October, 17 2016, 09:15am EDT

New Yorkers Issue New Challenge to Divest City & State Pensions from Fossil Fuels
Ahead of the four-year anniversary of Sandy and the Paris climate agreement taking effect, broad spectrum of New York society calls for divestment and reinvestment in solutions
NEW YORK
After a summer of record heat, ahead of the fourth anniversary of Superstorm Sandy and weeks before the Paris climate agreement officially comes into effect, New Yorkers are issuing a new challenge to New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer and New York State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli to divest New York's combined $350 billion pension funds from fossil fuels and reinvest in climate solutions.
Eighteen organizations and individuals, representing a broad spectrum of New York society, including business, faith, academics, health, students, artists, and more, sent a letter to the comptrollers calling for the pension funds to use every tool at their disposal to curb the worst of climate impacts, and avoid the next Sandy-like storm, through divestment from fossil fuels.
The initial call for the State and City to divest launched in 2012, the same year that Superstorm Sandy devastated communities. Since then, more than 600 institutions and individuals representing over $3.4 trillion in assets have committed to some level of divestment, but the New York funds have yet to take action.
With the moral and financial reasons to divest adding up, the push may now be reaching a boiling point. Last year, Comptroller Stringer and Mayor Bill de Blasio publicly expressed support for divestment from coal. Additionally, New York City Councilwoman Helen Rosenthal and Councilman Costa Constantinides have called for divestment. One of New York City's pension funds has started the process of exploring coal divestment.
The reticence has been costly. A March report revealed that the New York State Common Retirement Fund, the third largest pension fund in the country, lost a staggering $5.3 billion from holding onto its fossil fuel investments. New York City's largest pension fund, the Teacher's Retirement System of the City of New York, lost approximately $135 million from its fossil fuel holdings in only one year.
Last Saturday, New York City's largest public employee union, District Council 37, held a forum exploring how divestment could promote clean energy and environmental justice. On October 28, New York State Senator Liz Krueger, Senator Brad Hoylman and Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, who introduced state legislation to divest the state pension fund, will co-sponsor a roundtable featuring a panel of financial experts and representatives from the state comptroller's office.
The barrier to progress at the state level has been Comptroller DiNapoli, who has repeatedly argued against divestment, claiming that it is more effective to participate in shareholder engagement. That case is falling apart, however, as fossil fuel companies repeatedly ignore or vote down the fund's requests. At Exxon's shareholder meeting this past May, for example, New York State and the Church of England proposed a resolution that called for disclosure of basic climate impact reporting. Despite the resolution being non-binding, Exxon's executives unanimously shot it down, resulting in ultimate rejection.
The case of Exxon is particularly egregious. Investigative reports revealed that, as far back as the 1970s, Exxon's own scientists confirmed the impact of fossil fuel use on the climate, but executives instead chose to orchestrate a decades-long campaign of deception. Now, Exxon is under investigation by New York's own attorney general Eric Schneiderman, the attorneys general of Massachusetts and California, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, for potential fraud concerning climate change.
As governments get serious about climate action, the pressure to divest will only grow. Earlier this month, the required number of countries ratified the Paris climate agreement to enter it into force, and it will officially take effect on November 4. Stringer and DiNapoli both traveled to the Paris climate talks last December and have repeatedly called for action on climate. Their lack of action on divestment, however, has undermined attempts to don the mantle of climate leadership.
Notable divestment commitments in the US include Washington, DC's largest pension fund, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, California's CalPERS and CalSTRS, the New School in New York City, New York's Union Theological Seminary, and the union-owned Amalgamated Bank.
QUOTE SHEET:
May Boeve, Executive Director of 350.org said, "Investments in the fossil fuel industry fund devastating climate impacts like Superstorm Sandy. Now, New Yorkers are coming together to push our comptrollers to take decisive action on climate and fully divest from this destruction. This challenge sends a clear message: it's past time for New York's comptrollers to stop propping up the fossil fuel industry, and reinvest in an economy that prioritizes people and planet."
Mark Dunlea, chair of the state divestment committee for 350NYC said, "It is wrong for NY to invest our pension funds in fossil fuel companies which threaten the quality of life for our residents. Decades of shareholder advocacy have proven ineffective to curb corporate misbehavior. We need Stringer and DiNapoli to step up and provide the leadership needed to position New York as a world leader in confronting climate change."
David Levine, Co-founder and CEO of the American Sustainable Business Council, which has a membership representing over 250,000 business owners, executives and investors across the country said, "The financial risks are too great to continue subsidizing and investing in fossil fuels. The economic data is proving instead the value of investing in the incredible growth in energy efficiency and renewable energy. The smart money is now on a future based on safe, renewable energy."
Vanessa Green, Director of Divest-Invest Individual, said "Millions of public employees nationwide stand waiting for pension decision makers to protect their hard-earned savings from climate risk. Inaction or delayed action makes public servants pay three times: once via bad investments in companies deepening the climate problem, twice via exposure to the life-threatening harm of extreme weather events like Hurricane Sandy, and thrice via potential retirement fund losses. New York's comptrollers must be facilitators of, not barriers to, a safe and reliable future for the working backbone of their city and state."
Greta Neubauer, Director of the Fossil Fuel Divestment Student Network, said "New Yorkers, especially low income people and communities of color, have and will continue to feel the impacts of climate change very personally. As the generation who will watch this city sink if we do not take action, we refuse to sit idly by. Our city and state officials cannot continue siding with the industry responsible for this crisis, we need them to side with us."
The Rev. Fletcher Harper, Executive Director of GreenFaith said, "Our lives on this earth are a gift, and it's not right for us to profit from an industry whose core business is devastating to the climate and to life itself. The time to divest is yesterday. It cannot happen too soon."
Rebecca Foon and Jesse Paris Smith, Co-founders of Pathway to Paris said, "In order to avoid catastrophic climate change, significant shifts need to be made as we speak towards a renewable future. New York City and New York State have an immense opportunity to help lead this path towards a future that is no longer dependant on fossil fuels, while stimulating the green economy by divesting its pension funds from fossil fuel companies and investing in climate solutions. The time is now."
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
Trump Admin Terminating TPS for Haitians Slammed as Potential 'Death Sentence'
"Ending TPS for Haitians is cruel and dangerous, and a continuation of President Trump's racist and anti-immigrant practices," said Amnesty International USA.
Jun 28, 2025
Outrage over U.S. President Donald Trump's administration terminating Temporary Protected Status for around half a million Haitians, despite dire conditions in the Caribbean country, continued to mount on Saturday, with critics decrying the decision as harsh and hazardous.
"This is not just cruel—it's state-sanctioned endangerment," declared Haitian Bridge Alliance executive director Guerline Jozef.
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said that the Trump administration "just decided to send thousands of innocent people who have been living and working here legally into imminent danger in Haiti. Trump will tear apart families, rip up communities, and leave businesses and nursing homes shorthanded. And no one will be safer."
Warren's fellow Massachusetts Democrat, Sen. Ed Markey, also weighed in on social media Saturday, arguing that "the Trump administration knows Haiti is not safe. This is a callous and shameful political decision that will have devastating human consequences. Saving lives will always be in the national interest."
"This is a callous and shameful political decision that will have devastating human consequences."
TPS was initially granted after an earthquake hit Haiti in 2010. The designation expires August 3, and Trump's Department of Homeland Security announced in a Friday statement that the termination will be effective on September 2. A DHS spokesperson said that "this decision restores integrity in our immigration system and ensures that Temporary Protective Status is actually temporary."
"The environmental situation in Haiti has improved enough that it is safe for Haitian citizens to return home," the spokesperson added. "We encourage these individuals to take advantage of the department's resources in returning to Haiti, which can be arranged through the CBP Home app. Haitian nationals may pursue lawful status through other immigration benefit requests, if eligible."
While the DHS statement claims Haiti is safe, ignoring the deadly gang violence that has engulfed the country, the Trump administration's official notice has another focus, as some critics highlighted.
The notice states that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem "has determined that termination of TPS for Haiti is required because it is contrary to the national interest to permit Haitian nationals (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Haiti) to remain temporarily in the United States."
The Miami Heraldreported that the U.S. Department of State currently "warns Americans not to travel to Haiti 'due to kidnapping, crime, civil unrest, and limited healthcare.' This week, the agency also urged U.S. citizens to 'depart Haiti as soon as possible' or 'be prepared to shelter in place for an extended time period.'
According to the newspaper:
And just on Thursday, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau questioned the lack of action at the Organization of American States to address the crisis in Haiti.
"Armed gangs control the streets and ports of the capital city, and public order there has all but collapsed," he said. "While Haiti descends into chaos, the unfolding humanitarian, security, and governance crisis reverberates across the region."
The Miami Herald reached out to the State Department, asking the agency to explain its recommendations. A State Department spokesperson said the department does not comment on deliberations related to TPS determinations and referred questions to DHS.
"The administration is returning TPS to its original temporary intent," the spokesperson said. "TPS is a temporary protection, not a permanent benefit."
Noting the discrepancy between the two departments, Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.) denounced the termination as "a deliberate act of cruelty."
Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) said that "this is an act of policy violence that could literally be a death sentence. We should NOT be deporting anyone to a nation still dealing with a grave humanitarian crisis like Haiti. I stand with our Haitian neighbors and urge the Trump administration to reverse course."
Also urging the administration to "reverse this inhumane decision immediately," Amnesty International USA said that "ending TPS for Haitians is cruel and dangerous, and a continuation of President Trump's racist and anti-immigrant practices. Haitian TPS holders have built lives here—working, raising families, and contributing to their communities—all while fleeing unsafe situations in Haiti."
The termination came just two weeks after Volker Türk, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, said that "at this time of untold suffering and fear, I reiterate my call to all states not to forcibly return anyone to Haiti, and to ensure that Haitians who have fled their country are protected against any kind of discrimination and stigmatization."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mike Lee Tries to Sneak Public Land Sale Back Into 'Big, Ugly Bill' Ahead of Senate Vote
"Republicans are STILL trying to sell off public lands in their budget bill," said Sen. Ron Wyden. "If you care about keeping your public lands please make your voice heard."
Jun 28, 2025
Ahead of a vote on Republicans' budget reconciliation package expected as soon as noon Saturday, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Chair Mike Lee revived his effort to sell off public lands.
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has blocked multiple provisions of the GOP megabill, including several under the jurisdiction of the Utah Republican's panel. Among them is his attack on public lands.
"Here we go again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said on social media after Lee released new text for his committee late Friday.
"Republicans are STILL trying to sell off public lands in their budget bill," Wyden continued. "Republicans are trying to get this over the finish line by the end of the weekend. If you care about keeping your public lands please make your voice heard."
"Americans left, right, and center have come together with one voice to say these landscapes shouldn't be sold off to fund tax cuts for the uberwealthy—not now, not ever."
Athan Manuel, director of Sierra Club's Lands Protection Program, said in a Saturday morning statement that "the new version of Mike Lee's public lands sell-off is like cutting 'most' of the mercury out of your diet. The fact of the matter is that Mike Lee has spent the better part of a decade trying to privatize our public lands, and with his new power in the Senate, he's trying to push that agenda even further without public input, without transparency, and shame."
"Americans left, right, and center have come together with one voice to say these landscapes shouldn't be sold off to fund tax cuts for the uberwealthy—not now, not ever," Manuel added. "Congress needs to listen to their constituents, not billionaires and private developers, and keep the 'public' in public lands.”
A document from Lee states that his "amended proposal dramatically narrows the scope of lands to be sold for housing... in communities where it is desperately needed" in the U.S. West. The new version would exclude all Forest Service land and reduce the amount of Bureau of Land Management acres to be sold by half.
"It's still bullshit,"responded Noelle Porter, government affairs director at the National Housing Law Project.
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has recently said: "This isn't about building more housing or energy dominance. It's about giving their billionaire buddies YOUR land and YOUR money."
"From the Sierra Club to Joe Rogan, everybody is pissed off about Republicans' public lands sell-off," he wrote on social media Friday. "This is the broadest coalition I've seen around public lands in my lifetime, so keep making sure your voices are heard because we're winning."
Jane Fonda's climate-focused political action committee similarly stressed on social media Friday that "Lee is committed to including a massive public land sale provision in the Big Beautiful Bill. We need you to keep up the pressure and reach out to your senators today and demand they reject any new sales of public lands in this legislation."
And it's not just the land sales in the Friday night text of what critics call the "big, ugly bill." It also "creates new fees for renewable energy projects on public lands, and cuts royalty rates for oil, gas, and coal production on public lands," noted Sam Ricketts, co-founder of S2 Strategies, which is working to build a clean energy economy. "Make it make sense."
As Manuel and Heinrich pointed out, some right-wingers are also outraged by Lee's push to sell off public lands. Benji Backer, founder of Nature Is Nonpartisan and the American Conservation Coalition, took aim at the committee chair on social media Friday night.
"Mike Lee just quietly doubled down on his mass public lands sel-loff by releasing new text," Backer said. "The Senate could consider it as soon as tomorrow. The secrecy is gross—and intentional. Lee knows it's his only path. America, we NEED to stand strong.
Tagging the Senate GOP account and Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), Backer added that "Americans are entirely UNITED in opposition against this. Please ask Sen. Lee to let this provision... stand on its own—at the very least."
Even if the Senate somehow advances Lee's legislation, it could face trouble in the House of Representatives, which is also narrowly controlled by the GOP. On Thursday, Republican Reps. Ryan Zinke (Mont.), David Valadao (Calif.), Mike Simpson (Idaho), Dan Newhouse (Wash.), and Cliff Bentz (Ore.) warned that "we cannot accept the sale of federal lands that Sen. Lee seeks."
"If a provision to sell public lands is in the bill that reaches the House floor, we will be forced to vote no," warned the lawmakers, led by Zinke, who was the interior secretary during President Donald Trump's first term. Lee's provision, they wrote, would be a "grave mistake, unforced error, and poison pill that will cause the bill to fail should it come to the House floor."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate GOP and Fetterman Block Effort to Stop Trump's War on Iran
"The current cease-fire is fragile—and the only path to lasting peace is diplomacy, not another cycle of American military escalation," one campaigner stressed after lawmakers refused to advance the resolution.
Jun 27, 2025
Nearly all U.S. Senate Republicans and Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania on Friday evening blocked a resolution that reiterated Congress' authority to declare war and would have ordered President Donald Trump to stop taking military action against Iran without congressional approval.
Every other member of the Democratic Caucus and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) supported holding a final vote on the resolution—which Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, announced last week, before Trump's weekend bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities.
"We commend Sen. Kaine for his steadfast leadership in bringing this resolution, and the U.S. senators who stood on the right side of history today in safeguarding against yet another senseless war."
Citing the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Kaine's measure states that "the question of whether United States forces should be engaged in hostilities against Iran should be answered following a full briefing to Congress and the American public of the issues at stake, a public debate in Congress, and a congressional vote."
Pointing to various other federal laws, Kaine's resolution "directs the president to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran."
In a statement after Friday's 47-53 vote, Kaine said that "the Framers of our Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war because they believed that the decision to send our nation's men and women in uniform into harm's way was too big for any one person. The Trump administration's chaotic strategy on Iran confused the American people and created significant risks for service members and their families."
"I am disappointed that many of my colleagues are not willing to stand up and say Congress needs to be part of a decision as important as whether or not the U.S. should send our nation's sons and daughters to fight against Iran," Kaine added. "I will continue to do all I can to keep presidents of any party from starting wars without robust public debate by Congress."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats, was among the lawmakers who spoke in support of Kaine's resolution ahead of the vote. "We do not need another unnecessary and costly war. We have had enough of them," he said on the Senate floor, pointing out that the Vietnam War and the U.S. invasion of Iraq were "based on a series of lies."
"We should not go to war against Iran," Sanders declared. He condemned Trump's recent attack on the Middle Eastern country as "unconstitutional," and argued that "diplomacy is a better path," as demonstrated by the nuclear deal in 2015—which Trump ultimately ditched during his first term.
Sanders also made the case that the U.S. should not be allied with "war criminal" Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who started the bombing of Iran and is wanted by the International Criminal Court for his mass slaughter of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
"Enough is enough," the senator said, noting that the U.S. gives Netanyahu's government billions of dollars in annual military aid. "It is beyond absurd that we continue to finance Israel's wars while neglecting the needs of our own people."
Meanwhile, in response to a question from a BBC reporter on Friday, Trump said that he would "without question, absolutely" consider bombing Iran again if intelligence suggested the country could enrich uranium to a level that concerned him.
After the Senate vote, National Iranian American Council president Jamal Abdi said that the outcome "says more about the makeup of the Senate than it does the merits of the resolution. Regardless, we saw a near majority do the right thing and stand up against war and for democracy, despite a cavalcade of misinformation from war hawks. We will continue to press the case that war with Iran is against U.S. interests and U.S. security, and redouble our work to prevent the conflict from reigniting."
"We commend Sen. Kaine for his steadfast leadership in bringing this resolution, and the U.S. senators who stood on the right side of history today in safeguarding against yet another senseless war," he continued, noting the cease-fire between Israel and Iran that Trump announced earlier this week.
"Though a cease-fire is holding for now, the most certain way to guarantee peace is through an abandonment of war and a bold pursuit of sincere negotiations," Abdi added. "We urge our Members of Congress to change course, and urgently support a return to U.S.—Iran talks and a diplomatic pathway forward for both countries."
We took an oath to defend the Constitution - just like every Senator. Today, Republicans broke that oath. We WILL hold them accountable. (2/2)
— VoteVets (@votevets.org) June 27, 2025 at 7:09 PM
Also responding to the Friday development in a statement, Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian asserted that "today's vote sends a powerful message: There is a bipartisan movement to reject more war in the Middle East and prevent us from being unilaterally dragged into war before Congress and the American people can have their say."
"We thank Sen. Kaine for his leadership and Sen. Paul for his principled vote to stand up for the Constitution," Kharrazian said, urging the House of Representatives to pass a similar resolution led by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Ahead of the Senate's vote, more than 41,000 people nationwide had signed a petition from the progressive group MoveOn Civic Action that calls on Congress to vote for the resolutions in both chambers.
"The current cease-fire is fragile—and the only path to lasting peace is diplomacy, not another cycle of American military escalation," Kharrazian emphasized. "The U.S. must lead with restraint, not repeat the mistakes of endless war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular