Two more finance institutions divest from fossil fuels

Christine Tørklep Meisingset, Storebrand's Head of Sustainable Investments, said she believes the stocks will be “financially worthless” in the future.

Storebrand, a Norwegian financial services group, and Dutch bank Rabobank have become the latest companies to announce they will pull out of the investments in the fossil fuel industry, citing the stability of long-term investments as the major factor.

Storebrand has investments in 13 coal and six tar sands enterprises which it will let go. It said in a statement that it believes these stocks will be “financially worthless” in the future.

“If global ambitions to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius become a reality, many fossil fuel resources will become unburnable and their financial value will be dramatically reduced,” said Christine Tørklep Meisingset, Head of Sustainable Investments.

“Exposure to fossil fuels is one of the main sustainability challenges facing business, so for us it is a logical and necessary step to adjust our investments accordingly,” she said.

The decision was made public a day after a similar announcement from Rabobank, an ethical Dutch bank with a partnership with WWF. This institution, which specialises in financing agriculture and food businesses, has said it will no longer invest in shale gas or tar sands.

It said it believes that the risks of water and soil contamination from fracking, and the risks to biodiversity, ecosystems and local residents, are too high.

It will also refuse loans to farmers who decide to lease their land for such purposes.

The company cited a recent Duke University study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, of 414 one drinking water boreholes in Pennsylvania, a location where natural gas production increased by 69% in 2012, which found methane in 82% of samples. The claim is that nearby drilling has caused the gas to migrate into water.

The notion of the future worthlessness of present investments in fossil fuel extraction has been termed a 'carbon bubble'. The term comes from a March 2012 Carbon Tracker report, 'Unburnable Carbon'.

This found that the fossil fuel reserves owned by the top 100 listed coal and top 100 listed oil and gas companies would, if unleashed, emit a total of 745GtCO2, which represents five times the amount that can be burnt unabated, without catastrophic risk to the planet.

In other words, 80% of these assets are, according to current technology, unburnable.

Meisingset added: "We do not offer 'ethical funds' at Storebrand. The same high sustainability standards apply to each and every company and sector. This offers an unprecedented level of security for our clients. No matter which fund or portfolio their assets are invested in, the same high standards apply".

As a direct result of these higher standards for fossil fuels, all 13 coal producers in the Energy sector (MSCI All Countries index) are excluded from Storebrand’s portfolio. In addition, the exclusion covers the six oil companies that have the highest exposure to oil sands, measured by both actual production and reserves.

In total, Storebrand has excluded 177 companies and 32 countries for breaches of the company's minimum standard for sustainable investments.

Anti-tar sands activist convicted in US

Guest post by Sarah Laskow

This post provides a glimpse of the huge struggle taking place in N. America between environmentalists and the oil industry-financed Republican right.

Environmental activist Tim DeChristopher was convicted yesterday of two felony counts. DeChristopher was on trial for bidding on more than 22,000 acres of public land that he could not pay for: his two crimes are making false representations to the government and interfering with the land auction.

DeChristopher made the $1.79 million bid in order to "do something to try to resist the climate crisis," he told Tina Gerhardt, in an interview published by AlterNet. But, as Kate Sheppard explains at Mother Jones, the judge threw out "the defense that his actions were necessary to prevent environmental damage on this land and, more broadly, the exacerbation of climate change."

"They're hoping to make an example out of me."

DeChristoper now faces the possibility of a $75,000 fine and 10 years in prison. In an interview with YES! Magazine's Brooke Jarvis, before the trial started, DeChristopher said he had faced the possibility that he would be found guilty.

"There is still the possibility of acquittal, but I think the most likely scenario is probably that I will be convicted," he told Jarvis. "The prosecution has been very clear that they're hoping to make an example out of me, to convince other people not to fight the status quo."

Wild lands

What is the status quo? Bureau of Land Management land, like the parcel DeChristopher bid on, is owned by the government, which often leases out the rights to develop the natural resources, like gas and oil, to private companies.

Up until 2003, the Department of the Interior had the option of setting aside some of its lands for preservation, pending final Congressional approval. But during the Bush administration, the DOI gave up that option and only considered uses like recreation or development for its holdings.

Back in December, the current Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, reversed that policy, again putting on the table the option of using public lands for conservation purposes. But as I write at TAPPED, Republicans are throwing a hissy fit about the change.

Truth or consequence?

The Republicans' argument goes something like: Using public lands for conservation will deprive Americans of jobs and hurt the bottom lines of states with large tracts of public lands. What they don't discuss is the potential damage that drilling for, say, natural gas could cause. The Mulch has been writing about the dangers of hydrofracking for awhile now, but over the past week The New York Times began weighing in on the issue with a long series on the dangers of hydrofracking.

The Times' series brings even more evidence of hydrofracking's dangers to light—in particular, about the radioactive waste materials being dumped into rivers where water quality is rarely monitored. As Christopher Mims reports at Grist, the series has already prompted calls for new testing from people like John Hanger, the former head of Pennsylvania's environmental protection department, which has not been among the staunchest opponents of new drilling protects. According to Mims, Hanger has written that:

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection should order today all public water systems in Pennsylvania to test immediately for radium or radioactive pollutants and report as soon as good testing allows the results to the public. Only testing of the drinking water for these pollutants can resolve the issue raised by the NYT.

Or, as Mims puts it, "No one has any idea if the radioactive material in the wastewater from fracking is appearing downstream, in drinking water supplies, in quantities in excess of EPA recommendations."

Tar and feather 'em

Fracking is not the only environmentally destructive practice that the energy industry is increasingly relying on. Earth Island Journal has two pieces looking into the tar sands industry in Canada. Jason Mark's piece is a great introduction to the history of the tar sands and takes a sharp look into the impact development has had on the community and the environment.

And Ron Johnson details the U.S.'s connection to the destruction: The federal government is considering approving a pipeline that would allow the oil from the tar sands to travel to Texas refineries. Johnson writes:

Green groups warn that the pipelines will keep North America and emerging economies hooked on oil from the Alberta tar sands for years to come. By greasing the crude’s path to market, the projects will encourage further reckless expansion of the tar sands. That would delay the transition to a renewable energy economy, while further degrading Canada’s boreal forests and spewing even more CO₂ into the atmosphere.

A new regime

The decision to approve the pipeline lies with the executive branch. But all of Washington isn't a particularly friendly place to green groups and their causes these days.

For example, as Care2's Beth Buczynski reports, the newly empowered House Republicans have done away with one of the smallest green programs the Democrats put into place, an initiative to compost waste from House cafeterias. They've justified the cut by saying it was "too expensive," but as Buczynski writes, "Spending must be dramatically reduced, yes, but also strategically. It's interesting (and disheartening) to see which programs the new GOP House has targeted first."

It's a small thing, but it shows how committed Republicans are to the status quo: They're not even willing to mulch their leftover salad.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium.