In the meantime, we have a (working) link to the article below which deals with some of that meeting:
The University of California is working to form a task force that will look at the possibility of divesting from fossil fuel companies, following numerous student protests and other major universities’ decisions to divest. “It’s the issue that’s on the minds of many people and students have been expressing their concerns about it,” said Shelly Meron, a UC spokeswoman. “We want to look into it further.” At the UC Board of Regents Committee on Investments meeting on Thursday, committee chair and Regent Paul Wachter said the task force will include regents, environmental consultants and outside investment advisors to the UC. Wachter said regents have asked the UC’s new chief investment officer, Jagdeep Singh Bachher, to lead the task force...
Full story at http://dailybruin.com/2014/05/23/uc-to-create-task-force-to-explore-fossil-fuel-divestment/
The Committee evidently did not hear from the former investments officer - Peter Taylor - on this effort. However, blog readers will recall our recent post which contained his views. For those who can't recall, here they are again:
3 comments:
Dan--
Considering that Peter Taylor left the university in a situation with massively larger debt as well as--in his final daily bruin interview--claiming to be concerned about student debt while defending the expansion of programs--self-supporting masters--that have been shown to be among the largest drivers of student debt I am not sure why you think that his comments should be given so much weight. Do you know anyone driven by the wall street mentality that would support these sorts of divestments? Have you looked into the actual possibilities of socially responsive investment strategies that are just as successful as contributing to companies whose profits depend on climate change?
I agree with Peter on this especially because the pension may yet be drawn in. Want to make an environmental statement? Then take the bus. Don't use other people's money to make your statement. And I don't like Brown viewing UC funds as a campaign fund to fend off environmental criticism of his oil policy.
Ah, but you are insisting that the Regents not even study the issue to see if there is a fiscally sound way to do it. Nor is it clear that this is being driven by the Governor as opposed to students and others. You are not sure that the pension is not going to be brought in. But you are not sure that it is. You are not sure that it won't cause political damage but you can't be sure that it will. But you are trying to insist that it shouldn't be discussed.
Peter Taylor just says it is bad. You agree with him. But that is not providing evidence. It is simply appealing to an authority which you would not normally appeal to.
Post a Comment