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
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Labor Department Finalizes Pro-Worker Rules on Overtime, Retirement Savings
"Democrats are delivering for working people!" declared Rep. Pramila Jayapal as the AFL-CIO noted that GOP ex-President Donald Trump "gutted the rules that required overtime pay for millions of workers."
Apr 23, 2024
Roughly 4.3 million U.S. workers will now be eligible for overtime pay under a new rule finalized Tuesday by President Joe Biden's Labor Department—in stark contrast to his Republican predecessor's rules that severely limited the number of workers who were eligible for required compensation when they worked more than 40 hours per week.
Under the new rule, employers will be required to pay overtime premiums to salaried workers who work more than standard full-time hours if they earn less than $1,128 per week, or about $58,600 per year.
Former President Donald Trump, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, may now have to defend his 2020 rule that set the overtime pay threshold at just $35,500 per year, leaving out millions of workers.
U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) noted that the updated rule was "a major piece" of the Executive Action Agenda released by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which she chairs.
"This is a HUGE pro-worker initiative by President Biden," said Jayapal. "Democrats are delivering for working people!"
Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su, who Biden has nominated to fill the role permanently, said it is "unacceptable" that lower-paid workers "are spending more time away from their families for no additional pay," while hourly workers are eligible for overtime pay.
"This rule will restore the promise to workers that if you work more than 40 hours in a week, you should be paid more for that time," said Su. "The Biden-Harris administration is following through on our promise to raise the bar for workers who help lay the foundation for our economic prosperity."
The Labor Department posted a chart on social media showing how under Trump's policy, only workers who earn less than $688 per week are eligible for required overtime pay. The full rule is set to go into effect in January 2025.
The chart offers a "good split screen with the GOP," saidSlate reporter Mark Joseph Stern.
"It isn't just that Trump's Department of Labor fought overtime pay—it's also that Trump appointed anti-labor judges who are about to block Biden's new rule," he said.
The former Republican president's appointed judges could also block a new Federal Trade Commission rule introduced on Tuesday, which blocks companies from including noncompete clauses in workers' contracts.
"Both reforms happened because of Biden and in spite of Republicans," said HuffPost labor reporter Dave Jamieson.
Along with the overtime rule, the Labor Department announced a new policy aimed at safeguarding people's retirement savings from their financial advisers' conflicts of interest.
The finalized retirement security rule requires "trusted investment advice providers to give prudent, loyal, honest advice free from overcharges," said the department. "These fiduciaries must adhere to high standards of care and loyalty when they recommend investments and avoid recommendations that favor the investment advice providers' interests—financial or otherwise—at the retirement savers' expense."
"Under the final rule and amended exemptions, financial institutions overseeing investment advice providers must have policies and procedures to manage conflicts of interest and ensure providers follow these guidelines," the agency said.
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, said the nation's largest labor federation has "been pushing for the fiduciary and overtime rules since the Obama administration."
"It's really this simple," said Shuler. "Every worker deserves their fair share of the wealth they help create and every worker deserves to make sure their hard-earned money is secure."
Keep ReadingShow Less
More Than 4 Dozen Unions Demand 'End of Repression' of Columbia Protests
"The right to protest is necessary for every struggle, and the direct attack on this right is an attack on labor as well," said the labor groups. "An injury to one is an injury to all."
Apr 23, 2024
More than four dozen labor unions across numerous industries on Tuesday signed a letter expressing solidarity with students who have been suspended and arrested in recent days for protesting at Columbia University, including members of the on-campus labor group Student Workers of Columbia.
Unionized student workers in SWC-UAW 2710 were among the hundreds of picketers who have been protecting the Gaza Solidarity Encampment, which students set up at Columbia on April 17 to pressure administrators to divest from weapons manufacturers, tech companies, and other entities that benefit from Israel's apartheid policies in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The Ivy League institution, protesters say, will remain complicit in Israel's bombardment and blockade on Gaza, the killing of at least 34,183 Palestinians in the enclave since October, and the intentional starvation of dozens of people, until it entirely divests from Israel.
"As workers, we stand in solidarity with our union siblings in SWC-UAW 2710 who were arrested and face suspension," said the unions, including the Mother Jones Staff Union, Irvine Faculty Association, and Cleveland Jobs With Justice. "We call for their and their classmates' immediate reinstatement and for Columbia to drop all charges against them, both legal and academic. We deplore [Columbia president Minouche Shafik]'s actions and call for Columbia to immediately end the repression of protest."
The protests at Columbia—where more than 100 students were suspended, arrested for trespassing, and in some cases, evicted from their housing—have galvanized college students and faculty members at a growing number of universities in recent days.
Campus groups at the University of Minnesota and the University of Pittsburgh both announced early Tuesday that they were setting up their own encampments in solidarity with Columbia students and victims of the Israel Defense Forces' relentless attacks on Gaza, which the International Court of Justice said in January was "plausibly" a genocide.
After police arrested students at the University of Minnesota Tuesday afternoon and broke up the encampment, thousands of members of the school community rallied to demand that the university divest from all arms manufacturers.
Encampments were also erected Monday at University of California, Berkeley and University of Michigan.
Jessica Christian, a photojournalist for the San Francisco Chronicle, reported that students were stopping to "ask what supplies the campers need as they walk by to class" at Berkeley, where roughly 50 tents were set up on Tuesday.
On Monday night, dozens of students at Yale University and New York University were arrested for protesting, setting up encampments, and "disorderly conduct."
The arrests at Columbia last week have not stopped students and educators from speaking out against the administration. A new encampment was set up last Friday and hundreds of faculty members staged a walkout Monday in support of the students.
In their letter, the unions on Tuesday warned that "the repression and criminalization of activists, students, professors, and academic workers across the country are violations of our elementary rights to free speech and protest."
"The right to protest is necessary for every struggle, and the direct attack on this right is an attack on labor as well," said the unions, "An injury to one is an injury to all—if the Columbia students can be repressed for protesting, Columbia workers and all workers could be too. Workers stand in full solidarity with this student movement."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular