Read on for more information about divestment - why the Climate Justice Steering Committee recommends that we divest and reinvest, what the Investment Committee says, and more. Then do your own research and come prepared to discuss and vote on Sunday! 1. Isnt reallocating our funds a waste of time? Couldnt we be doing something more effective at bringing about real change? The thinking of the Climate Justice Steering Committee is that the moral imperative is the most important reason--managing our finances in a way that reflects our values, according to Board Policy 3.8, Investment Policy. This is not an economic strategy, but an ethical one. By moving away from fossil fuels, we would join a rapidly growing movement of faith communities, universities, foundations, cities, pension funds, and other organizations that believe we must speak out against the practices of the fossil fuel companies on the CT200 list who are engaged in the most destructive environmental practices. You probably heard that Stanford University is going to purge its $18 billion endowment of coal stock. The movement to divest is growing so rapidly we cant keep up, so there may even be some financial benefit, although no one can responsibly predict that. 2. So, whats next? What are you going to do after the vote on the resolution? After this step, however the vote turns out, we hope to move on to more positive actions--finding ways to become less dependent on fossil fuels, so that rather than burning up the 20% of remaining fossil fuels that can be safely extracted, we can use it to make things we need. A comprehensive carbon tax, similar to one enacted in the Canadian Province of British Columbia, is a logical next step. Helping Rep. Blumenauers U.S. House Resolution to raise the road fuel tax will go a long way to curbing unnecessary driving, and provide funds for infrastructure repair and development. We are also planning events to help people cope with the inevitable challenges that lie ahead of us in the very near future. Well also be talking about a ride sharing program for UUFC, and maybe growing some of our own food. 3. What are the financial implications of this resolution? No one can predict with certainty, but most likely they will be negligible. There could be some financial benefit. Fossil fuel stocks have underperformed for several years. The oil and gas industries are NOT listed among Morningstars top 20 best-performing stock sectors. And coal is near the bottom of Morningstars list. What sectors are doing better? Computer systems, pharmaceuticals, apparel manufacturing, even solar energy. 4. If we move our endowment money to another investment fund, will there be fees? Do we know the rate or the percentage? Just normal management fees, which we pay anyway. There is little expense moving into/out of funds. Its a negligible part of investing in a buy and hold pattern common in endowments. 5. How do the Investment Committee members feel about this resolution? One of them said, Our Investment Committee wants to match our portfolio to our values. That summarizes what they have told us as a group. Individually, they have some additional ideas. One of them is very excited about working on reallocation. Another wants us to be visionary with our investments on into the future. They caution us to remember that the purpose of the Fellowship Endowment is to ensure a predictable income without compromising our principles or our principal. The purpose is to do good things as a community. Nevertheless, we want our endowment funds to do well, so if the resolution passes, the Investment Committee will proceed cautiously with reallocation. 6. Is there any reason NOT to pass the resolution? Large shareholders with big endowments say they want to retain enough shares in their funds to engage in shareholder action--meaning they can submit shareholder resolutions recommending that their funds divest from fossil fuels. This was discussed at the UUA level, but it does not apply to UUFC. Another perspective might go something like this: When we divest we engage in corporate shunning. Shunning is a practice considered coercive in other intentional communities. Maybe shunning is warranted, maybe not; but we must be prepared to answer the charge that we are hasty to exclude those with whom we need dialogue.
Posted on: Tue, 13 May 2014 22:10:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015