The 222nd General Assembly has voted not to divest from fossil fuel companies, but instead directed the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s Mission Responsibility through Investment (MRTI) committee “to pursue its focused engagement process on climate change issues with all corporations, particularly with those in the oil, gas, and coal sectors, and report back to the 223rd General Assembly (2018) with recommendations, including possible selective divestment if significant changes in governance, strategy, implementation, transparency and disclosure, and public policy are not instituted by the corporations during the engagements of MRTI and ecumenical partners.”
A fiasco had taken place earlier in the week during the Immigration and Environmental Issues Committee when a straw poll against divesting in oil companies flipped into a vote in favor of divestment after a dinner break. Not only was the committee flummoxed by the unexpected vote, but the powers that be in the Presbyterian Church (USA) were chagrined.
This was reversed on the floor of General Assembly when a minority report to refer the matter to MRTI replaced the committee’s contentious majority report by a vote of 391-161. It was then adopted by GA by a 460-91 vote.
Both the majority and minority reports, along with several other alternative proposals rejected by the committee, all had the same basic presupposition: Since the use of fossil fuel is unsustainable — causing pollution, increasing global warming, and harming communities — the PCUSA should use its investments to reduce this impact. The question was not if this should be done. The question the committee and the assembly wrestled with was: How should this be done?
The writers of the initial overture, coming from the Presbytery of San Francisco, and the other 30 concurring presbyteries sought almost full divestment by the Board of Pensions from all investments in fossil fuels companies. The purpose of this was to be a symbolic action, show oil companies and the world that Presbyterians don’t like what fossil fuels are doing to the environment. But it was noted during committee deliberations that the current BOP investment in Exxon Mobile Corp. is roughly $4 million out of a total market value of $376 billion — just 0.001% of shares in circulation. While $4 million is nothing to sniff at, divesting that amount would make less than a ripple in Exxon Mobile’s pond.
Even though that $4 million is a drop in the bucket, members of the influential Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) suggested that it is enough to get them a foot in the door with Exxon Mobil so they can have conversations about the PCUSA’s environmental agenda. A seat at the table is better than an easily ignored symbolic gesture, they asserted. This is the argument that swayed General Assembly to reject divestment while accepting the minority report in Friday’s vote.
Several things are clear from all this:
- When ACSWP doesn’t get its way in committee, it gets its way on the floor of General Assembly.
- The conversation taking place is entirely within the progressive camp. There was no question about the destructive impact of fossil fuels and the impending doom of global warming.
- Engagement is the the approach of the day. Symbolic gestures have been set aside for a seat at the table
12 Comments. Leave new
So is the PCUSA saying that God, who created the world and pronounced it good, did not give us fossil fuels for a good reason?
Without oil, coal, and gas, the whales would have been hunted to extinction, and billions of people would die do to starvation and disease.
And, the PCUSA could never have organized this General Assembly to discuss this silliness because they would still be trying to get to it on horseback.
“members of the influential Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) suggested that it is enough to get them a foot in the door with Exxon Mobil”
So what if Exxon Mobil tells the louisville praying muslim sluggers to take a flying leap, are they going to send De La Rosa to march around their headquarters?
Mr. Dunsworth, you continue to impress! If we ever have a chance to meet and have time for lunch, I’ll buy…..how does Wendy’s sound?
By that logic…what if God also gave us a creative brain, the skill of innovation and the capability to decipher what is longterm detrimental to society declaring it good as well. So that at this moment in human history we could determine a pathway that does not negate what fossil fuels have brought to the table, but builds a sustainable for a changing society and environment.
BTW–I don’t really care about the divestment issue because the reality is the PCUSA no longer as any societal influence yet they spend millions every two years drafting letters, vimeo’s and other pointless echo-chambering material.
Solarman,
While your scenario is possible, it is not likely to be achieved by the commissioners of the PCUSA, who on average took about one “baby science” class each in college. They know just enough about science to be easily misled by activists.
Besides, the people who warn us about “climate change” can’t even tell us what the ieal temperature of the earth should be. A warmer temperature has downsides, but it also increases growing seasons for many people. And higher CO2 levels aid plant growth. In fact, greenhouses artificially increase CO2 levels to make their plants grow faster. So we just might be afraid of something that will help more people to eat.
🙂 If you are in the Erie, PA area, I would take you up on that.
(1) It is not accurate to call them fossil fuels anymore. Crude oil is being continually renewed in the earth.
(2) “…all had the same basic presupposition: Since the use of fossil fuel is unsustainable — causing pollution, increasing global warming, and harming communities…”
This is too facile. The harm connection is there but not uniform in all countries, and the global warming connection is still under debate. What is not considered is that the emissions of US autos have been greatly reduced. In the 50s, new cars emitted 13 gm/mi of HC, 3.6 NOx, and 87 CO. In 1981, the limits were 0.41, 0.4, and 3.4 respectively, reductions by factors of 32, 9, and 25. Current standards for Low Emission Vehicles are 0.075, 0.2, and 3.4, reduction factors of 173, 18, and 25.
U.S. CO emissions have declined 7% while China’s have increased 13%. U.S. emissions are less than 15% of the total world emissions and going down while China’s is now 30% (2014 data).
(3) There is a common error made here concerning stocks – they are not sold, but traded. For every seller, there is a buyer. The BOP holdings in EXXON are way below the noise level in their ability to affect the share price, the company, or to have any shareholder influence. The managers would have a duty to the current and would-be pensioners to replace it with a comparable blue-chip security.
The fact that GA commissioners making decisions about investments are apparently unaware of the basic tenants of stock trading you point out is sad. Or perhaps they are just delusional about their lack of influence. They desperately want to be more important than they are and have influence they don’t have, so they carry on as if the denomination still had influence with government, businesses, and society. They cannot face the new reality that nothing they do really matters any more because they represent a dying Oldline denomination no one on the outside cares about anymore. The almost complete lack of non-Presbyterian news coverage of GA should be a wake-up call.
I refer you to two sites which give more than ample indication of what the scientific consensus is on anthropogenic climate change:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/
It is continued “engagement” which is futile symbolic action, whereas the divestment movement is educating and motivating many thousands of people around the world.
The point of divestment is not to have a direct financial impact on the companies involved, but to disassociate as a matter of ethics (and increasingly, of financial prudence) from entities which are willfully proceeding in their business practices and advocacy on a course which will greatly exacerbate the disastrous circumstances which usages of their products have brought upon our global habitats.
All that postponing a decision until 2018 has accomplished is to continue the Church’s implied endorsement of those practices via its investments, as there is no evidence from decades of engagement efforts that fundamental changes in business models are whatsoever likely to occur. We are at a point now where two years’ delay in taking effective action is of significant import, when the voices of faith communities can have very meaningful influence in the thinking of citizenry.
I have come to the conclusion that most of those purporting to represent us have had only “baby classes” but in a whole lot of subjects. You cite some excellent points about global warming (their “climate change”). They are woefully limited when it comes to embracing issues intellectually.
I find the same to be true when it comes to immigration, economics and even foreign affairs. If the left brings it up, then, by God (literally), it has to be true. Of course, this is the very same logic of believing something to be true because it was on the Internet!
It is very frustrating and even more so when they are pressed. They simply go to ground and do not respond. That is not how we should be represented and lead. I am afraid that it will not be getting better. We’ll now be suffering through racial issues and victimization, I am afraid.
Jesus or Crude? I read articles about the PCUSA’s concern with oil companies, drilling, crude oil, fossil fuels the like. And then I read the posts that follow. Maybe we’ve stepped down because the concern of being of this world pales in comparison to what we can get out of it, and how we get it. Too bad we can’t drill down in ourselves deep enough to share and enforce the victory of what happened on the cross. We’re just way to concerned with black gold. Crude oil or His Blood…there’s the real choice.
When you get to the root of PCUSA problems, you will find that a lot of the leadership does not really believe that Jesus rose from the grave, or that the Bible is at all trustworthy. Discovering this in my college years is what led me to find another Presbyterian denomination.
All the bad politics and sexual controversies stem from these basic errors.