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
June, 08 2022, 05:11pm EDT
Contact:
CJ Koepp,Fossil Free California, cj.koepp@fossilfreeca.org
New Report Reveals California Pensions Calpers, Calstrs Vote No on Big Oil Shareholder Climate Resolutions
The retirement systems' failed shareholder engagement efforts with fossil fuel companies has cost their members $11.9 billion in returns.
WASHINGTON
A report released today from Fossil Free California reveals that California's public pensions voted to oppose climate action at major fossil fuel companies and financiers during the 2022 Annual General Meeting season. This expose comes two weeks ahead of an Assembly Committee hearing on SB 1173, a bill that would require the funds to divest from fossil fuels, that was passed only two weeks ago by the California Senate.
The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) are the largest fossil fuel financiers among the top pension funds in the country. While the funds claim to engage with the fossil fuel industry as stakeholders to encourage companies to mitigate climate change, this analysis reveals that CalPERS and CalSTRS voted this year to oppose shareholder proposals at fossil fuel companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, cease exploration activity, and transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
"This latest report today shows that CalPERS and CalSTRS misled us--their members--by voting against climate resolutions, despite claiming their engagement with fossil fuel companies will help bring about needed change," said Charles Toombs, CFA President. "Studies have already shown a failure to divest in fossil fuels in the last decade cost us an estimated $11.9 billion in returns. The systems lost us money and are actively supporting companies opposed to our present and future needs to combat ecological changes and support environmental justice. It's long past time for lawmakers to do what these retirement pensions cannot: protect our future investments and pass Senate Bill 1173 this year to start the process of divesting from fossil fuels."
CalPERS and CalSTRS also wildly exaggerated the cost of divestment to the Senate Appropriations Committee last month, claiming figures as high as $100 million when their own consulting firm, Wilshire and Associates, has shown that the transaction cost associated with selling assets is "considered negligible."
Furthermore, the funds' highest profile shareholder action--replacing 3 of 12 ExxonMobil board members--changes to Exxon's board have not resulted in any meaningful progress to address climate change. Despite claiming "successful" engagement by CalSTRS and CalPERS, ExxonMobil, like the fossil fuel and banking industries in general, persists in climate-wrecking behavior which puts California public pensioners at financial and climate risk.
The full report can be found here.
The chart here details NO votes on climate proposals from CalPERS and CalSTRS at five major fossil fuel companies.
QUOTE SHEET
"It is with supreme disappointment that I have watched my former colleagues at CALSTRS and CALPERS ignore the growing financial, geopolitical and climate risks that now converge and have eliminated any basis for investing in the oil and gas sector," said Tom Sanzillo, Director of Financial Analysis, Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. "They know better and perhaps the voice of the California legislature can remind them of their fiduciary duty. Divestment will serve to defend the funds against the loss of value from competitive market forces and to stand against the worst excesses of the industry we are seeing in the Ukraine."
"The fact that CalSTRS and CalPERS are actively voting against any climate policy WITHIN fossil fuel companies should make it clear to everyone that these oil companies and those who support them will never take the adequate steps to prevent total climate catastrophe," said Raven Fonseca Jensen (18), Campaign Coordinator, Youth vs. Apocalypse. "These companies' only interest is profit, and they will always choose that over human life. We need a complete break with the fossil fuel industry if we want to see any kind of climate justice."
"The climate crisis is the gravest trouble that humans have ever wandered into--and we'll only get out of it if we have the courage to take on those whose lies, denial, and vested interest stand in the way of change," said Bill McKibben, Founder, Third Act. "CalPERS and CalSTRS should never have helped the oil companies defeat climate action--but then, they should long since have ended their involvement with them at all."
"The coalition's report confirms what environmental advocates across the state have been loudly exclaiming for decades: it's past time that California public agencies stop investing money in fossil fuel companies," said Brandon Dawson, director of Sierra Club California. "Despite CalPERS and CalSTRS's best efforts at stakeholder engagement, polluting industries like oil and gas have consistently refused to take necessary actions towards addressing their emissions. We must divest from them, and continue to hold these industries responsible for their role in harming California's air quality, environment, and communities."
"Divestment from fossil fuels companies is an investment in our future. Pension funds must live up to their fiduciary duty, and protect pensioners and climate alike, by wielding their institutional investor power for climate resolutions at banks' shareholder meetings. Yet CalPERS & CalSTRS voted against all climate resolutions at all big banks and major fossil fuel companies," said Amy Gray, Senior Climate Finance Strategist at Stand.earth. "CalPERS and CalSTRS are hiding behind the fool's errand of shareholder engagement with fossil fuel companies while talking a big game about engaging on climate. They are not only actively voting against climate, they continually obstruct climate action while communities experience devastating drought and wildfires. It's morally reprehensible."
"I do NOT want my pension dollars or my tax dollars invested in climate destruction fossil fuels. Our money should be invested in forward thinking green energy and climate restoration innovation," said Carol Van Sant, CalSTRS member, 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations.
Since 2014 CalSTRS has been touting the effectiveness of engaging with fossil fuel companies as opposed to their beneficiaries' requests that they divest. So much for engagement! BP, Chevron, Eni, Equinor, ExxonMobil, Repsol, Shell, and TotalEnergies are involved in over 200 expansion projects on track for approval from 2022 through 2025. Engaging with fossil fuel companies in a lost cause. To quote UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres: Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness," said Jane Vosburg, CalSTRS beneficiary and Fossil Free California President.
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
'Exploiting Religious Faith for Personal Profit,' Trump Pockets $1.5 Million From Branded Bible
“Trump wraps himself in Christianity, wraps the Constitution inside a Bible, and is persuading supporters to finance his political brand while enriching himself," said one critic.
Jul 07, 2026
President Donald Trump has provided "a stunning example of political pandering and exploiting religious faith for personal profit," said a religious freedom advocate on Tuesday after financial disclosure forms revealed one of the latest ways in which the president has profited from the presidency: this time, by licensing his name to the "God Bless the USA" Bible sold by supporter and country music star Lee Greenwood.
The Bible bearing the president's name is being sold for $99.99—as are the "First Lady Edition" and the "Vice Presidential Edition."
According to his latest financial disclosures, the president has earned a total of $1,514,521 from placing his name on the religious text in a package that also includes copies of the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the handwritten chorus of Greenwood's 1984 song "Good Bless the USA."
About $1.3 million was earned while the president was campaigning ahead of the 2024 election, while about $208,000 flowed to the president in 2025.
Anna Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), said that "Trump wraps himself in Christianity, wraps the Constitution inside a Bible, and is persuading supporters to finance his political brand while enriching himself to the tune of more than $1.5 million."
“As all things are with Trump, this has always been about money,” said Gaylor. "It is a stunning example of political pandering and exploiting religious faith for personal profit.”
Hemant Mehta of The Friendly Atheist noted that the disclosure also showed about $1.4 billion that the president made last year from "crypto-related schemes" and $80 million from lawsuits against media companies including CBS and ABC.
Trump has suggested the Bible venture is closest to his heart, saying in a video promoting the basic version of the "God Bless the USA Bible"—which retails at $59.99—that the religious text is his "favorite book."
"Christians are under siege," he added in the video. "We must protect content that is pro-God. We love God, and we have to protect anything that is pro-God… Our Founding Fathers did a tremendous thing when they built America on Judeo-Christian values."
The notion that the country was founded as a Christian nation has long been a fixation of the far right and has been deeply embedded in the president's celebrations marking the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence—but historians say there is no evidence for the claim.
“The only rules they wrote about religion were ones that keep religion at arm’s length," Princeton University professor Kevin Kruse told The Washington Post as the White House planned an all-day prayer event on National Mall in May. "There’s a difference between saying America is a nation with many Christians in it and that America is a nation dedicated to Christianity and defined by it.”
Both Mehta and FFRF noted that Trump has "struggled to discuss even the most basic aspects of the Bible, declining on multiple occasions to identify a favorite verse or even express a preference between the Old and New Testaments."
"Trump’s Bible enterprise demonstrates how easily religious symbolism can be weaponized to enrich politicians while undermining the constitutional principle of state/church separation that protects believers and nonbelievers alike," said FFRF.
Gaylor added that "religion should never be a marketing strategy."
“Nor should the office of the presidency become a platform for selling religious merchandise," she said. "Americans deserve leaders who respect both religion and government enough to keep them separate—not presidents who see faith as another licensing opportunity.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Troy Jackson Files to Explore Senate Bid as Graham Platner Faces Growing Calls to Exit
"If Graham’s stepping away, I am very, very interested and think I’m the best person to replace him," said Jackson, the former Maine Senate president.
Jul 07, 2026
Former Maine Senate President Troy Jackson filed federal paperwork on Tuesday to explore a US Senate bid after a sexual assault allegation against current Democratic nominee Graham Platner prompted a torrent of calls for him to drop out of the race.
Jackson, a fifth-generation logger who lost Maine's Democratic gubernatorial primary last month, was among those urging Platner to end his Senate campaign following Politico's reporting late Monday, writing on social media that "there is no place in our politics for sexual violence."
In an interview with the Bangor Daily News, which first reported the news of Jackson's filing, the former gubernatorial candidate said that "if Graham’s stepping away, I am very, very interested and think I’m the best person to replace him.”
Platner denied the sexual assault allegation and, as of this writing, has yet to drop out of the race, though his departure is widely seen as a foregone conclusion as his most prominent supporters—including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—push him to exit. One unnamed source told The New York Times that Platner is seeking a "guarantee" that he "would be replaced by someone in agreement with 'the values and vision and policy agenda'" that he articulated throughout his campaign.
Jackson, like Platner, was endorsed by Sanders and has expressed support for Medicare for All, stronger union protections, wage increases, and other progressive priorities. In recent months, Jackson has joined Sanders and Platner at "Fighting Oligarchy" rallies where the former Maine Senate leader said American workers are being robbed by a billionaire class bent on enriching itself no matter the societal costs.
"I am running for the people who worked their entire lives and still can’t afford to retire because the economic system in this country is rigged against them," Jackson said during a Labor Day rally last year. "And I’m running for all the workers... who’ve been told that they’re replaceable and that their lives are disposable.”
Platner, who backed Jackson's gubernatorial bid, can be replaced as the Democratic nominee in the US Senate race against Republican incumbent Sen. Susan Collins if he withdraws by July 13. By a process yet to be determined, the Maine Democratic Party would have until July 27 to select a replacement.
The New York Times reported that "the options under discussion include a convention or a statewide caucus in late July."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Refuting Trump Claims of Fraud, Analysis Shows Millions Dropped Health Insurance Due to GOP Cuts
"They didn’t cheat their way in. They simply can’t afford to stay in the program."
Jul 07, 2026
President Donald Trump's administration has tried spinning government data showing millions of people have dropped their health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act by claiming these people were defrauding the program.
However, an analysis published Tuesday by Public Citizen refutes this claim, finding that most people who lost their ACA coverage did so because they could not afford to keep it after congressional Republicans let enhanced health insurance subsidies expire last year.
Data released last month showed that nationwide ACA enrollment fell from 22.3 million people in 2025 to just 17.5 million in 2026, a drop of nearly five million people over the span of just a year.
US Health and Human Services Director Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz have both said this drop is due to the administration's efforts to root out fraud, with Oz even saying that current enrollment in the program is at "too high of a number."
The Public Citizen report, however, finds that "the decline in... enrollment this year has nothing to do with removing deceitful enrollees," as what "the numbers show is that American families are being priced out of coverage."
According to Public Citizen's analysis, the best way for a fraudster to game the system created by the ACA would be to falsely claim to have an income right around the poverty line, which would ensure the fraudulent enrollee would get a higher subsidy to purchase coverage.
In other words, if the administration were really pursuing fraud on a mass scale, it would likely mean a drop in enrollees who are claiming incomes near the poverty line.
"But that’s not what is happening," the report explains. "The people losing coverage are concentrated at incomes well above the poverty line. They are low- and middle-income families whose premiums doubled after subsidies were cut. They didn’t cheat their way in. They simply can’t afford to stay in the program."
In fact, the report finds that enrollment is actually growing among people who claim income right at the poverty line, which could suggest there is more prospective fraud in the program than before.
However, the report authors do not think that this increase is due to fraud, but rather to "people living just below the poverty line in states that refused to expand Medicaid" and whose income is not low enough to qualify for Medicaid, but too high to qualify for ACA subsidies.
"To escape the coverage gap, some have reported incomes just above the poverty line," states the report, "enough to be eligible for the ACA marketplace."
The ACA isn't the only federal healthcare program under pressure from Trump administration and GOP policies, as cuts to Medicaid included in Republicans' 2025 budget law are projected by the Congressional Budget Office to leave more than 10 million fewer people enrolled in the program by 2034.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular