March, 06 2014, 07:28am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Hoda Baraka – Global Communications Manager 350.org – hoda@350.org +201001-840990
May Ng – Communications Coordinator - 350.org Australia may@350.org +61420-733-429
Two New Reports, One Conclusion: Pressing Need to Divest from Fossil Fuels
Reports conclude over €1 trillion in European financial institutions at risk from growing carbon bubble, while divestment from fossil fuels will not harm returns
SYDNEW
Two new reports released today in Brussels and Sydney will help strengthen the case for fossil fuel divestment, with one report emphasizing the growing risk of a carbon bubble [1] resulting from overexposure to high carbon assets, and the other concluding that responsibly divesting from fossil fuels will not hurt a portfolio's financial performance.
The first report, a Greens/European Free Alliance (EFA) Group of the European commissioned study, investigates the carbon exposure of Europe's top 43 banks and pension funds and assess the risk a carbon shock posed to them. The results of the study, entitled The Price of Doing Too Little Too Late: The impact of the carbon bubble on the EU financial system, [2] presented at a conference taking place in Brussels today [3], conclude that the most cost-effective pathway to limit the risk of the carbon bubble would be a quick and decisive transition to a low-carbon economy with ambitious energy and climate targets.
The study highlights a number of individual institutions which are at risk, and with them their associated countries. This is particularly the case for France where two of the largest European banks (Societe General and BNP Paribas) have a "relatively high" exposure, and the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, where national pension funds have a "high" exposure. According to the report, the exposure to the carbon bubble has been markedly higher for the pension fund sector than it has been for the banking sector.
Out of the 23 large EU pension funds researched in this study, the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) -- the principal pension scheme provided by Universities, Higher Education and other associated institutions for their employees in the UK -- has an overwhelmingly large amount of carbon risk in their portfolio.
The overall exposure of the European financial institutions into high carbon assets has been calculated to be over EUR1 trillion, though it is important to note that this is still a conservative estimate.
Reinhard Butikofer, industrial policy spokesperson of the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament said: "A new study we commissioned clearly shows the potential losses of a carbon shock to Europe's top 20 banks and top 23 pension funds. The result is sobering. With over EUR1 trillion in high-carbon assets, we have identified that the carbon bubble is a significant risk particularly for a number of EU Member States and EU financial institutions. Investments in fossil fuel companies could therefore quickly turn into fool's gold. The EU's business-as-usual strategy entails greater risks and costs to our financial system. This should be a wake-up call."
The study makes a number of additional recommendations which include greater transparency obligations regarding high-carbon assets, undertaking carbon stress tests, investigating the fiduciary duty of pension funds and how that could limit investments into high carbon assets, setting ambitious climate and energy targets, and many others.
Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, speaking via video-link at today's conference in Brussels, highlighted the importance of these findings. "I hope the release of this study is an occasion for everyone to come as quickly as possible to the conclusion that we have got to change the business-as-usual scenario."
"Business-as-usual is not just a threat to the planet around us but to the economy at large. These fossil fuel corporations are rogue corporations, operating not just against the laws of nations or the EU, but also against the laws of physics -- an even more severe offence. They are not only setting us up to an ecological cataclysm, which, sadly, in parts of the world is already coming true, but they are also setting us up for what is probably the greatest financial bubble of all time," he added.
The second report released today in Sydney, Australia concludes that shares in coal, oil and gas companies increase financial risk without any additional benefit to returns.
Published by The Australia Institute and released today in partnership with 350.org Australia and Market Forces, Climate proofing your investments: Moving funds out of fossil fuels [4], claims that portfolios containing coal, oil and gas companies risk lower returns in the long run while portfolios avoiding these companies can provide competitive returns.
The report concludes that investors who divest from companies such as Whitehaven Coal, Woodside Petroleum and Origin Energy need not sacrifice their investment returns.
The report also looks at the financial risk of "unburnable carbon" to shareholders of coal, oil and gas companies. According to the report, balance sheet valuations of reserves held by coal, oil and gas companies are based on the assumption they can extract over three times more carbon than is compatible with the internationally agreed two degree global warming limit.
These new reports serve to add impetus to an already growing divestment movement. Since 350.org launched the divestment campaign in the autumn of 2012 the movement has spread across the United States, Australia and Europe, with dozens of cities and institutions already committing to divest.
A recent study by the University of Oxford concluded that the fossil fuel divestment movement is growing faster than any previous divestment campaign and that, "The outcome of the stigmatisation process, which the fossil fuel divestment campaign has now triggered, poses the most far-reaching threat to fossil fuel companies and the vast energy value chain."[5]
The campaign is beginning to make an impact in the financial community, as well. Most recently 70 global investors, managing over $3 trillion of assets, have demanded the oil, gas and coal companies asses the risks that climate change poses to their business plans. Earlier this month during a summit of financial leaders held at the United Nations, Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), joined the voices calling on investors to get out of high carbon assets.[6]
As heads of state are set to meet later this year in New York for the Ban Ki Moon Climate Summit, 350.org will continue to build the divestment movement catalyzing necessary global climate action.
NOTES TO EDITORS
[1] The 'carbon bubble' - which refers to the overvaluation of oil, gas and coal mining companies because of the need to shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources - poses a growing risk to our economies. If we want to have a chance to limit global warming below 2degC and therefore avoid harmful climate change the amount of fossil fuels that can actually be burnt is limited, and the majority of fossil fuel reserves would become stranded assets. Today private companies own about a 1/4 of fossil fuel reserves. If a large part of these reserves cannot be extracted, that reduces the valuation of these companies and their ability to repay their debt. The carbon bubble therefore poses serious risks to the financial sector given the financial institutions' large exposures to oil, gas and coal mining companies through equity, bond, and loan portfolios.
[2] Report The Price of Doing Too Little Too Late: The impact of the carbon bubble on the EU financial system available here
[3] Conference entitled 'Deflating the Financial Carbon Bubble' taking place at the European Parliament. More information here
[4] Climate proofing your investments: Moving funds out of fossil fuels Link Executive Summary available here
[5] Report entitled: Stranded assets and the fossil fuel divestment campaign: what does divestment mean for the valuation of fossil fuel assets?
[6] BBC World Get your cash out of fossil fuel backed funds says UN climate chief
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
Booze Hound! Lina Khan, Not Done Yet, Targets Nation's Largest Alcohol Seller
"The FTC is doing what our government should be doing: using every tool possible to make life better for everyday Americans," said one advocate.
Dec 12, 2024
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Thursday sued Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, alleging that the nation's largest alcohol distributor, "violated the Robinson-Patman Act, harming small, independent businesses by depriving them of access to discounts and rebates, and impeding their ability to compete against large national and regional chains."
The FTC said its complaint details how the Florida-based company "is engaged in anticompetitive and unlawful price discrimination" by "selling wine and spirits to small, independent 'mom-and-pop' businesses at prices that are drastically higher" than what it charges large chain retailers, "with dramatic price differences that provide insurmountable advantages that far exceed any real cost efficiencies for the same bottles of wine and spirits."
The suit comes as FTC Chair Lina Khan's battle against "corporate greed" is nearing its end, with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announcing Tuesday that he plans to elevate Andrew Ferguson to lead the agency.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, director of corporate power at Demand Progress Education Fund, said Thursday that "instead of heeding bad-faith calls to disarm before the end of the year, the FTC is taking bold, needed action to fight back against monopoly power that's raising prices."
"By suing Southern Glazer under the Robinson-Patman Act, a law that has gone unenforced for decades, the FTC is doing what our government should be doing: using every tool possible to make life better for everyday Americans," she added.
According to the FTC:
Under the Robinson-Patman Act, it is generally illegal for sellers to engage in price discrimination that harms competition by charging higher prices to disfavored retailers that purchase similar goods. The FTC's case filed today seeks to ensure that businesses of all sizes compete on a level playing field with equivalent access to discounts and rebates, which means increased consumer choice and the ability to pass on lower prices to consumers shopping across independent retailers.
"When local businesses get squeezed because of unfair pricing practices that favor large chains, Americans see fewer choices and pay higher prices—and communities suffer," Khan said in a statement. "The law says that businesses of all sizes should be able to compete on a level playing field. Enforcers have ignored this mandate from Congress for decades, but the FTC's action today will help protect fair competition, lower prices, and restore the rule of law."
The FTC noted that, with roughly $26 billion in revenue from wine and spirits sales to retail customers last year, Southern is the 10th-largest privately held company in the United States. The agency said its lawsuit "seeks to obtain an injunction prohibiting further unlawful price discrimination by Southern against these small, independent businesses."
"When Southern's unlawful conduct is remedied, large corporate chains will face increased competition, which will safeguard continued choice which can create markets that lower prices for American consumers," FTC added.
Southern Glazer's published a statement calling the FTC lawsuit "misguided and legally flawed" and claiming it has not violated the Robinson-Patman Act.
"Operating in the highly competitive alcohol distribution business, we offer different levels of discounts based on the cost we incur to sell different quantities to customers and make all discount levels available to all eligible retailers, including chain stores and small businesses alike," the company said.
Peterson-Cassin noted that the new suit "follows a massive court victory for the FTC on Tuesday in which a federal judge blocked a $25 billion grocery mega-merger after the agency sued," a reference to the proposed Kroger-Albertsons deal.
"The FTC has plenty of fight left and so should all regulatory agencies," she added, alluding to the return of Trump, whose first administration saw
relentless attacks on federal regulations. "We applaud the FTC and Chair Lina Khan for not letting off the gas in the race to protect American consumers and we strongly encourage all federal regulators to do the same while there's still time left."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Senate Prepares for NDAA Vote, Progressive Caucus Says It Is 'Past Time' to Slash Pentagon Budget
"This legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Dec 12, 2024
As Senate Democrats prepared to move forward with a procedural vote on the annual defense budget package that passed in the House earlier this week, the Congressional Progressive Caucus outlined its objections to the legislation and called for the Pentagon budget to be cut, with military funding freed up to "reinvest in critical human needs."
CPC Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said following the passage of the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2025 (H.R. 5009) that "it should alarm every American taxpayer that we are nearing a trillion-dollar annual budget for an agency rampant with waste, fraud, and abuse."
Jayapal, who was one of 140 lawmakers to oppose the package, emphasized that the Pentagon has failed seven consecutive annual audits.
Despite being the only federal agency to never have passed a federal audit, said Jayapal, the Department of Defense "continues to receive huge boosts to funding every year. Our constituents deserve better."
As Common Dreams reported last month, more than half of the department's annual budget now goes to military contractors that consistently overcharge the government, contributing to the Pentagon's inability to fully account for trillions of taxpayer dollars.
The $883.7 billion legislation that was advanced by the House on Wednesday would pour more money into the Pentagon's coffers. The package includes more than $500 million in Israeli military aid and two $357 million nuclear-powered attack submarine despite the Pentagon requesting only one, and would cut more than $621 million from President Joe Biden's budget request for climate action initiatives.
Jayapal noted that the legislation—which was passed with the support of 81 Democrats and 200 Republicans—also includes anti-transgender provisions, barring the children of military service members from receiving gender-affirming healthcare in "the first federal statute targeting LGBTQ people since the 1990s when Congress adopted 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and the Defense of Marriage Act."
"This dangerous bigotry cannot be tolerated, let alone codified into federal law," said Jayapal.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday that the legislation "has some very good things we Democrats wanted in it, it has some bad things we wouldn't have put in there, and some things that were left out," and indicated that he had filed cloture for the first procedural vote on the NDAA.
The vote is expected to take place early next week, and 60 votes are needed to begin debate on the package.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime critic of exorbitant U.S. military spending, said in a floor speech on Wednesday that he plans to vote no on the budget.
"While middle-class and working-class families are struggling to survive, we supposedly just don't have the financial resources to help them," he said. "We just cannot afford to build more housing, we just cannot afford to provide quality childcare to our kids or to support public education, or to provide healthcare to all."
"But when the military industrial complex and all of their well-paid lobbyists come marching in to Capitol Hill," he continued, "somehow or another, there is more than enough money for Congress to provide them with virtually everything that they need."
Jayapal noted that the funding package includes substantive pay raises for service members and new investments in housing, healthcare, childcare, and other support for their families.
"Progressives will always fight to increase pay for our service members and ensure that our veterans are well taken care of," said Jayapal. "However, this legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction."
By cutting military spending, she said, the federal government could invest in the needs of all Americans, not just members of the military, "without sacrificing our national security or service member wages."
"It's past time we stop padding the pockets of price gouging military contractors who benefit from corporate consolidation," said Jayapal, "and reallocate that money to domestic needs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Urge Biden to Limit Presidential Authority to Launch Nuclear War Before Trump Takes Charge
"As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled," wrote Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Ted Lieu.
Dec 12, 2024
Two Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden Thursday, urging him to place more checks on potential nuclear weapons use by mandating that a president must obtain authorization from Congress before initiating a nuclear first strike.
The letter writers, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), argue that "such a policy would provide clear directives for the military to follow: A president could order a nuclear launch only if (1) Congress had approved the decision, providing a constitutional check on executive power or (2) the United States had already been attacked with a nuclear weapon. This would be infinitely safer than our current doctrine."
The two write that time is of the essence: "As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled."
The Constitution vests Congress, not the president, with the power to declare war (though presidents have used military force without getting the OK from Congress on multiple occasions in modern history, according to the National Constitution Center).
During the Cold War, when nuclear weapons policy was produced, speed was seen as essential to deterrence, according to Jon Wolfsthal, the director of global risk at the Federation of American Scientists, who wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post last year that makes a similar argument to Markey and Lieu.
"There is no reason today to rely on speedy decision-making during situations in which the United States might launch first. Even as relations with Moscow are at historic lows, we are worlds removed from the Cold War's dominant knife's-edge logic," he wrote.
While nuclear tensions today may not be quite as high as they were during the apex of the Cold War, fears of nuclear confrontation have been heightened due to poor relations between the United States and Russia over the ongoing war in Ukraine, among other issues. Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree lowering the threshold for potential nuclear weapons use not long after the U.S. greenlit Ukraine's use of U.S.-supplied long range weapons in its fight against Russia.
This is not the first time Markey and Lieu have pushed for greater guardrails on nuclear first-use. The two are the authors of the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act, a proposed bill first introduced in 2017 that would bar a U.S. president from launching a nuclear first strike without the consent of Congress.
"We first introduced this act during the Obama administration not as a partisan effort, but to make the larger point that current U.S. policy, which gives the president sole authority to launch nuclear weapons without any input from Congress, is dangerous," they wrote.
In their letter, Markey and Lieu also recount an episode from the first Trump presidency when, shortly after the January 6 insurrection, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley ordered his staff to come to him if they received a nuclear strike order from Trump.
But Milley's ability to intervene was limited, according to Lieu and Markey, because his role is advisory and "the president can unilaterally make a launch decision and implement it directly without informing senior leaders." They argue this episode is a sign that the rules themselves must change.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular