

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Deb McNamara, Fossil Free PERA (Colorado), campaigns@350colorado.org, (720) 400-3739
Sandy Emerson, Fossil Free California, sandy@fossilfreeca.org, (650) 743-0524
Vanessa Warheit, Fossil Free California, vanessa@fossilfreeca.org, (415) 225-4435
Toby Heaps, Corporate Knights, toby@corporateknights.com, (416) 274-1432
As the climate crisis worsens, and with Donald Trump formally withdraws the US from the Paris Climate Accord, a new study shows that three major state pension funds in California and Colorado (CalSTRS, CalPERS and PERA), collectively lost over $19 billion in retirement savings for teachers, state troopers and public workers by continuing to invest in fossil fuels.
The study performed by media and analysis firm Corporate Knights calls into question the rationale for investing in the risky oil, coal, and gas industries, whose stocks damage both the portfolios' profits and the planet's life support systems. Members of California's State Teachers' Retirement System plan to attend that fund's Investment Committee meeting on Wednesday, November 6, demanding answers about why the fund continues to lose money on fossil fuels.
Corporate Knights retrieved the funds' stock holdings, weights, and valuations for each of the past ten years, and then used public information to compare those actual investment returns with a similar, but fossil fuel-free version.
In this analysis, over ten years, California's $238 billion state teachers retirement fund (CalSTRS) would have gained $5.5 billion without fossil fuels. The $380 billion public employees retirement fund (CalPERS) would have generated an additional $11.9 billion. Similarly, Colorado's $45 billion state pension fund (PERA) would have generated an estimated additional $1.77 billion in value without fossil fuels.
The reports, which were commissioned and funded by non-profit coalitions calling on the Boards of CalSTRS, CalPERS, and PERA to divest from fossil fuels, also highlight that large fossil fuel companies pulled down overall performance - while technology, healthcare, retail and entertainment boosted performance.
These findings help show that fossil fuel companies are no longer wise long-term investment choices, and everyday Americans are feeling the sting.
In California, CalSTRS serves over 900,000 members, mostly public school teachers. CalPERS, the nation's largest public pension fund, serves more than 1.9 million members in its retirement system, including former educators, police officers, firefighters, municipal workers and state employees. In Colorado, PERA serves 600,000 current and former teachers, state troopers, snowplow drivers, corrections officers, and other public employees.
The ten years these funds were invested in fossil fuels translates to a loss of $5,572 per member for CalSTRS; a loss of $6,072 per member for CalPERS; and a loss of $2,900 per member for PERA.
"We knew CalPERS' fossil fuel investments did environmental damage to us all. It turns out the damage was fiscal too - CalPERS took an $11.9 billion portfolio hit by persisting in dead-end investments in fossil fuels," said Wynne Furth, Former City Attorney, CalPERS Retiree
"This report confirms what we have been predicting for years, based on the testimony of financial experts like Bevis Longstreth, former commissioner to the SEC: CalSTRS would be billions of dollars ahead if it had divested years ago. We can only hope that the fund will now divest its fossil fuel holdings to avoid further and larger losses," said Jane Vosburg, CalSTRS Retiree; FFCA, Divest CalSTRS Campaign Lead
"Now's the time for CalSTRS to make the morally right decision to divest. They can come out financially ahead and help curb deadly carbon emissions by eliminating fossil fuels from our portfolio," said Lynne Nittler, retired teacher and CalSTRS member.
"As long as PERA's money remains invested in the fossil fuel industry, that investment supports an industry that has willfully denied its role in climate change, accelerating today's climate crisis in favor of profits. For the sake of drowned Pacific islands, migrants fleeing drought, and future generations' lives, PERA must divest from fossil fuels. The Corporate Knights study makes that easier by showing they have billions of dollars to gain as well," said Devon Reynolds, Colorado PERA member
"PERA owes the same fiduciary duty to members retired today and members retiring 30 years from now. What this new information makes clear is that everyone's interests are aligned when it comes to fossil fuel investments. It's time to move our money to safer investments, both for better returns today and a viable future for PERA members of my generation and beyond," said Bobbie Mooney, Fossil Free PERA Spokesperson & Colorado PERA member
"Energy is the worst-performing sector of the S&P 500 over the past decade. Since 2007, the sector has generated bond-like returns with equity risk. Our clients at the SRI Wealth Management Group represent a growing segment of investors expressing concern with climate change. As a result of this concern, many are choosing to shift their investments away from fossil fuel companies and into renewable energy. The collective impact these investors are having on share price for companies across the industry and on the broader environment is significant," said Thomas Van Dyck, Managing Director--Financial Advisor, RBC Wealth Management
"Institutional investors literally have the power to make or break the future. Money lies behind every decision to expand or contract the fossil fuel industry, to slow or accelerate the clean energy transition," said Clara Vondrich, Director of Divest Invest. "There is no more time for shareholder engagement with the fossil fuel industry that is digging and burning us past climate tipping points of no return. It's time to divest. What side of history are you on?"
Climate change experts agree that to avoid the most catastrophic effects of the climate crisis -- including sea level rise, extreme weather events, the spread of diseases, massive agricultural loss, and mass extinction of species -- 80 percent of fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground. But fossil fuel companies have refused to change, doubling down instead on a core business of extracting and burning that destabilizes the Earth's climate. The only thing these companies appear to care about is (short term) financial profits.
Profits depend on investment - and investment requires social license and capital. Climate activists argue that divestment effectively removes both of these supports for the fossil fuel industry. And this strategy appears to be working. At their annual conference in October, CEO's of major oil companies asked, "What more does the industry need to do on the PR front to combat the growing fossil fuel divestment movement?"
Divestment from fossil fuels is a clear and emerging trend. In September of this year, more institutions like churches, universities, and private equity funds pledged to divest. The total of managed assets pledged to divestment has leapt from $52 billion in 2014 to more than $11.5 trillion today -- a stunning 22,000 % increase.
Over 1,110 institutions have now committed to policies black-listing some combination of coal, oil and gas investments. These institutions include sovereign wealth funds, banks, global asset managers and insurance companies, cities, pension funds, health care organizations, universities, faith groups, foundations, and the entire country of Ireland.
In Denver, Mayor Michael Hancock announced this past spring that the city was divesting its $6 billion General Funds' portfolio from fossil fuels. The University of California also recently announced divestment of its $83 billion pension and endowment funds, for "purely financial reasons."
In light of the Corporate Knights study findings, key questions for these funds and fund managers remain:
Why would any fund manager continue to invest in fossil fuels? Risky, harmful to our planet and shared future, and less profitable than many other investment opportunities, fossil fuel investments are a lose-lose choice. Why are these major funds still investing in them?
Who will protect public employees' retirement in California and Colorado? Retirees and other members of CalPERS, CalSTRS, and Colorado's PERA might ask: "Now that the fund managers know these fossil fuel investments are losing us money, what are they going to do about it?"
What role do the oil, gas and coal industries play? These studies are being released in the midst of the groundbreaking two week trial of New York v. ExxonMobil, which alleges the corporation defrauded shareholders by not reporting accurately on the impacts of climate change on its business. The California and Colorado pension funds collectively hold over $1.2 billion in Exxon stock. Do these fund managers believe the underperformance of this sector was a result of fraudulent misrepresentation by industry? What responsibility does the industry have for these losses?
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.
Iran's chief negotiator accused the Trump administration of giving the Israeli government a "green light" to continue attacking Lebanon and undermining diplomatic talks.
Update:
US President Donald Trump, Pakistan's prime minister, and the Iranian Foreign Ministry said Sunday that the US and Iran have reached an agreement on a framework to end the war that Trump launched in late February.
Iran's deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, said the terms of the deal will be made public after the memorandum of understanding is signed on Friday in Switzerland. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif wrote on social media that "both sides have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon."
The memorandum of understanding is expected to extend the current ceasefire agreement by 60 days while detailed negotiations take place.
Gharibabadi said the start of the 60-day negotiations will be contingent on the US lifting its naval blockade of Iranian ports, "ending the state of war and military operations," and "releasing Iran's frozen funds."
Earlier:
The Israeli military bombed the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday just as Iranian and US officials voiced optimism that a diplomatic agreement is in reach, prompting accusations that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to derail the negotiations.
Israel's strikes reportedly targeted a five-story apartment building, killing at least three people, according to Lebanese authorities. Netanyahu said the bombing was a response to Hezbollah rocket fire into northern Israel.
The latest bombing of Beirut came hours after US President Donald Trump said he expected a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to be signed as early as Sunday, potentially setting the stage for negotiations to end the illegal war Trump started in late February. Iranian officials have pushed back on the US president's claim that the MOU will be signed Sunday, but Iran's foreign minister said Friday that an agreement had "never been closer."
The Associated Press reported Sunday that Israel's new strikes on Beirut "threatened to hamper negotiations over a deal, which in its current form is a deep disappointment to Israel’s government."
"The last time Israel struck the Beirut suburbs a week ago, it set off the most serious escalation of fighting between Iran and Israel since the tenuous ceasefire took hold April 7," AP added.
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, wrote on social media that "as a US-Iranian deal seems like it might be closer, Israel predictably bombs the Beirut suburbs, evidently hoping to sabotage the deal."
"Why does Trump put up with this and continue to arm and fund such obstructionism?" Roth asked.
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran's chief negotiator and speaker of parliament, said Israel's strikes indicate that the US "either does not have the will or the ability to fulfill its obligations."
"You cannot gain concessions by giving [Israel] a green light," he added. "The good cop, bad cop routine has become old. If you do not have the will or the ability to fulfill your commitments, then there is no basis for talking about continuing down this path."
As the US & Iran reportedly near a deal that includes ending the war in Lebanon, Israel is attacking Beirut again.
Either Trump can't restrain Netanyahu, or the deal is already being violated before it's signed.
Either way, it undermines the deal's value for Iran. pic.twitter.com/v08c21i7wa
— Sina Toossi (@SinaToossi) June 14, 2026
While the MOU that's reportedly under consideration has not been released in full, its broad outlines have been reported in media outlets and divulged by Iranian and US officials in recent days. Reuters reported Sunday that "a final draft of the memorandum of understanding with the US covered a range of issues, from Tehran’s nuclear work to reopening the Strait of Hormuz and US waivers on oil sanctions, with a final deal to be discussed in the 60 days following agreement by the two sides."
Under the MOU, Iran would immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz and the US would end its illegal blockade of Iranian ports, according to Reuters. The US would also agree to waive oil sanctions on Iran and release $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets, while Iran would agree to "maintain the current status of its nuclear program, refraining from further uranium enrichment and expansion of nuclear facilities."
Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, said in a television interview on Friday that the MOU's proposed 60-day ceasefire extension would include Lebanon.
Axios reported that Netanyahu has "found himself in the dark" as US-Iran negotiations have progressed in recent days, "calling allies close to the Trump administration to try and gather information."
Following Sunday's strike on Beirut, Trump told Axios' Barak Ravid that Netanyahu "has no fucking judgment."
"I passed this message on to him—that I am very unhappy with the attack in Beirut," said Trump, whose administration has approved billions of dollars worth of weapons sales to the Israeli government.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, warned that "Israel will do more sabotage unless Trump imposes a cost on Israel."
"Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing and is judging that an attack on Beirut—rather than southern Lebanon—is exactly what's needed to derail the pending US-Iran deal," Parsi argued.
"Now in its third consecutive year of famine, Sudan received nothing."
Elon Musk's vault to trillionaire status following the public debut of his rocket company SpaceX came on the heels of an analysis showing the devastating impact of his destruction of the US Agency for International Development on millions of people in countries facing or on the brink of famine.
The analysis, authored by Council on Foreign Relations expert and longtime aid worker Sam Vigersky, noted that Musk's targeting of USAID during his tenure as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) resulted in the transfer of the Food for Peace program to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), an agency "without international humanitarian or disaster-response expertise."
Vigersky found that the USDA this year chose just seven countries to receive American grain under the Food for Peace program: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Kenya, El Salvador, and Rwanda. The latter two countries, Vigersky noted, "do not meet an emergency threshold" for assistance.
"Meanwhile, the country facing the largest hunger crisis in the world—Sudan—did not make the list. Now in its third consecutive year of famine, Sudan received nothing. In fact, more than 40% of Sudan’s community kitchens, a lifeline for the displaced, have closed in the past six months as funding dried up, according to Islamic Relief," Vigersky reported. "Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Yemen were also passed over. Millions of people in those countries live one step from famine, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), the UN-backed monitoring system that uses a standardized five-point scale (five being famine) to measure the severity of food insecurity."
Experts assessing the global impact of USAID's decimation at the hands of billionaire US President Donald Trump and the world's first trillionaire, who bragged publicly about "feeding USAID into the wood chipper," estimate that hundreds of thousands of people have already died as a result of the large-scale loss of humanitarian assistance—and millions more will die in the coming years if swift action is not taken to restore aid.
"The impacts of the cuts were immediate and tragic," Nicholas Enrich, a former USAID employee who became a whistleblower, wrote in The Boston Globe on Friday. "Health clinics and emergency ambulance services shuttered overnight. Clinical trials were deserted. Thousands of healthcare workers lost their jobs. Lifesaving food and medicine was left to expire in warehouses. According to conservative estimates, in the year since USAID was dismantled, 750,000 people have died as a result of the cuts. For the first time in a generation, more children died in one year — 2025—than in the previous year."
Oxfam has estimated that a 10% tax on Musk's $1 trillion fortune would generate enough revenue to end extreme poverty worldwide for a year.
Trump claimed on social media that a diplomatic agreement would be signed on Sunday, but Iran's Foreign Ministry pushed back on that timeline.
President Donald Trump claimed Saturday that the US and Iran are on track to sign a diplomatic agreement this weekend, but added that "we have the ultimate alternative" if the process doesn't "work out."
"The 'ultimate alternative' sounds a lot like a nuclear threat," Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote in response to the president's Truth Social post. "Not the first time Trump has hinted at it."
The agreement Trump referenced is believed to be "memorandum of understanding" that's expected be fleshed out in "technical talks" that could begin next week, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who is mediating the negotiations.
"We are closer to a peace deal than ever before," Sharif wrote on social media, echoing Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said on Friday that "the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer."
"Pending its finalization, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content," Araghchi added. "In line with our responsible and transparent approach, all details will be shared with the public in due course."
On Saturday, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry cast doubt on the timeline put forth by Trump and Sharif.
"We will have to wait and see about the exact date of the signing of the memorandum of understanding, although it will not be tomorrow,” said Esmaeil Baqaei, as reported by Iranian state media. “The possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out. However, due to the hesitation of the other side, we must be cautious in making any comments about this process.”
In his Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump declared that the Strait of Hormuz will be "OPEN TO ALL" immediately after the deal is signed—a condition that Iran has not confirmed.
"We look forward to working with Iran, and the entire Middle East, long into the future," Trump added. "Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly. If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!"
Trump has repeatedly issued genocidal threats against Iran since launching the illegal war in late February, openly declaring his intention to target Iran's civilian infrastructure and wipe out its "whole civilization." Experts say such threats, even if they aren't acted on, constitute war crimes under international law.