SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
June, 08 2022, 05:11pm EDT
Contact:
CJ Koepp,Fossil Free California, cj.koepp@fossilfreeca.org
New Report Reveals California Pensions Calpers, Calstrs Vote No on Big Oil Shareholder Climate Resolutions
The retirement systems' failed shareholder engagement efforts with fossil fuel companies has cost their members $11.9 billion in returns.
WASHINGTON
A report released today from Fossil Free California reveals that California's public pensions voted to oppose climate action at major fossil fuel companies and financiers during the 2022 Annual General Meeting season. This expose comes two weeks ahead of an Assembly Committee hearing on SB 1173, a bill that would require the funds to divest from fossil fuels, that was passed only two weeks ago by the California Senate.
The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) are the largest fossil fuel financiers among the top pension funds in the country. While the funds claim to engage with the fossil fuel industry as stakeholders to encourage companies to mitigate climate change, this analysis reveals that CalPERS and CalSTRS voted this year to oppose shareholder proposals at fossil fuel companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, cease exploration activity, and transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
"This latest report today shows that CalPERS and CalSTRS misled us--their members--by voting against climate resolutions, despite claiming their engagement with fossil fuel companies will help bring about needed change," said Charles Toombs, CFA President. "Studies have already shown a failure to divest in fossil fuels in the last decade cost us an estimated $11.9 billion in returns. The systems lost us money and are actively supporting companies opposed to our present and future needs to combat ecological changes and support environmental justice. It's long past time for lawmakers to do what these retirement pensions cannot: protect our future investments and pass Senate Bill 1173 this year to start the process of divesting from fossil fuels."
CalPERS and CalSTRS also wildly exaggerated the cost of divestment to the Senate Appropriations Committee last month, claiming figures as high as $100 million when their own consulting firm, Wilshire and Associates, has shown that the transaction cost associated with selling assets is "considered negligible."
Furthermore, the funds' highest profile shareholder action--replacing 3 of 12 ExxonMobil board members--changes to Exxon's board have not resulted in any meaningful progress to address climate change. Despite claiming "successful" engagement by CalSTRS and CalPERS, ExxonMobil, like the fossil fuel and banking industries in general, persists in climate-wrecking behavior which puts California public pensioners at financial and climate risk.
The full report can be found here.
The chart here details NO votes on climate proposals from CalPERS and CalSTRS at five major fossil fuel companies.
QUOTE SHEET
"It is with supreme disappointment that I have watched my former colleagues at CALSTRS and CALPERS ignore the growing financial, geopolitical and climate risks that now converge and have eliminated any basis for investing in the oil and gas sector," said Tom Sanzillo, Director of Financial Analysis, Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. "They know better and perhaps the voice of the California legislature can remind them of their fiduciary duty. Divestment will serve to defend the funds against the loss of value from competitive market forces and to stand against the worst excesses of the industry we are seeing in the Ukraine."
"The fact that CalSTRS and CalPERS are actively voting against any climate policy WITHIN fossil fuel companies should make it clear to everyone that these oil companies and those who support them will never take the adequate steps to prevent total climate catastrophe," said Raven Fonseca Jensen (18), Campaign Coordinator, Youth vs. Apocalypse. "These companies' only interest is profit, and they will always choose that over human life. We need a complete break with the fossil fuel industry if we want to see any kind of climate justice."
"The climate crisis is the gravest trouble that humans have ever wandered into--and we'll only get out of it if we have the courage to take on those whose lies, denial, and vested interest stand in the way of change," said Bill McKibben, Founder, Third Act. "CalPERS and CalSTRS should never have helped the oil companies defeat climate action--but then, they should long since have ended their involvement with them at all."
"The coalition's report confirms what environmental advocates across the state have been loudly exclaiming for decades: it's past time that California public agencies stop investing money in fossil fuel companies," said Brandon Dawson, director of Sierra Club California. "Despite CalPERS and CalSTRS's best efforts at stakeholder engagement, polluting industries like oil and gas have consistently refused to take necessary actions towards addressing their emissions. We must divest from them, and continue to hold these industries responsible for their role in harming California's air quality, environment, and communities."
"Divestment from fossil fuels companies is an investment in our future. Pension funds must live up to their fiduciary duty, and protect pensioners and climate alike, by wielding their institutional investor power for climate resolutions at banks' shareholder meetings. Yet CalPERS & CalSTRS voted against all climate resolutions at all big banks and major fossil fuel companies," said Amy Gray, Senior Climate Finance Strategist at Stand.earth. "CalPERS and CalSTRS are hiding behind the fool's errand of shareholder engagement with fossil fuel companies while talking a big game about engaging on climate. They are not only actively voting against climate, they continually obstruct climate action while communities experience devastating drought and wildfires. It's morally reprehensible."
"I do NOT want my pension dollars or my tax dollars invested in climate destruction fossil fuels. Our money should be invested in forward thinking green energy and climate restoration innovation," said Carol Van Sant, CalSTRS member, 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations.
Since 2014 CalSTRS has been touting the effectiveness of engaging with fossil fuel companies as opposed to their beneficiaries' requests that they divest. So much for engagement! BP, Chevron, Eni, Equinor, ExxonMobil, Repsol, Shell, and TotalEnergies are involved in over 200 expansion projects on track for approval from 2022 through 2025. Engaging with fossil fuel companies in a lost cause. To quote UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres: Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness," said Jane Vosburg, CalSTRS beneficiary and Fossil Free California President.
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
After Previously Voting With GOP, 52 House Dems Targeted to Oppose 'Nonprofit Killer' Bill
"Every nonprofit across the spectrum of human rights and progressive values is up in arms, begging Democrats to overcome their greed and their spite, and not to hand President-elect Trump the ability to destroy any nonprofit he dislikes with the flick of a pen," wrote one campaigner.
Nov 20, 2024
House Republicans have revived an effort to pass the so-called "nonprofit killer" bill—a piece of legislation that, if passed, would hand U.S. President-elect Donald Trump the ability to sanction civil society groups, including government watchdogs, news outlets, and humanitarian organizations.
A vote on the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act (H.R. 9495), which would allow the Treasury Department to remove tax-exempt status from nonprofits deemed "terrorist supporting organizations," is expected on Thursday.
But a wide coalition of organizations and individuals have voiced their opposition to the bill, including multiple groups that have mobilized to pressure House members to vote against it, particularly the 52 Democrats who previously voted in favor of it.
The controversial bill was blocked last week when 144 Democrats and one Republican voted against the bill after it was fast-tracked under a procedure that requires two-thirds majority support for passage. Republicans then brought it back through the House Rules Committee, teeing it up for a simple majority floor vote.
The 52 Democrats who voted in favor of the bill include Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.).
Groups including Muslims for Progressive Values, Fight for the Future, Council on American-Islamic Relations, and the union The NewsGuild-CWA have launched an advocacy effort to pressure those 52 Democrats to flip their votes and urge all members of the House to vote no on the bill.
"H.R. 9495 is a threat to our basic right to free speech, dissent, and advocacy. Democrats who claim to defend democracy must be called out for their SUPPORT of this bill. This bill will silence non-profits who speak up for human rights of Palestinians, reproductive rights, against deportations or ANY government policies," wrote Muslims for Progressive Values.
Some of Democrats who voted in favor have since said they will no longer support the bill.
Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) released the following statement on Monday: "I have heard loud and clear from folks in my district and understand the concerns of my constituents, non-profit leaders and their staff. The incoming administration's recent Cabinet nominations give me little faith that this tool would be used as originally intended. Therefore, I have decided to vote against H.R. 9495 and will continue acting in our district's and nation's best interests."
There is fear that the bill would, in particular, have a chilling impact on Palestinian rights organizations and pro-Palestine speech.
"This bill was designed to criminalize organizations and activists who oppose the U.S.'s unconditional support of Israel's genocide of Palestinians and the slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Such legislation threatened the constitutional rights of American nonprofits, houses of worship, and advocacy organizations—regardless of political orientation. Lawmakers must understand the serious, long-term dangers of advancing bills or investigations that seek to suppress lawful activism and silence dissent," according to a joint statement issued by Arab and Muslim American groups last week.
Lia Holland, the campaigns and communications director at Fight for the Future, said in a statement that "it's a disappointment but not a surprise to find Democrats voting for a bill to punish student protests against genocide on the wrong side of their entire values system. Over and over again, we've seen how legislative efforts designed to oppress dissent and silence speech end up burning their progenitors."
"H.R. 9495 is no exception—now, every nonprofit across the spectrum of human rights and progressive values is up in arms, begging Democrats to overcome their greed and their spite, and not to hand President-elect Trump the ability to destroy any nonprofit he dislikes with the flick of a pen," Holland added.
Others have also critiqued the proposed legislation on broader civil rights and free speech grounds.
"H.R. 9495 provides no due process or oversight, creating a tool for political retaliation under the guise of 'fighting terrorism.' Trump would abuse this power to retaliate against any [organization] that challenges his agenda. The 52 Dems who initially supported it must reverse course," wrote former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
Kia Hamadanchy, senior federal policy counsel at the ACLU, said that "every time we give the president new powers and more authority to act alone, we create an open invitation for abuse by the executive branch."
"While the ACLU would oppose this legislation no matter who the president is, and there is no question it could be weaponized against groups on both ends of the ideological spectrum," Hamadanchy added, "the rhetoric we saw on the campaign trail from the president-elect is even more reason for Congress to reject this bill."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP-Controlled House Ethics Panel Votes to Keep Gaetz Report Secret
"The American people deserve transparency from their elected officials, especially when it comes to evaluating the nominee to become our nation’s chief law enforcement officer," said one critic.
Nov 20, 2024
Critics slammed the Republican-controlled U.S. House Ethics Committee on Wednesday after the panel decided against releasing a report on sexual misconduct allegations against former U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, who has been nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to serve as attorney general.
Committee Chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) told reporters that "there was not an agreement by the committee to release the report," while Rep. Susan Wild (D-Penn.) clarified that "a vote was taken."
Julie Tsirkin, congressional correspondent for NBC News, said Wild "suggested all Democrats voted yes, all Republicans voted no."
Christina Harvey, executive director of Stand Up America, called on the committee to "release the full report immediately" and warned that "failing to make it public would be a betrayal of the public trust and a dangerous precedent for our democracy."
Committee investigators have been examining allegations that Gaetz paid to have sex with a 17-year-old at parties while he was serving in Congress.
The investigators obtained records showing that Gaetz paid more than $10,000 to two women who testified before the committee. The records showed 27 PayPal and Venmo transfers from Gaetz between July 2017 and January 2019, some of which were allegedly payments for sex.
The allegations were also part of an FBI investigation into whether Gaetz was involved in sex trafficking of a minor. That probe was dropped without charges.
"The American people deserve transparency from their elected officials, especially when it comes to evaluating the nominee to become our nation’s chief law enforcement officer," said Harvey. "The Senate can't fulfill its constitutional duty to advise and consent on the president's nominees without access to the report and all evidence of the numerous allegations of Gaetz's sexual misconduct."
Gaetz abruptly resigned from Congress hours after Trump announced his nomination. The resignation meant Gaetz was no longer under the congressional committee's jurisdiction, and several lawmakers suggested the former Florida congressman aimed to avoid the release of the report. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has pushed for the report to remain confidential considering Gaetz's resignation.
As the House committee was weighing whether to release the documents, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee met with Gaetz ahead of his confirmation process. Vice President-elect JD Vance (R-Ohio) suggested on social media as the meetings were taking place that senators should support Trump's nomination, saying the party rode the president-elect's "coattails" to a Senate and House majority.
"He deserves a cabinet that is loyal to the agenda he was elected to implement," Vance said.
The House Ethics Committee report could still be released, either by someone who leaks it to the media or a lawmaker who could read it into the congressional record—an act that could lead to censure or expulsion from Congress.
As it stands, podcast host Brian Tyler Cohen said, "the House Ethics Committee Republicans are now complicit in trying to bury a potentially 'highly damaging' report into Matt Gaetz."
"Trump says jump, Republicans say 'how high,'" he said, "even if it means shielding sex trafficking of a minor."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israeli Use of AI Weapons in Gaza Denounced as Blatant Violation of Treaty Obligations
"As the Israeli military weaponizes AI for oppression, the world must confront this hypocrisy and hold it accountable to save lives," said Jewish Voice for Peace.
Nov 20, 2024
Amid reporting that the Israel Defense Forces is using an artificial intelligence weapons system touted as improving "operator lethality," Jewish Voice for Peace said Israel's use of technological warfare is "nothing new"—but pointed out that the new reports follow the country's signing of "the first global 'safety' AI treaty."
The Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, spearheaded by the Council of Europe, was signed by Israel in September, and "claims to be a legal framework governing AI systems to mitigate risks to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law—but the Israeli military is using AI to do precisely the opposite," said JVP.
The Jewish-led advocacy group spoke out after Middle East Eye (MEE)reported that the IDF has been using a weapons system in Gaza that came out of a collaboration between Israeli Weapons Industries and the Indian company Adani Defence & Aerospace.
The AI system, Arbel, was first unveiled at a defense expo in Gandhinagar, Gujarat in October 2022. MEE reported it is capable of turning "machine guns and assault rifles into computerized killing machines," using algorithms to increase Israeli soldiers' chances of hitting targets with accuracy and "efficiency."
The huge death toll in Gaza—which is conservatively estimated to be about 44,000 but which nearly 100 medical professionals estimated to be more than 118,000 last month, based on their experiences in hospitals there—has previously been linked to Israel's use of AI.
As Common Dreams reported in April, an AI machine called Lavender has been used by the IDF to devise "kill lists," with the military deeming 100 civilian deaths for every Hamas official an acceptable error rate. In December, the Israeli outlets +972 Magazine and Local Callreported that another AI machine called Gospel has been used to target dozens of buildings per day.
Defense analysts told MEE that Arbel has likely been used to "carry out the carnage of Palestinians in a more efficient manner in Gaza."
Antony Loewenstein, an independent journalist who tracks the use of technological warfare in Gaza and the West Bank, told MEE that as Israel has used numerous AI systems over the past 13 months, "targeting civilians was the point. It was never about just going after Hamas."
"I have spoken to people in Gaza, I have seen the direct human impact of this kind of killing," he told the outlet. "It is horrific."
Research analyst Noah Sylvia of the Royal United Services Institute in London told MEE that the IDF "has demonstrated a disregard for civilian life in Gaza to the point of routinely targeting children with small arms, meaning that Arbel could easily be used to make the killing of civilians, of children, more efficient."
The impact of the AI system depends "on the military's operating procedures and commitment to international humanitarian law," said Sylvia.
Humanitarian groups and human rights experts have said Israel is blatantly disregarding international law with its near-total blockade of aid into Gaza and its attacks—some with U.S. weapons—on civilians infrastructure.
JVP said the IDF's use of Arbel indicates Israel is also violating the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, and noted reports that the military has also used "facial recognition technology and advanced weapons to monitor, silence dissent, cut internet access, and obscure its war crimes."
Marwa Fatafta, Middle East policy and advocacy director for Access Now, warned that Israel's partnering with India—where AI companies reportedly have the sixth-highest AI investments in the world at $7.73 billion—may provide "a new and terrifying blueprint for tech-enabled warfare... this time through Indian-Israel military tech."
"Rarely does a technology stay dormant in one location," Fatafta said. "The lawlessness and impunity in which Israel commits egregious crimes with the use of AI should terrify everyone."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular