Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Globe Launches Monthly “Cranky Old Columnists Lecture Climate Activists” Series

By

Statler & Waldorf!Alex Beam’s latest column is titled “Divestment is an empty gesture,” which is apt since Beam’s entire effort is empty – Tom Keane wrote essentially the same column in the same space six weeks ago.

What is it about the fossil fuel divestment movement that makes Boston Globe columnists so angry? Is it that divestment has inspired thousands of people around the world to think they can make a real difference, unlike these gloomy, repetitive lectures?

What’s most revealing is that neither Beam nor Keane mentions having any conversation with divestment activists. If they had, they’d learn that divestment isn’t about trying to deal a crippling financial blow to the fossil fuel industry, and it’s not intended a one-step cure-all to global warming. As David Roberts wrote at Vox:

Nobody thinks the divestment movement can hurt fossil fuel companies in any direct financial way, but that’s not what it seeks to do. Rather, it seeks to put mainstream institutions on record defining climate mitigation as a moral imperative, to create social consensus that inaction is not neutral — it is immoral.

“Divestment is effective because it goes after the social license of the industry, helping to turn Big Fossil Fuels into Big Tobacco, a pariah industry that has lost its stranglehold on the political process,” writes 350’s Jamie Henn in today’s Globe.

Instead of blasting these young leaders from the comfort of their offices, Beam and Keane should get out onto a campus and actually talk to them. It would be a breath of fresh air for all of us.

Take action & sign this petition right now to show your support for 350MA/Better Future Project’s campaign to get Massachusetts to divest our state pension fund from coal, oil & gas stocks.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • China should be given more credit for its investment in clean electricity, the head of the International Energy Agency says

      “They are now the largest wind power market in the world. They have increased their power generation from renewables from really nothing 10 years ago – and now it’s 25%. These are very important signals that China is moving into the right direction.”

      Her organisation – the rich countries’ energy think-tank – says in 2014 that China spent more than $80bn in new renewables generating capacity; higher than the EU ($46bn); Japan ($37bn) and the USA ($34bn).

      China’s commitment to renewables has benefited the rest of the world by creating a mass market that prompted a 70% reduction in the cost of solar panels in recent years.

  2. be willing to list the mutual funds selection in their 403B? I’d like to see what the top 10 holdings are.

    I ask because the last time I had this conversation with my adviser he showed me the top 10 holdings of every MF I owned. It was basically unavoidable to not be invested in Oil or Gas.

      • I thought the 1% owned so much stock that divestment strategies are essentially useless, that was what was argued a few posts ago. I brought it up when we were talking about corporate responsibility for trade, CEO compensation, etc.

    • Under Traviglini state retirement funds did pretty well -pre-Obama- and they were into fossil fuels as a reliable producer of good dividends and stable value.

      Most stocks are held by funds instead of investors and it is another moral duty to get the best ROI possible to fund these pensions. How many retirees would be down with – you won’t get a COLA but it’s for the environment?

    • I don’t know know if you’re referring to MTRS, which is the system that invests our pension. It’s managed by the MTRB. The meeting minutes show that it’s been discussed, but I didn’t find any evidence of a decision.
      http://www.mass.gov/mtrs/docs/board/minutes042415.pdf

      403B’s are an additional way for teachers to invest in their retirement; they are not primary source of our pensions.

      (Incidentally, I apologize for my previous harsh treatment. I was under the strong impression that you were someone else under a different name. I think I was mistaken).

      • The name calling actually helps my case … not with the 20-30 regulars on this blog but the hundreds maybe even thousands that just stop by to read.

        My overall point was to see which companies they invest in. Thegreenmiles for instance is under the impression that his retirement fund is “socially responceable” the fact is his #1 holding is Apple which we all know have their products made in China where they ingage in child labor, prisoner/slave labor. He’s basically wrong.

        The “socially responceable fund” is like a unicorn from far away it looks legit but when you look close it’s just another horse with a stick glued to its heads

  3. Here is a nice piece from Bloomberg –

    http://about.bnef.com/content/uploads/sites/4/2014/08/BNEF_DOC_2014-08-25-Fossil-Fuel-Divestment.pdf

    Fossil fuel companies are still a reliable source of dividend income. They are a huge section of the market overall, and as the paper notes, tech stocks are bigger but pay significantly smaller dividends.

    The value isn’t about how much oil is drilled, or how much coal is dug – for investment purposes, it is how much are they worth as an asset (huge) and how much do they pay stockholders (better).

    So I ask my question again – as a pension manager, how do you justify divesting one of your better performing assets when you need that money to pay the retirees?

Archives