This is such an underreported matter...thank you for highlighting the significant changes that activism has wrought...and how much more there is to do.
Incredibly succinct synopsis of ten years of divestment action! Maybe #Yale will be next and maybe they, like BU, will say “divestment” and give credit to student activism. 🤞
Good news, Bill. I asked my investment adviser 2 years ago to only put renewable energy companies, and socially responsible ethical ones too, into my portfolio. I've been told my restrictions have actually paid off and I've done better than their other clients who have invested in fossil fuel companies, etc. Those more wealthy than I am could make a bigger difference. Our bottom lines would be better than these greedy corporations perhaps!
For the GOP, it's short-term gain in the form of massive donations and lucrative careers for their family members, not to mention their personal stock portfolios. They're counting on a technological Hail Mary, as the vaccine was to Covid, to stave off the worst outcome. As we've seen over the past 5 years, people can rationalize anything, and politicians can rationalize everything.
Hi Bill, I recently came across this older post of yours in hopes of learning more about your take regarding divestment. I was recently discussing divestment campaigns recently with some ecologically-minded co-workers and was surprised that they expressed some opposition to campaigns calling for financial institutions to divest from fossil fuel companies. I looked into this online and indeed have found a number of arguments suggesting that divestment can be neutral at best or counterproductive at worst. As someone who has participated in and tried to promote fossil fuel divestment campaigns myself, I would greatly appreciate your expert take on this topic!
According to one argument, divestment simply pushes holdings down the line onto stakeholders who care less about fossil fuel usage; there doesn't seem to be any shortage of demand for oil company stocks. For instance:
Accordingly, some articles seem to argue that actually *acquiring* fossil fuel stocks (an "engagement" strategy) and using ownership rights to press for emission cuts is actually more effective than divesting. For instance:
A second argument, advanced by my co-workers, is that pushing for divestment away from fossil fuel companies results in fewer investors and a lower stock price, which in turn can actually make the companies *more* profitable and also make them more attractive for taking them private (and thus have even less accountability). This article sets up a similar argument: "Fossil fuel divestment is akin to imposing a large (and very poorly structured) global carbon tax on ourselves and paying all the proceeds to stakeholders in the fossil fuel industry." (https://energypost.eu/fossil-fuel-divestment-is-premature-instead-enable-investment-to-keep-prices-low-and-tax-consumption/). I should note that I struggle to grasp either of these arguments.
There may be other arguments out there but these are the ones that appear to be more prevalent and hard to contest (at least with my very limited understanding of financial markets). Thanks in advance if you are, indeed, able to read this and respond!
Well done, Bill, as usual. OT, but we are working on an avoided deforestation project here on the West Coast. The big Green organizations are useless, but others are showing interest. Sweden has developed a steelmaking process that reduces its carbon footprint from 6% of global emissions down to 1%. Email me if you want to help us here, and of course we have a place to stay next time you're in the Bay Area.
Bill, really powerful work. Thank you for being such an inspiration. As a California teacher, I was saddened to learn that CalSTRS (California State Teacher Retirement System) has $6 billion invested in fossil fuels, including Enbridge. Many powerful groups of California educators have called for fossil fuel divestment as far back as 2013. (Santa Roas Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers (2016), United Teachers of Los Angeles (2019), Faculty Association of California Community Colleges (2020), California Faculty Association (2021), etc.) Unfortunately, the most powerful CalSTRS stakeholder, the California Teachers Association---my union that I am so grateful for---- still supports fossil fuel investing. I was surprised to learn that in 2017 the CTA opposed a Dakota Access Pipeline divestment bill that Asm. Ash Kalra brought to the CA legislature. Two weeks after the CTA's letter opposing the bill, Assemblymember Ash Kalra amended the bill to turn it into "report on engagement". Just 10 days ago, thanks to a Public Information Request, I learned that in the letter opposing this divestment bill the CTA misrepresented CalSTRS own analysis of possible costs of the 2017 DAPL divestment bill. The CTA appears to have conflated "exposure" with "costs of divestment". CalSTRS estimate the administrative costs of the divestment bill to be between $800,000 and $28.7 million whereas the CTA's consequential letter opposing the bill stated that the CalSTRS estimate of potential costs was $8 billion. I have evidence that this possible misunderstanding of costs of divestment may be a result of CTA/CalSTRS groupthink. I'd love to share more information and documents about this. Enbridge was one of the main companies involved in DAPL. I think the misinformation and opposition to the DAPL divestment bill by the CTA in 2017 may have impacted Enbridge's calculations about their ability to infringe on Indigenous treaty rights with impunity. I also believe that mistaken beliefs about the costs of fossil fuel divestment are enabled by CalSTRS employees (public servants) and that this misinformation is what has kept CTA protecting old norms about fossil fuel investing and screen out information such as the Blackrock/Meketa reports.
Thanks, Bill. There is a broad and loose coalition but the most active groups are Fossil Free California, Youth versus Apocalypse/Earth Guardians Bay Area, and a newer CTA-specific group called CTA Divest.
Thanks! We're trying to get the petition at www.ctadivest.org in front of as many people as possible. A retweet with link to CTADivest petition would be huge. Also, I'd love to share some documents related to the 2017 DAPL divestment misrepresentation by the CTA. I think there is some circumstantial evidence that there could have been tacit knowledge of the misrepresentation from people with both CTA and CalSTRS (public officials). This was in a letter to a state Assemblymember that helped alter legislation (and empower Enbridge). A current CalSTRS board member was lead CTAer involved in decision to oppose the 2017 DAPL divestment bill (the decision based on possible conflation of "exposure" and "costs of divestment". There is strong evidence that this misinformation/bias against divestment is still lodged in CTA and played a role in CTA Retirement Committee's 2019 vote against a fossil fuel divestment resolution. Anti-divestment stance within CTA seems to be "cultivated" by CalSTRS officials. CIO Chris Ailman repeated fossil fuel industry anti-divestment talking points in April 2021 talk to CTA retirement committee, which the CTA then amplified in our State Report. The line "divestment is not a responsible investment" was repeated in bold print. Is CA's 2nd highest paid public servant (CalSTRS CIO Chris Ailman who is paid well over $1 million a year) strategically preying on the financial anxieties of California's teachers in order to manipulate us into protecting his ability to invest without limits or boundaries? Finally, the youth at Youth versus Apocalypse are absolutely crushing it. They got the California Democratic Party to pass a divestment resolution in August, among many other powerful actions.
Neat to recall Unity College's role in this journey. As Bill knows, I was a fan of the divestment message - pushing universities and companies to re-examine "fiduciary responsibility" to include responsibility to maintain a workable climate and fair societies. But I was a skeptic on the scale of carbon and markets. Demonstrable progress shows I was wrong. This is why I encourage folks not to rely on a single viewpoint on tough questions.
This is such an underreported matter...thank you for highlighting the significant changes that activism has wrought...and how much more there is to do.
when we fight, we often win!
Incredibly succinct synopsis of ten years of divestment action! Maybe #Yale will be next and maybe they, like BU, will say “divestment” and give credit to student activism. 🤞
thanks for being a real part of all of this. Yale and Princeton have no cover left!
Good news, Bill. I asked my investment adviser 2 years ago to only put renewable energy companies, and socially responsible ethical ones too, into my portfolio. I've been told my restrictions have actually paid off and I've done better than their other clients who have invested in fossil fuel companies, etc. Those more wealthy than I am could make a bigger difference. Our bottom lines would be better than these greedy corporations perhaps!
Doing well by doing good!
Now we have to get congress, even the Republicans, to see that green is the economy of tomorrow. How can they be missing the memo??
unrelenting organizing!
For the GOP, it's short-term gain in the form of massive donations and lucrative careers for their family members, not to mention their personal stock portfolios. They're counting on a technological Hail Mary, as the vaccine was to Covid, to stave off the worst outcome. As we've seen over the past 5 years, people can rationalize anything, and politicians can rationalize everything.
Hi Bill, I recently came across this older post of yours in hopes of learning more about your take regarding divestment. I was recently discussing divestment campaigns recently with some ecologically-minded co-workers and was surprised that they expressed some opposition to campaigns calling for financial institutions to divest from fossil fuel companies. I looked into this online and indeed have found a number of arguments suggesting that divestment can be neutral at best or counterproductive at worst. As someone who has participated in and tried to promote fossil fuel divestment campaigns myself, I would greatly appreciate your expert take on this topic!
According to one argument, divestment simply pushes holdings down the line onto stakeholders who care less about fossil fuel usage; there doesn't seem to be any shortage of demand for oil company stocks. For instance:
- https://hbr.org/2022/11/how-fossil-fuel-divestment-falls-short
- https://www.greenbiz.com/article/why-divestment-doesnt-work-and-just-wont-die
Accordingly, some articles seem to argue that actually *acquiring* fossil fuel stocks (an "engagement" strategy) and using ownership rights to press for emission cuts is actually more effective than divesting. For instance:
- https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/2bstlkf8328cq18sijnk0/portfolio/divesting-is-counterproductive-new-research-says
- https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2023/11/06/divestment-and-engagement-the-effect-of-green-investors-on-corporate-carbon-emissions/ (paper here: https://www.nber.org/papers/w31791)
- https://hbr.org/2022/11/how-fossil-fuel-divestment-falls-short (suggesting a "run-off" strategy is preferable to divestment)
A second argument, advanced by my co-workers, is that pushing for divestment away from fossil fuel companies results in fewer investors and a lower stock price, which in turn can actually make the companies *more* profitable and also make them more attractive for taking them private (and thus have even less accountability). This article sets up a similar argument: "Fossil fuel divestment is akin to imposing a large (and very poorly structured) global carbon tax on ourselves and paying all the proceeds to stakeholders in the fossil fuel industry." (https://energypost.eu/fossil-fuel-divestment-is-premature-instead-enable-investment-to-keep-prices-low-and-tax-consumption/). I should note that I struggle to grasp either of these arguments.
A third argument against divestment is that divestment can cede more market share to national oil companies and away from international oil companies which are said to be more transparent and less likely to be headquartered in authoritarian countries: https://theconversation.com/fossil-fuel-divestment-will-increase-carbon-emissions-not-lower-them-heres-why-126392.
There may be other arguments out there but these are the ones that appear to be more prevalent and hard to contest (at least with my very limited understanding of financial markets). Thanks in advance if you are, indeed, able to read this and respond!
Well done, Bill, as usual. OT, but we are working on an avoided deforestation project here on the West Coast. The big Green organizations are useless, but others are showing interest. Sweden has developed a steelmaking process that reduces its carbon footprint from 6% of global emissions down to 1%. Email me if you want to help us here, and of course we have a place to stay next time you're in the Bay Area.
Bill, really powerful work. Thank you for being such an inspiration. As a California teacher, I was saddened to learn that CalSTRS (California State Teacher Retirement System) has $6 billion invested in fossil fuels, including Enbridge. Many powerful groups of California educators have called for fossil fuel divestment as far back as 2013. (Santa Roas Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers (2016), United Teachers of Los Angeles (2019), Faculty Association of California Community Colleges (2020), California Faculty Association (2021), etc.) Unfortunately, the most powerful CalSTRS stakeholder, the California Teachers Association---my union that I am so grateful for---- still supports fossil fuel investing. I was surprised to learn that in 2017 the CTA opposed a Dakota Access Pipeline divestment bill that Asm. Ash Kalra brought to the CA legislature. Two weeks after the CTA's letter opposing the bill, Assemblymember Ash Kalra amended the bill to turn it into "report on engagement". Just 10 days ago, thanks to a Public Information Request, I learned that in the letter opposing this divestment bill the CTA misrepresented CalSTRS own analysis of possible costs of the 2017 DAPL divestment bill. The CTA appears to have conflated "exposure" with "costs of divestment". CalSTRS estimate the administrative costs of the divestment bill to be between $800,000 and $28.7 million whereas the CTA's consequential letter opposing the bill stated that the CalSTRS estimate of potential costs was $8 billion. I have evidence that this possible misunderstanding of costs of divestment may be a result of CTA/CalSTRS groupthink. I'd love to share more information and documents about this. Enbridge was one of the main companies involved in DAPL. I think the misinformation and opposition to the DAPL divestment bill by the CTA in 2017 may have impacted Enbridge's calculations about their ability to infringe on Indigenous treaty rights with impunity. I also believe that mistaken beliefs about the costs of fossil fuel divestment are enabled by CalSTRS employees (public servants) and that this misinformation is what has kept CTA protecting old norms about fossil fuel investing and screen out information such as the Blackrock/Meketa reports.
thank you for doing this work--this is a huge and important target! who are you working with on this stuff?
CTADivest has a website and petition for California Teachers Association members: www.ctadivest.org
Thanks, Bill. There is a broad and loose coalition but the most active groups are Fossil Free California, Youth versus Apocalypse/Earth Guardians Bay Area, and a newer CTA-specific group called CTA Divest.
You guys are doing epic work, let me know when I can help
Thanks! We're trying to get the petition at www.ctadivest.org in front of as many people as possible. A retweet with link to CTADivest petition would be huge. Also, I'd love to share some documents related to the 2017 DAPL divestment misrepresentation by the CTA. I think there is some circumstantial evidence that there could have been tacit knowledge of the misrepresentation from people with both CTA and CalSTRS (public officials). This was in a letter to a state Assemblymember that helped alter legislation (and empower Enbridge). A current CalSTRS board member was lead CTAer involved in decision to oppose the 2017 DAPL divestment bill (the decision based on possible conflation of "exposure" and "costs of divestment". There is strong evidence that this misinformation/bias against divestment is still lodged in CTA and played a role in CTA Retirement Committee's 2019 vote against a fossil fuel divestment resolution. Anti-divestment stance within CTA seems to be "cultivated" by CalSTRS officials. CIO Chris Ailman repeated fossil fuel industry anti-divestment talking points in April 2021 talk to CTA retirement committee, which the CTA then amplified in our State Report. The line "divestment is not a responsible investment" was repeated in bold print. Is CA's 2nd highest paid public servant (CalSTRS CIO Chris Ailman who is paid well over $1 million a year) strategically preying on the financial anxieties of California's teachers in order to manipulate us into protecting his ability to invest without limits or boundaries? Finally, the youth at Youth versus Apocalypse are absolutely crushing it. They got the California Democratic Party to pass a divestment resolution in August, among many other powerful actions.
Youth V Apocalypse is fantastic
Incredibly succinct synopsis of ten years of divestment action. TY!!!!
Neat to recall Unity College's role in this journey. As Bill knows, I was a fan of the divestment message - pushing universities and companies to re-examine "fiduciary responsibility" to include responsibility to maintain a workable climate and fair societies. But I was a skeptic on the scale of carbon and markets. Demonstrable progress shows I was wrong. This is why I encourage folks not to rely on a single viewpoint on tough questions.
Unity punches above its weight in many ways--that's where Carter's solar panels ended up too
Sad that our friend Mick Womersley retired!