5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
January, 27 2016, 12:00pm EDT
Contact:
Global Communications Director: global-comms@350.org
At Investor Summit, United Nations Strengthens the Call for Fossil Fuel Divestment
350.org’s Senior Analyst, Strategy Director, and Communications Coordinator available for comment at Investor Summit
NEW YORK, NY
At the Investor Summit on Climate Risk held at the United Nations headquarters today, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged investors to double their clean energy investments by 2020, a goal that will add momentum to the growing fossil fuel divestment campaign.
"I challenge investors to double at a minimum their clean energy investment by 2020," said the Secretary General. "Sustainable clean energy is growing but not nearly fast enough to meet energy demand of what science says. The investor community is of critical importance if we are going to move from aspiration to action."
"The arguments against divestment are all quickly falling away," said Jamie Henn, Communications Director for 350.org. "The United Nations has made it clear that there is no way to meet the goals agreed to at the Paris Climate Summit if we keep investing in fossil fuels. Divesting from coal, oil and gas and reinvesting in just, sustainable energy solutions is one of the most important things an institution can do to help combat the climate crisis."
Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, also made a powerful pitch for moving investments away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy. She said that the Divest-Invest movement has "cemented the idea" that carbon risk is a central economic issue that must be addressed immediately.
"We cannot continue to invest in coal...we cannot afford to look for new oil and gas sources," she said. "By 2030, the window of investing in high carbon needs to close. As for capital, forget 2050, forget 2030. Where capital goes in the next five years will decide what kind of world we have."
Former Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg also spoke about the growing momentum towards sustainable investment. "Investors are getting pressure to invest money in environmentally friendly funds," he told the audience. It's still unknown whether Bloomberg himself has divested from fossil fuels.
In the last three years, the divestment movement has grown from a handful of college campuses to hundreds of the most important institutions in the world. Since the last Investor Summit on Climate Risk, a number of the largest investors represented at the summit-CalPERS, CalSTRS, and others-are committed to divest from coal, while other major financial institutions are offering fossil free investment opportunities.
At the Paris Climate Summit in December, 350.org announced that more than 500 institutions representing over $3.4 trillion in assets have made some form of divestment commitment. In the coming year, the campaign will continue to expand the effort around the world and take on larger targets, such as city and state pension funds.
The Secretary General also called on pension funds to take action. "Pension funds must use their influence as investors and shareholders to accelerate the rapid decarbonization of the economy," he said.
If they don't act, pension funds face can face huge risks to their portfolios. A recent report released by Advisor Partners revealed that in one year alone, New York City's largest pension fund lost around $135 million from their holdings in the top 100 oil and gas companies. The Teacher's Retirement System of the City of New York, representing over 200,000 teachers, educators and workers, incurred a 25 percent reduction in returns of their $60 billion fund from investments in oil and gas. NYC Comptroller Scott Stringer will speak at the Investor Summit this afternoon.
As the concepts of climate risk and the carbon bubble become a larger part of the mainstream financial discussion, divestment advocates are confident that the movement away from coal, oil and gas will continue to grow.
"Divestment used to be dismissed as a niche campaign," said Henn. "Now, it's one of the most important questions at the center of any portfolio."
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
Emergency Lawsuit Filed to Stop Trump Admin Meeting That Could Drive a Whale Species to Extinction
“Burgum’s Extinction Committee is immoral, illegal, and unnecessary,” said the head of the Center for Biological Diversity, which warns it could put the final nail in the coffin of the extremely endangered Rice's whale.
Mar 18, 2026
An environmental organization is suing to stop the Trump administration from illegally convening a meeting that could allow oil and gas companies to drive an extremely endangered whale species to extinction.
On Wednesday, the Center for Biological Diversity filed an emergency lawsuit against Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum in a federal district court in Washington, DC, seeking to block him from convening the Endangered Species Committee, more commonly known as the “Extinction Committee,” on March 31.
This committee is sometimes referred to as the "God Squad" because its members have the power to grant exemptions to the Endangered Species Act that can result in the extinction of imperiled species.
Led by the interior secretary, it has seven total members who can vote to override regulations. Five of them are senior executive officials: the secretaries of agriculture and the Army, the head of the Council of Economic Advisers, and the administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Each affected state also receives a delegate to the committee, but they collectively receive just one vote. Five votes of seven are needed to grant an exemption.
In the federal register, Burgum announced earlier this week that the committee would meet at the end of the month “regarding an Endangered Species Act exemption for Gulf of America oil and gas activities," referring to the Gulf of Mexico by the name preferred by President Donald Trump.
The Center for Biological Diversity said Burgum was seeking to override a requirement for oil and gas companies in the Gulf of Mexico to drive boats at safe speeds in order to protect the nearly extinct Rice’s whale from strikes.
These whales, named after the cetologist Dale Rice, who first recognized them as distinct from other whales in 1965, were not formally recognized as a new species until 2021.
According to the Center for Biological Diversity, only about 51 Rice's whales remain after BP's catastrophic Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, which devastated their population.
Last May, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service issued a biological opinion concluding that their continued existence—as well as that of other whale and sea turtle species—was under threat from boat strikes, since Rice's whales spend most of their time in the top 15 meters of water, which often puts them on a collision course with oil vessels.
The agency issued guidance requiring oil industry ships to travel at slower speeds in the eastern Gulf, saying that if they were followed, lethal collisions would be “extremely unlikely to occur” and that the species would be protected.
The Extinction Committee could override this rule, but it has only been convened three times in its history, and not since 1991, when then-President George H.W. Bush used it to open up timber harvests in the Pacific Northwest that endangered the habitats of spotted owls, which were considered threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
The Extinction Committee is invoked so rarely because the circumstances for its use, as outlined in law, are extremely narrow: It can only be convened within 90 days of a biological opinion by the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service concluding that a federal action is likely to jeopardize a species. They must also determine that there is no “reasonable and prudent alternative” to the action the government plans to take.
In its lawsuit, the Center for Biological Diversity says that neither of these criteria has been reached, since the Fisheries Service issued its opinion 10 months ago and already established a reasonable alternative: slowing down the boats.
"Slowing boat speeds is not just reasonable, it’s easy, and it’s the absolute minimum the oil and gas industry can do to save Rice’s whales from extinction,” said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity.
The group said Burgum is also flouting other requirements of the law, including that the meeting be presided over by an administrative judge and have a formal hearing with public comment. No judge has been appointed by Burgum, and the meeting is only scheduled to be livestreamed on YouTube, with no forum for public input.
“Burgum’s Extinction Committee is immoral, illegal, and unnecessary,” Suckling said. “There’s no emergency, no legal basis to convene the committee, and no legal way to approve the extinction of Rice’s whales. This sham is nothing more than Burgum posturing for Trump and saving the fossil fuel industry a few dollars by allowing its boats to drive faster and more recklessly.”
If Rice's whales were to go extinct, they could be the first ever large whale species to be driven out of existence by human activity in recorded history. Earthjustice says that the rollback of boat speed restrictions and other activities by the Trump administration—including the approval of the first BP oil field in the Gulf since the 2010 spill—are putting other species at risk too.
The scheduled March 31 meeting, said the group, "could kick off a months-long process to decide whether to give special treatment to the oil industry by allowing offshore drilling to go forward even if it would lead to the extinction of Gulf species."
“The marine species in the Gulf are our natural heritage. There’s no imaginable justification to sacrifice them,” said Steve Mashuda, Earthjustice's managing attorney for oceans. "It’s beyond reckless even to consider greenlighting the extinction of sea turtles, fish, whales, rays, and corals to further pad the oil industry’s pockets at the public’s expense. Giving carte blanche to industry also takes us further away from renewable energy that is cleaner, cheaper, more reliable, and more efficient than ever before.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Senator Corners Tulsi Gabbard Over Trump’s False Claim That Iran Nuclear Threat Was 'Imminent'
Sen. Jon Ossoff questioned how Iran could pose an "imminent nuclear threat" despite the purported "obliteration" of its nuclear program.
Mar 18, 2026
Sen. Jon Ossoff on Wednesday cornered Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard over President Donald Trump's false claims that he launched a war with Iran because it was an "imminent" threat to US national security.
During a Senate Select Intelligence Committee hearing, Ossoff (D-Ga.) questioned Gabbard about how any purported threat from Iran could possibly be deemed "imminent" given past administration statements about the state of its nuclear weapons program.
Ossoff began by noting that Gabbard's opening statement given to the committee ahead of the meeting claimed that "Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated" as a result of airstrikes launched last year by the US.
"So the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated by last summer's airstrikes?" he asked.
"Yes," replied Gabbard, who prior to joining the Trump administration had a long history of advocating against launching a regime change war against Iran.
OSSOFF: Your opening statement stated that as a result of last summer's airstrikes, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was 'obliterated.' Correct?
GABBARD: That's right
OSSOFF: The WH stated on March 1 that this war was launched to 'eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by… pic.twitter.com/3rPVnmZVTb
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 18, 2026
"The opening statement you submitted to the community last night also stated, 'There has been no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability,' correct?" Ossoff continued.
"That's right," Gabbard replied.
"The White House stated on March 4 of this year that this war... was a 'military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime,'" Ossoff said. "That's a statement from the White House: 'The imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime.' Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?"
Gabbard briefly paused and then responded that "the intelligence community assessed that Iran maintained the intention to rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment capabilities."
At this point, Ossoff interjected.
"Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an 'imminent nuclear threat' posted by the Iranian regime, yes or no?" he pressed.
"Senator, the only person who can determine what is or is not an imminent threat is the president," Gabbard said.
"False," Ossoff shot back. "This is the worldwide threats hearing where you present to Congress national intelligence... you've stated today that the intelligence community's assessment is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was 'obliterated,' and that there 'had been no efforts since then to try to enrich their capability.'"
Ossoff then asked Gabbard if the intelligence community believed Iran posed an "imminent nuclear threat" despite the purported "obliteration" of its nuclear program.
"It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determined what is and is not an imminent threat," Gabbard said.
"It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States," Ossoff countered. "This is the worldwide threats hearing."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Big Oil Windfall Tax Would Return ‘Egregious’ Iran War Profits to Struggling US Families
“Trump’s war of choice in Iran is not just a moral mistake but an economic blunder that is skyrocketing gas prices for working Americans," said Rep. Ro Khanna.
Mar 18, 2026
With Big Oil poised to profit from a price spike driven by the US-Israeli war on Iran, congressional Democrats on Wednesday revived an excise tax that proponents say would put money back in the pockets of struggling American workers.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) reintroduced the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act "to curb profiteering by oil companies and provide Americans relief at the gas pump."
The legislation—which only applies to large oil companies—would impose a per-barrel tax "equal to 50% of the difference between the current price per barrel of oil and the average price per barrel last year, when big oil companies were already earning large profits."
As Democrats on the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works explained: "Revenue raised from the windfall profits of Big Oil companies will be returned to consumers in the form of a quarterly rebate, which would phase out for single filers who earn more than $75,000 in annual income and joint filers who earn more than $150,000. At $100 per barrel of oil, the levy would raise approximately $33 billion per year. At that price, single filers would receive approximately $216 annually and joint filers would receive roughly $324 annually.”
The committee Democrats noted:
The price of a gallon of gas is up 80 cents just weeks after the onset of war in Iran, and the price of a barrel of oil has increased 50% from what it was at the start of the year. President [Donald] Trump’s war in Iran has further disrupted an already volatile global oil market by reducing supply and choking key shipping lanes. Qatar has warned that oil prices could surpass $150 per barrel in the coming weeks, far above 2022 highs seen following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Trump—who promised gas under $2 a gallon and no new wars—said last week that "when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money."
As in Venezuela—another oil-rich country attacked by a president who has bombed 10 nations, more than any other US leader in history—Big Oil revenue is projected to surge due to the rising volatility and prices the war on Iran is bringing. The Financial Times reported Tuesday that US oil companies could reap $60 billion in additional revenue this year alone if crude prices remain high.
As one oil industry financial analyst told The New York Times earlier this week, “The oil and gas industry’s financial strategy has been ‘pray for war,’ because those are the conditions under which they make money."
Critics said that while fossil fuel interests—which spent close to half a billion dollars to get Trump and other Republicans elected in 2024—rake in profits, ordinary Americans suffer.
“American consumers are once again getting squeezed at the gas pump as President Trump’s war of choice in Iran sends gas prices soaring and money flowing to his Big Oil donors,” Whitehouse said Tuesday. “We should send any big windfall for Big Oil back to the hardworking people who paid for it at the gas pump."
"Over the longer term, accelerating our transition to clean energy will lower energy costs, insulate consumers from these kinds of price spikes, and reduce America’s dependence on foreign despots and greedy fossil fuel companies," he added.
Khanna said: “Trump’s war of choice in Iran is not just a moral mistake but an economic blunder that is skyrocketing gas prices for working Americans. I’m proud to reintroduce the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act alongside Sen. Whitehouse to stop Big Oil from profiteering off of foreign wars at Americans’ expense and deliver real relief at the pump."
The President shouldn't be a cheerleader for Big Oil companies making fatter profits while Americans pay higher gas prices.We should tax windfall oil profits from Trump's war against Iran and give relief to American families instead.
[image or embed]
— Elizabeth Warren (@warren.senate.gov) March 15, 2026 at 10:38 AM
Green groups and economic justice advocates were among those applauding the reintroduction of the bill, which one 2022 nationwide poll found is supported by 80% of Americans.
“Let’s be crystal clear that when Trump said ‘when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money’, he was talking about billionaire Big Oil executives while ‘we the people’ are stuck paying higher costs," said League of Conservation Voters (LCV) senior federal advocacy campaigns director Leah Donahey.
"A recent analysis estimates the oil industry could rake in over $60 billion in additional profits this year, which would all be paid by consumers struggling with higher energy costs," Donahey added. "Congress should pass this bill as soon as possible to make sure they are putting people over oil CEO profits.”
Mitch Jones, who directs policy and litigation at the watchdog group Food & Water Watch (FWW), said Wednesday that "historical evidence could not be any clearer: Big Oil will undoubtedly leverage the current crisis in the Middle East to maximize profit margins, pinching American families and enriching their executives and Wall Street speculators."
"This demands a policy response—namely, a windfall profits tax... which would recover much of these egregious, opportunistic gains and return them to everyday Americans," Jones added. "At a time when many families are already struggling with skyrocketing energy bills caused by money-driven AI schemes from the tech industry, fossil fuel companies must be held accountable for the profiteering they are orchestrating as we speak.”
LCV and FWW are among the more than 70 groups urging Congress to pass the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act.
“As instability in the Middle East once again drives up oil prices, American families are being asked to pay more for gasoline and other basic necessities,” the groups wrote Wednesday in a letter to congressional leaders. “Meanwhile, the largest fossil fuel companies stand to collect billions in additional profits. A windfall profits tax would ensure that when oil companies benefit from crisis-driven price spikes, some of those gains are returned to the households paying the cost.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular