“If I were running a large university, like Columbia or Harvard, I would have to think very carefully about whether I’m not violating the law by holding these things.”
From InsideClimateNews.org:
“If I were running a large university, like Columbia or Harvard, I would have to think very carefully about whether I’m not violating the law by holding these things.”
From InsideClimateNews.org:
I feel there is now no limit to how far politicians will put opinion above duty. Some future generation will look back and say “political action saved the world”, while they huddle in the cold and dark. Crazy times.
Investments by institutions in so called ‘fossil fuels’ are some of the most profitable investments they can make for their employees retirement funds.
How will those institutions who divest in such profitable returns explain it to their employees when they lose their retirements?
The pressure on investors is created by a flimsy set of suppositions:
Supposition 1: A 2C global warming target is internationally agreed.
Supposition 2: Carbon Restrictions are enacted by governments to comply with the target.
Supposition 3: Demand for oil and gas products is reduced due to restrictions
Supposition 4: Oil and gas assets become uneconomic for lack of demand.
Supposition 5: Company net worth declines by depressed assets and investors lose value.
Behind this chain of thoughts is revealed the alternate reality inhabited by activists.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/05/01/behind-the-alarmist-scene/
I wonder which AG will have the nerve to indict George Soros for his purchase oc coal company (depressed) stocks?
When Oxford’s then Vice-Chancellor [he is now president of NYU] proposed last year that the university would no longer invest in coal or tar sands, I told my College [Univ] that I would discontinue my modest annual giving until this policy was clarified or withdrawn. That is one small way an alumnus can fight against investment embargoes encouraged by the state in at least some cases.