Tag Archives: fossil fuel divestment

On Notice Again: The Latest From James Hansen

James Hansen is one of central figures in the scientific community when it comes to global warming. He’s been raising the red flag for more than 30 years. This week he and a group of highly respected scientists are releasing a new paper that puts all of us on notice – again. While the new projections are far from certain, the story line is consistent with a lot of other information that shows that changes are occurring even faster than people expected.

A quote from the article by Michael Oppenheimer (Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School):  “If we cook the planet long enough at about two degrees warming, there is likely to be a staggering amount of sea level rise. Given the state of uncertainty and the high risk, humanity better get its collective foot off the accelerator.”

And, who’s got the lead foot here?

For those of us in the US, besides bringing down our personal carbon footprints, it’s time for the silent majority to stand up and demand that the Congress toss aside the moronic arguments about climate change that keep anything from happening — and to call for our government to demonstrate intelligent leadership.

The call-to-action will have to come from many quarters. Divesting from fossil fuels is one of the most powerful ways for people to make their voices be heard because it ties to something that politicians pay attention to – Wall Street.

Climate Change, Divestment & Human Health

A few years ago, a rising tide of people argued that news organizations had rolled over and, without necessarily intending to, were helping skew the climate change debate in favor of the “merchants of doubt.”  Over the past few years, the pendulum has swung back and there is more media coverage of the facts on the ground. The latest observations and studies from the world’s scientists are being widely reported again.

So, at least in the United States, more people are again generally aware of what is happening and what is projected to happen – rising ocean levels, increased frequency and intensity of storms and the like. We’ve come back on track to where things were headed about a decade ago in terms of popular awareness. (Many of our fellow citizens on planet earth never took the side trip.) A clear majority of Americans believe that global warming is real, and are at least generally aware of the major environmental impacts.

But, whether you are American or from some other county, try this experiment. Ask people you know about the connections between global warming and human health. At best, some people have a sense of anticipated direct effects from extreme weather events – people in parts of India and Europe getting slammed by unusually long heat waves, or powerful tornadoes in the mid-western United States. Some will mention the problems with extended droughts in Africa and Australia. That’s probably about it. A recent study by the Yale Project on Climate Change indicated that only 18-32% of Americans understood some of the main human health implications of global warming. The gap in global warming human health literacy is incredible – but not surprising given the lack of media attention and the efforts of those who want to erase all concern.

Describing the projected impacts concisely is not straightforward. That’s because the number of angles is gigantic, and there are lots of interconnected loops and complex feedback paths. But, here’s a short-list of some major drivers and effects that public health and medical professionals note:


  • falling fishery  yields
  • regional water scarcity
  • access to potable water


  • falling crop yields
  • massive migration away from coastal areas
  • more frequent and severe wildfires
  • migration and shifts in insect populations


  • extreme heat events
  • more frequent and severe storms
  • rising ground level ozone

With a little bit of imagination (or spending some time looking at reputable work on the web), it’s not hard to guess how these things are really bad from a human health perspective. Some of the drivers amplify existing human health problems that people and communities already struggle with. Others create health crises where there weren’t any – with major challenges around food production and access to water leading the pack.

All this is additive to the more immediate direct health problems caused by burning fossil fuels in the first place. The experiences of the western countries with smog in the 20th century and the current pictures of what coal is doing to China make that pretty clear.

All these problems will first hit those least able to fight the effects: the elderly, the poor, the chronically ill, and children.

Tying this back to fossil fuel divestment, the moral argument around climate change and human health is obvious. As with other aspects of the divestment debate, there is also a powerful financial aspect. It makes far more sense to prevent the problem by lowering our global carbon footprint now – instead of creating an astronomical bill in the future to pay for all the health problems we will face.

The argument for divestment is about saving the environment. It’s about saving us. There is no space between. As Joanna Macy has said, “Our earth is not a supply house and a sewer. It is our larger body. We breathe it. We taste it. We are it.”

Hopefully, journalists and the media begin to step it up on this side of the story, too.  In the meantime – divest now.  And then tell everyone you know about it – including local and national media outlets, and your representatives in state and federal government. Tell them to get moving now. Money and votes make things happen.

Merchants of Doubt vs. Investors in Faith

A new documentary based on the 2010 book “Merchants of Doubt” opened in US theaters a couple weeks ago. The book’s authors describe their journey into  “how a loose–knit group of high-level scientists, with extensive political connections, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades.” No surprise that a hot topic central to the trip was global warming.

Unfortunately, it would be more than a little naïve to think that the premise of the documentary isn’t true. On an annual basis, the fossil fuel industry’s revenues are well north of $4.5T. That’s a lot of money and a lot of deeply entrenched interests. If you have seen the “clean coal” ads over the past decade, you know that companies in the industry have been perfectly willing to aggressively mislead the public. Then, we have the fact that a central character in the story is a fellow named Marc Morano. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that he’s not one either. The idea that anyone would take Morano’s analyses of climate science seriously is incredible –  an indication of how cynically “successful” his efforts have been.

Another angle of this story relies on tired and simplistic depictions of the people who care about the health of the planet. There is a sad irony in the fact that we are often painted as being naïve about how financial and economic systems operate. This caricature is a standard fallback for capitalism’s true believers – a group that ignores the lessons of history, who argue that unfettered market forces will always find a sweet spot that bridges what is good for people with what is good for business and financial well-being. That’s about as naïve as you can get.

More and more investors are demonstrating an increasingly nuanced approach to the connections between their money and a sustainable world. According to a new Morgan Stanley study, a surprising “71% of individual investors are interested in sustainable investing.” Women and millennials in particular are connecting the dots. Not surprisingly, the study also shows that the interest doesn’t yet translate into action for all of those people. Nevertheless, the fact that more than 2/3rds of the investment population is thinking about sustainability is a powerful thing – especially since the societal and environmental forces that are creating that interest are going to become more powerful over time.

Maybe, just maybe, another set of recent data hints at the leading edge of another fundamental shift. Over the past couple centuries, energy has become an  essential (perhaps ‘the’) driving component of economic growth and human progress. In the absence of a clear focus on energy efficiency and renewable power generation, it’s not at all surprising that greenhouse gas emissions have grown in lockstep with economic activity. The good news is that, according to an early analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, China’s carbon emissions fell by 2% last year while their economy grew by 7.4%. The estimates of the wider global economy show a 3% rise in the economic growth in 2014 with carbon emissions remaining flat. This “decoupling” of lockstep economic growth and emissions is unusual. The hope going forward is that this is a sign that regional efforts like China’s focus on pollution reduction and the European Union’s ahead-of-schedule push to 20% renewable generation by 2020 are game-changers.  Whether or not 2014 was the start of something big remains to be seen. But, if the well documented growth in global clean energy investment enables the decoupling to accelerate at the pace needed, 2014 will turn out to be a pivotal year – for the planet and for investors.

Fossil fuel divestment is one way to show that you are not being snowed by the chaff that the “Merchants of Doubt” are happily (and very effectively) tossing out into the world. Reinvesting in the new energy economy is a way to support the continued growth of businesses whose products and services push emissions down,  and enable us to move farther and faster toward a new energy economy.

Your investments matter. Join the community of investors who have faith in science, and in humanity. Divest now.

Notes From The Future: Clean Energy News From The Peach & Sunshine States

For quite some time, supporters of clean energy programs have been saying that state governments in the Southeast have been significantly lagging the rest of the US in adopting effective energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.  The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy’s State Energy Efficiency Scorecard is one of the benchmarks used as a ranking reference. In 2014, the only state in the region that broke into the top half of US programs was North Carolina – and it squeaked in at #24.

Recently, some interesting things have been happening in this part of the world.  Some events reinforce the point above, but many others indicate that changes are afoot.

First, some bad news.  In December, the Public Utilities Commission in the Sunshine State  decided to eviscerate both the energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.  Apparently, the major utilities argued that that it’s cheaper for them to produce energy then to save it.  An amazing claim given the mountain of evidence from energy programs across the US that shows the  opposite to be true.

Responses have poured in from many quarters – some particularly interesting. Debbie Dooley, the co-founder of the Atlanta Tea Party is quoted as saying: “There’s just a lot of disbelief that Florida, the Sunshine State, has policies that block the sun.”  At least on the renewables side, the voters of Florida might have the chance to line up with her opinion and send a powerful rebuke to the commission. A broad coalition of Floridians from across the political spectrum is working on a state constitutional ballot initiative  that would overturn the utility stranglehold on renewable energy.   No doubt one of the drivers is the recognition that the state’s neighbors see the world differently. By the end of 2016, the Peach State will have deployed about 900 MW of solar, about twice what will be up and running in Florida. And, Georgia has about one-half the population. Given that last month the solar rebate program in Florida (residential and commercial) sold out in 3 minutes, it’s pretty obvious that a lot of Floridians have issues with the utility commission’s thinking.

One of the other groups interested in the potential of renewables in the region is the US military.  In Georgia last year, the state Public Service Commission approved three 30 megawatt solar projects located on US Army bases – all will be up and running by 2016. These installations are part of the Department of Defense’s stated goal to have 25% of its power needs met with renewables by 2025.  ( Too slow – but that’s a different debate. )  The Air Force and the Navy have announced applications for Florida utility commission approval of 120 megawatts of new solar. All this might have something to do with the fact that the Pentagon has quite publicly stated that global warming is a major threat to the national security of the United States.

Then there’s this. Koch Industries is investing $70m on energy efficiency and water conservation upgrades at a Georgia Pacific paper mill in Palaltka, FL.  So, apparently saving energy is a pretty appealing idea – despite the fact it also addresses the scientific fiction known as global warming.

That’s a quick look at a smattering of energy stories coming out of the Sunshine Sate and the Peach State. Not all the messages are rosy if you care about climate change. But, the seeds of change are in the air.  The Tea Party, Koch Industries, the US Army and US Navy supporting investment in clean energy – this is good news.  Why is it happening?  Simple. Clean energy projects make economic sense and are a sensible way to generate energy.  Lots of people across the Southeast and across the country see it. Layer on recognition among a growing majority that man-made global warming is quite real and that we’re not powerless to deal with it, and you have the start of a serious societal shift toward a very different approach to energy.

The clean energy train has left the station and it is gaining speed.  I believe we’ll finally see an intense debate in the US about energy policy as part of the 2016 election – and we’ll also start to see some prominent politicians get run over because their constituents have moved on. The twin forces of clean energy project economics and fossil fuel divestment are going to help power that train. Savvy politicians will start to hop on before it gets too far down the track.

Then, we’ll see what happens ….

The Debate About Shareholder Engagement & Fossil Fuel Divestment

One argument against fossil fuel divestment is that walking away from a company means that investors lose any leverage to change things.  That’s a rational argument when there’s a chance that the company might shift its behavior on some relatively narrow issue.  But,  the demand to leave fossil fuels in the ground goes to the heart of the business models of these companies.  The idea that these organizations will shift to renewable energy or some other business is wishful thinking.

First of all, competition is hard. Successful companies are good at what they do because of their entrenched corporate cultures, and because their people have the expertise needed to compete. But, even that is often not enough to be viable in an industry over the long run. Look at the history of once globally dominant companies like Bethlehem Steel or  Kodak. The industries are still there, but the companies are not.

The idea of changing a business model takes the business competition challenge much farther. The shift is especially hard when the company’s assets are tied up in physical infrastructure like oil wells, refineries and pipes – and in-the-ground resources they have spent billions to find. For both compensation reasons and corporate governance reasons, the management teams of these companies have no incentive to seriously follow this path.

People who believe shareholder advocacy can change the fossil fuel companies ignore the most obvious evidence – the failed attempt of British Petroleum to move toward “Beyond Petroleum” fifteen years ago. These companies are simply not going to stop pulling fossil fuels from the ground.  And, even if some do try to shift, they can not and will not do it at the speed needed.

Shelley Alpern at Clean Yield Asset Management has just written a great article on all this.  Take a look.



Divestment, Global Warming, and the Faith Based Community in 2014

A few weeks ago I was pulled into one of those team guessing games with a group of family and friends. The kind where one person has to get their teammates to guess an answer that only he or she knows. Somewhere along the line, I pulled a card from the “entertainment” category that said “James Cagney.” Seemed pretty easy – you don’t need to have Jimmy Fallon’s skills to impersonate an iconic movie actor like Cagney. Much to my surprise, my superb impression was a total bust. Other than the person who said “Dick Cheney!,” it was blank stares all around. As I looked around, it hit me that I’d landed on a team where the oldest teammate was half my age.

Anyway, I’ve grown accustomed to blank stares. You don’t get invited to parties because of your engaging stories about divestment from fossil fuels. Nevertheless, around the world there were a lot more people talking about divestment in 2014. And, as with so many aspects of the global warming movement these days, it was heartening to hear voices from outside the traditional environmentalist world (whatever that is). One particularly vocal community this year stands on a powerful podium that can cut through the babble of misinformation and political noise – the faith based community.

“The Earth is a stunning gift. It supports life. It is our temple, our mosque, our sanctuary, our cathedral. It is our home.” Those words come from a September GreenFaith statement on divestment  signed by Desmond Tutu and 80 other religious leaders, theologians and ethicists. The range of people and geographies on that list illuminates the truly global nature of the support within the community.  And, these words are backed up by action – many, many religious groups committed to divestment over the past two years.

While its fair to argue that GreenFaith is not exactly outside the “traditional” movement, the push for broad action on global warming is coming from a broad base of religious leaders. In the run-up to the November G20 meeting in Brisbane, an expansive cross-section of Australian faith based leaders urged governments to “commit to a rapid transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy.”  A few days ago, Pope Francis stated that “there exists a clear, definitive and unpostponable ethical imperative to act.” In February, the Dalai Lama once again reiterated his unwavering position that governments and business leaders need to “listen to the scientists.”  In 2014, we have seen the emergence of a new level of engagement among faith based leaders. If the religious community across the planet becomes fully engaged, the impact on revving up action on global warming will be astounding.

The statement from GreenFaith wraps up with this: “Today, the balance of life on Earth is threatened by climate change. We must act decisively, now, to choose life. Divestment and reinvestment embody that choice.” Let’s hope that in 2015 we’ll see a huge wave of individuals and institutions join this call for divestment – and an even bigger upsurge in all actions tied to the crucial push to find a better way to power the planet.

One small hope I hold ties back to that guessing game I was talking about earlier. In a few years, I’ll be playing that game but we’ll be using, say, the 2018 version. I’ll look down and find myself staring at a card from the “popular phrases” category that says “fossil fuel divestment.” And, they’ll get it despite the fact that my Bill McKibben impression is really lousy.