[Graeme]

Invest, Divest: Renewable Investment To Hit $630 Billion A Year In 2030, Fossil Fuel Stocks At Risk Today

We reported back in April that BNEF said 70 percent of new power generation capacity added between 2012 and 2030 will be from renewable technologies (including large hydro).
Indeed, BNEF founder Michael Liebreich posed a good news, bad news story back then:

“By 2030, the growth in fossil fuel use will almost have stopped,” Liebreich told renewable-energy investors…. “We’re told that it needs to happen by 2020” in order to prevent irreversible climate damage. “That won’t happen. But by 2030, it pretty much will.”

Yes, homo “sapiens” will miss by just 10 years or so the window to avert catastrophic climate change — resulting in possibly hundreds of years of misery for billions and billions of people. The tragic irony is the fossil fuel industry is essentially doomed no matter what — but humanity wouldn’t be, if we were just a tad more “sapiens.”

We reported in August that a Goldman Sachs research paper concluded the “window for profitable investment in coal mining is closing” — same for for coal exports.
Now BNEF points out that much the same is true for oil investments:

Last month 70 investors representing $3 trillion of assets under management sent letters to oil-and-gas companies asking them to disclose plans for adapting to a world that may be edging closer to peak fossil fuels. That’s the point when humans stop increasing their annual burn – either because the environmental danger makes it too costly or because buildings and cars run more efficiently. BNEF says peak demand could happen in 2030.

The risk: Oil and coal companies worth more than $7 trillion may be sinking billions of dollars today into projects that will never make sense to finish.

A key point of this article is that it isn’t just enviros saying the days of fossil fuel are numbered. We have institutional investors, Goldman Sachs, Bloomberg New Energy Finance and many, many others in the financial industry:



There’s more:
“The end is nigh” for global oil-demand growth, proclaimed a Citigroup report in March. Standard & Poor’s cautioned that a patchwork of policies that cut demand for fuels could lead to outlook revisions and downgrades in smaller oil-and-gas companies as early as next year, with a similar shock to the majors in 2016. Goldman Sachs’s advice to oil companies: “invest only in medium-/high-return projects, spend the rest of their cash on buybacks and focus on per share growth.” Translation: prepare to shrink the business.

thinkprogress

[Graeme]

Banking on Divestment

The third-year student in Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Leadership at the University of New Brunswick has always been interested in environmental issues but had no experience organizing or leading any kind of public campaign. This all changed a few months ago, rather unexpectedly.

When Martin and two other UNB classmates began researching ideas for an assignment in their leadership and community projects class, they learned about a burgeoning fossil fuel divestment campaign that was making headway south of the border and slowly gaining steam in Canada. For almost a year now, students on campuses across the US have been challenging their university and college administrators to take concrete action to confront the climate crisis by removing fossil fuel companies from their endowment portfolios.

For their assignment, Martin and fellow students Kayley Reed and Christina Wilson founded Fossil Free UNB. Although their class ended last spring, their campaign to persuade the university to divest from fossil fuels has only just begun.

Climate change campaigners around the world have long struggled to find meaningful ways for individuals to contribute to solving what is a complex, seemingly intractable problem. One reason divestment is galvanizing students is that it provides a practical way to participate in collective action that could help reduce the political power of the wealthiest industry on the planet. “Climate change is going to affect young people more than anybody else,” says Martin, “so we need to take responsibility for making changes. This campaign appealed to me because it targets students to take leading roles.”

Over the past few months, Fossil Free UNB has collected hundreds of student signatures, seen a near-unanimous resolution in favour of divestment passed by the student union, and met with both the president of the university and the UNB Investments Committee. Although the committee was not convinced of the merits of divestment, Martin and her friends remain undeterred. They are ramping up the pressure this fall by creating a formal organization on campus, enlisting more student support and tapping into the growing network of students across Canada who are engaged in similar efforts at their own schools.


But campaigners feel that opposing subsidies and blocking pipelines are simply pieces of the climate change mitigation puzzle. “If fossil fuels companies were just providing oil they wouldn’t be spending tens of millions of dollars lobbying to block all climate legislation and get climate deniers elected around the world,” says Henn. “These companies aren’t blameless. For decades they’ve been confusing the public about the science of climate change with well-documented misinformation campaigns and they continue to have a stranglehold on governments.”

The success of fossil fuel divestment depends largely on how it is measured. “No one is thinking we’re going to bankrupt fossil fuel companies,” says Fenton, “but what we can do is bankrupt their reputations and take away their political power.”

Fossil Free Canada is currently on a coast-to-coast Tar Sands Reality Check Tour to help promote divestment and push school boards to divest. “What success looks like to me is what we’re already seeing,” says Fenton. “Something that started with students on campuses has led to fossil fuel companies being genuinely afraid of this campaign. What makes me so confident is just working with these students to see how committed they are to making this happen.”

alternativesjournal

[ROCKMAN]

So in theory if enough folks dump those investments it might drive down the stock price. Lower stock prices would typically mean lower dividend payments. Less dividend payments would allow a company to retain more revenue they could use to expand their fossil fuel extraction efforts. Lower stock prices would also allow companies to repurchase more of their own stock and thus reduce cash outflow with even more capex available to expand operations. Given the huge revenues companies have experienced since oil prices boomed this has become a more common occurrence. Lower stock prices would make doing so even more attractive.

The only companies that might be impacted negatively would be new start-ups trying to do an IPO. But those are a very tiny portion of the current fossil fuel extraction industry. So a win-win IMHO: the folks dumping the stocks feel better about themselves and the companies have more capex to increase development of oil, NG and coal. Now if only the democrats and republicans could find such common ground.

[Graeme]

The oil and gas boom is not going to last much longer (PO). Instead of investment flowing into ff, it will flow increasingly toward renewables. In fact this trend has already started.

Clean energy shines as climate index outperforms equities

Rising electricity demand, growing energy security concerns, the impact of climate change, and the improving competitiveness of clean technologies have combined to see clean energy make a remarkable return to favour with public market investors in 2013, according to a new report by HSBC.

In its latest Quarterly Index Review, released Wednesday, HSBC says its Global Climate Change Benchmark Index (CCI) has delivered a 19.8 per cent return year to date, outperforming the MSCI ACWI (All Countries World Index) by 2.7 per cent, and marking the first year since 2007 in which the climate sector has outperformed global equities.


The report’s authors, HSBC analysts Joachim de Lima and Vijay Sumon, say Energy Efficiency & Energy Management (EEEM) shone through as the strongest performing sector for the year to date, posting a 29.3 per cent return. This was followed by Low Carbon Energy Production (LCEP) and Environment and Land Use Management (ELUM) which returned 15 per cent and 14.8 per cent respectively. The only sector to have posted a negative return is Climate Finance, down 4.3 per cent.

In the LCEP, wind and Solar are highlighted as two of the strongest performing themes, up 72 per cent and 65 per cent respectively (see graph below). 2013 is also the first year since 2010 that both wind and solar have registered positive returns.

Interestingly, the report also notes that “pure-play” companies – those with more than 50 per cent of their revenues from climate relevant activities – have been the strongest performers in the HSBC Global CCI, up 30.7 per cent for the year to date, compared with 16.1 per cent returned by non-pure play companies (see Fig 11).

reneweconomy

[Graeme]

Fossil Fuel Investments Face Major Risks Due to Climate

The Asset Owners Disclosure Project (AODP) asked the world’s thousand largest asset owners what they were doing to guard against the possibility that their investments in fossil fuels could, in future, become worthless.

Together, the owners manage more than $70 trillion of funds. The Project found that only 27 of the 460 investment funds replying to its request are currently addressing climate risk at what it considers a responsible level.

Only five of the 460 achieved the AODP’s top AAA, with an additional 29 rated A or above. Only these groups, says the Project, “will survive a carbon crash in any kind of good shape.”

Of the 1,000 asset owners approached, 80 percent are either D rated (abysmal) or X rated (doing nothing). A further 540 funds did not disclose sufficient information to allow a rating.

“A majority of the world’s investment industry are clearly acting contrary to the interests of those whose money they represent – this is an outrageous situation” says Sharan Burrow, an AODP board member and general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation.

“It must be remembered that much of the money being held by these organizations is the product of workers’ lifelong savings.”

The survey looked at several categories of investment behavior, including transparency, risk management and low carbon investment. Asset owners examined came from 63 countries, in all regions of the world.

climatecentral

[Graeme]

Fossil Fuel Divestment Forum Brings Experts to Berkeley

In the past 30 days, Goldman Sachs has divested from efforts to expand coal exports through the Pacific Northwest, MSCI Inc. published a report citing fossil fuel divestment as the number one market trend to watch in 2014 and Royal Dutch Shell posted a 48 percent decline in expected earnings, a report Forbes called “disastrous.” And Governor Jerry Brown just last week declared a drought emergency in California amid the driest year on record. In the midst of these stark examples of the uncertain financial future of fossil fuel companies and the increasingly drastic climate future of our planet, co-host 350.org, co-host David Brower Center, author and social activist Bob Massie, leading finance professionals, elected officials and advocates are today holding a California Divestment Forum.

The Forum will cover the latest news on California-based divestment from fossil fuels, as well as national and global movement milestones. The forum will also be an opportunity for finance professionals, politicians, and advocates to connect directly and talk about how to move divestment forward in the state. Additional information on the history of divestment in California can be found here: http://gofossilfree.org/lets-go-divesting/

“Divestment is a growing movement and we must now map out the path forward for responsibly moving institutional assets into more sustainable investments,” said Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates. “That is why I am proud that the California Divestment Forum will bring together city government leaders, university endowment heads and financial professionals for a dialogue on divesting from fossil fuels.”

Forum participants include representatives from Royal Bank of Canada, Green Century Capital Management, Bloomberg, Trillium Asset Management, Impax Asset Management, Aperio Group, Solar Mosaic, As You Sow, Sustainalytics, Boston Common Asset Management, SEIU Capital Stewardship and many more. Additional details can be found here: http://www.browercenter.org/california-divestment-forum

“California is a leader in using divestment as a tactic to force positive social and environmental change in the world,” said Jay Carmona, National Divestment Campaign Manager for 350.org. “Just as it is wrong to invest in tobacco companies that are polluting our lungs, it's morally bankrupt to invest in companies that are polluting the entire planet. It's time for California to take its money out of fossil fuel companies on Wall Street and start investing in climate solutions right here in our state."

There are currently at least 23 active on-campus divestment efforts in California and at least 41 active off-campus efforts for a total of at least 55 divestment campaigns across the state. In just two years, the divestment campaign has made significant progress in divesting funds both on and off campus, earning nine commitments in California - San Francisco, San Francisco State University Foundation, Richmond, Peralta Community Colleges, Foothill-De Anza Community Colleges, Berkeley, Associated Students University of California and Santa Monica.

commondreams

[Graeme]

World Bank chief backs fossil fuel divestment drive

The head of one of the world’s most powerful financial institutions says governments and business should consider withdrawing funding from oil, gas and coal companies.

“Through policy reforms, we can divest and tax that which we don’t want, the carbon that threatens development gains over the last 20 years,” World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said in an address at the World Economic Forum summit in Davos, Switzerland.

Jim added financial regulators should set this agenda by forcing companies to reveal their exposure to climate-related impacts. He said: “The so-called “long-term investors” must recognize their fiduciary responsibility to future pension holders who will be affected by decisions made today. Corporate leaders should not wait to act until market signals are right and national investment policies are in place.”

World Bank Group vice president and special envoy for climate change Rachel Kyte described his call as “prudent”. It is believed to be the first time he has publically backed moves to cut investments in industries responsible for releasing large quantities of climate warming gases into the atmosphere.

The remarks are significant and a sign the institution is “ratcheting up its position”, according to Craig Mackenzie, Head of Sustainability at Lloyds Banking Group.

He told RTCC: “The World Bank is one of the top five financial institutions, so for its leader to call for divestment and challenge the pension funds to think more widely about fiduciary duty and come up with another $30 billion of green bonds in the next 12 months…I’m not aware of that happening before from the head of the World Bank.”

rtcc

[KaiserJeep]

I read through this thread with amusement. Energy company stocks including those popularly referred to as "Big Oil" are longtime favorites of institutional investors. The demographics of such investors is no secret.

Yes, it's true: "Big Oil" is primarily owned by old retired people. The biggest single demographic is UK retirees, closely followed by US retirees. These two groups stand to lose the most if "Big Oil" declines in price. Fortunately as others have noted, it never will - not at least until the PO crash approaches.

But then, California was never about old people. It's about octogenarians who have always insisted upon being young their whole lives.

[ROCKMAN]

KJ - And let's not forget the basic dynamic: Big Oil drills from its net cash income. Lower stock prices = less cash paid out in dividends = more capex for drilling. Big Oil doesn’t get a penny from anyone who buys its existing stock…that all goes to the previous stockholder and the brokerage house.

So if divestiture does actually lower Big Oil stock prices significantly it hurts all those retired shareholders and allows more drilling capex for Big Oil. Hmmm…I’m sure that’s exactly what the Sanfran folks were shooting for. LOL.

[Graeme]

Executive Summary

‘Stranded assets’, where assets suffer from unanticipated or premature write-offs, downward revaluations or are converted to liabilities, can be caused by a range of environment-related risks. This report investigates the fossil fuel divestment campaign, an extant social phenomenon that could be one such risk. We test whether the divestment campaign could affect fossil fuel assets and if so, how, to what extent, and over which time horizons.

Divestment is a socially motivated activity of private wealth owners, either individuals or groups, such as university endowments, public pension funds, or their appointed asset managers.1 Owners can decide to withhold their capital—for example, by selling stock market-listed shares, private equities or debt—firms seen to be engaged in a reprehensible activity. Tobacco, munitions, corporations in apartheid South Africa, provision of adult services, and gaming have all been subject to divestment campaigns in the 20th century.

Building on recent empirical efforts, we complete two tasks in this report. First, we articulate a theoretical framework that can evaluate and predict, albeit imperfectly, the direct and indirect impacts of a divestment campaign.

Second, we explore the case of the recently launched fossil fuel divestment campaign. We have documented the fossil fuel divestment movement and its evolution, and traced the direct and indirect impacts it might generate. In order to forecast the potential impact of the fossil fuel campaign, we have investigated previous divestment campaigns such as tobacco and South African apartheid.

Aims of the fossil fuel divestment campaign

The aims of the fossil fuel divestment campaign are threefold: (i) ‘force the hand’ of the fossil fuel companies and pressure government—e.g. via legislation—to leave the fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) ‘down there’2 ; (ii) pressure fossil fuel companies to undergo ‘transformative change’ that can cause a drastic reduction in carbon emissions—e.g. by switching to less carbon-intensive forms of energy supply; (iii) pressure governments to enact legislation such as a ban on further drilling or a carbon tax. Inspiration for the fossil fuel divestment idea leans heavily on the perceived success of the 1980s South Africa divestment campaign to put pressure on the South African government to end apartheid.


Our salient findings and conclusions are as follows:

1. Direct impacts on equity or debt are likely to be limited. The maximum
possible capital that might be divested from the fossil fuel companies
represents a relatively small pool of funds. In contrast, the market
capitalisation of fossil fuel companies, particularly integrated oil and
gas players, is several times higher. Even if the maximum possible
capital was divested from fossil fuel companies, their shares prices are
unlikely to suffer precipitous declines over any length of time. Financial
markets are volatile. Daily swings as high as ±5% are not uncommon even for large stocks such as ExxonMobil. Sizeable withdrawals are likely to escape the attention of fossil fuel management since oil and gas stocks are some of the world’s most liquid public equities.

2. Moreover, we noted that the global financial stock is tremendously large. Unlike economically motivated investors, socially motivated divesting investors do not take into account future cash flows. Any divested holdings are thus likely to find their way quickly to neutral investors. Larger fossil fuel funded sovereign wealth funds such as Norway or Abu Dhabi may even welcome the opportunity to increase their holding of fossil fuel companies—businesses they understand very well—particularly if the stocks entail a short-term discount.

3. We acknowledge that direct effects on coal valuations are likely to be more substantial. Coal companies represent a small fraction of market capitalisation of fossil fuel companies and coal stocks are also less liquid. Divestment announcements are thus more likely to impact coal stock prices since alternative investors cannot be as easily found as in the oil and gas sector.

4. The divestment campaign is likely to lead to a change in market norms.
For example, negative screens or passive funds that exclude fossil fuel
companies will quickly emerge. Some banks, particularly multilateral
institutions such as the World Bank, may stop lending to fossil fuel
companies, particularly coal.

5. Changes in market norms and debt financing are likely to have rather limited direct impact on the enterprise value of fossil fuel companies. Debt like equity is ultimately a claim on the future cash flows of a company. Since a divestment campaign has little hope of directly impacting the future cash flows of fossil fuel companies, neutral debt or equity investors have little cause to shun to fossil fuel companies.

6. Divestment campaigns will probably be at their most effective in
triggering a process of stigmatisation of fossil fuel companies. We
find that even if the direct impacts of divestment outflows are limited
in the short term, the campaigns will cause neutral equity and/or
debt investors to lower their expectations of fossil fuel companies’
net cash flows in the long term. The process by which uncertainty
surrounding the future of fossil fuel industry will increase is through
stigmatisation. In particular, the fossil fuel divestment campaign will
increase legislative uncertainty and potentially also lead to multiples’
compression causing more permanent damage to the companies’
enterprise values.

7. Finally, we find that stigmatisation, while likely to cost fossil fuel companies billions, is unlikely to threaten their survival. Coal companies will probably be the hardest hit segment of the market.

Investors

As fiduciaries, managing long-term savings on behalf of their beneficiaries,
endowments, pension funds and similar institutional investors have a
duty to understand and respond to challenges posed by the fossil fuel
divestment campaign—whether considering fossil fuel divestment or not.
To this end our recommendations can be divided into the following:

1. Closely monitor fossil fuel exposure. Fossil fuel and related industries comprise a surprisingly large variety of sectors from coal mining to shipping to the manufacture of premium steel. Conduct an audit of the carbon intensity (and pollution in the case of coal) of portfolio constituents. There are a wide range of current and emerging environmental risks that could result in stranded assets. These risks are poorly understood and are regularly mispriced, which may result in a significant over-exposure to environmentally unsustainable assets throughout portfolios.

2. Stress test portfolios for potential environment-related risks that could impact fossil fuel companies. Companies unable to withstand the internalisation of environmental costs or competition from more efficient rivals should be more closely monitored.

3. Be explicit about strategy on fossil fuel investment and consult with beneficiaries. Holding a passive view is also a strategy.


8. Those that commit to divestment should consider re-directing investment
to renewable energy alternatives that can trigger ‘disruptive innovation’ and substitute fossil fuels as a primary source of energy supply

See link for more.

[Graeme]

17 major foundations declare they’re divesting from fossil fuels

A group of 17 foundations are about to announce that they’re divesting from fossil fuels, the New York Times reports. That’s $1.8 billion that will be denied to companies that, when it comes down to it, do business in climate change.

For the foundations, which include the Russell Family Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America and the John Merck Fund, divesting from fossil fuels is a way of putting their money where their mouths are — aligning their investments with their social missions. It also makes economic sense: Once governments fully recognize that our remaining reserves of fossil fuels need to stay in the ground, they’ll (hopefully) get serious about limiting emissions, and the “carbon bubble” will inevitably pop.

The move is a major step forward for Bill McKibben and 350.org, which has been leading the divestment campaign. According to the Times, 22 cities, two counties, 20 religious organizations, nine colleges and universities and six other institutions had signed up for the effort.

salon

Norwegian pension giant drops investments in coal, tar sands, palm oil

Scandinavia's largest pension company, Storebrand, has announced that it will no longer invest in 'climate villain' companies.

Christine Meisingset, head of sustainable investment at Storebrand, explained in a statement:

"As savings and pensions suppliers we must ensure a long-standing and good return for the clients. Climate change is the most comprehensive risk-factor within sustainability, and preservation of forests, rain forests in particular, is essential to counter these changes."

No more investing in 'climate villains'

The company has been systematically reviewing its investments in each sector, from an environmental perspective, to identify problems with the companies they invest in.

Among the list of "climate villains" reviewed are non-renewables such as coal, which contributes to large amounts of CO2 emissions.

Controversial palm oil is also on the list - which can be found in cosmetics, cleaning, and food products, as well as in biodiesel. The palm oil boom is a major cause of deforestation across the tropics.

The Norwegian company has so far excluded a total of 176 companies from their investments based on ethical criteria, including 40 in the coal, tar sands and palm oil industries.

In total 46 companies are excluded based on "environmental degradation" and 44 on "unsustainability".

theecologist

[Graeme]

The Fossil Fuel Bubble?

An interesting phenomenon is happening in the world of philanthropy. 17 large and reputable Foundations, including the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, The Educational Foundation of America, The John Merck Fund, The Russell Family Foundation, The Sierra Club Foundation, and the Wallace Global Fund, with assets totaling nearly $2 billion, have launched an initiative to divest from fossil fuel investments and place those funds into clean technology and organizations that beget a sustainable future.

This initiative, called Divest-Invest Philanthropy, has been created to raise awareness about the importance and urgency of moving away from fossil fuels and towards climate solutions. The Foundations involved in the Divest-Invest Philanthropy are joining environmental activist organizations like Bill McKibben’s 350.org as well as college students across the country (who are questioning en masse the endowment investment practices of their schools) to make a stand.



As fossil fuel companies continue to invest in polluting resources that won’t ultimately be used, they are amassing what will eventually become stranded assets. And what will happen to the valuation of these gigantic companies when the market realizes that they have significant amounts of stranded assets on their balance sheets? Will the fossil fuel bubble finally burst, resulting in a colossal market meltdown?

To avoid such a bubble and usher in a smooth transition to a low-carbon economy, Woo suggests that we support the Clean Trillion movement, which encourages investors to commit $1 trillion or more per year for the next 36 years into clean energy and climate solutions. “Divestment is important, but reinvestment is as important. We need to make our money work for us, as well as the planet,” says Woo.

cleantechies

[Graeme]

The oil industry is not only hurting the environment — it's a bad investment, too

nvironmental activists have long gone after oil companies for contributing to global warming. But a new campaign has sought to hurt the industry where it really hurts: the bottom line.

We know that we have to dramatically slow carbon emissions if we are to prevent catastrophic climate change. A conservative estimate is that two-thirds of extant fossil fuels must stay in the ground. These would then become "stranded assets" that oil companies will never be able to extract. And that has provided an opening to a broad-based divestment campaign, which is making a persuasive economic case against investing in Exxon and its Big Oil ilk.

As Brett Fleishman, a senior analyst at 350.org, told me, "There's too much carbon embedded in fossil fuel reserves to burn. Those reserves are on the balance sheets of fossil fuel companies. Those companies are valued by those balance sheets. Therefore those valuations are incorrect."

The divestment campaign seeks to enlighten investors about these shaky assets underlying the oil industry's wealth. College students have taken aim at their university endowments, with Divest Harvard organizing divestment groups at more than 400 campuses. Towns, cities, and religious organizations have also promised to divest from fossil fuels. The action is even hotter in Europe, where financial services companies Rabobank and Storebrand have already divested from the industry, as have Swedish and Norwegian pension funds.

Institutional investors, even those that are not particularly socially conscious, are taking notice. MSCI — one of the world's top investment analysis firms — called divestment one the top trends of 2014 to watch out for. Bloomberg recently released a tool to aid companies in assessing their portfolio's exposure to climate change.

Of course, the whole campaign hinges on the premise that those fossil fuels will remain in the ground. As The Economist puts it, "Either governments are not serious about climate change or fossil fuel firms are overvalued." In other words, if there is no political will to combat climate change, then the companies are valued accurately.

Obviously, the oil industry has no intention of stranding those assets. This became evident last week when Exxon Mobil considered the risk of stranded assets. The company found that it is "highly unlikely" that government action will force it to abandon its reserves. Rather, the company said, "All of Exxon Mobil's current hydrocarbon reserves will be needed, along with substantial future industry investments, to address global energy needs."

All of this indicates that the divestment campaign must pursue a two-pronged approach. Ben Caldecott, who directs the Stranded Assets Program at the University of Oxford, tells me that the campaign could impact the oil industry indirectly, saying, "Certain companies and sectors will also become stigmatized and these could face a higher cost of capital."

But these companies are not changing their business model. "It's like asking Levi's jeans to keep 80 percent of their jeans on the shelf," Caldecott says. The fact that that national oil companies now control 90 percent of world oil reserves complicates the matter further.

That means governments are going to have to get involved. First, any action on climate change will have to be international, with the most effective strategy being the introduction of a global tax on carbon. Second, we need to begin financing a renewable energy sector to better compete with carbon-based forms of energy. And third, we have to accept the hard truth that the global economy must grow slower for sustainability's sake.

The alternative is ecological collapse. The divestment campaign has always been aimed at raising awareness among investors, the public, and politicians. The campaign has forced the issue, and Exxon Mobil has showed its cards. Right now, the company is betting governments won't act. Let's prove them wrong.

theweek

[Graeme]

93 Harvard Faculty Call On University to Divest from Fossil Fuels

Today, in a dramatic acknowledgment of the dangers of man-made climate change, and of the direct link between fossil fuels and climate change, nearly 100 members of Harvard University’s faculty sent a “Faculty Open Letter” to Harvard University President Drew Faust and the members of the Harvard University Corporation. The Letter criticizes what its authors describe as a “failure of leadership” and calls on the university to divest its endowment—the largest university endowment in the world—from the fossil fuel industry.

On October 3, 2013, President Faust and the Corporation issued a statement that dismissed the efficacy of divestment, declined to proceed in that direction, and failed to acknowledge faculty support for any such divestment. A second statement, released on April 7, 2014, reiterated the refusal of the President and Corporation to consider divestment. In their Letter the faculty state “We wish to remind the Corporation that Harvard boasts a tradition of divestment for ethical purposes—and that now, with massive global consequences from climate change occurring, continued investment represents a political act, too. We therefore ask that the Corporation begin, as soon as possible, to divest from fossil fuel corporations.”

The signatories include leading professors from a wide range of academic departments and from every school at Harvard, several department heads, and distinguished members of the scientific community. They emphasize the overwhelming evidence of fossil fuel as a primary cause of human alteration of climate, and decry the industry’s documented attempts to misinform the public in order to protect its market value.

To read the Open letter and for more information, visit www.harvardfacultydivest.com

commondreams

[phaster]

last night went to see a peak oil movie "how to boil a frog"

http://peakoil.com/generalideas/new-doc ... n-peak-oil

which was playing at an arts media center here in town, and it was kinda interesting to see the reaction of a friend who is pretty aware of the "green" movement, but suddenly realized there is a much bigger with something she never considered the implications of called "peak oil"

it all kinda started when she called me up and asked if I was down for an environment movie and a few beers (which I'm always game for), at the artsy media arts center which is best described as an edgy a small store front venue in one of reclaimed "hipster" urban neighborhoods here in san diego.

https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&c ... CBwQtQMwAA

we were the only two people in the theater, so it was basically private showing.

the film it self might best be described as peak oil meets a burning man film maker (i.e. some pretty far out there imagery)

guess the subject matter and imagery wasn't too popular with the general public because we talked to the guy taking care of the place, and he mentioned that the three showings only produced three ticket sales...

anyway about S.F., I'm pretty sure next year is when many in this state come to learn that this state isn't being run by any kind of "investment" professional! that is because GASB (pronounced like "Gatsby," without the "t") is an independent national board that sets the rules of financial reporting for state and local governments. GASB's new standards, which have to be met by June 2015. GASB adds one more new rule to the process: Pension liabilities must be included on the balance sheets of the agencies responsible for funding their employees' pensions.

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/apr/09 ... a-20140410

I'm of the opinion this mandated change in accounting rules will shine a bright light on the mismanaged financial system, and cause an economic implosion!!! or put another way

Them dang unintentional consequences.

anyway not sure which city in california will fall first, because all the news seems pretty bad (I my self have figures of 12+ billion for the city of san diego), but the one consistent theme seems to be the politician have made sweet heart deals with public employee unions and are giving the bill to unsuspecting taxpayers. BTW 12+ billion might seem like a big number, but that only seems to be a starting point of the "off balance sheet" figures

The Pension Fund That Ate California
CalPERS’s corruption, insider dealing, and politicized investments have overwhelmed taxpayers with debt.

http://www.city-journal.org/2013/23_1_calpers.html

[Graeme]

Campaigners release ‘hit list’ of 200 largest fossil fuel companies

Fossil fuel divestment campaigners have released a hit list of 200 companies from which investors should remove their money.

The new Fossil Free Index identifies the 200 largest public fossil fuel companies, based upon the potential CO2 emissions embedded in their reserves. These reserves are growing, as companies continue to explore for new sources of fossil fuels.

The list ranks oil and gas companies separately from coal. Gazprom and Coal India top the lists respectively.

“We’re very pleased that this first step of releasing The Carbon Underground 200 provides concrete operational support to the growing divestment movement,” said Stuart Braman, founder of Fossil Free Indexes.

The report, called ‘The Carbon Underground’, updates previous research by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, released in 2011, which concluded that the reserves of the top 200 companies exceeded the amount of CO2 they could fairly emit by 340%.

The new research increases this to 400%, based upon the latest reports from the UN’s climate science body, the IPCC, which quantified exactly how much carbon the world has left to burn before it exceeds 2C of warming, the limit agreed by governments across the world.

rtcc

[Graeme]

Doctors join ‘National Day of Divestment Action’ Saturday 3 May 2014

Doctors and medical students are calling climate change a ‘public health emergency’ and urging divestment from fossil fuels nationally

Doctors and medical students are joining hundreds of Australians for the ‘National Day of Divestment’ organised by 350.org and Market Forces tomorrow (3 May 2014). Public events are being held at sites across the country today and tomorrow in the push to move money out of banks financing fossil fuel projects in Australia.

In capital cities across Australia tomorrow, doctors and medical students will gather to deliver letters to their banks calling on them to divest from fossil fuels, whilst others will close their accounts to move their money elsewhere.

Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA) is extremely concerned about the growing health impacts from climate change and is advocating fossil fuel divestment as a health measure.

dea

[Graeme]

Stanford to Purge $18 Billion Endowment of Coal Stock

Stanford University announced Tuesday that it would divest its $18.7 billion endowment of stock in coal-mining companies, becoming the first major university to lend support to a nationwide campaign to purge endowments and pension funds of fossil fuel investments.

The university said it acted in accordance with internal guidelines that allow its trustees to consider whether “corporate policies or practices create substantial social injury” when choosing investments. Coal’s status as a major source of carbon pollution linked to climate change persuaded the trustees to remove companies “whose principal business is coal” from their investment portfolio, the university said.

nytimes

[Graeme]

Three Reasons Stanford's Decision to Dump Coal Is a Game Changer

One, Science Matters. This is Stanford, after all -- home base of the Silicon Valley, the Linear Accelerator, a world-class medical school and 31 Nobel Laureates (not to mention an endowment of $18.7 billion). The importance of science is at the core of the University's decision.

Two, California Matters. When the nation is stuck, California leads, especially in matters of environmental sustainability. Stanford just voted for its home state to stay on the forefront. (I only wish my alma mater, UCLA, had beaten them to the punch.)

As the eighth-largest economy in the world, California has shaped national environmental policies for decades, from the CAFE standards on auto emissions to the new chemicals program REACH. California is ahead of the curve on a carbon trading system and will help the US forge ahead whether we like it or not.

Three, and most important, Young People Matter. One of the most cynical responses to Professor Welch's column suggests Stanford is just worried about keeping access to the best and brightest students. I have no idea if that is true or not, but enlightened self-interest is a powerful tool. Let's use it.

huffingtonpost

[Graeme]

Where should the investors divest?

Here’s one place to start: There are hundreds of community investment funds, socially oriented banks and credit unions, union pension funds, and other financial vehicles that have long experience in investing for social purposes. There are thousands of coops, worker- and community-owned businesses, non-profits, municipal initiatives, and other enterprises that are engaged on a small scale in creating a new economy.

These are the elements of a growing sector of enterprises devoted to public purposes with augmented control by workers and employees. They are insulating and solarizing buildings; expanding public transportation; developing low-carbon equipment and techniques for schools and hospitals; developing new recycling systems for handling waste. They are thereby also creating community-based economies that provide economic security, empower local and workplace democracy, and ward off the running away of jobs. But this is a sector that is generally starved for capital. Expanding the resources to grow this sector as rapidly as possible should be a priority for divestors.

resilience