To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
In this world, where everything and everyone is for sale, we must sustain independent media we can trust. If you believe independent journalism is critical to protecting democracy and the common good, please support Common Dreams this Giving Tuesday! We wouldn't exist without you.
Deb McNamara, Fossil Free PERA (Colorado), campaigns@350colorado.org, (720) 400-3739
Sandy Emerson, Fossil Free California, sandy@fossilfreeca.org, (650) 743-0524
Vanessa Warheit, Fossil Free California, vanessa@fossilfreeca.org, (415) 225-4435
Toby Heaps, Corporate Knights, toby@corporateknights.com, (416) 274-1432
As the climate crisis worsens, and with Donald Trump formally withdraws the US from the Paris Climate Accord, a new study shows that three major state pension funds in California and Colorado (CalSTRS, CalPERS and PERA), collectively lost over $19 billion in retirement savings for teachers, state troopers and public workers by continuing to invest in fossil fuels.
The study performed by media and analysis firm Corporate Knights calls into question the rationale for investing in the risky oil, coal, and gas industries, whose stocks damage both the portfolios' profits and the planet's life support systems. Members of California's State Teachers' Retirement System plan to attend that fund's Investment Committee meeting on Wednesday, November 6, demanding answers about why the fund continues to lose money on fossil fuels.
Corporate Knights retrieved the funds' stock holdings, weights, and valuations for each of the past ten years, and then used public information to compare those actual investment returns with a similar, but fossil fuel-free version.
In this analysis, over ten years, California's $238 billion state teachers retirement fund (CalSTRS) would have gained $5.5 billion without fossil fuels. The $380 billion public employees retirement fund (CalPERS) would have generated an additional $11.9 billion. Similarly, Colorado's $45 billion state pension fund (PERA) would have generated an estimated additional $1.77 billion in value without fossil fuels.
The reports, which were commissioned and funded by non-profit coalitions calling on the Boards of CalSTRS, CalPERS, and PERA to divest from fossil fuels, also highlight that large fossil fuel companies pulled down overall performance - while technology, healthcare, retail and entertainment boosted performance.
These findings help show that fossil fuel companies are no longer wise long-term investment choices, and everyday Americans are feeling the sting.
In California, CalSTRS serves over 900,000 members, mostly public school teachers. CalPERS, the nation's largest public pension fund, serves more than 1.9 million members in its retirement system, including former educators, police officers, firefighters, municipal workers and state employees. In Colorado, PERA serves 600,000 current and former teachers, state troopers, snowplow drivers, corrections officers, and other public employees.
The ten years these funds were invested in fossil fuels translates to a loss of $5,572 per member for CalSTRS; a loss of $6,072 per member for CalPERS; and a loss of $2,900 per member for PERA.
"We knew CalPERS' fossil fuel investments did environmental damage to us all. It turns out the damage was fiscal too - CalPERS took an $11.9 billion portfolio hit by persisting in dead-end investments in fossil fuels," said Wynne Furth, Former City Attorney, CalPERS Retiree
"This report confirms what we have been predicting for years, based on the testimony of financial experts like Bevis Longstreth, former commissioner to the SEC: CalSTRS would be billions of dollars ahead if it had divested years ago. We can only hope that the fund will now divest its fossil fuel holdings to avoid further and larger losses," said Jane Vosburg, CalSTRS Retiree; FFCA, Divest CalSTRS Campaign Lead
"Now's the time for CalSTRS to make the morally right decision to divest. They can come out financially ahead and help curb deadly carbon emissions by eliminating fossil fuels from our portfolio," said Lynne Nittler, retired teacher and CalSTRS member.
"As long as PERA's money remains invested in the fossil fuel industry, that investment supports an industry that has willfully denied its role in climate change, accelerating today's climate crisis in favor of profits. For the sake of drowned Pacific islands, migrants fleeing drought, and future generations' lives, PERA must divest from fossil fuels. The Corporate Knights study makes that easier by showing they have billions of dollars to gain as well," said Devon Reynolds, Colorado PERA member
"PERA owes the same fiduciary duty to members retired today and members retiring 30 years from now. What this new information makes clear is that everyone's interests are aligned when it comes to fossil fuel investments. It's time to move our money to safer investments, both for better returns today and a viable future for PERA members of my generation and beyond," said Bobbie Mooney, Fossil Free PERA Spokesperson & Colorado PERA member
"Energy is the worst-performing sector of the S&P 500 over the past decade. Since 2007, the sector has generated bond-like returns with equity risk. Our clients at the SRI Wealth Management Group represent a growing segment of investors expressing concern with climate change. As a result of this concern, many are choosing to shift their investments away from fossil fuel companies and into renewable energy. The collective impact these investors are having on share price for companies across the industry and on the broader environment is significant," said Thomas Van Dyck, Managing Director--Financial Advisor, RBC Wealth Management
"Institutional investors literally have the power to make or break the future. Money lies behind every decision to expand or contract the fossil fuel industry, to slow or accelerate the clean energy transition," said Clara Vondrich, Director of Divest Invest. "There is no more time for shareholder engagement with the fossil fuel industry that is digging and burning us past climate tipping points of no return. It's time to divest. What side of history are you on?"
Climate change experts agree that to avoid the most catastrophic effects of the climate crisis -- including sea level rise, extreme weather events, the spread of diseases, massive agricultural loss, and mass extinction of species -- 80 percent of fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground. But fossil fuel companies have refused to change, doubling down instead on a core business of extracting and burning that destabilizes the Earth's climate. The only thing these companies appear to care about is (short term) financial profits.
Profits depend on investment - and investment requires social license and capital. Climate activists argue that divestment effectively removes both of these supports for the fossil fuel industry. And this strategy appears to be working. At their annual conference in October, CEO's of major oil companies asked, "What more does the industry need to do on the PR front to combat the growing fossil fuel divestment movement?"
Divestment from fossil fuels is a clear and emerging trend. In September of this year, more institutions like churches, universities, and private equity funds pledged to divest. The total of managed assets pledged to divestment has leapt from $52 billion in 2014 to more than $11.5 trillion today -- a stunning 22,000 % increase.
Over 1,110 institutions have now committed to policies black-listing some combination of coal, oil and gas investments. These institutions include sovereign wealth funds, banks, global asset managers and insurance companies, cities, pension funds, health care organizations, universities, faith groups, foundations, and the entire country of Ireland.
In Denver, Mayor Michael Hancock announced this past spring that the city was divesting its $6 billion General Funds' portfolio from fossil fuels. The University of California also recently announced divestment of its $83 billion pension and endowment funds, for "purely financial reasons."
In light of the Corporate Knights study findings, key questions for these funds and fund managers remain:
Why would any fund manager continue to invest in fossil fuels? Risky, harmful to our planet and shared future, and less profitable than many other investment opportunities, fossil fuel investments are a lose-lose choice. Why are these major funds still investing in them?
Who will protect public employees' retirement in California and Colorado? Retirees and other members of CalPERS, CalSTRS, and Colorado's PERA might ask: "Now that the fund managers know these fossil fuel investments are losing us money, what are they going to do about it?"
What role do the oil, gas and coal industries play? These studies are being released in the midst of the groundbreaking two week trial of New York v. ExxonMobil, which alleges the corporation defrauded shareholders by not reporting accurately on the impacts of climate change on its business. The California and Colorado pension funds collectively hold over $1.2 billion in Exxon stock. Do these fund managers believe the underperformance of this sector was a result of fraudulent misrepresentation by industry? What responsibility does the industry have for these losses?
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.
"Someone tell Trump that Israel already unleashed hell on Gaza, and hostages were not released."
In an early signal of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's foreign policy plans for when he returns to office next month, the Republican said Monday "there will be ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East" if Hamas does not release hostages taken from Israel, the occupying military force in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Trump demanded hostages seized during the October 7 attack of last year be released or his promised retribution would follow. Nearly 45,000 Palestinians have already been killed—mostly civilian men, women, and children—since Israel launched a full-scale invasion of Gaza in the wake of the Hamas-led operation.
Of the 251 people taken captive last year, 63 are believed to be still alive in Gaza, according toThe Washington Post's tracker, which was updated last week. So far, 117 others have been freed or rescued and 71 have been confirmed killed.
After dining with Sara Netanyahu, the wife of Israel's prime minister, at the Trump International Golf Club in Florida Sunday night, the U.S. president-elect made his threat about the hostages on his Truth Social platform Monday afternoon.
"Everybody is talking about the hostages who are being held so violently, inhumanely, and against the will of the entire World, in the Middle East," Trump wrote. "But it's all talk, and no action! Please let this TRUTH serve to represent that if the hostages are not released prior to January 20, 2025, the date that I proudly assume Office as President of the United States, there will be ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East, and for those in charge who perpetrated these atrocities against Humanity."
"Those responsible will be hit harder than anybody has been hit in the long and storied History of the United States of America," Trump added. "RELEASE THE HOSTAGES NOW!"
Stephen Pollard, editor-at-large The Jewish Chronicle, responded that "this is the message the president of the USA should have sent on October 8, 2023."
Noting Pollard's comments, Rohan Talbot, director of advocacy and campaigns at the U.K.-based Medical Aid for Palestinians, said: "Genuinely interested to know what Stephen thinks the U.S. could have supported Israel to do in Gaza beyond what it currently has. Nukes?"
"This statement is unhinged—'there will be ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East,'" Talbot added.
Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer in the School of Security Studies at King's College London, said, "Someone tell Trump that Israel already unleashed hell on Gaza, and hostages were not released."
Drop Site Newshighlighted that "Trump's statement—which follows a video released over the weekend by Hamas' armed wing featuring U.S.-Israeli captive Edan Alexander and explicitly addressing Trump—does not acknowledge that Netanyahu has repeatedly sabotaged cease-fire deals that could have freed Israeli hostages. It also appears timed to position himself to claim credit for any progress in cease-fire talks, as negotiations between Hamas and Egyptian mediators are already underway."
As the American Jewish outlet Forwardreported Monday:
The White House is attempting a final push to get... a deal done. President Joe Biden said last week that the cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon had created an opportunity to reignite stalled negotiations for a similar deal in Gaza. "We will use every day we have in office to try to generate as much progress towards that end as possible," Jake Sullivan, Biden's national security adviser, said Sunday morning on ABC's "This Week."
Given the failed efforts in the past, the families of the American hostages are hoping Trump could leverage his popularity in Israel and his relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to take immediate action during the transition period. "Trump must not wait until he is inaugurated to help reach a deal that secures the freedom for Edan, six other Americans, and the rest of the hostages," Adi and Yael Alexander, the parents of Edan, said on Saturday.
Despite an abundance of evidence showing how Israel is using U.S. weapons to slaughter civilians in Gaza and severely restricting the flow of humanitarian aid while claiming to target Hamas, Biden and Congress have refused to cut off arms to Netanyahu's government. In fact, just hours after the cease-fire between the Israeli government and Hezbollah took effect—a deal that Israel has since violated approximately 100 times—the Financial Times reported last week that "Biden has provisionally approved a $680 million weapons sale to Israel."
"These deals essentially pay industry to inflict more suffering on already climate-ravaged communities," said one local opponent of efforts to further expand gas exports in the region.
How do local communities lose out when governments invest in fossil fuel facilities instead of community needs?
That's the question at the heart of a new Sierra Club report released Monday, titled "The People Always Pay: Tax Breaks Force Gulf Communities to Subsidize the LNG Industry"—which details the extent to which the export market for liquefied natural gas, or LNG, benefits from billions of dollars in tax breaks in Louisiana and Texas—revenue that could be invested in public infrastructure, schools, and other priorities.
In the past decade, after an export ban was lifted by the Obama administration in 2015, the United States has shifted from an importer to a mass exporter of LNG, which a recent Cornell University study revealed has worse impacts than coal. Critics warn that investment in LNG causes environmental harm and hampers the transition to a green economy. Export terminal sites are concentrated along the Gulf Coast, primarily impacting impoverished coastal communities in Louisiana and Texas, according to the Sierra Club's report.
"The immense scale of tax breaks granted to billion-dollar LNG projects—millions of dollars per job—is mind-blowing. These deals essentially pay industry to inflict more suffering on already climate-ravaged communities by polluting the air and water while depriving Gulf Coast communities of vital revenue for schools, infrastructure, healthcare, emergency services, coastal restoration and protection," said James Hiatt, founder of For a Better Bayou and a resident of Calcasieu Parish in Louisiana, who is featured in the report.
The report relies on interviews with community members and takes a close look at the primary tax abatement programs that LNG export projects have benefited from, respectively.
Under two Louisiana tax break programs—the Industrial Tax Exemption Program (ITEP) and another called Quality Jobs—nine operating, proposed, or under-construction LNG export terminals have been provided $21.6 billion. In Cameron Parish, for example, home to Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass LNG facility, the company is set to receive $4.9 billion in ITEP subsidies between 2012 and 2040, according to the report. In total, Cameron Parish residents are set to lose out on $14.9 billion in revenue from 2012-2040 due to ITEP subsidies for various LNG export terminals.
That investment in fossil fuel facilities translates to a lost $3.8 billion that could go towards schools and another $2.4 billion that could go towards health services, according to the authors of the report.
The report also details how bolstering the LNG market has adversely impacted the local economy.
For example, for Cameron Parish and nearby Calcasieu Parish, the rapid development of petrochemical facilities in the area has increased ship traffic. The Port of Cameron was once the country's largest producer of seafood, according to the report, but dredging and erosion stemming from ship traffic has made it hard for aquatic life to thrive: "While Cameron Parish had a fleet of 250 fishing vessels in 2005, nowadays, only a few dozen remain and some fishermen claim to see only 12 to 15 people working on the water every day, with others forced to supplement their income with additional jobs."
The report highlights that a grassroots organization in Louisiana found that ITEP applications from 1998 to 2017 pledged over 121,000 new jobs, but that the companies actually experienced a net loss of over 26,500 jobs.
The impact on communities is not just economic. According to the report, in Texas' Golden Triangle, a highly industrialized petrochemical corridor that includes the cities of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange, residents breathe in polluting vapors that increase potential health harms.
"Among other pollutants, refineries produce benzene, a carcinogen that can result in leukemia or severe bone marrow damage. On average, an estimated one in 5,000 people in the Golden Triangle are at an incremental lifetime cancer risk, despite the EPA’s upper limit of acceptable cancer risk being one in 10,000," the report states.
Given the sizable tax exemptions in both Louisiana and Texas pledged for projects that are not yet up and running—in addition to the environmental degradation that is guaranteed with further expansion—the Sierra Club argues that making sure they are never built is "exactly what is necessary to avert the worst of the climate crisis."
"President Biden must use the power of the pen to protect those seeking sanctuary from the coming deportation machine that will crush the human rights of our immigrant neighbors," said one Amnesty leader.
As an estimated 11.7 million undocumented immigrants brace for U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's return to office, Amnesty International on Monday called for immediate action from the outgoing Biden administration to "protect people seeking safety."
While Amnesty and many other migrant rights advocates have forcefully criticized President Joe Biden's immigration policy, Trump's dehumanizing attacks, promises of mass deportations, and history of forcibly separating families at the southern border have heightened fears of what his second term—with a Republican Congress—will mean for immigrants with and without papers.
"Time and time again, President Biden said he was committed to a humane immigration system, and this is [his] final opportunity to help those coming to the United States in search of safety and a new beginning, like his ancestors did many years ago," Amnesty International USA executive director Paul O'Brien said of a president who often references his family's Irish roots.
"President Biden must use the power of the pen to protect those seeking sanctuary from the coming deportation machine that will crush the human rights of our immigrant neighbors and those who have dreams of finding refuge here," O'Brien argued.
"President-elect Trump already has plans in place to start a massive deportation effort and completely gut the very foundation of asylum on day one of his second term."
Specifically, Amnesty is urging Biden to issue new Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and deferred enforced departure designations, extend authorization dates for individuals who have already been paroled into the United States, and expand legal pathways and protections for farmworkers and undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.
The group also wants the president to prioritize additional resources for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to address the long backlogs and issue protections for those who have applications pending for advanced parole, asylum, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, TPS, and work permits.
The group is further calling on him to "stop detention expansion efforts, shut down the most problematic detention centers that have long perpetuated violence and harm toward people seeking safety, and release vulnerable individuals and those who are eligible for TPS and parole."
Amnesty's demands of Biden come just seven weeks away from Trump's inauguration—and the Republican has already made clear that he's prepared to make immigration policy a priority with some of his leadership picks: South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem for homeland security secretary; family separation architect Stephen Miller as deputy chief of staff for policy; and former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting Director Tom Homan as "border czar."
As USA Todayreported Sunday, Miller and Homan have promoted different approaches to Trump's pledged deportations. Under an ICE-focused plan that Homan laid out shortly before the election, it would be "business as usual, but times two," Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, told the newspaper.
"Stephen Miller is absolutely apocalyptic about what mass deportations would look like on his end," Reichlin-Melnick continued. "He talks about detention camps in Texas with very clear, specific operational details."
According to the newspaper:
By all accounts, it appears Trump is siding with Miller for now.
Trump recently confirmed reports that he plans to declare a national emergency and use the U.S. military to conduct mass deportations.
But no matter how Trump carries out mass deportations, Reichlin-Melnick said the damage to the United States will be significant.
"Even if it doesn't end up being 11 million people, the fear has real effects on the people who become the target of this very hungry deportation machine."
Given the looming threat, Amy Fischer, director of refugee and migrant rights at Amnesty International USA, stressed the urgency of Biden acting now.
"President-elect Trump already has plans in place to start a massive deportation effort and completely gut the very foundation of asylum on day one of his second term. There simply is no time to lose," Fischer said. "We cannot allow the continued disintegration of the country's immigration system and the targeted rhetoric and violence toward people seeking safety at the border and new arrivals thriving in cities and towns across the United States."
"Some of these actions that President Biden must take will help slow down any mass deportation efforts and will send a strong message to people seeking safety that they are welcome in the United States," Fischer added. "This is his last chance."