SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
April, 23 2019, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
Barbara Donachy, 350 Colorado Board Member, 720.989.4185, barbaradonachy@gmail.com
Deborah McNamara, 350 Colorado Campaign Coordinator, 720.400.3739, campaigns@350colorado.org
Ryan Denham, 350 Denver Team Leader, er.denham@gmail.com
City of Denver, Colorado Divests From Oil and Gas Companies
The City of Denver sold its oil and gas bonds last month, is reviewing renewable energy reinvestment options
WASHINGTON
Denver Mayor Michael Hancock announced that the City of Denver is divesting its $6bn General Funds' portfolio from fossil fuel investments. The city said it was able to move quickly through the process as fossil fuels were already a small percentage of the overall portfolio. The announcement came at the 2019 Denver Mayoral Candidate Forum, where all Mayoral candidates responded enthusiastically when asked if they would divest the city from fossil fuel.
Jerry Tinianow, Denver's Chief Sustainability Officer,says that Denver's Mayor announced in March 2019 that the City would liquidate all debt instruments issued by non-renewable energy companies in its reserve fund. By April all had been sold, and the City was looking to replace them with debt instruments of comparable quality from energy efficiency and renewable energy companies. "We never held stock in coal, oil or gas companies, and our Mayor has no control over the employee pension fund, so he did what he could with the assets he controlled," shared Tinianow. "We are proud of Denver's action on divestment. Local 350 Colorado representatives played a major role in helping us decide what the right thing to do was."
The divestment movement has been quickly growing globally, with over 1000 institutions representing more than $8 trillion in assets committing to divestment thus far. Denver joins over 43 cities that have passed resolutions or ordinances to partially or fully divest from fossil fuels.
In the first-quarter of 2018, New York State, New York City and London called on their public pensions to divest. The World Bank is ending its lending to fossil fuel projects. Governments are also looking at fossil fuel divestment, including Ireland and Norway. Colorado has the opportunity to follow suit, showing bold leadership in a state that can lead the way in investing in cleaner, renewable energy technology.
"Our 350 Denver members, especially those who have worked on calling for Denver City divestment over the past years, are heartened to learn of Denver's decision to divest its fossil-fuel holdings including ExxonMobil and Chevron. This is a powerful statement to our children, grandchildren and future generations that we care about them and want to invest in their future," shared Barbara Donachy, a 350 Colorado board member and a lead volunteer calling on Denver to divest. "We are grateful to Mayor Hancock for this bold step. We at 350 Denver want to encourage even bolder steps that would include divesting our holding in the banks, currently JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, that are key funders of fossil fuel infrastructure projects that is fueling the climate crisis and infringing on indigenous rights."
Donachy is referencing the Banking on Climate Change report released last month highlighting that global banks poured $1.9 Trillion into fossil fuel financing since the Paris Agreement was adopted, with JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo contributing the largest amounts.
As lawmakers, including in Colorado, are passing legislation and having serious discussions about the scientific consensus that we need to transition significantly away from fossil fuels by 2030, public investment portfolios need to rapidly shift out of fossil fuel investments to mitigate risk. That is why 350 Colorado has joined others to call on the state pension fund, PERA, to follow Denver's lead.
QUOTE SHEET:
"Our 350 Denver members, especially those who have worked for Denver City divestment over the past years, are heartened to learn of Denver's decision to divest its fossil-fuel holdings from Exxon-Mobil and Chevron. No doubt about it, this is an historic move! Denver has joined over 34 cities that have passed resolutions or ordinances to partially or fully divest from fossil fuels. And, Denver has surpassed the resolutions and promises--Denver has done it. This is a powerful statement to our children, grandchildren and future generations that we care about them and want to invest in their future.
We are grateful to Mayor Hancock for this bold step. We at 350 Denver want to encourage even bolder steps that would include divesting our holding in the banks, currently JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, that are funding the fossil fuel pipeline and infrastructure that is fueling the climate crisis and infringing on indigenous rights.
We want to see a permanent change to Denver's investment policy that will prevent any future investments in the fossil fuel industry and the financial institutions that fund that industry. And we would like to see representation on the City's investment advisory committee that includes advisors with expertise in socially and environmentally friendly investing." - Barbara Donachy, 350 Denver Leadership Council Member
"Congratulations to 350 Colorado and the Denver City Administration for taking one small step for Denver City Government and a giant step for citizen investors. Now let us all go and do likewise, and re-deploy our resources of time and money in renewable energy and social justice investments that offer a reliable and secure future." Libby Comeaux, editor, Loretto Earth Network News
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
US-Israeli War on Iran Sparks 'Largest Supply Disruption in History of Global Oil Market': IEA
"The oil market challenges we are facing are unprecedented in scale," said the executive director of the International Energy Agency.
Mar 12, 2026
The International Energy Agency said Thursday that the US-Israeli war on Iran and its reverberating impacts across the region have sparked "the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market," with flows of crude and other fossil fuel products through the Strait of Hormuz plummeting and Gulf nations slashing production as they run out of storage space.
The agency noted in its monthly report on the state of the global oil market that "oil prices have gyrated wildly since the United States and Israel launched joint airstrikes on Iran on 28 February," pointing to "disruptions to Middle Eastern supplies due to attacks on the region’s oil infrastructure and the cessation of tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz," which have "sent Brent futures soaring, trading within a whisker of $120/bbl."
The IEA's report came a day after the agency's 32 member nations—including the US—agreed unanimously to release a total of 400 million barrels of oil from their emergency reserves to "address disruptions in oil markets stemming from the war in the Middle East."
"The oil market challenges we are facing are unprecedented in scale, therefore I am very glad that IEA member countries have responded with an emergency collective action of unprecedented size,” said the agency's executive director, Fatih Birol.
The IEA assessment on Thursday came as oil prices surged again as Mojtaba Khamenei, Iran's new supreme leader, vowed to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed. An estimated 20% of the world's oil passes through the route each year.
Earlier on Thursday, Iraq—which has among the largest confirmed reserves of crude oil in the world—suspended all of its oil terminal operations after two vessels were attacked off the nation's coast. NPR reported that Iran "took responsibility for attacking one of the tankers, which it said was owned by the US."
The US and Israel have also bombed Iran's oil infrastructure, choking Tehran with black smoke and spraying toxic rain that prompted warnings from the World Health Organization (WHO).
"The black rain and the acidic rain coming with it is indeed a danger for the population, respiratory mainly," WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier told reporters in Geneva earlier this week.
Heba Morayef, Amnesty International's regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, said Wednesay that "the potential for vast, predictable, and devastating civilian harm arising from strikes targeting energy infrastructure, including uncontrolled deadly fires, major disruptions to essential services, environmental damage, and severe long-term health risks for millions, means there is a substantial risk such attacks would violate international humanitarian law and in some cases could amount to war crimes."
“Regardless of whether a military objective is cited to justify targeting energy infrastructure, under international humanitarian law all parties have a clear obligation to take all feasible precautions to reduce civilian harm and refrain from attacks that cause disproportionate death or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects," said Morayef. "This includes any foreseeable knock-on, indirect adverse effects on civilians’ life and health, such as exposure to toxic chemicals.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
One-Third of Americans Skipped Meals or Cut Back on Spending to Afford Healthcare in 2025
“No one is safe from making these trade-offs,” said a researcher at Gallup, which found even insured Americans in higher income brackets have avoided daily expenses to pay medical bills.
Mar 12, 2026
As the Trump administration spends an estimated $1 billion per day in taxpayer money bombing targets across Iran that have reportedly included an elementary school and healthcare facilities, Gallup released a survey Thursday that found one-third of Americans reported making financial trade-offs in order to pay for medical expenses last year.
The West Health-Gallup Center on Healthcare in America polled nearly 20,000 US adults between June and August 2025 and found that roughly one-third of them—equivalent to about 82 million people in the richest country in the world—were forced cut back on at least one expense in order to afford healthcare.
Eleven percent of respondents—equivalent to 28 million Americans—skipped a meal or intentionally drove less in order to pay a medical bill. Fifteen percent, the equivalent of nearly 40 million people, said they prolonged a current prescription or borrowed money, and 9% cut back on utilities.
Those numbers were strikingly similar among people who have health insurance, with 14% of insured people prolonging prescriptions to avoid paying for a new one and 9% skipping meals. Among insured Americans, 29% made at least one trade-off to afford healthcare.
The crisis is also not exclusively affecting low-income people. A quarter of people in households earning $90,000 to $120,000 per year skipped meals or other expenses to pay medical bills, and 11% of people in households earning $240,000 or more did the same.
“No one is safe from making these trade-offs,” Ellyn Maese, a senior researcher at Gallup and research director for the West Health-Gallup Center, told The New York Times.
Sixty-two percent of people without healthcare coverage were forced to make trade-offs, and 55% of people with household incomes lower than $24,000 per year as well as 47% of people earning $24,000 to $48,000 avoided expenses.
Gallup also released the results of a separate poll taken between October and December 2025, which showed how Americans are delaying major life decisions as well as altering their daily lives to afford healthcare under the for-profit insurance system.
As the Trump administration's policies slashed healthcare for 15 million Americans and raised healthcare premiums for tens of millions of people—and as the White House demanded that families have more children—6% of respondents said they had postponed having or adopting a child due to healthcare costs, equivalent to about 16 million Americans.
Nearly 30% said healthcare costs led them to avoid taking a vacation, 18% said they delayed finding a different job, 15% said they postponed pursuing education or job training, and 14% said they postponed buying a home.
The polls are “telling a consistent story here,” Maese said.
The survey results were released weeks after the Trump administration proposed new regulations for healthcare plans purchased through the Affordable Care Act marketplace that would charge deductibles as high as $15,000 for individuals and $31,000 for families to offset lower monthly premiums—underscoring how the healthcare law passed 16 years ago has left American households vulnerable to rising costs under the for-profit health insurance system.
A survey taken last November by Data for Progress found that 65% of voters support expanding the Medicare system to everyone in the US, a proposal that would save an estimated $650 billion annually.
But as Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—who has sponsored Medicare for All legislation in the House—noted on Wednesday, Republicans and establishment Democrats continue to claim the proposal is unaffordable.
"When we ask for Medicare for All it’s 'too expensive,' and we 'don’t have the money,'" said Jayapal. "When the president drags us into his own personal war, no expense is spared. Our priorities are backwards."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With No Mention of US-Israeli Aggression, UN Security Council Condemns Iranian Retaliation
"The very purpose of this biased and politically motivated text, which was pushed by the Israeli regime and the United States, is clear: to reverse the roles of victim and aggressor," said Iran's ambassador to the UN.
Mar 12, 2026
The United Nations Security Council on Wednesday adopted a resolution condemning Iran's retaliatory attacks on Gulf nations without denouncing—or even mentioning—the illegal US and Israeli bombing campaign that started the war, which has hurled the region into conflict and destabilized the global economy.
The resolution, sponsored by council member and US ally Bahrain, "condemns in the strongest terms the egregious attacks by the Islamic Republic of Iran against the territories of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan," nations that host US military bases. The text calls Iranian strikes "a breach of international law and a serious threat to international peace and security," but contains no mention of the US or Israel, nations that have been accused of grave war crimes.
The council adopted Bahrain's measure by a vote of 13-0, with two abstentions—China and Russia. Both nations have veto power but declined to use it. Neither Iran nor Israel is currently a member of the Security Council.
The UN body also voted on a competing resolution, sponsored by Russia, that would have implored "all parties"—without naming any of them—to stop their military operations and avoid escalating the conflict. The resolution did not receive the nine votes necessary for adoption, with the US and Latvia voting against it and Bahrain, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, France, Greece, Liberia, Panama, and the United Kingdom abstaining.
Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran's ambassador to the UN, said the body's adoption of Bahrain's resolution marks "a serious setback to the council’s credibility and leaves a lasting stain on its record."
"Today’s action represents a blatant misuse of the Security Council’s mandate in pursuit of the political agendas of certain members," said Iravani. "The very state responsible for this brutal war of aggression against my country—the regime of the United States—sits on the other side of this chamber as president of the council, abusing its position while obstructing every effort to bring an end to this barbaric war against the Iranian people and preventing the Council from fulfilling its Charter-based responsibilities."
"This resolution is a manifest injustice against my country, the main victim of a clear act of aggression. It distorts the realities on the ground and deliberately ignores the root causes of the current crisis," he continued. "The very purpose of this biased and politically motivated text, which was pushed by the Israeli regime and the United States, is clear: to reverse the roles of victim and aggressor. It rewards the regimes of the United States and Israel, which have violated the UN Charter and committed acts of aggression. In doing so, it establishes impunity and sends a wrong message to the international community—emboldening the aggressors to commit further crimes."
"The UN and International Criminal Court were created for moments like this, when the most powerful decide the rules do not apply to them."
Ahead of the vote on Bahrain's resolution, which accuses Iran of "deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian objects," Iravani said US-Israeli bombing has killed more than 1,300 civilians in Iran and destroyed nearly 10,000 civilian structures across the country, including around 8,000 homes and dozens of schools and healthcare facilities.
Earlier on Wednesday, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon has reached the preliminary conclusion that US forces were responsible for the February 28 bombing of an Iranian elementary school, an attack that killed around 175 people—mostly young children.
DAWN, a nonprofit that supports human rights and democracy in the Middle East, said Wednesday that "mounting evidence" shows US and Israeli forces "have committed multiple war crimes" in Iran and Lebanon—which is facing a rapidly worsening humanitarian disaster due to Israeli attacks.
"In mere days, US and Israel forces have launched a war of choice, killed hundreds of civilians, displaced hundreds of thousands, bombed scores of schools, health facilities, and fuel depots, and dropped white phosphorus on civilian communities," Omar Shakir, DAWN's executive director, said in a statement. "The international community's failure to act when the most fundamental norms of international law are being challenged risks plunging the world further into a lawless era in which civilians across the globe are at risk."
"The UN and International Criminal Court were created for moments like this, when the most powerful decide the rules do not apply to them," said Shakir. "Governments unwilling to invoke international law when their allies commit crimes have no credibility when they invoke it against rivals."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular