

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.
One campaigner urged the administration to "focus on real solutions to support more transparent and diverse supply sources and make targeted investments for the supply of key medicines."
On Thursday, the one-year anniversary of President Donald Trump's so-called Liberation Day, US advocacy groups sounded the alarm about his new tariffs targeting "patented pharmaceuticals and their ingredients under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to bolster American national security and public health."
The administration announced a year ago that the US Department of Commerce would conduct a related investigation under that law. The resulting report was recently sent to the president, and although the findings have not been made public, Trump's executive order summarizes key takeaways and Secretary Howard Lutnick's recommended actions.
According to the order, the secretary's recommendations included "continuing to negotiate onshoring agreements related to most favored nation (MFN) pharmaceutical pricing agreements; imposing significant tariffs on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients, so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security of the United States; and granting preferential treatment to those companies that commit to onshore production of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients."
Citing an unnamed Trump administration official, The Washington Post reported Thursday that "the White House has reached agreements with 13 drugmakers and expects to soon conclude an additional four." As part of these deals, companies are planning to invest at least $400 billion in new US plants.
The Post also pointed out that "some imported drugs will face much lower tariffs under trade deals Trump negotiated with five US trading partners. Goods from the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and Switzerland will face 15% levies, while drugs from the United Kingdom, which was the first to sign a deal with Trump, will be hit with a 10% tariff."
Thanks to Trump's new order, brand-name pharmaceuticals made in other countries could be hit with tariffs as high as 100%.
Merith Basey, CEO of Patients for Affordable Drugs, warned in a statement that "while these tariffs aim to pressure pharmaceutical corporations into US manufacturing and most favored nation agreements, the current MFN deals remain opaque and voluntary, and have not delivered meaningful savings for the vast majority of American patients. There's a real risk these tariffs will drive up costs and create more uncertainty for millions of patients already struggling to afford their medications."
Experts at Public Citizen, another advocacy group that has sued to expose the secretive MFN agreements, were similarly critical.
"By announcing these tariffs without even producing the evidence from the investigation that supposedly justifies them, Trump is continuing his pattern of grabbing headlines by using the word 'tariff' while engaging in secretive ongoing negotiations and opaque exemptions processes that are ripe for corporate corruption," said Public Citizen Global Trade Watch director Melinda St. Louis—who also wrote a broader takedown of Trump's trade policy published Thursday by Common Dreams.
"While strategic tariffs can be used to support domestic manufacturing and good jobs, they must be paired with real public investments and support for workers' rights, which Trump has systematically undermined," she said. "Instead, he's bullying other countries like the UK into paying more for medicines, which will lead to windfall profits for Big Pharma and do nothing to reduce US prices."
Peter Maybarduk, director of Access to Medicines at Public Citizen, stressed that "Trump's tariffs will be either ineffective or harmful for what people need, which is a reliable, plentiful, affordable supply of medicine."
Also taking aim at the "secretive arrangements that allow Trump to claim specious victories on manufacturing and high drug prices," Maybarduk explained that "in reality, many manufacturing commitments claimed under the deals were part of previously planned projects and the drug pricing commitments appear designed to largely spare drug company profits rather than earnestly address affordability concerns."
"Meanwhile the administration has given drugmakers perks like lucrative vouchers to accelerate FDA review of their medicines and a promise from the Trump administration that it will bully other countries into adopting higher prescription drug prices, using tariffs as leverage," he continued, referring to the Food and Drug administration.
"If the administration wants to fix problems like medicines shortages and fragile supply chains," he argued, "it should focus on real solutions to support more transparent and diverse supply sources and make targeted investments for the supply of key medicines."
Police in Paris apprehended and briefly detained European Parliament Member Rima Hassan Thursday on suspicion of "apology for terrorism"—an allegation critics slammed as "judicial harassment" aimed at silencing her outspoken criticism of Israel's genocidal war on Gaza and the French government's support for it.
Hassan, who represents the leftist La France Insoumise (LFI, or France Unbowed in English) party in the European Parliament, was summoned as part of an investigation by the National Center for Combating Online Hate (PNLH), Le Parisiene first reported.
The newspaper also reported that "a few grams" of a synthetic drug—possibly 3-MMC—were found on Hassan, allegations that sparked skeptical reactions.
PNLH is probing a since-deleted March 26 post on the social media site X in which Hassan referred to Kōzō Okamoto, a member of the Japanese Red Army who, along with two others, killed 26 people and wounded 80 more in the name of Palestinian liberation during a 1972 massacre at Lod Airport in Israel.
Hassan, a descendant of Palestinians ethnically cleansed from their homeland during the foundation of the modern Israeli state, was born in a refugee camp in Syria and emigrated to France as a child.
The Sorbonne-educated jurist was one of the leaders of the June 2025 Gaza Freedom Flotilla Madleen mission, along with climate campaigner Greta Thunberg and others. Hassan and others aboard the Madleen were intercepted by Israeli forces and arrested in international waters as they attempted to deliver food, children’s prosthetics, and other desperately needed supplies to Gaza’s besieged and starving people. Hassan said that she was beaten in Israeli custody.
While far-right and pro-Israel French lawmakers celebrated Hassan's detention and called for her to be stripped of parliamentary immunity, Palestine defenders condemned the arrest.
"Once again, the offense of glorifying terrorism is being used to repress a Palestinian activist known worldwide for her fight against genocide," said leftist lawyer Elsa Marcel. "While Israel bombs Iran and Lebanon and colonization accelerates in the West Bank, the French state continues to repress the voices fighting for the liberation of Palestine. Immediate release!"
LFI French National Assembly Member Gabrielle Cathala voiced her "full support for Rima Hassan" in a post on X.
"In violation of her parliamentary immunity, she is currently being held in custody for a simple tweet that had nothing to do with 'apology for terrorism,'" she wrote. "This judicial harassment must stop."
"If this is already happening, just imagine what would occur in the event of a vote on the Yadan Law," Cathala added, referring to a highly controversial bill critics say would criminalize anti-Zionism by conflating opposition to Israel with animus toward Jewish people, aligning with the dubious International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism.
Soutien à ma camarade et collègue Rima Hassan, en garde à vue pour un tweet, alors que le génocide à Gaza se poursuit et que les palestinien•nes subissent désormais un apartheid par le gouvernement d’extrême droite israélien.
[image or embed]
— François Piquemal (@francoispiquemal.bsky.social) April 2, 2026 at 6:51 AM
Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the de facto LFI leader and a former European Parliament member, said on Bluesky: "The political police have once again summoned Rima Hassan for questioning regarding a retweet from March. Parliamentary immunity, then, no longer exists in France."
"It is intolerable," he added. "The Yadan Law was not passed—yet is it already being enforced?"
Hassan was previously summoned by authorities following a December 2024 complaint over social media posts, including one in which she asserted, “If Franco-Israelis are allowed to serve in the Israeli army while enjoying the gains of dual citizenship, every Franco-Palestinian must be able to join the Palestinian armed resistance, the legitimacy of which is recognized by [United Nations] resolutions on the right to self-determination of peoples."
Since she started speaking out against the Gaza genocide, Hasan has been subjected to online bullying, including death and rape threats and doxing.
Last week, Hassan was denied entry into Canada—where she was scheduled to speak at multiple conferences in Montréal and meet with left-wing pro-Palestine members of Québec's National Assembly—following concerns from the pro-Israel groups B’nai Brith Canada and the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs. Hassan attended the conferences remotely.
“The revocation of [Hassan's] travel authorization is part of a worrying trend of restricting freedom of expression and movement of political representatives," LFI said in a statement, "as well as part of a broader pattern of censorship affecting democratic debate."
Other Palestine defenders have been targeted by the French government, including Olivia Zemor, president of the advocacy group Europalestine, who last week was hit with a 24-month suspended sentence for "apology for terrorism" due to her support for Palestinian rights.
"The president of the United States would like everyone to know that he is acting with criminal intent, in case there was any ambiguity," a US law professor said of his social media post with bridge bombing footage.
After pledging in a prime-time address that the United States and Israel would bomb Iran "back to the Stone Ages where they belong," President Donald Trump on Thursday shared a video of the US blowing up an Iranian bridge and promised, "Much more to follow!"
"The biggest bridge in Iran comes tumbling down, never to be used again," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, sharing footage of an attack on the B1 highway bridge that connects Iran's capital, Tehran, to the city of Karaj.
Trump added a message to the Middle East nation's government, writing, "IT IS TIME FOR IRAN TO MAKE A DEAL BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE, AND THERE IS NOTHING LEFT OF WHAT STILL COULD BECOME A GREAT COUNTRY!"
Citing an unnamed source, Israel's i24NEWS reported that the bridge's "destruction was intended to cut off supply routes that bring drone parts and missiles to Iranian firing units that launch them at US and Israeli forces."
According to Reuters national security correspondent Idrees Ali, "Iranian state media says eight people were killed and 95 wounded in the attack."
While war cheerleader Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) welcomed Trump's social media post, anti-war activists, journalists, and legal experts called out the US president for not only engaging in war crimes, but promoting them with his "atrocity propaganda."
Progressive US-Middle East policy analyst Omar Baddar said that Trump was "openly bragging about destroying civilian infrastructure to force the Iranian government to meet his political demands."
Rutgers University law professor Adil Haque said in a series of social media posts that "the president of the United States would like everyone to know that he is acting with criminal intent, in case there was any ambiguity."
"Attacking civilian infrastructure—to create political pressure or punish civilians—is both illegal and stupid," Haque added, blasting Trump's post as "obscene," and stressing that "states must act now to end this lawless war."
British writer Owen Jones declared that "Donald Trump is openly flaunting his war crimes. Journalists who won't call them that are complicit."
Zeteo editor-in-chief Mehdi Hasan said that "this is what terrorism looks like, state terrorism, we do it to others, and then we act shocked when others do it back to us."
Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim described Trump's post as, "An extremist group in Washington, DC has claimed credit for the terrorist attack on the Iranian bridge."
Earlier Thursday, Grim noted that Iran has shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman that's a key shipping route for fossil fuels. Oil prices have surged, as Americans have already seen at the gasoline pump.
"The more civilian infrastructure we destroy in Iran and the more we set back their economy, the more determined Iran will be to extract the maximum possible toll from oil passing through what is now their strait," Grim wrote. "That toll will be paid by us and the rest of the world through a higher cost of living. So just be aware that every video of a bridge being blown up, a pharmaceutical [plant] destroyed, a medical clinic flattened, is a video of something *you* are going to pay to rebuild."
As Common Dreams reported earlier Thursday, online retailer Amazon is planning to add 3.5% fuel and logistics surcharge for vendors that use its fulfillment service in the United States and Canada, and fresh food distributors have been adding such fees to deliveries, due to increased fuel costs caused by the Iran war.
Responding to the bridge attack, Iran's foreign minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, said that "striking civilian structures, including unfinished bridges, will not compel Iranians to surrender. It only conveys the defeat and moral collapse of an enemy in disarray. Every bridge and building will be built back stronger. What will never recover: damage to America's standing."
Since launching the war in late February, the US and Israel have also bombed at least tens of thousands of other civilian locations, including homes, schools, medical facilities, energy installations, courthouses, and UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization World Heritage sites.