The thing is renewables are cheaper and don't prop up state terrorism like fossil fuels, hence they're less profitable for their owners.


@3 oh don't be so sure. Green energy provides many opportunities for the powerful to shit on the less powerful. The UK is meddling in Bolivia to ensure access to lithium, a key ingredient in the batteries needed for EVs for example:
Then there is all that child labor in the Congo related to mining operations there. I think there is enough evil to go around, and satisfy those hungry for state terrorism, regarding green energy.


Missing from the discussion? Taxpayers. Under the pension plan, as bargained with unions, and also likely subject to labor law, vested employees have a legal right to receive X% of their paycheck until they die. That is currently (mostly) funded by investments. If taxpayers are willing to fund that with tax dollars (aka higher taxes and cuts to services) then we don’t have a problem. The SCERS pension board is there to protect taxpayers, let’s not spin this as anything else.


2017 is 5 years ago. Energy has rebounded since then. The energy sector is probably producing good returns and yields for the pension plan these days.


heck, Exxon is up 26% just this quarter.


Investment in stocks of a given company don't actually give that company any money. They give some other investor money. After an IPO, or stock offering (which most large established companies no longer need to do), no investment money flows directly to the company.

So what's better?

a) Seattle Pension Board divests itself of its energy stock. It incurs significant capital gains (harming the fund), and loses its ability to vote in shareholder elections in those companies. Corporate dividends go to a new person (who may or may not care anything about environmental issues), and no longer benefit Seattle. The companies in question don't care; the transaction has nothing to do with them.
b) Seattle Pension Board keeps its energy stock. It incurs no taxes (helping the fund), and can vote in shareholder elections to change the operation of those companies. Corporate dividends go to Seattle, which can either use them to fund pension members, or potentially other city efforts. The companies in question don't care; the transaction has nothing to do with them.

Investment in a company is not support of a company. If anything, it's the most plausible path for motivating change at the company via shareholder activism.


I'd wait until the prices on oil companies peaks... we still have a way to go. . . just follow Warren Buffet's example.

Then sell your oil stocks and buy something else that help the planet warm up.

If the plant keeps heating up we won't need fossil fuels...because we won't need to heat our homes.

Pretty simple really. Its nature's way.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.