stand on the right side of history. Remaining neutral is simply not an option, it is high time Regent Sherman joined us too.” Richard Sherman chairs the UC’s investment committee.
On Monday, May 8, 38 UCSB students walked into Cheadle Hall and began a sit-in to pressure UC Regent Sherman and the broader UC Board of Regents. Over the following three days, Chancellor Yang met with campaign negotiators and together they agreed on the terms of endorsement. Students at UCSB have been campaigning on fossil fuel divestment since 2012 and the Fossil Free UCSB group is part of a larger coalition of students across the UC. The campaigns at UC Davis and UC Berkeley held similar sit ins last week. The rolling sit ins come during a wave of global action for fossil fuel divestment.
UCSB political science major and fossil free campaigner, Cassie Macy, said “Students showed up and showed their power this week because the fossil fuel industry intends to burn five times more coal, oil, and gas than is safe for a stable climate. Eighty percent of fossil fuels must remain below ground to avoid climate catastrophe but the UC continues to invest in companies whose business plan depends upon destabilizing the future safety and security of its students.” These numbers have motivated Fossil Free campaigns across the globe and led them to point to the 200 most polluting fossil fuel companies as those most responsible for climate change and pollution linked to cancers and respiratory diseases that impact society’s most marginalized communities first and hardest.
Chancellor Yang’s endorsement comes just four days before the UC Regents will meet at UC San Francisco, where students from across the UC will converge once again to take bold action and urge Regent Sherman to stand with students and commit to divestment. After four years, Fossil Free campaigners across the UC have become wary of such meetings but next week they will be eager to capitalize on the support of their new found ally.
http://www.fossilfreeuc.org/divest/uc-santa-barbara
As determined in her senior thesis, now-alumni Emily Williams found that UCSB’s own investments in just the 15 most polluting coal companies is responsible for nearly $200,000 of external costs–in the form of health burdens, climate change-related costs, ecosystem services, etc–pushed off onto society and the environment. If UCSB’s own investments have such a large impact on society and the environment, what about the greater University of California’s investments?
Fossil Free UCSB started up in Fall 2012 through Associated Students Environmental Affairs Board. Since then, our team passed a unanimous reolution through the Associated Students Senate on Valentines Day, 2013; a resolution through the UCSB Academic Senate; and a resolution through the Chancellor’s Sustainability Committee. We have also held actions including a teach-In, featuring keynote speaker, Jill Stein of the Green Party; marches; and rallies.
We are currently working with the larger Fossil Free UC team and the UCSB campus to spark a rich and insightful dialogue around our university’s investments in fossil fuels, in addition to coordinating with our alumni and faculty on ways to strengthen our outreach, and build power.
Get Involved!
- Visit and like our Facebook Page;
- Come to our EAB working groups meetings on Wednesdays at 7PM in the GSA;
- Contact The LeQuesne (theo.leq@hotmail.com) if you are a student and want to get more involved;
- Contact John Foran (foran@soc.ucsb.edu) if you are a faculty member and want to get more involved;
- Or contact Emily Williams (emilylynnwilliams@gmail.com) if you are an alum and want to get more involved!
==
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22022017/exxon-mobil-tar-sands-alberta-canada-climate-change-oil-prices
===
The largest bank in Norway, DNB, has sold its assets in the companies behind the $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline, and it’s considering whether to terminate three separate loans the bank has made to finance the project. The sold assets were worth $3 million. The loans under consideration finance up to 10 percent of the pipeline’s construction. Norway’s DNB is not connected to DNB First, which is based in Pennsylvania and is not involved in the Dakota Access pipeline. This comes as Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the Dakota Access pipeline, is almost certain to miss the January 1, 2017, deadline by which it had promised oil companies it would have completed construction, opening up the possibility the pipeline company may lose its contracts with oil companies. In recent court documents, Energy Transfer Partners acknowledged that if the Army Corps of Engineers does grant the final permit to drill underneath the Missouri River, it would still take the company between three and four months to finish the project. It’s still not clear whether the permit will ever be granted. Even if it is granted, missing the January 1 deadline means oil companies will have the right to renegotiate or even cancel their contracts to have oil shipped through the Dakota Access pipeline. These cancellations are likely, given that Bakken oil production has fallen by 20 percent since its peak in December 2014—the same year the contracts were first signed. Energy Transfer Partners has acknowledged in court filings "loss of shippers to the project could effectively result in project cancellation."
2016 confAmerican Legislative Exchange Council will push bills to protect failing charter schools, silence political speech, and obstruct environmental protections in the ALEC 2016 agenda introduced at its annual meeting in Indianapolis this week.ALEC faces renewed public attention as it gears up for the annual meeting, where corporate lobbyists sit side-by-side with state legislators in luxury hotels to vote as equals on "model bills" that then get pushed to become law in states across the country.As the Center for Media and Democracy has reported, Donald Trump chose an ALEC ally, Indiana Governor Mike Pence, as his running mate, while his party's 2016 platform was clearly stamped in the Koch-fueled ALEC mold.Pence Pushed ALEC Agenda in the Hoosier StateAs Governor, Pence appointed an ALEC staffer to his cabinet, and pushed parts of the ALEC agenda into law, such as anti-worker bills like repealing the prevailing wage and privatizing public schools in various ways. He even sent a letter to state legislators urging them to join ALEC, which is widely described as a corporate bill mill. ALEC is funded by Koch Industries, Peabody Energy, huge global tobacco and drug companies, and other corporations that pay a premium to access ALEC lawmakers.Conveniently for him, this year's meeting will be held in the snazzy J.W. Marriott in downtown Indianapolis. Pence is scheduled to deliver a keynote address at lunch on Wednesday, then is slated to speak at an evening reception on school "reform" jointly hosted by the Center for Education Reform (CER) and the Jack Kemp Foundation (JKF).If Pence had time to stay for a few task force meetings, here are some of the new "model bills" he would find voted on behind closed doors by ALEC legislators alongside corporate lobbyists and representatives of special interest groups that are part of the State Policy Network (SPN).Second Chances for Failing Charter SchoolsThe for-profit education companies that help fund ALEC, like K12, Inc., have a track record of poor results that tends to result in a high rate of school closures. K12, which was founded in part by junk bond fraudster felon Michael Milken, has a seat and a vote on ALEC's corporate board.Two new bills being considered by what ALEC now dubs its "Education and Workforce Development Task Force" could help poorly performing charters stay open without having to improve.Under the Assessment Choice Act, instead of using a uniform assessment for students statewide, charters' authorizers would take their pick from a "menu" of tests, unlike traditional public schools.If propping up test scores isn't enough to save a charter from closure, the "Student and Family Fair Notice and Impact Statement Act" promises to add new hurdles. Before closing or restructuring a charter school, this act would not just require that families be notified. It would also create a public hearing process in which parents, teachers, and "experts" could give testimony about the school, and the charter board would be allowed to suggest a response plan.In case it wasn't obvious that the bill is meant to keep the charter in operation, the drafter of that model bill added:"[drafting note: it should be clear the school can present an alternative for supporters of the school to rally around.]"School privatization proponents have slowly been dropping the pretense that the "school choice" movement is about helping underprivileged children. At a workshop titled "The Path to Universal Choice: From Theory to Passage to Implementation," lawmakers will be schooled on how to "open up more options to the middle class."ALEC Aims to Silence Political Speech With Anti-Divestment BillWhile ALEC purports to support "limited government," its bills show that is code for unlimited corporate power, even from democratic control by stockholders.For example, ALEC bills have leveraged right-wing ALEC control of state legislatures to try to stifle political movements that are winning the battle for public opinion, as CMD has previously reported in its coverage of ALEC's preemption strategy, among other areas.This ALEC meeting includes a proposal opposing the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions Movement (BDS), which has been growing in strength, especially on college campuses.The BDS Movement is an international campaign to use economic pressure to push the state of Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories and to allow Palestinian refugees the right of return to their homes.While a healthy public debate is ongoing about the pros and cons of BDS, ALEC's proposal as described doesn't merely express opposition to the movement. Instead, it apparently aims to silence political speech and activity:"The goal of the resulting model policy will be to create disincentives to engaging in (and prohibit to the extent possible) secondary boycott activities."ALEC host Indiana and a handful of other states have passed similar anti-boycott bills, which the American Civil Liberties Union has criticized as unconstitutional limits on speech.This is all par for the course for ALEC, which opposed anti-Apartheid sanctions, as CMD's Nick Surgey uncovered with Calvin Sloan. ALEC has long opposed citizen stockholder movements to urge socially responsible investing.Still Attacking Public Sector Unions After Losing in the Supreme CourtEarlier this year, a split U.S. Supreme Court left standing a lower court's decision to uphold public sector union fees in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. As CMD documented, ALEC sibling group SPN organized anti-union protests at the Court before the case was decided.Undaunted, ALEC's "Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development" Task Force is presenting a combined version of its long-standing "Right to Work" Act and Public Employee Choice Act. The new version has been re-branded the "Friedrichs Public Employee Freedom Act" to try to get more mileage from the case. Its namesakeRebecca Friedrichs is a photogenic school teacher and rightwing activist who tried to pave the way for free-riders to get out of union dues. Friedrichs herself is an invited speaker at the conference.To advance this agenda, the task force meeting will hear just from proponents at a presentation titled, "A State Strategy to Protect Public Employees' Free Speech Rightsin the Wake of Friedrichs v. California Teachers' Association." The presentation will likely unfold the next steps of ALEC's Koch-y anti-union strategy.Leaning Hard on Attorneys General to Block Climate Change and Environmental Protections...now a legal strategy?Bevis Longstreth, a former SEC commissioner, says his new proposal to state attorneys general for an "interpretive release" and guidance on climate-related risk could open the floodgates of divestment from coal, oil and gas companiesThe money managers of university and non-profit endowments owe a debt of gratitude to a lawyer named Bevis Longstreth. He's hardly a household name, but an obscure book he published 30 years ago provoked a modernization of the legal definition of prudent investing that changed their lives for the better.His work opened the door for trustees of non-profits to make investments that are now at the heart of modern portfolio management. Previously they were out of bounds because they were considered too risky."Imagine all the pension funds in this country, and all the institutions like Yale and others, they are all deeply invested in hedge funds," Longstreth said. "When I wrote that book it would have been impossible for them to invest in a hedge fund."Now Longstreth, 82, is out to rock the world of non-profit money managers again. This time he doesn't have a book, but merely a six-page argument.His proposal calls for a legal reinterpretation of what constitutes prudent management of institutional funds now that the investment landscape is filled with new risks for fossil fuel investors.With the world heading toward zero carbon emissions after the signing of the Paris agreement, Longstreth thinks it's time for some fresh guidance.To that end, he's working channels to convince various attorneys general to spell out those risks in an "interpretive release," and offer guidance on how to handle them. He thinks the attorneys general of New York, Massachusetts and California will be most receptive to his proposal.If the guidance is published, Longstreth says, it could open floodgates of divestment from coal, oil and gas companies. That's because, as he explains in the extensive interview below, it can't be ignored.Every state in the union (except Pennsylvania and the territory of Puerto Rico) has its own version of the uniform law governing investments by trustees, known by the acronym UPMIFA. And each attorney general has power to issue guidance on how to exercise prudence under that uniform law.The question remains whether any attorney general would offer guidance singling out a particular asset class.Though retired from legal practice and now a three-time novelist, Longstreth brings considerable experience to his latest legal rethink. He was twice appointed by President Ronald Reagan to serve as commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For decades he was a securities lawyer and partner at Debevoise & Plimpton, a prominent international firm.He wears wire-rimmed glasses, carries degrees from Princeton (B.S. 1956) and Harvard (LL.B 1961), and has a careful manner of choosing words precisely.We spoke with Longstreth about his career, his latest legal effort, and how it could provoke change.ICN: Your career included being a commissioner of the SEC. How were you chosen and how would you characterize your tenure?Longstreth: I served in the SEC from 1981-1984. I was appointed by President Reagan to a shortened term to fill out somebody who had retired, and then Reagan reappointed me to occupy a Democratic seat on the commission. I think for President Reagan I was not an obvious choice, given my political background, but I was chosen because Jim Baker [Reagan's former chief of staff] wanted me there.http://insideclimatenews.org/news/07062016/retired-lawyer-boris-longstreth-floodgates-divestment-fossil-fuels-climate-change-investmentsseealo http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140213/climate-change-science-carbon-budget-nature-global-warming-2-degrees-bill-mckibben-fossil-fuels-keystone-xl-oilu mass divest 1sthttp://ecowatch.com/2016/05/26/umass-divest-fossil-fuels/http://divestinvest.org/philanthropy/http://divestinvest.org/philanthropy/resources/#/resources/post-2381 top 200http://fossilfreeindexes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/CU200ListFinal.png == promoted to primary----http://insidephilanthropy.squarespace.com/climate-change/2014/1/31/the-17-foundations-yanking-their-assets-from-the-fossil-fuel.html 17 Foundations Yanking Their Assets From the Fossil Fuel Industry AuthorTate Williams Can a foundation with a mission to fight climate change do so in good faith when it has millions in assets invested in oil, gas and coal companies? That’s a big question that’s been kicking around the philanthropy world in recent years, and 17 foundations just answered it by committing to divest their trusts from fossil fuel stocks. Announced this week, Divest-Invest Philanthropy is an initiative in which foundations with more than $2 billion in combined assets have publicly committed to pulling all investments from fossil fuel companies, and investing at least 5 percent of their funds in clean energy companies. The foundations are joining what’s become known as the Divest Movement, a growing campaign to convince universities, churches, municipalities and now philanthropies that holding investments in fossil fuel companies is immoral and financially unwise. The tactic has been used in the past in opposition to apartheid, genocide and the tobacco industry. College activists and Bill McKibben’s nonprofit 350.org have spearheaded the movement, although a limited number of schools have actually agreed to divest. Divest-Invest represents a sizable chunk of money, but it also makes a statement, calling out foundations as standing on shaky moral ground. The group doesn’t have any titans such as Ford, Hewlett or MacArthur, but it does have some pretty sizable signatories. The largest is the Park Foundation, the upstate-New York-based funder that supports environmental work, including protecting water supplies from fracking. The foundation boasts a $335 million trust. Social justice funder Wallace Global Fund is also on board with its $155 million endowment. As is the Educational Foundation of America, which leverages its $141 million in assets toward arts, the environment and reproductive health and justice. The initiative also has some high-profile names. The foundation of Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt and his wife Wendy, The Schmidt Family Foundation, is perhaps the most prominent participant. The Sierra Club Foundation and Ben & Jerry’s Foundation are also signatories. While this is the first coalition of funders to publicly and strategically divest from fossil fuels, it’s the latest in a trend of what’s called Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) or Mission-Related Investment (MRI). The principle behind the movement is that, even if a foundation is giving, say, $10 million a year toward its mission, if it’s assets of $200 million are comfortably resting in the pockets of companies that undercut that mission, we've got a problem. And if that mission is fighting climate change, as Ellen Dorsey of Wallace Global Fund said, “Grant making alone is insufficient to meet this challenge.” Organizations like Confluence Philanthropy and the Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment are devoted to furthering this idea and helping organizations move their funds to businesses that reflect their values. It's also a popular practice among younger philanthropists, born into wealth and concerned about what their money is up to. The group Resource Generation is attempting to organize such donors to maximize their impact toward social change. Of course, there is a counterargument. For one, institutions and foundations consider it part of their duty to maintain strong endowments for the future, maximizing funds that can then be used toward their missions. Universities tend to make this argument. And to be fair, many investors (including average 401K holders) spread their funds across hundreds of companies, and who is to say that investors are responsible for those companies’ activities, or which companies are bad enough actors to abandon? There’s also the idea that by cutting ties with the energy industry, you shoot yourself in the foot by losing the opportunity to cooperatively influence these corporate heavyweights’ behaviors. But for these 17 funders and a growing number of institutions, it’s a matter of putting your money where your mouth is, as well as long-term financial sustainability. As their commitment statement says, “Ethically, our investments shouldn’t contribute to dangerous climate change. Financially, fossil fuel stocks are over-valued as most of their reserves cannot be burned. We can get good, safe returns while helping to build a new energy system.” And while divestment is somewhat symbolic, if it gains momentum among the deepest pockets in philanthropy, it could start to sting the fossil fuel industry and perhaps more significantly, give a tangible boost to clean energy companies. The foundations that have signed on to Divest-Invest are: Ben & Jerry’s Foundation The Chorus Foundation Compton Foundation The Educational Foundation of America Granary Foundation Jesse Smith Noyes Foundation The John Merck Fund The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust KL Felicitas Foundation Nia Community Fund Park Foundation The Russell Family Foundation Schmidt Family Foundation The Sierra Club Foundation Singing Field Foundation Solidago Foundation Wallace Global Fund DateFriday, January 31, 2014 ===3/16 http://www.alternet.org/environment/rockefeller-family-fund-divest-exxonmobil-says-oil-giant-morally-reprehensible It’s been a really rough few days for ExxonMobil, the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas company. First, on Wednesday, the Rockefeller Family Fund announced it would divest from the oil giant, saying it would “eliminate holdings" of Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM.N) “effective immediately,” asserting that the company associated with the family fortune has misled the public about the risks of climate change. Because of the long-established threat posed to the planetary ecosystem by fossil fuel extraction and use, the fund said “there is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons.” Man! Rockefeller Family Fund sells all Exxon stock, citing company's 'morally reprehensible conduct.' #exxonknew https://t.co/S7uwXsI26V — Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) March 24, 2016 In a letter posted on its website, the fund slammed Exxon's conduct as "morally reprehensible." They write: Evidence appears to suggest that the company worked since the 1980s to confuse the public about climate change’s march, while simultaneously spending millions to fortify its own infrastructure against climate change’s destructive consequences and track new exploration opportunities as the Arctic’s ice receded. Exxon tried to frame the fund’s move as unsurprising. In a statement, Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said, "The Rockefeller Family Fund provided financial support to InsideClimate News and Columbia University Journalism School which produced inaccurate and deliberately misleading stories about ExxonMobil's history of climate research.” But Stacy Feldman, executive editor of InsideClimate News, stands by those stories. "Exxon has never specified what is inaccurate or misleading in the series, nor has it requested any corrections," she said in a statement. "But our investigation of Exxon's climate duplicity has won five national journalism awards." The day would only get worse for the multinational energy firm, as the Securities and Exchange Commission ordered a vote on a shareholder resolution that would require the firm to disclose how climate change—or regulations meant to combat it—would impact the stability of the company’s finances. Govt securities watchdog orders ExxonMobil shareholder vote on #climate data https://t.co/KfS425w05d #ExxonKnew #divest — climatehawk1 (@climatehawk1) March 24, 2016 The SEC’s move comes just weeks after an investigation by the Government Accountability Project, which revealed that, for years, Exxon had lied to the SEC in its 10-K filings. “Exxon has done a masterful job of hedging its bets, both by omission and commission: omitting mere mention for many years, and then grossly understating, the vast array of direct and indirect risks it faces as a result of climate change,” said Climate Science & Policy Watch, a GAP program that promotes governmental integrity in the use of climate science. “Even worse, Exxon has overtly and flagrantly overstated possible financial and economic risks associated with regulating carbon and other GHGs, both here in the U.S. and in nations around the world." On Thursday, Exxon got even more bad news. New Jersey State Senator Raymond Lesniak called on Acting Attorney General Robert Lougy to join an investigation launched by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. California Attorney General Kamala Harris opened a similar probe. The investigations just keep piling up. The FBI’s criminal investigation unit is currently conducting an initial review of evidence that Exxon knew about the “catastrophic” impacts of climate change. While the problems and negative press continue to mount for Exxon, traders remains fairly bullish on XOM stock. “Even if oil prices would retreat in the upcoming weeks, it is still not the right time to sell Exxon shares,” research analyst Arie Goren wrote Monday on Seeking Alpha. “In my opinion, XOM's stock is an excellent long term investment. … Although Exxon's dividend yield is lower than that of the other supermajor integrated oil & gas companies, it is sustainable, in my view.” But sustainability on the stock market is very different from sustainability in the environment, and ethical investors increasingly want nothing to do with the oil industry. The Rockefeller Fund’s announcement follows the recent decision to divest by a prominent Rockefeller, Neva Rockefeller Goodwin, who serves as the co-director of the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University. In my interview with Goodwin last month, she noted the patently illogical stance that may undergird the decision-making at Exxon and other fossil fuel firms that continue to put profit above the planet: From casual observation it appears that there are people with a reasonable sense of morality who steer their companies to do pretty immoral things. Evidently such people erect a firewall between their personal and business ethics. Goodwin also points out that a more sustainable and sensible alternative to doing business exists: There is a slowly growing movement to point out the ways in which what is commonly accepted as decent morality is also good for business. For example, the “Porter hypothesis” suggests that good environmental ethics tend to be efficient and cost-saving for business. There is considerable evidence that this is correct. Other kinds of ethics may be less clearly related, positively or negatively, to profits. An important role for government is to create an environment in which socially good behavior does not hurt the company, and in which the kind of behavior that creates what economists call “negative externalities” is not profitable. In its letter, the Rockefeller Family Fund emphasizes its support for the overwhelming science on the effects of climate change and what must be done to prevent its worse potential impacts: The science and intent enunciated by the Paris agreement cannot be more clear: far from finding additional sources of fossil fuels, we must keep most of the already discovered reserves in the ground if there is any hope for human and natural ecosystems to survive and thrive in the decades ahead. “For decades, Exxon has done everything in its power to cover up the impact climate change would have on its business and the planet—those chickens are finally coming home to roost,” said Jamie Henn, communications director for 350.org. “Exxon is increasingly caught in its own web of deception. Instead of addressing climate change when they first found out about it decades ago, the company has aggressively pursued a business path that is incompatible with a livable planet. That’s opened them up to divestment, regulation, and now, potential prosecution.” All of this activity centering around Exxon’s malfeasance suggests that the momentum is growing behind the #ExxonKnew campaign, which is calling on state AGs across the nation to join New York and California in opening investigations into the energy giant. With total assets at nearly $350 billion, ExxonMobil is one of the world’s biggest companies. It has the resources to change the script; to invest more heavily in renewable energy and green jobs to help move the nation and the world toward a low-carbon future. But will it? As the pressure mounts for the company on multiple fronts, it may have to. "If Exxon doesn’t show how it plans to adapt its business to a carbon constrained world, it’s time for shareholders to divest," said Henn. "There’s no other responsible option.” “Climate change will increasingly cause events like hurricanes that will destroy large swathes of property, kill numbers of people, make many homeless,” Goodwin told me. “In the long run, producers of fossil fuels will have to lose. The only question is how much the people and ecologies of the world will lose before our economies cease to make the situation worse.”=Peabody Energy, described as the largest coal company in the world, is the next coal giant facing bankruptcy. The price of Peabody stock has dropped 97% over the past year and it recently warned its investors that it may seek bankruptcy protections from creditors. The company had recently reached a settlement with the New York Attorney General, over allegations that it had misled its investors about the risk climate change posed to its longterm business. But that investigation was about the rights of shareholders and the price of their shares, not directly about Peabody's role in funding climate change denial. If the company does file for bankruptcy then much more may soon be revealed about coal funding for climate change denial and opposition to tackling climate change.= http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0308/JPMorgan-moves-to-divest-from-coal-at-least-partly http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/26/nyc-pension-oil-gas-holdings/ == CA jones http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press-releases/2016/statement010-16.cfm -- http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/29/copenhagen-divest-fossil-fuels/ == note hope convergence/leverage: tied w/ shell http://www.desmog.uk/2016/01/20/exxonmobil-spent-least-8m-european-lobbying-and-corporate-donations-2014exxonMobil has spent at least £5.6m ($8.08 million) on lobbying the European Commission and in donations to European universities and organisations in 2014 according to the most recent figures available.A DeSmog UK investigation into the oil giant’s European activities reveals much of this was spent lobbying on energy and environment issues in addition to donations to organisations such as the United Nations Environment Programme and the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.Last September, Inside Climate News revealed that ExxonMobil knew about the impacts of manmade climate change in the 1970s’ and ‘80s yet went on to fund numerous climate denial efforts. This prompted the New York Attorney General to subpoena ExxonMobil to “determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how those risks might hurt the oil business.”And now, the Church of England’s Commissioners (who run its £6.7bn endowment fund) has co-filed a shareholders’ resolution this week with the New York State Common Retirement Fund calling on ExxonMobil to publish an assessment of how its business portfolio would be affected by a 2C target as agreed in the Paris Agreement in December. Together, the group of investors hold more than $1bn in ExxonMobil shares.So, while the oil giant has been getting a lot of heat in the U.S. for funding climate denial, DeSmog UK asks: what has ExxonMobil been up to in Europe?EXXONMOBIL 2014 EU SPENDING BREAKDOWNGRAND TOTAL: At Least £5.6m ($8,083,406)Lobbying: between £3.6m – £3.8m (between €4.75m – €4.99m / $5.2m – $5.5m )Universities: £264,550 ($374,209)Public Policy: £87,631 ($123,957) Other (ex. health, environment): £1,682,587 ($2,380,000) uc and columbia divest from pvt prisons 12/23/15 kpfa 7 amsustainable investment model=http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/15/columbia-divest-fossil-fuels/http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/05/citigroup-cut-coal-financing/http://ecowatch.us7.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=214ab5fbb3f6015d74ffab4ec&id=b635fbc404&e=c2e8fdabfa This is the second major bank to cut financing for coal mining this year after Bank of America announced a similar policy in May, following years of campaigning by Rainforest Action Network (RAN) and allied groups. Europe’s third largest bank Crédit Agricole also adopted a similar commitment earlier this year, under pressure from European organizations. Citigroup’s move follows the launch of the Paris Pledge this summer, a global coalition of over 130 organizations calling on the banking sector to end its support for coal mining and coal-fired power prior to the Paris Climate Conference this year.“We are encouraged to see Citigroup begin to move away from lending to coal mining,” said Lindsey Allen, executive director of RAN. “But reducing credit exposure is only a partial step forward. We urge Citigroup and Wall Street laggards such as Morgan Stanley to cut all financing ties to both coal mining and coal-fired power.”Last month, RAN launched a new campaign calling on Morgan Stanley to end its financing for coal. And this Friday, activists will hold a nationwide day of action to spotlight the bank’s continued financing ties to some of the world’s most carbon-intensive and socially destructive coal mining and power companies. Morgan Stanley is the latest target in a series of campaigns by RAN since 2000 to hold major U.S. banks accountable for the environmental, human rights and climate impacts of their financing decisions.“With Bank of America, Crédit Agricole and now Citigroup withdrawing support for coal mining, this announcement shows major momentum away from financing coal by the banking sector,” said Allen.The Bank of America announcement in May followed four years of campaigning by RAN and other groups. This time, Citigroup moved swiftly to avoid a campaign ahead of December’s climate negotiations in Paris. Financing policy changes at both banks acknowledged that the scale of the challenge posed by climate change calls for the financial sector to transition away from financing high-carbon energy sources in addition to scaling up financing for low-carbon energy.http://www.alternet.org/environment/leonardo-dicaprio-joins-26-trillion-fossil-fuel-divestment-movementDiCaprio and over 2000 individuals and 400 institutions are now committed to pulling their money from fossil fuel companies, together representing a remarkable $2.6tn of investments, it was revealed on Tuesday.A new analysis shows the value of the funds committed to selling off their investments in coal, oil and gas companies has rocketed in the last year, rising fifty-fold. Major pension funds and insurance companies have joined the universities and churches that founded the divestment movement , all of whom fear the impact of climate change on both the world and the value of their investment portfolios.Among the biggest divesters are the world’s biggest sovereign wealth fund , held by Norway, and two of the world’s biggest pension funds , in California. The campaign, now active in 43 countries, was backed on Tuesday by the UN’s climate chief , who will lead negotiations for a global climate deal at a crunch summit in Paris in December.Related: A beginner's guide to fossil fuel divestmentChristiana Figueres called for the shift of investment from fossil fuels to meet the $1tn-a-year need for clean investment and to create momentum ahead of Paris. “Investing at scale in clean, efficient power offers one of the clearest, no regret choices ever presented to human progress,” she said the launch of the report in New York.==http://insideclimatenews.org/news/03092015/california-bill-divest-largest-pension-funds-coal-fossil-fuelIt’s been a really rough few days for ExxonMobil, the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas company. First, on Wednesday, the Rockefeller Family Fund announced it would divest from the oil giant, saying it would “eliminate holdings" of Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM.N) “effective immediately,” asserting that the company associated with the family fortune has misled the public about the risks of climate change. Because of the long-established threat posed to the planetary ecosystem by fossil fuel extraction and use, the fund said “there is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons.” Man! Rockefeller Family Fund sells all Exxon stock, citing company's 'morally reprehensible conduct.' #exxonknew https://t.co/S7uwXsI26V — Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) March 24, 2016 In a letter posted on its website, the fund slammed Exxon's conduct as "morally reprehensible." They write: Evidence appears to suggest that the company worked since the 1980s to confuse the public about climate change’s march, while simultaneously spending millions to fortify its own infrastructure against climate change’s destructive consequences and track new exploration opportunities as the Arctic’s ice receded. Exxon tried to frame the fund’s move as unsurprising. In a statement, Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said, "The Rockefeller Family Fund provided financial support to InsideClimate News and Columbia University Journalism School which produced inaccurate and deliberately misleading stories about ExxonMobil's history of climate research.” But Stacy Feldman, executive editor of InsideClimate News, stands by those stories. "Exxon has never specified what is inaccurate or misleading in the series, nor has it requested any corrections," she said in a statement. "But our investigation of Exxon's climate duplicity has won five national journalism awards." The day would only get worse for the multinational energy firm, as the Securities and Exchange Commission ordered a vote on a shareholder resolution that would require the firm to disclose how climate change—or regulations meant to combat it—would impact the stability of the company’s finances. Govt securities watchdog orders ExxonMobil shareholder vote on #climate data https://t.co/KfS425w05d #ExxonKnew #divest — climatehawk1 (@climatehawk1) March 24, 2016 The SEC’s move comes just weeks after an investigation by the Government Accountability Project, which revealed that, for years, Exxon had lied to the SEC in its 10-K filings. “Exxon has done a masterful job of hedging its bets, both by omission and commission: omitting mere mention for many years, and then grossly understating, the vast array of direct and indirect risks it faces as a result of climate change,” said Climate Science & Policy Watch, a GAP program that promotes governmental integrity in the use of climate science. “Even worse, Exxon has overtly and flagrantly overstated possible financial and economic risks associated with regulating carbon and other GHGs, both here in the U.S. and in nations around the world." On Thursday, Exxon got even more bad news. New Jersey State Senator Raymond Lesniak called on Acting Attorney General Robert Lougy to join an investigation launched by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. California Attorney General Kamala Harris opened a similar probe. The investigations just keep piling up. The FBI’s criminal investigation unit is currently conducting an initial review of evidence that Exxon knew about the “catastrophic” impacts of climate change. While the problems and negative press continue to mount for Exxon, traders remains fairly bullish on XOM stock. “Even if oil prices would retreat in the upcoming weeks, it is still not the right time to sell Exxon shares,” research analyst Arie Goren wrote Monday on Seeking Alpha. “In my opinion, XOM's stock is an excellent long term investment. … Although Exxon's dividend yield is lower than that of the other supermajor integrated oil & gas companies, it is sustainable, in my view.” But sustainability on the stock market is very different from sustainability in the environment, and ethical investors increasingly want nothing to do with the oil industry. The Rockefeller Fund’s announcement follows the recent decision to divest by a prominent Rockefeller, Neva Rockefeller Goodwin, who serves as the co-director of the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University. In my interview with Goodwin last month, she noted the patently illogical stance that may undergird the decision-making at Exxon and other fossil fuel firms that continue to put profit above the planet: From casual observation it appears that there are people with a reasonable sense of morality who steer their companies to do pretty immoral things. Evidently such people erect a firewall between their personal and business ethics. Goodwin also points out that a more sustainable and sensible alternative to doing business exists: There is a slowly growing movement to point out the ways in which what is commonly accepted as decent morality is also good for business. For example, the “Porter hypothesis” suggests that good environmental ethics tend to be efficient and cost-saving for business. There is considerable evidence that this is correct. Other kinds of ethics may be less clearly related, positively or negatively, to profits. An important role for government is to create an environment in which socially good behavior does not hurt the company, and in which the kind of behavior that creates what economists call “negative externalities” is not profitable. In its letter, the Rockefeller Family Fund emphasizes its support for the overwhelming science on the effects of climate change and what must be done to prevent its worse potential impacts: The science and intent enunciated by the Paris agreement cannot be more clear: far from finding additional sources of fossil fuels, we must keep most of the already discovered reserves in the ground if there is any hope for human and natural ecosystems to survive and thrive in the decades ahead. “For decades, Exxon has done everything in its power to cover up the impact climate change would have on its business and the planet—those chickens are finally coming home to roost,” said Jamie Henn, communications director for 350.org. “Exxon is increasingly caught in its own web of deception. Instead of addressing climate change when they first found out about it decades ago, the company has aggressively pursued a business path that is incompatible with a livable planet. That’s opened them up to divestment, regulation, and now, potential prosecution.” All of this activity centering around Exxon’s malfeasance suggests that the momentum is growing behind the #ExxonKnew campaign, which is calling on state AGs across the nation to join New York and California in opening investigations into the energy giant. With total assets at nearly $350 billion, ExxonMobil is one of the world’s biggest companies. It has the resources to change the script; to invest more heavily in renewable energy and green jobs to help move the nation and the world toward a low-carbon future. But will it? As the pressure mounts for the company on multiple fronts, it may have to. "If Exxon doesn’t show how it plans to adapt its business to a carbon constrained world, it’s time for shareholders to divest," said Henn. "There’s no other responsible option.” “Climate change will increasingly cause events like hurricanes that will destroy large swathes of property, kill numbers of people, make many homeless,” Goodwin told me. “In the long run, producers of fossil fuels will have to lose. The only question is how much the people and ecologies of the world will lose before our economies cease to make the situation worse.” ==http://www.alternet.org/environment/ftse-100-firms-pressured-leave-anti-climate-lobbying-groups global coalition of 25 institutional investors with over forty five billion pounds in assets under management is calling on nine major publicly listed companies to review their membership of lobbying groups that seek to undermine EU climate policy.The investors have written to BHP Billiton, BP, EDF, Glencore, Johnson Matthey, Proctor and Gamble, Rio Tinto, Statoil and Total expressing concern that the companies declared climate policies are undermined by membership of lobby groups with a track record of obstructive lobbying on climate change policy. The move comes as companies have come under increasing pressure to withdraw from regressive lobbying groups, with Unilever leaving Business Europe and BP and Shell exiting ALEC over climate policy.