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.
New report from University of Waterloo says benefits of divesting from fossil fuels are environmental and financial.
New research shows that U.S. public pension funds would be $21 billion richer had they divested from fossil fuels a decade ago.
The study, out of the University of Waterloo in partnership with Stand.earth, analyzed the public equity portfolios of six major U.S. public pension funds, which collectively represent approximately 3.4 million people, to determine the effect divesting from their energy holdings would have had. In total, researchers estimate that the pension funds would have seen a return on their investments that was 13 per cent higher on average.
Another analysis of the same eight U.S. public pension funds included in the report found that the carbon footprint that would have been reduced had they divested 10 years ago is equivalent to the emissions for powering 35 million homes per year.
Researchers say the report proves that divesting creates additional financial value, lowers exposure to climate risks, and reduced the carbon footprint of portfolios.
“Influential investors, like these large public pension funds, can bring about positive change on a few fronts,” said Dr. Olaf Weber, professor in the School of Environment, Enterprise and Development at Waterloo. “Energy divestments can create higher returns for the funds, which leads to higher returns for the beneficiaries and reduced exposure to climate risks. Consequently, it leads to safer pensions.”
The report also explored ways that recent changes in the performance of the energy sector due to major global events—such as COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine—would have influenced the funds. During the last three years, the value of the fossil fuel sector went up because of the reduced oil supply from Russia. Hence, divestment has not been that attractive from a financial point of view. However, the report found that even in times of high performance in the fossil fuel sector, divestment does not reduce financial returns in any significant way.
“If climate chaos like fires and floods weren’t enough, this latest report strengthens the case even further that public pension funds must divest from fossil fuels as part of meeting their fiduciary duties,” said Amy Gray, senior climate finance strategist at Stand.earth. “As the longest-term investors for workers, the last thing pension funds should be doing is gambling with retirement and deferred wages of their members.”
Future work will include going into more detail regarding the emissions of particular portfolio holdings on a per-holdings basis or analyzing the emissions of specific companies and then excluding those with the highest emissions.
“This new Waterloo data hits home for me. My mom is a beneficiary of a public pension, and my family is depending on that retirement income for security,” said Miguel Alatorre Jr., Fossil Free California. “It’s unconscionable to me that these funds are investing in fossil fuel companies driving climate change, heat waves, wildfires and flooding, all while losing income for workers.”
The report, The Impact of Energy Investments on the Financial Value and the Carbon Footprint of Pension Funds, was presented at the IEEFA Energy Finance Conference on June 22.
Stand.earth (formerly ForestEthics) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with offices in Canada and the United States that is known for its groundbreaking research and successful corporate and citizens engagement campaigns to create new policies and industry standards in protecting forests, advocating the rights of indigenous peoples, and protecting the climate. Visit us at
Unionized machinists are set to vote on the contract on Thursday.
A tentative deal made early Sunday morning between aerospace giant Boeing and the union that represents more than 33,000 of its workers was a testament to the "collective voice" of the employees, said the union's bargaining committee—but members signaled they may reject the offer and vote to strike.
The company and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) District 751 reached an agreement that if approved by members in a scheduled Thursday vote, would narrowly avoid a strike that was widely expected just day ago, when Boeing and the bargaining committee were still far apart in talks over wages, health coverage, and other crucial issues for unionized workers.
The negotiations went on for six months and resulted on Sunday in an agreement on 25% general wage increases over the tentative contract's four years, a reduction in healthcare costs for workers, an increase in the amount Boeing would contribute to retirement plans, and a commitment to building the company's next aircraft in Washington state. The union had come to the table with a demand for a 40% raise over the life of the contract.
"Members will now have only one set of progression steps in a career, and vacation will be available for use as you earn it," negotiating team leaders Jon Holden and Brandon Bryant told members. "We were able to secure upgrades for certain job codes and improved overtime limits, and we now have a seat at the table regarding the safety and quality of the production system."
Jordan Zakarin of the pro-labor media organization More Perfect Union reported that feedback he'd received from members indicated "a strike may still be on the cards," and hundreds of members of the IAM District 751 Facebook group replied, "Strike!" on a post regarding the tentative deal.
The potential contract comes as Boeing faces federal investigations, including a criminal probe by the Department of Justice, into a blowout of a portion of the fuselage on an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 jetliner that took place when the plane was mid-flight in January.
The Federal Aviation Administration has placed a limit on the number of 737 MAX planes Boeing can produce until it meets certain safety and manufacturing standards.
As The Seattle Timesreported on Friday, while Boeing has claimed it is slowing down production and emphasizing safety inspections in order to ensure quality, mechanics at the company's plant in Everett, Washington have observed a "chaotic workplace" ahead of the potential strike, with managers "pushing partially assembled 777 jets through the assembly line, leaving tens of thousands of unfinished jobs due to defects and parts shortages to be completed out of sequence on each airplane."
Holden and Bryant said Sunday that "the company finds itself in a tough position due to many self-inflicted missteps."
"It is IAM members who will bring this company back on track," they said. "As has been said many times, there is no Boeing without the IAM."
Without 33,000 IAM members to assemble and inspect planes, a strike would put Boeing in an even worse position as it works to meet manufacturing benchmarks.
On Thursday, members will vote on whether or not to accept Boeing's offer and on reaffirming a nearly unanimous strike vote that happened over the summer.
If a majority of members reject the deal and at least two-thirds reaffirm the strike vote, a strike would be called.
If approved, the new deal would be the first entirely new contract for Boeing workers since 2008. Boeing negotiated with the IAM over the last contract twice in 2011 and 2013, in talks that resulted in higher healthcare costs for employees and an end to their traditional pension program.
"Expressing one's vote will be useless as long as Macron is in power," said one demonstrator.
In cities and towns across France on Saturday, more than 100,000 people answered the call from the left-wing political party La France Insoumise for mass protests against President Emmanuel Macron's selection of a right-wing prime minister.
The demonstrations came two months after the left coalition won more seats than Macron's centrist coalition or the far-right Rassemblement National (RN) in the National Assembly and two days after the president announced that Michel Barnier, the right-wing former Brexit negotiator for the European Union, would lead the government.
The selection was made after negotiations between Macron and RN leader Marine Le Pen, leading protesters on Saturday to accuse the president of a "denial of democracy."
"Expressing one's vote will be useless as long as Macron is in power," a protester named Manon Bonijol toldAl Jazeera.
A poll released on Friday by Elabe showed that 74% of French people believed Macron had disregarded the results of July's snap parliamentary elections, and 55% said the election had been "stolen."
Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the leader of La France Insoumise (LFI), or France Unbowed, also accused Macron of "stealing the election" in a speech at the demonstration in Paris on Saturday.
"Democracy is not just the art of accepting you have won but the humility to accept you have lost," Mélenchon told protesters. "I call you for what will be a long battle."
He added that "the French people are in rebellion. They have entered into revolution."
Macron's centrist coalition won about 160 assembly seats out of 577 in July, compared to the left coalition's 180. The RN won about 140.
Barnier's Les Républicains (LR) party won fewer than 50 parliamentary seats. French presidents have generally named prime ministers, who oversee domestic policy, from the party with the most seats in the National Assembly.
Barnier signaled on Friday that he would largely defend Macron's pro-business policies and could unveil stricter anti-immigration reforms. Macron has enraged French workers and the left with policies including a retirement age hike last year.
Protests also took place in cities including Nantes, Nice, Montpellier, Marseilles, and Strasbourg.
All four left-wing parties within the Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP) coalition have announced plans to vote for a motion of no confidence against Barnier.
The RN has not committed to backing Barnier's government yet and leaders have said they are waiting to see what policies he presents to the National Assembly before deciding how to proceed in a no confidence vote.
"Our fight to ensure that voters—not politicians—have the final say is far from over," said one organizer.
Campaigners who last month celebrated the success of their effort to place an abortion rights referendum on November ballots in Missouri faced uncertainty about the ballot initiative Friday night, after a judge ruled that organizers had made an error on their petitions that rendered the measure invalid.
Judge Christopher Limbaugh of Cole County Circuit Court sided with pro-forced pregnancy lawmakers and activists who had argued that Missourians for Constitutional Freedom had not sufficiently explained the ramifications of the Right to Reproductive Freedom initiative, or Amendment 3, which would overturn the state's near-total abortion ban.
The state constitution has a requirement that initiative petitions include "an enacting clause and the full text of the measure," and clarify the laws or sections of the constitution that would be repealed if the amendment were passed.
Missourians for Constitutional Freedom included the full text of the measure on their petitions, which were signed by more than 380,000 residents—more than twice the number of signatures needed to place the question on ballots.
Opponents claimed, though, that organizers did not explain to signatories the meaning of "a person's fundamental right to reproductive freedom."
Limbaugh accused the group of a "blatant violation" of the constitution.
Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for the group, said it "remains unwavering in [its] mission to ensure Missourians have the right to vote on reproductive freedom on November 5."
"The court's decision to block Amendment 3 from appearing on the ballot is a profound injustice to the initiative petition process and undermines the rights of the... 380,000 Missourians who signed our petition," said Sweet. "Our fight to ensure that voters—not politicians—have the final say is far from over."
Limbaugh said he would wait until Tuesday, when the state is set to print ballots, to formally issue an injunction instructing the secretary of state to remove the question.
Missourians for Constitutional Freedom said it plans to appeal to a higher court, but if the court declines to act, the question would be struck from ballots.
As the case plays out in the coming days, said Missouri state Rep. Eric Woods (D-18), "it's a good time for a reminder that Missouri's current extreme abortion ban has ZERO exceptions for rape or incest. And Missouri Republicans are hell bent on keeping it that way."
The ruling came weeks after the Arkansas Supreme Court disqualified an abortion rights amendment from appearing on November ballots, saying organizers had failed to correctly submit paperwork verifying that paid canvassers had been properly trained.