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
Poland to Weaken Global Treaty by Making Landmines for Eastern Border and Possibly Ukraine
Condemning the plans, Humanity & Inclusion said antipersonnel mines "render land unusable for agriculture, block access to essential services, and cause casualties decades after conflicts end."
Dec 18, 2025
Just a couple of weeks after the annual Landmine Monitor highlighted rising global casualties from explosive remnants of war, Reuters reported Wednesday that Poland plans to start producing antipersonnel landmines, deploy them along its eastern border, and possibly export them to Ukraine, which is fighting a Russian invasion.
As both the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) monitor and Reuters noted, Poland is among multiple state parties in the process of ditching the Mine Ban Treaty. Citing the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the news agency reported that "antipersonnel mine production could begin once the treaty's six‑month withdrawal period is completed on February 20, 2026."
Asked about the prospect of Poland producing the mines as soon as it leaves the convention—also called the Ottawa Treaty—Polish Deputy Defense Minister Paweł Zalewski told Reuters: "I would very much like that... We have such needs."
"We are interested in large quantities as soon as possible," Zalewski said. He added that "our starting point is our own needs. But for us, Ukraine is absolutely a priority because the European and Polish security line is on the Russia-Ukraine front."
Notes from Poland pointed out on social media Thursday that the mine plans come amid other developments in Poland's East Shield operation. As the Kraków-based outlet detailed Sunday, "Germany will send soldiers to Poland next year to support its neighbor's efforts to strengthen its borders with Russia and Belarus, which are also NATO and the European Union's eastern flank."
Humanity & Inclusion (HI), a group launched in 1982 by a pair of doctors helping Cambodian refugees affected by landmines, said in a statement to Common Dreams that it "strongly condemns Poland's decision to resume production of antipersonnel mines as soon as its withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty becomes official in February."
HI stressed that "antipersonnel mines disproportionately harm civilians. They render land unusable for agriculture, block access to essential services, and cause casualties decades after conflicts end. Their use is devastating for civilian populations. Producing landmines is cheap, but removing them would be even more expensive and complicated."
"Plus, new production of landmines would make this weapon more available and easier to purchase," the group warned. "Such a decision normalizes a weapon that has been prohibited since 1999, when the Ottawa Treaty entered into force, and fragilizes the treaty."
"The Ottawa Treaty has been incredibly effective in protecting civilians and drying up the landmine market, a weapon that was no longer produced in Europe, and only assembled by a limited number of countries, including Russia, Iran, and North Korea, among others," HI added, citing the drop in landmine casualties since the convention entered into force.
In 1999, casualties were around 25,000 annually, according to ICBL. By 2023, they had dropped to 5,757 injured or killed. However, as the campaign revealed in its latest report at the beginning of December, there were at least 6,279 casualties in 2024—the highest yearly figure since 2020 and a 9% increase from the previous year.
In the report, ICBL outlined recent alleged mine use by not only Russia and Ukraine but also Cambodia, Iran, Myanmar, and North Korea. The group also flagged that, along with Poland, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania are in the process of legally withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty, while Ukraine is trying to unlawfully "suspend the operation" of the convention during its war with Russia.
ICBL director Tamar Gabelnick said at the time that "governments must speak out to uphold the treaty, prevent further departures, reinforce its provisions globally, and ensure no more countries use, produce, or acquire antipersonnel mines."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Gross': Critics Recoil After Trump-Appointed Board Adds His Name to Kennedy Center
"Some things leave you speechless, and enraged, and in a state of disbelief," said journalist Maria Shriver, a niece of the late President John F. Kennedy.
Dec 18, 2025
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday drew an outraged reaction after she announced that members of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts board, who were appointed by President Donald Trump, had voted to add his name to the building.
In a post on X, Leavitt announced that the building would henceforth be known as the "Trump-Kennedy Center," despite the fact that the building was originally named by the US Congress in the wake of President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963.
"I have just been informed that the highly respected Board of the Kennedy Center... have just voted unanimously to rename the Kennedy Center to the Trump-Kennedy Center," Leavitt wrote on X, "because of the unbelievable work President Trump has done over the last year in saving the building. Not only from the standpoint of its reconstruction, but also financially, and its reputation."
Despite Leavitt's claim, it does not appear that the vote in favor of renaming the building was unanimous. Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), an ex-officio Kennedy Center board member, said after the vote that she had been muted during a call where other board members had voted to add Trump's name to the building, and was thus "not allowed to speak or voice my opposition to this move."
Journalist Terry Moran noted that the Kennedy Center board does not have the power to rename the building without prior approval of US Congress.
"Congress establishes these institutions through law, and only a new law can rename them," Moran wrote, and then commented, "also—gross."
Members of the Kennedy family also expressed anger at the move to rename the center.
Former US Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.) wrote on Bluesky that "the Kennedy Center is a living memorial to a fallen president and named for President Kennedy by federal law," and "can no sooner be renamed than can someone rename the Lincoln Memorial, no matter what anyone says."
Journalist Maria Shriver, a niece of the late president, could barely express her anger at the decision.
"Some things leave you speechless, and enraged, and in a state of disbelief," she wrote. "At times such as that, it’s better to be quiet. For how long, I can’t say."
Shortly afterward, Shriver wrote another post in which she attacked Trump for being "downright weird" with his obsession with having things named after himself.
"It is beyond comprehension that this sitting president has sought to rename this great memorial dedicated to President Kennedy," she said. "It is beyond wild that he would think adding his name in front of President Kennedy’s name is acceptable. It is not. Next thing perhaps he will want to rename JFK Airport, rename the Lincoln Memorial, the Trump Lincoln Memorial. The Trump Jefferson Memorial. The Trump Smithsonian. The list goes on."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Throwback to McCarthyism': Trump DOJ Moves to Treat Leftist Dissent as Criminal
A former official from Trump’s first term said the FBI will be able to throw the full might of the surveillance state at “Americans whose primary ‘offense’ may be ideological dissent.”
Dec 18, 2025
The Trump administration is about to embark on a massive crackdown on what it describes as a scourge of rampant left-wing “terrorism.”
But the US Department of Justice (DOJ) memo ordering the crackdown has critics fearing it will go far beyond punishing those who plan criminal acts and will instead be used to criminalize anyone who expresses opposition to President Donald Trump and his agenda.
Earlier this month, independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi had sent out a memo ordering the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism.”
As part of this effort, Bondi set Thursday as a deadline for all law enforcement agencies to "coordinate delivery" of intelligence files related to “antifa” or “antifa-related activities” to the FBI.
The memo identifies those who express “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology,” as well as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” and “anti-Christianity," as potential targets for investigation.
This language references National Security Presidential Memorandum-7, or NSPM-7, a memo issued by Trump in September, which identified this slate of left-wing beliefs as potential "indicators" of terrorism following the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk in September.
In comments made before the alleged shooter's identity was revealed, Trump attributed the murder to "those on the radical left [who] have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis," adding that "this kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country and must stop right now."
Weeks after Kirk's shooting, Trump designated "antifa" as a "domestic terrorism organization," a move that alarmed critics because "antifa," short for "anti-fascist," is a loosely defined ideology rather than an organized political group.
Senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller, meanwhile, promised that the Trump administration would use law enforcement to "dismantle" left-wing groups he said were "fomenting violence." He suggested that merely using heated rhetoric—including calling Trump and his supporters "fascist" or "authoritarian"—"incites violence and terrorism."
Klippenstein said that “where NSPM-7 was a declaration of war on just about anyone who isn’t MAGA,” the memo that went into effect Thursday “is the war plan for how the government will wage it on a tactical level.”
In comments to the Washington Post, former FBI agent Michael Feinberg, who is now a senior editor at Lawfare, said it was "a pretty damn dangerous document," in part because "it is directed at a specific ideology, namely the left, without offering much evidence as to why that is necessary."
Studies have repeatedly shown that while all political factions contain violent actors, those who commit acts of political violence are vastly more likely to identify with right-wing causes.
Miles Taylor, who served as chief of staff for the Department of Homeland Security under the first Trump administration, pointed out in a blog post the extraordinary surveillance capability that the FBI will have at its disposal to use against those it targets.
He said it "includes the FBI’s ability to marshal facial recognition, phone-tracking databases, license-plate readers, financial records review, undercover operations, and intelligence-sharing tools against Americans whose primary 'offense' may be ideological dissent."
"Unfortunately, once you are fed into that system, there is no real 'due process' until charges are brought," Taylor said. "It’s not like you get a text-message notification when the FBI begins investigating you for terrorism offenses, and there’s certainly no 'opt-out' feature. For this to happen, you don’t need to commit violence. You don’t even need to plan it. Under the administration’s new guidelines, you merely need to be flagged for association with the anti-fascist movement to become a potential target."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Wash.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told the Post, "It is a throwback to McCarthyism and the worst abuses of [Former FBI Director J. Edgar] Hoover’s FBI to use federal law enforcement against Americans purely because of their political beliefs or because they disagree with the current president’s politics."
Taylor argued: "He’s right, but it’s actually more dangerous than that. Joseph McCarthy had subpoenas and hearings and created his blacklists of 'communist' Americans from Capitol Hill. And while controversial FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover may have had old-school wiretaps and informants, Donald Trump’s team has algorithmic surveillance, bulk data collection, and a post-9/11 security state designed for permanent emergency. It’s like comparing a snowflake with a refrigerator."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


