I'm guessing we're first on the planet too, but who knows. I previously wrote a memo suggesting we drop investments in fossil fuel companies (the big push by 350.org), and we directed staff to return to us with a proposal. It's now available (to RTFD, click here for the policy and scroll to Attachment 5 to get to the memo and discussion). It's pretty simple - no investments in the top 200 fossil fuel companies, relying primarily but not exclusively on third-party documentation of what constitutes the top 200 companies. Our district doesn't control pension funds, so I'll ask that we also include a letter to the state CalPERS board urging them to take the same step that we're doing.
Along with being the first water district in the solar system to have a climate divestment policy after the August 27 meeting (assuming I'm not counting my chickens too early), I think we might also be the third government agency to do it. Reading through the 350.org list of twenty cities, Seattle and Santa Monica are the only cities with a controlling policy in place. A handful of others have passed advisory measures but don't mandate the change, some aren't currently invested in fossil fuel companies but don't have a policy, and the rest are still investigating the idea.
I think there are a fair number of water districts like ours with significant climate awareness and political responsiveness, so I hope this will spread. As for its actual impact on those companies, even if it spreads widely, that's less clear. The pool of money available to be invested in those companies would have to shrink a lot before the companies are forced to pay a premium in dividends or interest rates in order to get investments. I suppose it could happen, but I think the primary effect is cultural, creating an awareness that they are basically little different from tobacco companies and the apartheid-era South African investments.
There is a difference from South Africa in that it wouldn't be good if we halted all fossil fuel use immediately, but somehow I'm not too worried about that outcome.
Congratulations Brian, and well done.
ReplyDeleteis there ANY effort for the district to decrease its fossil fuel usage for normal operations?
ReplyDeleteJohn Puma
Just in case anybunny was wondering why Eli invite Brian to RR.
ReplyDeleteWell done B:)
Thanks folks!
ReplyDeleteJohn P - we've committed to carbon neutrality by 2020. Measuring that isn't easy though. We offset our own emissions with efforts to get home users to conserve water, and less use of heated water is the primary means of getting offsets.
It also helps that we're not LA and don't have to pump water over a big mountain range.
I don't think you're doing anything helpful until you get the entire community to only use carbon free sugar
ReplyDeleteEunice
That's sweet of you Eunice
ReplyDeleteps, while you're getting the fossil fuels out .... http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-copper-alzheimers-disease-20130819,0,5977613.story
ReplyDeleteEunice - years ago I sat on the Coffee Committee to get my old law firm to switch coffee brands (not easy) to an environmentally responsible version. I argued that the new version was dolphin-safe in order to speed up acceptance.
ReplyDeleteHank - well that's interesting. Our pipelines are steel. Can't imagine how much copper pipelines would cost. The issue from the link then would be the pipes that take the water into homes.
All of you are quite UN-ified! I'm guessing that not one of you knows who Maurice Strong is and how HE influenced the 'sustainability/global warming/climate change/water conservation (Baca Ranch anyone?) and whatever else that can be contrived as a movement through mass media collusion and manipulation'
ReplyDeleteMaurice Strong, international man of luggage? Yes dear all the bunnies know. You are a bit late to that farce. We have had our laugh and moved on.
ReplyDelete