The climate crisis is THE existential issue of our time. It affects the entire world!
If we divest from the fossil fuel industry which I fully support, these monies should be re-invested in clean energy.
Another way of looking at this — millions of acres of Canadian forest are burning and the plume of smoke is affecting the air that everyone breaths throughout the Northeast — and yet you are focussing on apologizing to people.
Honestly, it’s like re-arranging the deck chairs of the Blue Boat Titanic.
Janet,
Ah! I see what you mean. Yes to divestment! And yes to investing in clean energy! I’m with you on both of those! Hear hear!
I’m going to vote for the resolution, because I want the UUCEF to divest and and I want the UUCEF to invest in clean energy.
Whether any conversation is stopped is something that we can decide no matter how this vote goes. (Although we are UU’s, so I’m pretty sure the conversation will not stop. The responsible search for truth continues.) Same goes for exploration of reparations, and further work on climate protection and social justice.
I think Scott Steward’s idea is great: $1M if divestment takes to the end of 2024; another $2M if divestment takes to the end of 2025. Etc. The reparations task force could make that happen – might require follow up GA consent.
I should have made it clear that the idea for an amendment that includes divestment and a progressively higher portion of the divestment paid to reparations the longer the divestment takes, is an idea that came from proceeding business resolution pro and con sponsored discussions (distilled by my fellow congregants).
When thinking about a divestment + reparations amendment, it occurred to me that reparations could be viewed as “fine,” Reparations, in my view, are our responsibility to consider and implement and if the delegates vote for divestment with reparations (graduated or all at once), that is not a judgement on the committee whose talents we will continue to rely on in managing funds (divested, used for reparations and otherwise.)
The committee has been clear about needing firm guidance.
Steward, About 5 days ago I posted that I thought the resolution was premature. I’m not so sure now. I would like to know why the 2014 Resolution was not followed. Needing funds in fossil fuel companies to be able to advocate is not true (and I’m not sure how effective common stock holder efforts are any way.) At the very least I would like to see compliance with the original divestment requirements. A concern is whether delegates feel they have sufficient investment expertise to make an informed decision.
Concerning reparations, this amendment gives more structure to how reparations are directed. AMENDMENT #2 PROPOSED BY DELEGATE ANTOINETTE SCULLY
I also think the UUA must support our youth leaders (I’m and old white woman) who are going to bear the brunt of our fossil fuel excesses.
any way, your post has helped my thinking.
With buying 7000 shares of Conoco, it was more than inaction, that is a definite action. I agree that there needs to be accountability, part of my reason for supporting this.
One does need to hold shares in order to propose shareholder resolutions, which is what they mean by “shareholder advocacy”. That would be a fair point, and the 2014 resolution did provide for that—but even under the new SEC regulations for that, if one has held the shares for 3 years, that amount is only $2000 worth. That increases to $25,000 worth for shares held only 1 year (I forget the interim amount for holdings of 2 years). The intention (other than, perhaps, a chilling effect on shareholder resolutions) is to stops people or institutions for buying shares solely for the purpose of proposing a resolution. However, there is no such reason for the large number of shares in many companies that are listed in the resolution—that seems to be for profit only.
At how many actions have we heard the chant ”People over Profits”? This is what we have been asking the committee to do since 2014, so I am in favor.
This has NOTHING to do with the above, other than being related to the Business Resolution, but apparently one cannot post more than 3 comments, even if one has been away for many days and is responding to a dozen points, or sharing knowledge, so I will paste this here and maybe at some point can come back and respond to the proper message:
There could be a fund-raising campaign; it was suggested by one of the participants in one of the info sessions, analogous to the “The Promise and the Practice” fund-raising campaign for the BLUU donation.
Sally, thank you. I am reconsidering my position on the business resolution. I agree with your info. I am particularly concerned with the failure to comply with the 2014 resolution. I also think the reparations part is pulling together the right people.
Libby
I would like to add that this Business Resolution found broad support in our congregations. 42 congregations signed petitions with over 400 signatures, no more than 10 signatures from any one congregation. This easily surpassed the minimum requirement for a Business Resolution by Petition.
I am beyond belief that our economic foundation is to intertwined with that of the fossil fuel industry. This business model is incompatible with human survival and fully counter to everything that we claim to cherish!! What are we thinking?? I was so proud of the UUA for, as I had understood it, was already proudly divested from them!! Please see: Guterres: Oil companies have peddled ‘big lie’ on climate change - YouTube
I think a few things need to be made clearer here. The 2014 resolution called for divestment from the CT200–essentially the top 200 fossil fuel companies. That has apparently not been accomplished for reasons that are unclear. I’d love more info on that from the UUA and I think a deadline for full divestment is appropriate. However, fossil fuel companies account for only about $4-5 million of the $14 million that this resolution asks to be divested. The other approx. $10 million is invested in banks that finance fossil fuel companies. The proposal to divest from those is new, and was not part of the 2014 resolution. The harm there is more attenuated and less avoidable–essentially all major banks are going to fall into this category. That is worth looking at but is much more nuanced.
Another commenter pointed out (and I’ve lost track of the comment but think it is important) that more than $9 million of the amounts listed are invested in a fund that is managed by a bank that also finances fossil fuel companies (lines 260-262). In other words, it’s 2 degrees of separation from the fossil fuel companies. It’s not clear that the fund itself has any fossil fuel investments.
I support divestment from the fossil fuel industry as soon as possible. I think the question about divesting from banks that finance the fossil fuel industry is less clear and deserves more thought than simply “they lend money to fossil fuel companies.” As for reparations, I support reparations, but since the UUA is working on a reparations policy, I think we should wait for that proposal, which will have the benefit of more extensive study.
Divesting from banks that fund fossil fuel projects has long been a goal of the climate justice movement. Delegates to the 2021 UUA General Assembly passed a Responsive Resolution calling for immediate and complete divestment from banks funding the line 3 pipeline. 80% of the delegates voted for this. https://www.uua.org/files/2021-06/Proposed_Divestment_Responsive_Resolution_Revised.pdf
To clarify: what Curtis Bell is pointing out is that divesting from banks is newer than divesting from the CT200, but not actually new. It is the case that the 2014 resolution has had no effect for 9 years, while the 2021 resolution has had no effect for only 2 years.
I would like this Resolution better if Amendment 3 is successful. However, having read the Board’s dismissive response, and seeing the detailed research in the resolution, I am strongly leaning toward supporting it with or without the amendment. I am tired of seeing the GA pass things that get ignored. We said divestment. We got little response and a “this is complicated” lecture. We said “two candidates.” We got one and a phantom. Maybe the UUA needs to have a staffing crisis.