Our author: Jessica Smith Rolston: In the “War on Coal,” the industry can be its own worst enemy

In the “War on Coal,” the industry can be its own worst enemy

Coal Music: Mark Knopfler 5:15 AM. Add to your coal music listening list, thanks to Eric Michael Kelly for the heads up.

5.15 a.m.
snow laying all around
a collier cycles home
from his night shift underground
past the silent pub
primary school, workingmens club
on the road from the pithead
the churchyard packed
with mining dead
....

the bandit man
came up the great north road
up to geordieland
to mine
the mother lode

seams blew up or cracked
black diamonds came hard won
generations toiled and hacked
for a pittance and black lung
crushed by tub or stone
together
and alone
how the young and old
paid the price of coal

eighteen sixty-seven
my angel's gone to heaven
he'll be happy there
sunlight and sweet clean air

they gather round the glass
tough hewers and crutters
child trappers and putters
the little foals and half-marrows
who pushed
and pulled the barrows
the hod boys
and the rolleywaymen
5.15 a.m.

As we said in lecture on Criminal Coal: Data Dispatch: Latest numbers show unionized coal mines safer, more productive than nonunion operations | SNL

From Taylor Kuykendall:

SNL: Data Dispatch: Latest numbers show unionized coal mines safer, more productive than nonunion operations | SNL

Today's lecture on Oil + Oligarchy = Oiligarchy. Some links and connections

Definition of "oligarchy"  (Bruce Kapferer)

"command of political organizations and institutions by close-knit social groups (families or familial dynasties, groups of kin, closed associations, or tightly controlled interlinked networks of persons) for the purpose of the relatively exclusive control of economic resources and their distribution, these resources being vital to the existence of larger populations” (Kapferer 2005:1).

Kapferer, Bruce

         2005        Introduction: Oligarchic Corporations and New State Formations.  In Oligarchs and Oligopolies: New Formations of Global Power. Bruce Kapferer, ed. Pp. 1-23.  New York: Berghahn.

Empirical research on the US as a system of "economic elite domination" or "biased pluralism" (i.e. oligarchy)

Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin Page. 2014. Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.  Perspectives on Politics  12(3): 581.

"Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.The preferences of economic elites have far more independent economic impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do."

Translation: Unless people are mobilized into movements of strong and sustained collective action, rich people have undue control over the political system, i.e. "oligarchy"

Oiligarchy at work in Missouri

Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity: http://americansforprosperity.org/missouri/

Peabody's new public influence organization: https://www.advancedenergyforlife.com

Do your own research on industry lobbying and political campaign finance:

www.opensecrets.org

Organizations focused on oligarchic corruption: 
International Forum on Globalization

Menotti, Victor, ed. 2011. Outing the Oligarchy: Billionaires who Benefit from Today's Climate Crisis.  On oligarchic power structures in Mexico, India, China, and the US.

Koch Cash "tracking the single largest source of private money corrupting democracy"

Plutonomy and Climate Program " Increasingly few, stupendously wealthy plutocrats have lately made enormous strides toward dominating global governance, finance and national democracies, while actively undermining traditional democratic expressions, such as collective bargaining rights, clean air protections, and services for social safety nets"

UnKoch My Campus

The Coal Industry Is Imploding. Why Is it Still So Powerful in Washington? | The Nation

The Coal Industry Is Imploding. Why Is it Still So Powerful in Washington? | The Nation

Gregory Boyce retiring as Peabody CEO – how’d he do?

Gregory Boyce retiring as Peabody CEO – how’d he do?

Boyce to step down at Peabody - St. Louis Business Journal

Boyce to step down at Peabody - St. Louis Business Journal

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill 27th - 28th May 2010

Today's Lecture: Deepwater Horizon and BP's Criminal Negligence: The 11 Workers Who Died During The Deepwater Horizon Explosion

Remembering The 11 Workers Who Died During The Deepwater Horizon Explosion

Excellent Overview of court settlements, payouts, ongoing litigation, and distribution of fines.

And, an overview of the science on the spill.

And an interactive map.

New York Times interactive video on explosion.

Guardian graphic on multiple human and mechanical failures.

A documentary on the disaster.

Fossil Fuels and Plastic Bags: Missouri Legislators lead the way back into the dinosaur age, by moving to ban local bans on plastic bags

The director of the Missouri Grocers' Association, Dan Shaul, also happens to be a Missouri legislator in the House of Representatives (R-Imperial, Jefferson County, south of south St Louis county).  His latest contribution to the betterment of society is his sponsorship of a bill that is moving through the chamber, to ban the banning of plastic bags.  

Columbia, MO, home to MIzzou, a progressive island, believe it or not, in the Republican Sea that is central Missouri, had been so bold as to vote for a city prohibition on plastic bags (pay or bring your own). Dan Shaul and the grocery people moved to block this, and block all such bans in the state forever.  Believe it or not.

China and California have similar legislation to ban plastic bag use (or charge for their use)  It reduces oil consumption on one end and litter that lasts for an eternity and clogs up land and sea on the other end.  Despite what we're told, it doesn't recycle well. 

Though in California the American Plastic - wait, they call themselves the American 'Progressive' [sic] – Bag Alliance (ABPA) rounded up (paid for?) enough signatures to get a referendum on the issue.  They are backed by big oil (American Chemistry Council, i.e. Dow, Exxon Mobil, etc.). Start shaking your head in disbelief.

Making a bad thing worse, the Missouri legislature is moving to also restrict any possible local experimentation to address environmental concerns – from agroindustrial impacts to TIFs to polluters to plastic bags.  The hand of ALEC is in this too.  

The dismantling of democracy in favor of big business interests continues apace.  And this despite the rhetoric of anti-regulatory local control that we hear from the right wing.  Money trumps all in good ol' Missouri.  People need to rise up and resist, but alas, did you forget your cloth bags at home? At least go paper.

This led to a bit of a detour this morning as I delved into the background on the plastic bag wars (plastic bags, of course, are made from oil and natural gas).

Best overview from Rolling Stone: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-plastic-bag-wars-20110725

Here's the link to the Missouri House website and bill. 

Here's Dan Shaul and friends at the Missouri Grocers' Association.

And here's a softball Post-Dispatch story on the whole thing.

Hope Nixon vetoes this...

Why banks and Unis should divest from fracking: Schlumberger Sees Prudence As New Normal For US Shale Oil

Industry already squeezed by price drop.  Banks and hedge funds tried to cash in on the destructive technology of fracking. Now confront reality.  No exports of LNG.  No fracking.

Schlumberger Sees Prudence As New Normal For US Shale Oil

Talk on Efforts to Combat Climate Change - Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations @wustl

Wednesday, March 25

CFR Academic Conference Call: International Efforts to Combat Climate Change
11 a.m., Seigle Hall 108E, Detjen Seminar Room
Speaker: Michael A. Levi, David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment and Director, Maurice R. Greenberg
Center for Geoeconomic Studies, CFR

Optional Background Reading: Department of Defense: Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, 2014
Global Governance Monitor: Climate Change, Energy, Security, and Climate Blog 

The Charleston Gazette | Future of coal, climate and communities debated at hearing

The Charleston Gazette | Future of coal, climate and communities debated at hearing

Hold on til the last chunk of coal is burned, or diversify the economy?  The coal struggle in West Virginia.  Some say Obama and the EPA are killing coal, but others that it's pretty much the end of coal, the rise of cheap natural gas.

Mine Workers Union and Power companies:  keep digging and burning.

But, Jeremy Richardson of UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists), said climate change is out of control, and we need to strengthen EPA regulations.

Read James M. Van Norstrand testimony "Regional Impacts of EPA Carbon Regulations: The Case of West Virginia"

Carbon Dioxide Emission Reduction Opportunities for WV, by Norstrand, a WVU lawyer and team.

Too Much Oil - Matt Huber

Why people must organize to demand transformation to renewable energy.  The private fossil fuel and utility industries will never do it on their own.  Nor will the market save us.  Nor will technology alone.

Too Much Oil - Matt Huber - Jacobin Mag

"A left approach to energy must take its provision back from the market, prioritizing ecological and social welfare over price signals. Energy should be viewed as something akin to education, health care, or water sanitation: something so fundamental to the collective good that it cannot be ceded to market forces and the profit motive. Yet unfortunately, market prices have, more than anything else, guided US energy policy over the last few decades."

More on #coal #Peabody and dispossession

Feds Can't Wait on Mountaintop Removal: As White House Hedges, Groups to Sue Obama Over State Lawlessness

Feds Can't Wait on Mountaintop Removal: As White House Hedges, Groups to Sue Obama Over State Lawlessness

Documentary on Upper Big Branch

Wall Street Journal on Blankenship and Massey Energy: criminal coal

America’s worst corporate ogre: How Big Coal is shamelessly plotting to stay alive

America’s worst corporate ogre: How Big Coal is shamelessly plotting to stay alive



Peabody hires old PR firm that tried to defend tobacco industry...

Read all about the Don Blankenship case - Ken Ward

Re: Today's lecture #justiceforthe29

Blankenship and Massey are not exceptions, they reflect a systematic "culture of deviance" or, what is ingrained in an anti-regulatory, anti-labor, anti-safety industry.

Read about the latest mine fatality in WVa Murray Mine (Taylor Kuykendall)

And, learn more about rib failure or rib rolls (CDC)

And, read all about the Don Blankenship case (by Ken Ward)

After Toxic Ash Spill, Energy Company And Locals Struggle Over Solution

After Toxic Ash Spill, Energy Company And Locals Struggle Over Solution

Beautiful Art & Critical Analysis of Air Quality & Asthma in St. Louis Metropolitan Region, MO] - A Look at Agency Here at Home

Air Quality & Asthma [St. Louis Metropolitan Region, MO] - A Look at Agency Here at Home

by @wustl students, doing great things.

Artwork by Andrew Kay & Katelyn Mae Petrin (click for complete story)

"Filthy clean": Just discovered this

Should we be exporting coal? Pollution here, there and every where, banks and industry stand to earn lots of money through dirtier planet

The Point of the Spear; The Salish Sea's Battle Against Coal from EditApartMentality on Vimeo.


For insights on the Illinois push to export more coal (and global coal market, see: http://www.illinois.gov/dceo/whyillinois/KeyIndustries/Energy/Coal/Documents/Illinois%20Coal%20Export%20Report%202013.pdf

#corruption #fossilknowledge: EARTHQUAKES: Okla. agency linked quakes to oil in 2010, but kept mum amid industry pressure

Dang again: University President (OU's Boren) and billionaire oil man board member conspire to kill the science on earthquakes related to oil drilling activities in Oklahoma?



EARTHQUAKES: Okla. agency linked quakes to oil in 2010, but kept mum amid industry pressure

Divest Harvard: Students prepare for a spring of civil disobedience to get university on the right side of history

“Disruptive—and what some people see as confrontational—tactics are absolutely necessitated by the situation. Harvard is too slow to change and reluctant to deal with matters of money, influence, and power,” said Talia Rothstein, co-coordinator for Divest Harvard and a sophomore studying history and literature. “Whose side is the administration on? Are they on the side of an industry that destroys the planet and exploits people?” 
article here: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2015/03/13/harvard-climate-change-divestment-heat-week/

Nicaragua's Renewable Energy Revolution Picks Up Steam

Nicaragua's Renewable Energy Revolution Picks Up Steam

Threatened by climate change, Florida reportedly bans term ‘climate change’

Threatened by climate change, Florida reportedly bans term ‘climate change’

More on this 'shake your head in wonder' story....

Is Venezuela Really an ‘Extraordinary Threat’ to the United States? | The Nation

Is Venezuela Really an ‘Extraordinary Threat’ to the United States? | The Nation - Greg Grandin



On oil, crisis, and "national security".

Keep fossil fuels in the ground to stop climate change | George Monbiot

Keep fossil fuels in the ground to stop climate change | George Monbiot



Same thing applies to universities:

"You cannot solve a problem without naming it. The absence of official recognition of the role of fossil fuel production in causing climate change – blitheringly obvious as it is – permits governments to pursue directly contradictory policies." 

In Florida, officials ban term 'climate change'

In Florida, officials ban term 'climate change'

Serious Guide to Climate Responsible Investing

Stripped: A Voice for Rocky Branch. How dispossession works: the laws are written by and for the corporations. Judy Kellen, an Inspiration

Strongest woman in Illinois, fighting Peabody Coal

Why Gas Should Really Cost $6.25 a Gallon

Here’s why gas really costs Americans $6.25 a gallon

SNL: Data Dispatch: Coal sector employment continues 3-year slide with no improvement in sight | SNL

SNL: Data Dispatch: Coal sector employment continues 3-year slide with no improvement in sight | SNL

More on the red herring of "cost" if we divest from fossil fuels: These 3 Colleges Stopped Investing in Fossil Fuels—One Year Later, Their Endowments Are Doing Just Fine

These 3 Colleges Stopped Investing in Fossil Fuels—One Year Later, Their Endowments Are Doing Just Fine

Armed Drones for Sale: Militarism expands, the oil-dollar-weapons cycle continues.

Armed Drones for Sale

Fossil fuel industry caught taking a page out of the tobacco playbook | Dana Nuccitelli

Fossil fuel industry caught taking a page out of the tobacco playbook | Dana Nuccitelli

The extraordinary story of Nigeria's $20 billion oil money 'leakage'

The extraordinary story of Nigeria's $20 billion oil money 'leakage'

Is Big Coal Buying 'Likes?' | Or, how to get more friends on Facebook, fast!!!!

Is Big Coal Buying 'Likes?' | Sierra Club

Good Morning Irving: M3.1 Fracking earthquake jolts residents - Texas Sharon's Bluedaze

Good Morning Irving: M3.1 Fracking earthquake jolts residents - Texas Sharon's Bluedaze

Divestment from Fossil Fuels: Is "cost" even an issue, or just a red herring to defend the fossil fuel industry?

The “Cost” of Divesting from Fossil Fuels: 

What Would it Be? Does it Even Matter?

Bret Gustafson

March 1, 2015

*This reflects my evolving understanding of this question. Comments welcome.
Modified 3.2.15: 87% of Penn students vote for divestment, added more tips for admins on how to just "own it" if you are looking for the best way to do nothing.
Modified 2.10.17: We are still fighting for some enlightenment from our university leadership.

I was sitting in a meeting of deans and fellow faculty members last Friday when the question of divestment from fossil fuels came up.  Somebody suggested that there would be a significant “cost” to the university if we divested from fossil fuels.  This prompted me to look into the question of “costs.”  What follows is what I found.

Spoiler: Costs of divestment from fossil fuels are greatly exaggerated, would be trivial over time, and talk about “cost” is a political strategy. In short, "cost" is a red herring, but read on if you want the whole story…

Opponents of fossil fuel divestment have two main arguments: (1) That divestment will have no impact on the industry or on attempts to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, move faster to alternatives, or take steps to address climate change; and (2) That divestment will financially hurt university endowments. That is, it will cost too much.

Argument (1) is nothing more than a political defense of a destructive industry.  Powerful interests will always be the first to dismiss activist efforts as pointless.  That is to be expected.  The idea that divestment will not work is belied by the fact that the fossil fuel industry is spending a lot of money trying to discredit the divestment movement.  In their very defensiveness, the fossil fuel industry reveals the impact that divestment is already having.  These companies are desperate to put off the inevitable.  As one student said of divestment, the question is not whether we will all divest from fossil fuels, but when.

Just own it 

A bit more cynically, some variations on this argument include – as Harvard President Drew Faust said – a call to “engage” the fossil fuel industry.  This is absurd. Do we really believe that shareholder activism or some other unspecified engagement would actually change destructive industries whose very existence (and stock value) relies on digging for fossil fuels, burning them, and emitting the CO2 that causes global warming? 

This just shows how smart people can be made to say dumb things (or, perhaps, disregard their own principles) to defend the positions of those who pay them. A suggestion to administrators might be: Don’t make up silly justifications. People aren’t stupid and that’s disrespectful. And, tip to university leadership: Disrespect of faculty and students just generates disrespect of administration.  So let's just be clear. Let's just own up to it.  

Here are some suggested responses:

Own your ignorance or climate denialism, and say:  “Global warming is caused by solar activity, and fossil fuels are good for the planet.  Nothing should be done because markets and technology will take care of everything.” 

Own your ownership: “Global warming is real, and scary, but the fossil fuel industry has a grip on me and the university and I don't have the principles or fortitude to resist.” 

Own your inaction: "Well, burning fossil fuels does cause global warming, but we believe doing nothing is better than taking the symbolically and practically important step of divestment."

Own your dependence: "Well, I don't know... the coal company gave a lot of money to the university – they even gave money to United Way and the Cardinals – so maybe they are not so bad.  I'd hate to do anything to upset them."

Own your addiction: (Faust said a variation of this too): "Well since we use fossil fuels, it would be a mistake to divest. So I guess we should just keep on burning them and make some money off it while we're at it."

In whatever case, as I hear my students say, “Just own it.”

Is financial cost (or gain) even relevant?

As for argument (2), on the question of cost:  Is cost even relevant?  Were divestment costly for universities – and this is up for debate – it would be mitigated by a gradual shifting of investments to other industries.  There may even be gains, given the decline in coal and oil stocks and the uncertain and risky future of environmentally destructive projects like tar sands and fracking, where much speculative investment capital is going today.  The costs incurred by the planet, in whatever case, are much greater than any losses that might be felt in an investment portfolio. 

Activists point out that divestment is about addressing climate change and improving the environment and public health.  Divestment by universities, they say, would have a real and symbolic impact.  Cost is not the issue.  Perhaps we should incur some costs to make the planet a healthier place. What kind of ethics do you have?  But the conversation should be about science, health, the environment, and morality, not to mention the destructive impact that the fossil fuel industry has on public politics and public knowledge.  It is not about money, but about about values and principles. 

If the logic of “cost” justified our investments, then a public health-centric institution like Washington University should probably also invest more in the lucrative tobacco industry.  (Maybe we are, but would that be right?). 

They say divestment is “political”.  But given the stakes for the climate, and the fact that the fossil fuel industry is deeply politicized in its war on science and government climate protection measures, investment in the fossil fuel industry is equally “political.”

Scientists say that 80% of all known fossil fuel reserves (and all of any future discoveries) should stay in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate impacts.  Should we be profiting from companies whose continued existence will inevitably exacerbate global warming?  

Fossil fuel industries have spent millions fighting against climate science and eroding the integrity of public and private scientific institutions.  Should an institution that claims to be dedicated to real science be profiting from companies that are involved in the corruption and distortion of science?

These are the kinds of debates that divestment should spark.  Raising the issue of cost is merely an attempt to distract the public from the reality of global warming.  The word “cost” itself is a cunning distortion.  The phrase “impact on returns” might be more acceptable. But we should be talking more about “impact on the planet.”

Despite these concerns, the “cost” argument will be made by those whose private financial and political interests (i.e. greed and power) are more important than the public moral and scientific concerns about global warming.  And, some fair-minded members of the university community, who otherwise might be concerned, may be easily swayed by shrill declarations about great financial losses.  Surely, they will say, tuition will rise, my pay will be cut, scholarships will go down, etc. etc.  But is any of this true?  The short answer is no. 

The cost of fossil fuel divestment has been greatly exaggerated

The New York Times recently published a story on a report that argued that divestment from fossil fuels might lead to a 0.7% decrease in returns per year.  (Yes, it doesn’t sound like much).  The report argues that when adjusted for volatility risks (portfolios with fossil fuels have higher volatility), the decrease was .5%. The author argues that there might also be other management costs and that this small percentage could mean millions of dollars to a large endowment.  Yet the report does not acknowledge that investments could offset the decrease when they shift to other sectors that may generate equal or higher returns.  A considerable portion of the report was also dedicated to preemptively dismissing the impact of the divestment movement (Argument 1, above).  Unsurprisingly, the report was paid for by the Independent Petroleum Association, a business chamber that represents the US domestic oil and gas industry.[1]  

The same NYT article makes reference to two other reports that suggest that losses may be even smaller, or even trivial.

The first, prepared by a socially conscious investment company, Northstar Asset Management, came to a much lower figure of .15% decrease on returns, which would be a “worst-case scenario.”  The report concluded that “the cost of fossil fuel divestment has been greatly exaggerated:”

“Even if the entire energy sector in an actively managed global portfolio were divested, the expected cost is only 0.15% annually in a 250 stock portfolio with an average annual expected return of 8%. And, if shareholders limit divestment to the top 200 fossil fuel companies by carbon in proven oil, gas and coal reserves, then the estimated annual cost falls by half again to 0.07% even with no assumption of any other mitigating factors (e.g., fewer holdings, lower expected return, substitution for divested securities, and so on). (p. 10).”

The Times also cites another report, by the Aperio group, which also concludes that the financial risks of divestment have been highly exaggerated:

“When the idea of fossil fuel screening gets floated, the first thing an endowment committee would want to know is the impact on return, especially whether screening imposes any penalty. The research data on a wide range of social and environmental screening show no such penalty (nor any benefit either), although the results are mixed.[2]”

It’s not about cost, it’s about the power of a polluting industry

In another article, Paul Lehner of the National Resources Defense Council, discusses a factsheet prepared by the FTSE on their North American ex Fossil Fuels Indices (those indices free of fossil fuel investments).  He points out that over the past five years this fossil fuel-free index has actually outperformed the same index with fossil fuel investments.  (The FTSE is a global stock-market indexing firm). This is short-term data, and as they say, does not predict future outcomes.  But it suggests that there is no convincing argument to be made that divestment from fossil fuels will inevitably have some devastating financial impact on the university.  As with the doubt-mongering that the fossil fuel industry pursues in its attempt to distort science and public knowledge (see: Willie Soon affaire), the fear-mongering about financial catastrophe of divestment is untrue. To wave it is a banner is unethical.

As Lehner points out, it is not about cost, but rather about the distorted influence that the industry has over the universities and other institutions:

“If universities and other institutions are still afraid to divest, despite the facts, it suggests to me that the worry is really about breaking faith with the oil and gas industry and its very deep pockets. If fossil fuel interests are really so deeply entwined in our educational--not to mention political and financial institutions--then the movement to divest becomes even more important. We must start to disentangle ourselves from this polluting industry that has such a hold on our lives--and our futures.”

In sum, “cost” is a red herring, a distraction. 

Washington University in St. Louis: Nothing to lose, everything to gain

Student bodies all over the world are rapidly joining the call for divestment.  This includes the student body of Washington University in St. Louis, whose Student Union passed a pro-divestment resolution in 2014.  It is in good company with students at many institutions, like the London School of Economics, most recently, which just voted overwhelmingly (432-36) to call for divestment.  Just in on March 2, 2015: 87% of University of Pennsylvania students voted to divest, in a high turnout referendum.  Faculty as well, at many universities – 150 at Columbia, 360 at Stanford, the list goes on – are joining this call.  Stanford and the New School, and a number of other universities have already taken divestment steps.  Young people get it.  It's their planet, their future. For Washington University there is nothing to lose and much to gain. 

We should not be wasting our time talking about costs of divestment.  Nor should we be publishing platitudes about our commitment to climate change research, when we are giving a platform to the distorted messages of the fossil fuel industry – such as “solar activity” may cause global warming or that there will ever be “clean” coal.  To say that this kind of campus corporate sloganeering is unethical is gentle. 

Instead, we need to be having serious discussions about integrity, science, public health and the kind of planet that our children and their children will inherit.

---

[1] The author of the document was Daniel Fischel, a U Chicago emeritus law and economics professor. For context, Fischel is best known for his defense of various Wall Street figures convicted of crimes during the 1980s financial crises: Michael Milken (convicted for insider trading), Ken Lay & Jeffrey Skilling (Enron securities fraud & felony indictments), Charles Keating (convicted for racketeering re: savings and loan collapse).  Fischel's book Payback, written in support of Michael Milken, seeks to justify unregulated markets by defending the free-wheeling white collar criminal activity on Wall Street during the 1980s.

[2] The report cites a UNEP document that summarizes much of this research.