California Pension Fund Labels Chevron and Saudi Aramco as Climate Investments (financialpost.com) 36
The US's largest pension fund has classified more than $3 billion of holdings in oil drillers, coal miners, and other major greenhouse gas producers as climate-friendly investments, according to a new analysis of public records. From a report: Stakes in Saudi Aramco, Chevron Corp. and Chinese coal company Inner Mongolia Dian Tou Energy are among the holdings that California Public Employees' Retirement System labeled as "climate solutions." The findings are part of a report from California Common Good, a coalition of environmental advocates and public sector unions. The group, which has called for Calpers to divest from major oil and gas companies, is staging protests Tuesday at Chevron's San Francisco Bay Area refinery and in the burn zone of the Eaton fire near Los Angeles.
Picks Nose, Eats Bugers (Score:1)
One guy picks his nose and eats his buggers. Another guy picks his nose, uses gritty fingernails to tear the bugger in half, eats half, wipes the other half on the bottom of his shoe.
California says the second guy is better to invest in.
Re: (Score:3)
One guy picks his nose and eats his buggers. Another guy picks his nose, uses gritty fingernails to tear the bugger in half, eats half, wipes the other half on the bottom of his shoe.
California says the second guy is better to invest in.
Because any of that is how we should select investments... I swear it's like we're trying so goddamn hard to morally posture that we forget what the actual point is.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The findings are part of a report from California Common Good, a coalition of environmental advocates and public sector unions. The group, which has called for Calpers to divest from major oil and gas companies, is staging protests Tuesday at Chevron's San Francisco Bay Area refinery and in the burn zone of the Eaton fire near Los Angeles.
Why aren't they protesting at Calpers HQ? What good is protesting at the refinery going to do? Obviously Calpers knows who they're investing in. It's not like someone snuck it in on a line item. Is the "public unions" advocate afraid to cross the public union's pension plan directly?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because the two things are not actually related (even though they are presented together in the Slashdot summary of the article).
California Common Good is not protesting CalPERS. CCG is protesting Chevron.
CCG mentions in a report that CalPERS did a stupid thing by labeling Chevron and Saudi-Aramco as "climate solutions" investments.
Re: (Score:2)
Jingle bells jingle bells ... (Score:3, Funny)
... greenwashing all the waaaaayyyyy.
So they kind of are (Score:3, Funny)
Basically they want to make sure they have the time to take control and ownership of all the wind and solar farms and nuclear power plants. So it's not that they're trying to stop the transition they're trying to slow it down and control it. And frankly control you because if somebody can control your access to something as fundamental as electricity They pretty much control you
Re:So they kind of are (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically they want to make sure they have the time to take control and ownership of all the wind and solar farms and nuclear power plants.
That is a talking point from 5 years ago. They had a taste of this, and the flavour was described as "low return on investment". 5 years ago your post reflected the state of the oil industry. In the past year though the last major oil companies have all but divested their holdings in major wind and solar projects. Both Shell an bp in the past few months took billions in writedowns on wind projects, have abandoned expressions of interest or actual projects underway, and have announced planned outright divestments. Other plays did it early last year and late 2023. Even others like Exxon never had a lick of interest in the business in the first place.
No oil company wants to control something with piss poor returns. Drill baby drill is the way to make money. And they want all the money.
Re: So they kind of are (Score:2)
Talking about talking points... basically most evee country not bogged down by legal suits is going more greeen. I think China is basicallyone of the few not because the probably is capacity not an acceptance of the problem. You admit oil and coal invested in green energy. That's the article, nothing more... it's fucking clickbait
Re: (Score:2)
Which solar projects? Certainly not photovoltaics.
You've swallowed oil propaganda (Score:2)
Returns on farms built 15-20 years ago aren't great.
Returns on farms built today are.
There's been 20 years of new tech in wind & solar but when the oil industry talks about them they always talk about stuff from 20 years ago shutting down because it can't compete.
Thing is, they can't compete with _today's_ farms. Not oil.
Again, this is all a trick to slow the transition so they can control it.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically they want to make sure they have the time to take control and ownership of all the wind and solar farms and nuclear power plants.
That is a talking point from 5 years ago. They had a taste of this, and the flavour was described as "low return on investment". 5 years ago your post reflected the state of the oil industry. In the past year though the last major oil companies have all but divested their holdings in major wind and solar projects. Both Shell an bp in the past few months took billions in writedowns on wind projects, have abandoned expressions of interest or actual projects underway, and have announced planned outright divestments. Other plays did it early last year and late 2023. Even others like Exxon never had a lick of interest in the business in the first place.
No oil company wants to control something with piss poor returns. Drill baby drill is the way to make money. And they want all the money.
Um ... drill baby drill is another old talking point that didn't age well.
You don't make money drilling, that costs you. You make money selling it. More oil means cheaper oil, supply/demand, that old thing. Nobody wants cheaper oil, the whole return on investment of setting up the drills, yadda, yadda, you get it.
https://www.reuters.com/market... [reuters.com]
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Well, I take some of it back, you DO make money drilling oil IF you're heavily invested in a company that sells the drills. That's
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But just wait proletarian and liberal Canada just like you like and praise it is going to shut down your electricity grid! LOL!
Those Canadian are going to a gun fight with a pea gun, LOL!
Worse thing is that I am Canadian and live there myself!
The Liberals will be coming for the pea guns soon enough. Their ban lists already have .22 rimfires on them.
Re: (Score:3)
The oil companies aren't trying to stop it they're trying to slow it down long enough that they can make sure they stay in control of energy production.
Tell me you know nothing about the way the oil industry (or really any publicly traded company for that matter) works without telling me.
Re: (Score:2)
One way or another our electric grid and energy system and transportation systems are going to switch to electricity. The oil companies aren't trying to stop it they're trying to slow it down long enough that they can make sure they stay in control of energy production.
Not quite. They areBasically they want to make sure they have the time to take control and ownership of all the wind and solar farms and nuclear power plants.
Nah. They make trillions of dollars a year selling oil. They don't want to shift.
Green promises, black present, bleak future (Score:2)
As long as oil is profitable... (Score:2)
...investors will buy oil stocks.
Caring about the climate is a luxury that investors can't afford
Re:As long as oil is profitable... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's fine, but then own that decision and justify it rather than lying about it in your investment portfolio. Right now what they are doing is actually considered fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
...investors will buy oil stocks. Caring about the climate is a luxury that investors can't afford
I think a lot of small-scale "ethical" investors think they are making a difference. But from what I understand, simply owning shares in a company has no effect on how the company operates. It's only if you own a considerable fraction of the whole thing, then your vote in the company meetings can make a difference.
OTOH, I think sustainable energy production can be a good investment in the long run, for a number of reasons. The basic reason is that we'll run out of oil sooner or later. I also expect stric
You're thinking too narrow (Score:1)
They ARE climate solutions. The solution destroys the climate and everyone on the planet, but that is certainly one solution to climate change. You are just being picky and wanting a good solution.
ESG (Score:4, Insightful)
Any Chance of Seeing Source Info? (Score:3)
This is an article from the Financial Post which is re-posted from Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-11/calpers-labels-chevron-saudi-aramco-as-climate-investments). That's fine because Bloomberg is paywalled, but it still doesn't link to the organization that wrote the report (California Common Good), the report itself, CalPERS, or the investment report from CalPERS. Here's what I've been able to find:
* Bloomberg Article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
* Report Author Group: https://www.cacommongood.com/v... [cacommongood.com]
* Report: Here's the page for their reports, but there's nothing there about this CalPERS report (https://www.cacommongood.com/resources)
* CalPERS: https://www.calpers.ca.gov/ [ca.gov]
* Latest CalPERS Investment Report (FY23): https://www.calpers.ca.gov/doc... [ca.gov]
Also, a key part from the article:
The investments are part of an accounting method the fund uses that allows it to classify portions of public equities as climate investments based on the companies’ green business activity.
So, more than anything, it's a labeling issue. Instead of "Chevron", they could label it "Chevron Green Hydrogen".
Re: (Score:3)
Wasn't Chevron the company that invested in NiMH battery tech and then used the patents to suppress that from any chance of being used in cars? (keep in mind that back then nobody knew the limitations.)
I wouldn't want a penny in anything from big oil. They won't transition until the last drop is burned.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't Chevron the company that invested in NiMH battery tech and then used the patents to suppress that from any chance of being used in cars? (keep in mind that back then nobody knew the limitations.)
Yes, Honda sold it to them and then they refused to license it to anyone else. Honda successfully used the technology in the original Honda Insight, so while the limitations are real they don't prevent its use.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't Chevron the company that invested in NiMH battery tech and then used the patents to suppress that from any chance of being used in cars? (keep in mind that back then nobody knew the limitations.)
Yes, Honda sold it to them and then they refused to license it to anyone else. Honda successfully used the technology in the original Honda Insight, so while the limitations are real they don't prevent its use.
Interesting. It sounds like a nice plot for an animated movie — though I'm afraid the producers might be sued by the Frisbee company.
Re: (Score:2)
They could be using recycled toilet paper, have energy-efficient offices, use armored Teslas to shuttle executives to the private airport. They could be pledging to fix their methane leaks and stop burning off methane as waste*. They could be cracking methane into grey hydrogen and selling it for welding gas or something and calling it "green hydrogen."
* by 2044 or something
An oil and gas company is mainly a driller and refiner of fuels, lubricants and feedstocks for various chemicals and plastics. If they
Why not? Most Climate NGO (Score:3)