CSU, UC pressed to disinvest in fossil fuels

CSU, UC pressed to disinvest in fossil fuels

365.org

Raven Rutledge is a student at San Francisco State University. She has not summered as a Wall Street intern. She is not enrolled in SFSU’s MBA program.

Yet, the environmental studies major played a lead role this summer in pressuring the San Francisco State Foundation — which manages the university’s $50 million investment portfolio — to disinvest in fossil fuels.

“I would like to know my school is putting its money in companies that are looking out for the best welfare of people,” Rutledge told the Los Angeles Times.

To her mind, that excludes corporations that produce the gasoline the vast majority of us use to fuel our motor vehicles, the coal used to generate most of the nation’s electricity, and the natural gas used to cool our homes in summer and heat them in winter.

She thinks such companies are on a moral par with such previous targets of divestment campaigns as South Africa’s apartheid regime during the 1980s and the combatants responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Darfur during the 2000s.

The student activist has been indoctrinated by an outfit that calls itself 350.org – an allusion to the supposed safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, 350 parts per million. It demands that the 23-campus CSU and 10-campus UC systems rid themselves of their investments in the 200 companies with the world’s largest oil, natural gas and coal reserves.

Well, it was one thing for universities to sell off what little if any investments they had in South Africa or Sudan. It had next to no effect on the returns their portfolios earned.

But it is quite another thing for universities to allow their investment decisions to be influenced, unduly so, by student activists promoting some political cause or another. Indeed, by capitulating to young Miss Rutledge and her fellow global warming crusaders, the San Francisco State University board of directors very well may have violated its fiduciary responsibility.

Investments

Indeed, the foundation’s foremost responsibility is to maximize the return on its $50 million in investments, the proceeds of which are used, in part, to provide the scholarships and grants that help subsidize the expensive educations of Rutledge and her classmates.

CSU and UC schools that are considering following San Francisco State’s example have prima facie evidence of the deleterious consequences of politically-driven investment.

In 2002, the California State Teachers Retirement System divested its tobacco stocks at the urging of anti-smoking activists. In 2008, CalSTRS released a report lamenting that, had it held onto its tobacco stocks, it would have gained $1 billion.

The UC system had a similar experience. After selling off its tobacco-related investments, it lost $500 million in potential gains between 2001 and 2012.

That’s why student activists like Rutledge decided they would not attempt to get the UC’s $45.5 billion retirement system to divest its fossil fuel investments. They were afraid the system’s pensioners would revolt.

So, instead, they have decided to target UC’s $7.1 billion general endowment fund, urging the UC board of regents to vote this fall to jettison its investments in oil, natural gas and coal.

Taking their talking points from 350.org, the UC and CSU student activists maintain that fossil fuel stocks can be easily replaced by investments in “green” energy, including solar power, wind farms and biofuels.

But that’s just a fiction, as evidenced by the performance of the NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund, which includes such stocks as First Solar, Hexcel and Teslas Motors. Since its market peak, the index fund has lost nearly 50 percent of its value.

That just goes to show why UC and CSU fund managers should not be taking investment advice from college undergrads who major in environmental studies, who know next to nothing about buying and selling equities.

3 comments

Write a comment
  1. Gonzo
    Gonzo 30 August, 2013, 10:32

    The evil fossil fuel companies should shut off all/any fossil fuels or fossil fueled energy delivered to any college that dis-invests.

    Reply this comment
  2. RT
    RT 30 August, 2013, 13:24

    I love the Raven Rutledge’s of the world. Be that I have never met her here are some questions for her:
    Do you use any form of gasoline? How about the coal used to generate most of the electricity you use? And what about using natural gas used to cool our homes in summer and heat them in winter? Or is your life totally devoid of these evil things?
    Other than protest these evil companies, have you used your intelligence to gain a degree in science so that you can help find workable alternatives?
    You state that the school is demonstrating poor morals by investing in these companies. So are you demonstrating poor morals by investing in these companies by your personal use of their products?

    Reply this comment
  3. dltravers
    dltravers 3 September, 2013, 20:35

    I would love to see her go to a school without the AC cranked up full blast like our state colleges and universities. All those stuffy professors opposing fossil fuels spending a lifetime with the AC going full blast at work.

    Even the freeking bathrooms got their own A/C.

    Every apsect of her life is supported by energy mostly obtained by fossil fuels. Pull the plug on these idiots. Look at the record of the planet over the last 2000 years and you will find large climate swings.

    What is going to put an end to this government funded religion?

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Cumulative trauma law bedevils employers, hands fired employees a payday

The Monteleone family opened Barone’s Italian Restaurant in Valley Glen 70 years ago, and has seen its share of employee

Support CalWatchdog

CalWatchdog thanks you for your loyal readership. Because of your support we have become California’s top-ranked political blog and investigative

Bills take aim at Prop. 13 tax limitations

June 21, 2013 By Dave Roberts If you think taxes are already high in California, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, you