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.
One of the standard lines is that China is going to ignore global warming caused by fossil fuel use, so of the USA cuts back, China will surpass us economically.
Don’t believe it.
China believes in Climate Change and wants to halt it
China should be given more credit for its investment in clean electricity, the head of the International Energy Agency says
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.
My retirement account includes investments in PaxWorld & Domini socially responsible funds. Here’s a list of Domini Social Equity Fund holdings – Apple, Microsoft, Intel, etc.
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.
If divestment is useless, why is Exxon Mobil so worried?
I agree it’s a useful tool, others on here argued it was a waste of time when I brought it up before to put pressure on corporations. Particularly through entities like CALpers, Harvard’s endowment, etc.
…have a position on the caged slaves building Apple components?
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?
Just using the NYT industry snapshot as a baseline: Coal’s down 22% in the last year, oil & gas exploration & production is down 29%, and oil & gas drilling is down 50%.
How could we possibly ask anyone to give up those kinds of returns on investment!
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
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?
I always wondered that.
The value of coal is on the decline.
http://www.miningweekly.com/article/moodys-changes-north-american-coal-industry-outlook-to-negative-2015-03-13
They may be too big to fail environmentally too:
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/14362/environmentalists_and_unions_illinois_midwest_generation_bankrupcty
Here’s some information about the financial feasibility of fossil-free funds.
http://www.uwosh.edu/es/climate-change/divestment/analyses-of-divestment
http://www.fa-mag.com/news/new-ways-to-measure-risk-7405.html
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/05/the-economic-case-for-divesting-from-fossil-fuels
http://www.advisorpartners.com/resources/fossil-fuel-divestment-study/
http://www.asyousow.org/our-work/energy/climate-change/fossil-free-investment/
http://news.yahoo.com/college-fossil-fuel-divestment-movement-builds-173849305.html
http://www.msci.com/resources/research_papers/faq_responding_to_the_call_for_fossil-fuel_free_portfolios.html
http://www.thejei.com/reinvesting-after-divesting-a-few-fossil-fuel-free-options/
The Globe may, at times, deplore climate change, wars of choice in places like Iraq and Vietnam, income inequality, and other evils. It may even from time to time support positive reforms.
But there is one thing that to the Globe is worse than any of these ills: the idea that popular movements might succeed. The power of the people, trickling up from the unwashed masses, gives them the vapors. Aux barricades!
This in a nutshell is the difference between a liberal and a progressive.
PS Beam is really just a troll, often an amusing one.