Hi
You can find further breakdown of the investments by sector on p. 25 and 26 of the document in the link that Nilima circulated (p. 27 and 28 of the PDF). Including only public equities (they don't break down the private equities), 3.2% of the portfolio is in the "energy" sector. I suspect the "energy" sector is mostly/ entirely non-renewables (I'm not sure when/ how renewables are classified as "energy" vs. "utilities"). However, 11% of the portfolio is in "Infrastructure and renewable resources" (p. 27 of PDF). This would be in addition to any equities they hold in renewable energy companies.
For comparison, I've attached the breakdown of our current fossil fuel free investment option. Their investment strategy states "Companies that are directly involved in extracting, processing or transporting coal, oil or natural gas ('fossil fuels') and companies in 'The Carbon Underground 200' are excluded from the fund." For a description of the Carbon Underground 200, see https://gofossilfree.org/top-200/
My understanding of these criteria is that they would not, e.g., exclude companies that finance fossil fuel extraction (e.g., banks) or companies that profit from fossil fuel use (e.g., non-electric car manufacturers).
There is also a larger question of what is the best strategy to reduce fossil fuel extraction and greenhouse gas emission, e.g., not owning shares in companies, vs. owning shares and telling them to change their ways. E.g., on p. 6 of the The College Plan's report (link that Nilima circulated), they describe their strategy, which includes:
"BCI collaborates with a number of other organizations to advance its
objectives in mitigating climate change risks, including:
...
• The investor-organized Climate Action 100+ initiative, which seeks
to encourage the world’s largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters
to take meaningful action to curb their emissions. BCI is leading the
engagement effort for four companies: Marathon Petroleum, Suncor,
Canadian Natural Resources and Teck Resources."
Just so you don't have to hunt for the link to the College pension plan report, here it is again:
https://college.pensionsbc.ca/documents/1225177/1233847/%28PDF%29+2019+Annual+Report.pdf/932e184f-de0b-d6ea-faed-5e75bb62778d?t=1588881995087
Cheers
Julian
________________________________________
From: Lucas Herrenbrueck <herrenbrueck@sfu.ca>
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 4:16 PM
To: Nilima Nigam; academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: Pension plan redux.
Can we find out how much the BCCPP is invested in these companies? Because then each of us can calculate how much we're personally invested in their success, and short-sell these assets by the equivalent amount.
Or, an option I find easier: calculate how much you're personally profiting from these companies(*), via your investment in the BCCPP, and donate the proceeds to organizations protecting the climate/arctic/First Nation rights.
Option A: refuse to invest in unethical companies. Let someone else take the money. Notice that unless everyone refuses to invest, this will do little to stop the company.
Option B: invest in the unethical companies and use their own money to fight what they're doing. Best case, the fight is successful and the evil company will be no more. Worst case, the outcome is equivalent to (A) in that the company does bad things but you're not taking their money.
I'm curious what our ethics profs think (if there are any of you reading this), but is there really an ethical case for (A) over (B)?
Lucas
*footnote: according to the page Nilima linked to, Enbridge+Suncor+TC = 0.8% of the BCCPP portfolio, but also note that the top 25 companies listed on that page only add up to 8%, so 0.8% is actually one tenth of that. So between 1-10% of your portfolio will be invested in dirty energy companies. Let's assume the worst case (10%), and let's assume that they're making profits to the tune of 5% a year (after inflation). With a 20%-of-annual-salary contribution, this means that we should consider donating 5% x 10% x 20% = 0.1% of our salary, every year, to charities fighting against climate change and for First Nations rights. That's $100 per year for a $100k salary. Surely that's not too much to ask for -- you might be giving that much already...?
________________________________
From: Nilima Nigam <nigam@math.sfu.ca>
Sent: December 4, 2020 2:51:40 PM
To: academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Pension plan redux.
Dear fellow SFUFA members,
Since we have officially become a union, it seems timely to remind ourselves what we agreed as a collective to participate in. These decisions are, of course, multifaceted and difficult.
One major change with this shift is that we will be soon asked to ratify a move to join a defined benefit pension plan, the BC Colleges Pension Plan. We've already discussed this at length a year ago, and voted on it. 575/1174 of the SFUFA members voted to proceed with negotiations for this move, representing a plurality of the votes cast. The intervening negotiations by SFUFA executives have required their selfless work in very difficult times, and they are owed our thanks.
It is not my intent to spark another conversation. Rather, it is my hope that we'll each once again remind ourselves, as individuals, why we're going to vote how we will. We should also not shirk from staring at precisely what we'll be doing. Our choices will be our own, and made for the multiplicity of reasons we make them. These are hard choices.
We are currently part of a Defined Contribution Plan at SFU, whose stewardship is lead by SFU-based trustees. These are colleagues we can talk to, and they've worked hard to provide us with a diversity of investment options. We can select amongst these based on our particular individual needs, values and risk tolerance.
One of the signal achievements of the SFU Faculty Pension Plan was the introduction of a fossil fuel free investment option. This has been used as a model by other universities in Canada.
I personally am very proud to be part of this pension plan, because it allows for individuals to acknowledge a reality: climate change is real, significant, and accelerating at a rate which is changing our habitable world in front of our eyes. It acknowledges the hard work and personal sacrifices of colleagues such as Lynne Quarmby and Tim Takaro and Kirsten Zickfeld and Mark Jaccard (amongst many others). They, and others at SFU, have dedicated their careers to understanding the impacts of climate change and sounding the alarm.
As the UN Secretary General stated in his address at Columbia on Wednesday: Humanity is waging war on nature. He also goes on to point out pension funds have the unique ability to shift the needle.
https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2020-12-02/secretary-generals-address-columbia-university-the-state-of-the-planet-scroll-down-for-language-versions
We all know this stuff.
We are about to ratify a move to a much larger, multi-institution pension plan, and will consequently have a much lower say in its governance. The advantage is that this is a Defined Benefit plan. We will be contributing more towards it now, but will be assured a particular amount when we retire. We'll also be undoing a past silliness around post-retirement benefits.
One of the disadvantages of the College plan we will join is that we'll _all_ be obligated to be investing in exactly the same portfolio, which includes significant holdings in the tar sands, oil extraction and other fossil-fuel extraction firms. We should, as individuals, acknowledge that we'll be banking on the high returns offered in the short term by these industries. We will all be significantly profiting as individuals from some of the most significant drivers of climate change.
There is another issue, and again, I speak for myself. Our email signatures may say we're acknowledging that we're on unceded lands of First Nations. Maybe we actually, as individuals, want to do better. But we will have collectively decided that we'll be investing in companies such as TransCanada, Enbridge and Suncor. These are companies which are committed to fossil fuel extraction, including tar sands/Arctic oil exploitation. Many of the First Nations are trying desperately to stop this; they are fighting serious legal and political battles at incredible cost.
Page 24 of the plan we're joining is clear on what we will be investing in:
https://college.pensionsbc.ca/documents/1225177/1233847/%28PDF%29+2019+Annual+Report.pdf/932e184f-de0b-d6ea-faed-5e75bb62778d?t=1588881995087
We all live with cognitive dissonance, but I hope that we can find a way through this as individual SFU faculty. SFU has dedicated itself to take concrete steps towards slowing climate change and speeding up reconciliation: this ratification (perhaps inadvertently) will us take concrete steps in the opposite direction. I personally find this situation deplorable.
thanks
--
Nilima Nigam
Professor
Dept. of Mathematics
Simon Fraser University
Attachment:
PHN Fossil Fuel Free.pdf
Description: PHN Fossil Fuel Free.pdf