“Tom Sanzillo, who runs the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, and once helped run the New York State fund himself, cited not just DiNapoli’s decision to dump Exxon, but also his plan to put more money into carbon-free funds, and to stop any private equity investments in fossil fuels, as “very big steps toward holding fossil fuel companies accountable on climate change.”
Compare this call to action with the call from COP28 “for transitioning away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable manner”
These two are not the same.
What is our endgame? Retribution? Or transition?
The choice is pivotal. Because we cannot transition towards “just, orderly and equitable” through Growth through Creative Destruction.
Transition is not Growth.
Destruction is not orderly. Or just. Or equitable.
If our endgame is transition, we need to find money with the mission, the duty and the scale to take control of our global energy supply ecosystem, in order to redesign and reconstruct it, for energy sufficiency complete with habitat longevity and social equity in the 21st Century, and beyond...
In our search for that money, Tom DiNapoli is not “the most important” guy on earth.
Veena Ramani is.
Veena is the recently appointed Director of Stewardship at MassPRIM, the Massachusetts public pension fund.
Stewardship Money is what the world needs to meet the call from COP28, “for transitioning [towards] just, orderly and equitable.
We need to engage with Veena in her search for an answer to her question, What is stewardship?
There will always be those who drag their feet. Some from ignorance, some from fear, some from greed. In the end, they don't matter. Change must come, Change will come. We must keep pushing, regardless of resistance.
Bill! Cheer up and get back to advocating a carbon tax like you once did. Use the leverage of the economy itself, the most powerful engine on the planet outside of nature, because MONEY determines what gets done, and a tweak in the tax code would have massive impact, especially on those money guys. Without it, we are cooked. With it, we might have a chance. It can be made progressive, transparent and understandable. Please focus the angst on the one political solution recommended by literally the entire US economics profession. There's a good bill in the House right now. www.econstatement.org
I agree. It would be a game changer if we could harness the power of capitalism to solve our environmental problems, which is what a carbon tax would do. Unfortunately, it is political suicide to advocate for one. Your link supports my point, which is not, as you claim, a bill in the House, but a declaration by a group of economists and former Fed officials. Name an American politician who has successfully campaigned on instituting a carbon tax.
Yes, the link goes to the Economists' statement, sponsored by the Climate Leadership Council. (CLcouncil.org) In the last congress, the Energy Innovation Act of 2022 had 96 cosponsors, all dems. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2307) The current iteration has stagnated in this dysfunctional congress. Carbon taxes have been advocated in the past by Senators Boxer and Sanders, and, during the reconciliation process that produced the IRA, Sen. Whitehouse claimed that he was just one vote short of including a carbon tax in that bill. The idea is far from far fetched. (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/16/climate/democrats-carbon-tax-climate.html) In fact, it's the essential, foundational piece of the puzzle, without which we are finished. Its efficacy helps explain why it's so politically dangerous: the FF industry will do everything in its vast power to stop it.
Colleges may need to divest (along with pension funds etc). Rich Americans also need to examine their own addicted behaviors. Several "woke" climate activists I know who have dutifully protested pipelines are flying all over the world because Exxon makes it possible. A "woke" students flies to Nepal to study the language for a semester. A "third act" aged couple heads to Italy to go hiking on a trail. Another "third act" fellow is off to Latin America for a warm winter outing. I have pointed out to them that these trips are only possible because someone mixed in some heavy sour crude (most likely from the Canadian tar sands) with some WTI down in a gulf coast refinery to extract the middle distillate (diesel and jet-A). The Jet-A was then transported by pipeline to the east coast were a 2 smaller pipelines feed those addicted folks who fly out of Dulles Airport. Hmmm.....should we boycott Exxon if it is so evil? Could we stay at home, park our cars, ride our bikes and speak about climate with integrity?
One of the many confounding things is that there are other greatly diversified, very inexpensive index funds these giant pools of money could switch to (not sure what the tax considerations would be) that hold a dramatically smaller percentage of fossil fuel stocks than, for example the S&P 500 Index, which according to FossilFreeFunds.org has almost 9% of the fund invested in fossil fuels. ESGV, a diversified domestic stock fund originated by Vanguard a few years ago has a .7% exposure to fossil fuels.
It is hard to see how see how investing or not in a fossil fuel company will lead to the avoidance of a sing KG or CO2 emission. Te world need toreduce it's demand for fossil fuels (in proportio oto their carbon content. Exxon's stock price is quite far removed from that.
As someone once said, "The climate is now heating so fast that a muddled and half-way approach to the energy transition can’t catch up." We need a tax on net CO2 emissions now
On the investors leaving CA100+, I think it’s important to note that likely a big factor is actually the risk of seeming like they’re colluding. The reality is, there is quite a strong argument to say that joining up with a bunch of other investors to force [high emitting] companies to do something, and likely profit in other areas (clean stocks), would immediately seem suspect if seen in a different, non-climate context. The leaving statements from all of these firms, highlighting their independent engagement and voting processes only highlights this.
I think a point to note in this situation is that most, if not all, of these firms are still members of the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, as part of the GFANZ alliance. They are therefore still committed to reaching net zero on their portfolios by 2050. They have not necessarily given up on the transition.
Stop supporting the corrupt politicians of the duopoly! Climate emergency must be declared NOW vote for people who only support this NO ONE ELSE, LESS EVIL IS STILL EVIL!
Hi Bill, have enjoyed your articles and appreciate your message of awakening people to the urgency to act on climate. I haven't heard you mention climate restoration, but maybe you have and I didn't see it. You are advocate for a healthy climate for our future generations; this is climate restoration's aim, by removing legacy greenhouse gases with technologies that mirror earth's natural processes at scale while we also target net zero. Look forward to your next piece.
A recent analysis of our political situation (not sure where read) had it that the Democrats' abandoned the working class, shifting their voting coalition to, among others, those placing high priority on environment and climate progress. Very good move, the right thing to do. Now if we can just figure how to regain working people, we can start winning again. Dump Joe Biden; any other Democrat would be a breath of fresh air. John Vail
“Tom Sanzillo, who runs the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, and once helped run the New York State fund himself, cited not just DiNapoli’s decision to dump Exxon, but also his plan to put more money into carbon-free funds, and to stop any private equity investments in fossil fuels, as “very big steps toward holding fossil fuel companies accountable on climate change.”
Compare this call to action with the call from COP28 “for transitioning away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable manner”
These two are not the same.
What is our endgame? Retribution? Or transition?
The choice is pivotal. Because we cannot transition towards “just, orderly and equitable” through Growth through Creative Destruction.
Transition is not Growth.
Destruction is not orderly. Or just. Or equitable.
If our endgame is transition, we need to find money with the mission, the duty and the scale to take control of our global energy supply ecosystem, in order to redesign and reconstruct it, for energy sufficiency complete with habitat longevity and social equity in the 21st Century, and beyond...
In our search for that money, Tom DiNapoli is not “the most important” guy on earth.
Veena Ramani is.
Veena is the recently appointed Director of Stewardship at MassPRIM, the Massachusetts public pension fund.
Stewardship Money is what the world needs to meet the call from COP28, “for transitioning [towards] just, orderly and equitable.
We need to engage with Veena in her search for an answer to her question, What is stewardship?
There will always be those who drag their feet. Some from ignorance, some from fear, some from greed. In the end, they don't matter. Change must come, Change will come. We must keep pushing, regardless of resistance.
Bill! Cheer up and get back to advocating a carbon tax like you once did. Use the leverage of the economy itself, the most powerful engine on the planet outside of nature, because MONEY determines what gets done, and a tweak in the tax code would have massive impact, especially on those money guys. Without it, we are cooked. With it, we might have a chance. It can be made progressive, transparent and understandable. Please focus the angst on the one political solution recommended by literally the entire US economics profession. There's a good bill in the House right now. www.econstatement.org
I agree. It would be a game changer if we could harness the power of capitalism to solve our environmental problems, which is what a carbon tax would do. Unfortunately, it is political suicide to advocate for one. Your link supports my point, which is not, as you claim, a bill in the House, but a declaration by a group of economists and former Fed officials. Name an American politician who has successfully campaigned on instituting a carbon tax.
Yes, the link goes to the Economists' statement, sponsored by the Climate Leadership Council. (CLcouncil.org) In the last congress, the Energy Innovation Act of 2022 had 96 cosponsors, all dems. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2307) The current iteration has stagnated in this dysfunctional congress. Carbon taxes have been advocated in the past by Senators Boxer and Sanders, and, during the reconciliation process that produced the IRA, Sen. Whitehouse claimed that he was just one vote short of including a carbon tax in that bill. The idea is far from far fetched. (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/16/climate/democrats-carbon-tax-climate.html) In fact, it's the essential, foundational piece of the puzzle, without which we are finished. Its efficacy helps explain why it's so politically dangerous: the FF industry will do everything in its vast power to stop it.
Colleges may need to divest (along with pension funds etc). Rich Americans also need to examine their own addicted behaviors. Several "woke" climate activists I know who have dutifully protested pipelines are flying all over the world because Exxon makes it possible. A "woke" students flies to Nepal to study the language for a semester. A "third act" aged couple heads to Italy to go hiking on a trail. Another "third act" fellow is off to Latin America for a warm winter outing. I have pointed out to them that these trips are only possible because someone mixed in some heavy sour crude (most likely from the Canadian tar sands) with some WTI down in a gulf coast refinery to extract the middle distillate (diesel and jet-A). The Jet-A was then transported by pipeline to the east coast were a 2 smaller pipelines feed those addicted folks who fly out of Dulles Airport. Hmmm.....should we boycott Exxon if it is so evil? Could we stay at home, park our cars, ride our bikes and speak about climate with integrity?
One of the many confounding things is that there are other greatly diversified, very inexpensive index funds these giant pools of money could switch to (not sure what the tax considerations would be) that hold a dramatically smaller percentage of fossil fuel stocks than, for example the S&P 500 Index, which according to FossilFreeFunds.org has almost 9% of the fund invested in fossil fuels. ESGV, a diversified domestic stock fund originated by Vanguard a few years ago has a .7% exposure to fossil fuels.
It is hard to see how see how investing or not in a fossil fuel company will lead to the avoidance of a sing KG or CO2 emission. Te world need toreduce it's demand for fossil fuels (in proportio oto their carbon content. Exxon's stock price is quite far removed from that.
As someone once said, "The climate is now heating so fast that a muddled and half-way approach to the energy transition can’t catch up." We need a tax on net CO2 emissions now
On the investors leaving CA100+, I think it’s important to note that likely a big factor is actually the risk of seeming like they’re colluding. The reality is, there is quite a strong argument to say that joining up with a bunch of other investors to force [high emitting] companies to do something, and likely profit in other areas (clean stocks), would immediately seem suspect if seen in a different, non-climate context. The leaving statements from all of these firms, highlighting their independent engagement and voting processes only highlights this.
I think a point to note in this situation is that most, if not all, of these firms are still members of the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, as part of the GFANZ alliance. They are therefore still committed to reaching net zero on their portfolios by 2050. They have not necessarily given up on the transition.
Stop supporting the corrupt politicians of the duopoly! Climate emergency must be declared NOW vote for people who only support this NO ONE ELSE, LESS EVIL IS STILL EVIL!
Between AIPAC and ALEC there’s only room for Jan 6th.
Hi Bill, have enjoyed your articles and appreciate your message of awakening people to the urgency to act on climate. I haven't heard you mention climate restoration, but maybe you have and I didn't see it. You are advocate for a healthy climate for our future generations; this is climate restoration's aim, by removing legacy greenhouse gases with technologies that mirror earth's natural processes at scale while we also target net zero. Look forward to your next piece.
There is a way to fight the climate change threat that reduces GHG-emissions AND produces liquids to replace oil products at the same time.
The Only Solution is Replacing Oil
See www.enenergy.net
A powerful, measured response, Bill.
We need colleges and universities to step up now - by divesting themselves, and by offering models for our progress!
A recent analysis of our political situation (not sure where read) had it that the Democrats' abandoned the working class, shifting their voting coalition to, among others, those placing high priority on environment and climate progress. Very good move, the right thing to do. Now if we can just figure how to regain working people, we can start winning again. Dump Joe Biden; any other Democrat would be a breath of fresh air. John Vail