December, 02 2015, 07:45am EDT
![350.org](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012661/origin.jpg)
Divestment Commitments Pass the $3.4 trillion Mark at COP21
500+ Institutions Have Now Joined the Movement, Campaigners Urge Governments to Follow Suit
PARIS
The fossil fuel divestment campaign has broken a new record at COP21: more than 500 institutions representing over $3.4 trillion in assets have made some form of divestment commitment according to 350.org and Divest-Invest, two organizations coordinating the growing movement.
The new numbers are another impressive leap for the divestment effort, although campaigners are quick to point out that some of the commitments are only partial divestments, and the $3.4 trillion represents the total amount of assets represented by institutions, not the amount of money divested, which is difficult to track due to varying degrees of disclosure.
Wednesday's announcement is another sign in the early days of the Paris Climate Summit that investors are reading the writing on the wall and dramatically shifting capital away from fossil fuels and towards clean, renewable energy. On Monday, Bill Gates and a group of investors announced the launch of a multi-billion dollar private sector coalition to accelerate clean energy innovation. Other voices, including many of the world's most vulnerable countries, are demanding that the Paris agreement send a clear signal that the age of fossil fuels has come to an end and the dawn of renewables is irreversible.
The institutions that have joined the fossil fuel divestment campaign hope that their actions can push governments to follow suit by shifting public finance from fossil fuels to climate solutions. Many are calling on governments to specifically make good on their promises to end fossil fuel subsidies and fulfill their climate finance commitments.
In September 2014, 181 institutions representing $50 billion in assets had made a divestment commitment. On September 21, during Climate Week in New York City, 350.org and Divest-Invest announced the number had jumped to 400 institutions representing $2.6 trillion under management, and launched a "Divest for Paris" initiative to garner new commitments ahead of COP21. In the intervening 10 weeks between then and today, more than 100 institutions made new divestment commitments.
Organizers will announce a series of new divestment announcements and endorsements on Wednesday, including:
- 19 French Cities have endorsed divestment ahead of COP21: 350.org will announce for the first time that they have secured commitments from 19 French cities, including Lille, Bordeaux, Dijon, Saint-Denis, Rannes, Ile-de-France, and others.
- The French parliament has endorsed divestment: On November 25th, the French National Assembly adopted a resolution encouraging public investors, companies (especially those in which the states owns shares) and local authorities not to invest in fossil fuels anymore. The resolution is the first step to formalizing the policy as law.
- The French Ensemble Foundation will join European Divest-Invest: Jacqueline Delia Bremond, Co-founder and Co-Chair will announce that the foundation will join the European Divest-Invest initiative and divest their holdings from fossil fuels. Since 2004, the foundation has given over $28 million to environmental causes around the world.
Some of the most notable new announcements since September 21, 2015 include:
- Uppsala became the largest city in Sweden to endorse fossil fuel divestment.
- Munster became the first city in Germany to divest completely from fossil fuels.
- Melbourne, Australia's second largest city, committed to go fossil free ahead of COP21. In fact, Australia has seen a seven-fold growth in the divestment movement, from two councils divesting in 2014, to 14 divesting as of now. Together, these funds represent AUD $5.5 billion in assets under management.
- Oslo, the capital of Norway, announced that it will divest its $9 billion pension fund (EUR8 billion) from coal, oil and gas companies, becoming the first capital city in the world to ban investments in fossil fuels.
- Dutch pension fund PFZW announced it will divest from coal companies and reduce its investments in other fossil fuel companies. The fund has EUR161 billion of assets under management.
- London School of Economics, one of the preeminent economics schools in the world, dropped all its direct and indirect holdings of coal and tar sands, and all direct holdings of fossil fuel companies.
- Allianz, Europe's largest insurance company, divested EUR630 million of their own capital investment portfolio from coal, and are reinvesting over EUR4 billion into wind energy over the next 6 months. This is one of the largest funds to make a commitment to divest from fossil fuels. Allianz tied their announcement to COP21, making the moral and economic case for investing in cleaner technologies
- APRA AMCOS, the biggest music industry organisation in the southern hemisphere announced that it is beginning the process of divesting from all fossil fuels. APRA AMCOS distributed over $250 million in royalties to its 87,000 songwriter and composer members last year, making it a large cultural force for divestment.
- London Science Museum announced plans to dump Shell Oil as a sponsor, amidst controversy and public pressure.
- In addition to the London School of Economics 5 Universities from the UK took action: Oxford Brookes University, University of the Arts London, University of Surrey and University of Sheffield divested from all fossil fuel companies; Wolfson College (Oxford university) divested from coal and tar sands. Fund manager CCLA, which manages investments for Birmingham City University, Cranfiled University, Heriot-Watt University, University of Hertfordshire, University of Portsmouth, University of Westminster excluded coal and tar sands from its investments.
- The first church in Germany, theProtestant Church in Hesse and Nassau, managing EUR1.8 billion, committed to drop investments in coal, oil and gas too.
- Two weeks ago, renowned economists Thomas Piketty and Tim Jacksonwrote a letter in The Guardian, calling on investors to divest from fossil fuel ahead for the COP21.
The commitments vary in their exact language and some are only partial divestment commitments, or just apply to a particular fossil fuel, such as coal or tar sands. At many institutions on the list, activists are still pushing for more action. The top line number refers to the number of assets under management by the institutions that have made a commitment, not the amount of money directly removed from fossil fuels. The goal is to demonstrate that a growing number of significant institutions are either reducing their carbon risk, taking a moral stance on fossil fuels, increasing investments in climate solutions, or all of the above.
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
LATEST NEWS
Newly Released Gaza Hospital Director Alleges 'Almost Daily Torture' in Israeli Detention
The hospital director, who'd been held without trial since Israeli forces detained him in November, said that he and others were subjected to torture, psychological humiliation, and severe undernourishment.
Jul 01, 2024
The director of Gaza's main hospital said at a press conference on Monday that he was tortured while being held without charges for the last seven months at an Israeli detention center.
Muhammad Abu Salmiya, director of the Al-Shifa hospital, once Gaza's main medical center, made the claims after he and 54 other Palestinian detainees were released and arrived back to the Gaza Strip.
Israeli forces had raided the hospital in November and alleged that Abu Salmiya was involved in making it a Hamas command center. They later destroyed the hospital.
Abu Salmiya said detention guards broke his finger and beat him to the point that his head bled—and that he wasn't the only one.
"Our detainees have been subjected to all kinds of torture behind bars," Abu Salmiya said. "There was almost daily torture."
There was "daily physical and psychological humiliation," he added.
He also said that they were severely underfed, surviving on nothing more than a loaf of bread per day. He said that all of the detainees had lost at least 30 kilograms (66 pounds).
"Our detainees have been subjected to all kinds of torture behind bars. There was almost daily torture."
Israeli forces seized Abu Salmiya from a United Nations convoy on November 22. They took him to court three times while in detainment but brought no charges and allowed him no lawyer, Abu Salmiya said.
His detention in November followed an Israeli siege of Al-Shifa hospital, which Israeli officials said had become a Hamas control center. Though weapons were found at the hospital, an investigation by The Washington Post in December showed that the evidence fell short of revealing a command center, and that key claims the Israelis had made to justify the siege turned out to be incorrect.
Israeli forces attacked the hospital again in late March, killing hundreds and leaving the facility mostly destroyed. Several mass graves were discovered near the hospital site in the weeks that followed.
Israel has detained thousands of Palestinians since the war started, leading to "intolerable overcrowding" of its facilities, as Haaretzreported in February. Many detainees are held without charges in what is called "administrative detention."
At least 40 Palestinians have died in Israeli detention during the war, according to Addameer, a Palestinian watchdog group. Salmiya said Monday that some had been killed in interrogation cells, Al Jazeerareported.
At least one other doctor was among those released on Monday: Bassam Miqdad, head of the orthopedic unit at Gaza European hospital in Khan Younis.
In April, Adnan Ahmad Albursh, a 50-year-old Palestinian surgeon, died in Israeli detention, according to Palestinian officials and rights groups. He had been the head of orthopedics at Al-Shifa hospital. Overall, hundreds of healthcare workers have been killed during the war.
Israeli officials and political figures from various parties denounced the release of the 55 detainees, which was reportedly done to make space in the overcrowded detention centers.
Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right minister in charge of Israel's police and prison service, called the release of the detainees a case of "security negligence" and blamed another ministry. Benny Gantz, an opposition figure who recently resigned from the war cabinet, said whoever released the detainees should be fired and that government offices should be made available to "free up space and budget for prisoners," according to Al Jazeera.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Outrage as Reports Suggest DOJ to Offer Boeing 'Sweetheart Deal' Over Fatal Crashes
"There is no accountability, no admission that Boeing's admitted crime caused the 346 deaths, and the families will most certainly object," said one lawyer for victims' relatives.
Jul 01, 2024
The families of 346 people who were killed on two Boeing 737 MAX airplanes in 2018 and 2019 were expected to "strenuously object" to a plea deal reportedly proposed by the U.S. Department of Justice a week after federal prosecutors recommended criminal charges for the company.
The penalties proposed by the DOJ "are totally inadequate," said Javier de Luis, whose sister was killed when the Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 MAX plane she was on crashed in 2019.
Family members take issue with the proposal "both from the perspective of accountability for the crimes committed, and from the perspective of acting in the public interest by ensuring a change in Boeing's behavior," said de Luis, who served on a panel assembled by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to review Boeing's safety culture.
The agreement, which has been denounced as a "sweetheart deal" by family members and their attorneys, reportedly includes a requirement that Boeing plead guilty to conspiring to defraud the FAA in connection with the crashes, as well as a $487.2 million financial penalty. The company board would be required to meet with the victims' families and appoint an independent monitor to oversee Boeing's safety practices.
Boeing would be required to pay only half of the fine because prosecutors would give the company credit for a settlement payment officials already made in relation to the crashes.
Boeing paid $2.5 billion as part of another deal that granted it immunity from criminal prosecution over its planes' safety flaws, with the agreement mandating that it abide by the terms for a three-year period that ended in January. Two days before that period ended, the company came under new scrutiny after a door plug that was missing several bolts blew off a Boeing 737 MAX 9 flown by Alaska Airlines while the plane was at an elevation of 16,000 feet.
Erin Applebaum, a lawyer representing victims' relatives, said Sunday as the new plea deal proposal was reported that "when there is inevitably another Boeing crash and DOJ seeks to assign blame, they will have nowhere else to look but in the mirror."
Boeing has until the end of the week to accept or reject the agreement; if it agrees, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor will decide whether the deal is in the public interest.
Attorneys for the families said the relatives plan to call on the judge to reject the deal.
"The families are very unhappy and angered with DOJ's decisions and proposal," said Robert Clifford, lead counsel for the families who have filed civil litigation. "There is no accountability, no admission that Boeing's admitted crime caused the 346 deaths, and the families will most certainly object before Judge Reed O'Connor and ask that he reject the plea if Boeing accepts."
The memory of victims of the crashes in 2018 and 2019, said Paul Cassell, who represents the families of 15 people who were killed on the Ethiopian Airlines and Lion Airlines planes, "demands more justice than this."
David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, noted that some reporting on the deal suggests the DOJ will make a criminal charge, but said, "That's probably just trying to get Boeing to admit wrongdoing."
The reported deal comes a week after an employee of a contractor for one of Boeing's partner companies, Spirit Aerosystems, became the latest of more than a dozen whistleblowers to come forward about safety issues with the company's aircrafts. The worker notified Boeing of problems with 787 Dreamliner planes that posed "catastrophic" danger to people on board.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Right-Wing Supreme Court Rules Trump Has 'Absolute Immunity' for Official Acts
"In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law," warned Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
Jul 01, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled along ideological lines on Monday that former President Donald Trump is entitled to "absolute immunity" for "official acts" taken while he was in office, a decision that liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned makes any occupant of the Oval Office "a king above the law."
Writing for the majority in the 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts declared that Trump "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."
But Sotomayor countered in her dissent that the majority distorted the concept of core constitutional powers "beyond any recognizable bounds," effectively granting Trump the sweeping immunity he demanded as he faces charges for attempting to subvert the 2020 presidential election in a failed last-ditch bid to remain in power.
"When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution," Sotomayor wrote. "Orders the Navy's SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
"In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law," the justice added. "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
The New York Timesnoted that the high court "has remanded the case to the federal district court judge overseeing the matter, Tanya Chutkan, to determine the nature of the acts for which former President Trump has been charged—which are unofficial ones he undertook in his personal capacity and which are official ones he undertook as president."
The high court's ruling, which came after months of delays, all but forecloses the possibility of Trump facing trial for election subversion charges before the November presidential contest. The progressive advocacy group MoveOn said the conservative supermajority's decision to punt the case back to the lower court makes the justices "complicit in Trump's plan to delay any legal accountability until after the election."
Two of the court's right-wing justices—Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—faced calls to recuse from the case but rejected them.
"Donald Trump incited the deadly January 6 insurrection and the MAGA Supreme Court continues to do everything in their power to stop him from facing accountability for attempting to overthrow our government," said Rahna Epting, executive director of MoveOn Political Action. "Nobody is above the law, especially not Trump. MAGA extremists in Congress and the courts have made it clear there will be no checks or balances on Trump and the only hope for American democracy is the people coming together to defeat him in November."
Lisa Gilbert, executive vice president at Public Citizen, added in a statement that "Trump versus the United States is a fitting name for this case."
"There is no better way to characterize Trump's attempt to upend the Constitution and rule of law as we know it," Gilbert said. "Today's ruling is a blow to U.S. democracy. But it's not a final blow by any means. Trump can and should still be held accountable for his role in the violence on January 6 in an attempt to overturn the 2020 election and stop a peaceful transfer of power."
In an amicus brief submitted in April, Public Citizen noted that the president "has no specific, constitutionally assigned role in the conduct of presidential elections," making "any assertion that a president's authority empowers him to conspire to overturn the result of a valid election and retain power beyond his term in office... absurd."
"Accepting a view of the outer limits of presidential authority that would sweep in a conspiracy to overturn an election and remain in office unlawfully would have exceptionally broad implications and threaten severe damage to our constitutional democracy," the group warned.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular