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 »
The Supreme Court announced "that it would consider a challenge to President Trump’s latest effort to limit travel from countries said to pose a threat to the nation’s security." The case concerns Trump's most recent attempt to make good on a campaign promise "tainted by religious animus" and only questionably justified by national security concerns. The decision to take the case, called Trump v. Hawaii, comes almost exactly a year after Trump issued the first travel ban. The ban under consideration affects Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea.
Trump wants to move the two grants, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas grant and the Drug Free Communities Act, to the Justice and Health and Human Services departments, respectively. This would result in a $300 million plus reduction in funding, about 95 percent of the cost of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. "'I’m baffled at the idea of cutting the office or reducing it significantly and taking away its programs in the middle of an epidemic,'" said Regina LaBelle, who served as ONDCP chief of staff during the Obama administration. This is the second time the Trump Administration has proposed gutting the agency.
A new report assembled by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has identified more than 500 potential conflicts of interest in President Trump's first year. First, the report notes, Trump spent 122 days at his properties during his first year. He has been accompanied by 70 federal officials and 30 members of Congress. "Second, far from this signaled access to power being an empty promise, those who patronize President Trump’s businesses have, in fact, gained access to the president and his inner circle." Lastly, about 40 special interest groups and 11 foreign governments have held events at Trump properties.