

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.
The vote came after an emotional debate in which some Republican lawmakers detailed threats and harassment they'd received for opposing the president's redistricting scheme.
President Donald Trump's push to get Indiana Republicans to redraw their congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections went down in overwhelming defeat in the Indiana state Senate on Thursday.
As reported by Punchbowl News' Jake Sherman, the proposal to support a mid-decade gerrymander in Indiana was rejected by a vote of 19 in favor to 31 opposed, with 21 Republican state senators crossing the aisle to vote with all 10 Democrats to torpedo the measure, which would have changed the projected balance of Indiana's current congressional makeup from seven Republicans and two Democrats to a 9-0 map in favor of the GOP.
The Senate vote came after the state House's approval of the bill and an emotional debate in which some Indiana Republicans opposed to the president's plan detailed violent threats they'd received from his supporters.
According to a report published in the Atlantic on Thursday, Republican Indiana state Sen. Greg Walker (41) this week detailed having heavily armed police come to his home as the result of a false emergency call, a practice commonly known as swatting.
Walker said that he refused to be intimated by such tactics, and added that "I fear for all states if we allow threats and intimidation to become the norm."
Indiana's rejection of the effort is a major blow to Trump’s unprecedented mid-decade redistricting crusade, which began in Texas and subsequently spread to Missouri and North Carolina.
Christina Harvey, executive director for Stand Up America, said that the Indiana state Senate's rejection of the Trump plan was an "important victory for democracy."
"For weeks, Indiana residents have been pleading with their state leaders to stop mid-decade redistricting and the Senate listened," Harvey said. “Despite threats to themselves and their families, a majority of Indiana senators were steadfast in rejecting this gerrymandered map."
John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, praised the Republicans who rejected the president's scheme despite enduring threats and harassment.
"Threats of violence are never acceptable, and no lawmakers should face violent threats for simply standing up for their constituents," Bisognano said. "Republicans in other states who are facing a similar choice—whether to listen to their constituents or follow orders from Washington—should follow Indiana’s lead in rejecting this charade and finally put an end to the national gerrymandering crisis."
The lawmakers accused the Social Security Administration of "a slash-first, think-later approach," for which "beneficiaries will pay the price."
Leading Senate Democrats and Independent US Sen. Bernie Sanders this week pressed the Trump administration for answers following reports that the Social Security Administration is planning to dramatically reduce visits to its field offices.
"We write with concerns regarding recent reports that the Social Security Administration is reorganizing its field office operations, and has established a goal of cutting the number of field office visits in half—amounting to 15 million fewer visits annually," Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote in a letter to SSA Administrator Frank Bisignano.
"Given that beneficiaries are already waiting months for field office appointments, and the agency has not shared with Congress or the public on how it plans to achieve this goal, we are concerned that these efforts are in fact part of a plan to 'quietly kill field offices,' implementing a backdoor cut in benefits by making it harder for Americans to access the Social Security customer services they need," the senators said.
"The Trump administration has relentlessly attacked Social Security."
Earlier this month, Nextgov/FCW revealed that the Social Security Administration said in internal documents that it wants “no more than 15 million total” in-person visits to its field offices in fiscal year 2026—or about half the current number of such visits. An anonymous SSA staffer told the outlet that senior agency officials are aiming for “fewer people in the front door" and for "all work that doesn’t require direct customer interactions to be centralized.”
As Warren's office noted Thursday:
The Trump administration has relentlessly attacked Social Security. Under Commissioner Bisignano, the administration has implemented policy changes that make it harder for Americans to get their benefits, including by implementing burdensome in-person and bug-prone identification processes that force millions more beneficiaries to visit field offices each year—at the same time they are slashing SSA’s workforce by around 7,000 and closing regional offices.
Instead of staffing up to meet these needs, SSA’s field office capacity has significantly declined. Beneficiaries are being forced to wait hours to get help—only to be told they will need to call to schedule an appointment.
"We are concerned that your plan is to force beneficiaries onto SSA’s bug-prone website or push them into customer service phone tree 'doom-loops'—which will almost certainly result in delayed or missed benefits for some individuals," the letter adds. "Once again, you seem to have adopted a slash-first, think-later approach to 'modernizing' SSA, and beneficiaries will pay the price."
The senators are asking Bisignano if the reports of proposed SSA office visit reductions are accurate, and if so, how and when the plan will be implemented, how the agency will "provide services to beneficiaries that would otherwise go to field offices," and how the reductions will affect already lengthy wait times and service online users and callers to the agency's 1-800 number.
The lawmakers' letter comes as Republican senators on Thursday voted down a proposed three-year extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies, a move that is expected to result, on average, in a doubling of health insurance premiums for around 22 million people. Critics said the vote underscores the need for single-payer healthcare legislation like the Medicare for All Act reintroduced by Sanders and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) earlier this year.
The trade deficit has grown and the US has lost manufacturing jobs during the first nine months of Trump's second term.
A new analysis from the Economic Policy Institute claims that the signature trade deal from President Donald Trump's first term has actually "created more problems than it fixed."
The report, published Thursday, notes that the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), signed into law by Trump in 2020, has completely failed to fulfill Trump's stated goal of lowering the US trade deficit with Canada and Mexico, which has grown from a combined $125 billion in 2020 to $263 billion in 2025.
This increased trade deficit was particularly notable when it comes to the auto industry, says the report, written by EPI senior economist Adam S. Hersh.
"In the critical automotive industry that Trump said he wanted to reshore, imports of motor vehicles and parts from Mexico nearly doubled following USMCA, rising to $274 billion in 2024, up from $196 billion in 2019," the report explains. "Light-duty vehicles imports from Mexico rose 36% while imports of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles increased a whopping 256%."
The report also finds that the trade deal "left a gaping loophole for Chinese manufacturers to exploit duty-free access to North American markets without reciprocal market access for US manufacturers," the result of which was "Chinese firms expanded their direct investment footprint in Mexico by as much as 288% through 2023."
The bottom line, says the report, is "Trump’s USMCA created more problems than it fixed," and that "today the pressure on manufacturing jobs and deterioration in the trade balance with Mexico are worse than before USMCA."
However, the report also says that the US, Canada, and Mexico have an opportunity to significantly improve on USMCA given that the deal is up for review next year.
Among other things, the report recommends closing the loopholes that have allowed Chinese manufacturers to rapidly expand their footprint in Mexico; expanding the the Rapid Response Labor Mechanism that "has helped improve wages and working conditions in a number of specific workplaces"; and slashing intellectual property rights provisions that "currently allow companies to preempt local laws addressing negative externalities from digital service provision."
The EPI report came on the same day that American Economic Liberties Project's Rethink Trade program released an analysis showing that Trump so far has failed to live up to his pledge to reduce the US trade deficit and revive domestic manufacturing.
In all, Rethink Trade found that the US trade deficit increased more during the first nine months of 2025 than it did during the first nine months of 2024. Additionally, the group found that the US has actually lost 49,000 manufacturing jobs since the start of Trump's second term.
Lori Wallach, director of the Rethink Trade program, said that "the nine-month data show outcomes that are the opposite of President Trump’s promises to cut the trade deficit and create more American manufacturing jobs."
She noted that Trump's trade deals so far "seem to prioritize the demands of Big Tech, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and other usual beneficiaries of decades of failed US trade policy instead of fixing the root causes of our huge trade deficit to help American manufacturing workers and firms as he promised."