Regulations to limit carbon emissions are a key ingredient in President Obama’s second-term climate-change agenda, but environmental activists say policymakers still haven’t gone far enough to combat global warming. A grassroots movement has bubbled up in response to put pressure on public and private institutions and municipal governments to end investments in fossil fuels.
The past year has seen a groundswell of support for such divestment. Student groups and environmental activists have launched close to 400 campaigns calling on American universities and colleges to withdraw support for fossil fuels by pulling their investments in companies with large coal, natural gas, and petroleum reserves.
And political disillusionment has been a major driver of the movement. “We have a government that has been taken over by the fossil-fuel industry, so we’re going to pressure the fossil-fuel industry itself,” Chloe Maxmin, a Harvard University student involved in a campaign to persuade the university to divest from fossil fuels, told The Washington Post.
Environmental groups have also focused on political inaction in making the case for divestment. “Not only has Congress not taken up this issue but members are actively working against efforts to regulate greenhouse gases,” Matt Grason, one of the founders of DC Divest, a campaign to encourage the District of Columbia to divest in fossil fuels, told National Journal.
DC Divest has made this line of attack a central part of its campaign. “If we know we need to stop burning fossil fuels, why don’t we?” the group’s website asks. “Because fossil fuel companies spend billions to lobby Congress to do nothing and confuse the public about the effects of their products. And it’s working.”
Some politicians are acting at the local level, however. In April, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn led a coalition of mayors and city council members from nine other cities, including San Francisco; Boulder, Colo.; and Madison, Wis., in making a commitment to work toward fossil-fuel divestment in their respective cities.
Closer to home, members of the D.C. Council are also pushing for divestment. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, a Democrat, and a number of other council members introduced divestment legislation in September that was subject to a hearing this week.
The bill in question would require the city to pull its holdings in the 200 publicly traded companies with the largest fossil-fuel reserves from the District’s retirement funds and Health Annuity Trust. If it passes, the measure would be largely symbolic. But it would send a strong signal that the political will exists to advance the cause, activists say.
The road to divestment is rocky, however.
Oil and gas industry stakeholders have criticized the movement and financial advisers have debated whether or not divestment is well-considered fiscal policy.
Harvard President Drew Faust made headlines this fall when she announced that the university, which holds the largest endowment of any U.S. academic institution, would not divest in fossil-fuel companies.
In an open letter, Faust argued that universities should steer clear of political entanglements.
“We should … be very wary of steps intended to instrumentalize our endowment in ways that would appear to position the University as a political actor rather than an academic institution,” she commented.
On the political end of the spectrum, a decision to divest in the District of Columbia could also face federal roadblocks. After the council passes legislation, Congress has a 30-day window during which time it could pass a joint resolution to overturn the bill. If the president approved the resolution it would effectively deny the bill a chance to become law.
Even if this were to happen, however, it would still increase visibility around the issue.
“If D.C. were to divest I think it would have national and even international implications,” Grason said, adding: “And if Congress were to take up the issue, it would force a national conversation that would go far beyond the nation’s capital.”
What We're Following See More »
"Even if House Republicans manage to get enough members of their party on board with the latest version of their health care bill, they will face another battle in the Senate: whether the bill complies with the chamber’s arcane ... Byrd rule, which stipulates all provisions in a reconciliation bill must affect federal spending and revenues in a way that is not merely incidental." Democrats should have the advantage in that fight, "unless the Senate pulls another 'nuclear option.'”
The House has passed a one-week spending bill that will avert a government shutdown which was set to begin at midnight. Lawmakers now have an extra week to come to a longer agreement which is expected to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year in September. The legislation now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass before President Trump signs it.
President Trump’s portrayal of an effort to funnel more Medicaid dollars to Puerto Rico as a "bailout" is complicating negotiations over a continuing resolution on the budget. "House Democrats are now requiring such assistance as a condition for supporting the continuing resolution," a position that the GOP leadership is amenable to. "But Mr. Trump’s apparent skepticism aligns him with conservative House Republicans inclined to view its request as a bailout, leaving the deal a narrow path to passage in Congress."
Democrats in the House are threatening to shut down the government if Republicans expedite a vote on a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, said Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer Thursday. Lawmakers have introduced a one-week spending bill to give themselves an extra week to reach a long-term funding deal, which seemed poised to pass easily. However, the White House is pressuring House Republicans to take a vote on their Obamacare replacement Friday to give Trump a legislative victory, though it is still not clear that they have the necessary votes to pass the health care bill. This could go down to the wire.