Monday, October 14, 2013

FAQ on Divestment from Fossil Fuels

The Basics about Divestment
(These are primarily drawn from the website, with much shortening and a few modifications.)

·        Divestment is a moral and prophetic act.  It is a refusal to invest in or profit from companies engaging in unethical or morally ambiguous actions. Burning fossil fuels creates global warming, which in turn causes suffering and changes in life cycles (for humans and other living things). It is thus morally wrong to make money from the unregulated extraction of fossil fuels.
·        Divestment is the opposite of an investment–it simply means getting rid of stocks, bonds or investment funds that are unethical or morally ambiguous. Fossil Fuel investments are a risk for investors and the planet–that’s why we’re calling on institutions to divest from these companies.
·        There have been a handful of successful divestment campaigns in recent history, including Darfur, Tobacco and others, but the largest and most impactful one came to a head around the issue of South African Apartheid and helped break the power of the Apartheid government.

We want PCUSA to do two things:
1: immediately freeze any new investment in fossil fuel companies, and
2: divest from direct ownership and any commingled funds that include fossil fuel public equities and corporate bonds within 5 years.

Two hundred publicly-traded companies hold the vast majority of the world’s proven coal, oil and gas reserves. Those are the companies we’re asking our institutions to divest from. Our demands to these companies are simple, because they reflect the stark truth of climate science:
  • They need immediately to stop exploring for new hydrocarbons.
  • They need to stop lobbying in Washington and state capitols across the country to preserve their special political and economic breaks, including subsidies for their products.
  • Most importantly, they need to pledge to keep 80% of their current reserves underground forever.

Why divestment?
The fossil fuel divestment campaign is about creating a movement which can educate the broader public about the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and its impact on global warming.  As a divestment campaign grows, there is strength in numbers, which ultimately can bring sufficient negative publicity to hurt the public image of these companies and remove their social license to continue to do business the way they have.

  • Stopping fossil fuel infrastructure projects is important. Coal plants cause asthma and dump mercury into the air and water; fracking fluid can leak into groundwater and make people sick; pipelines can leak, and so on. We can and should stand with people on the front lines of these fights to stop projects like the Keystone XL pipeline that would destroy communities and the planet, and contribute to climate change.
  • But, we can’t stop global warming one pipeline, coal plant or fracking well at a time.  We also need to loosen the grip that coal, oil and gas companies have on our government and financial markets. We need to fight back against the economic power that these companies have in our economy.

  • Divestment isn’t primarily an economic strategy.  It’s a moral stand, an educational strategy and a publicity strategy.  Just like in the struggle for Civil Rights here in America or the fight to end Apartheid in South Africa, the more we can make climate change a deeply moral issue, the more we will push society towards action. We need to make it clear that if it’s wrong to wreck the planet, then it’s also wrong to profit from that wreckage.
  • While sale of stock might not have an immediate impact on a fossil fuel company, what it does do is start to sow uncertainty about the viability of the fossil fuel industry’s business model. Here’s why: in order to keep warming below 2°C, a target that the United States and nearly every other country on Earth has agreed to, the International Energy Agency calculates that the fossil fuel industry will need to NOT burn approximately 80% of their reserves of coal, oil, and gas. Those reserves are factored into the share price of every fossil fuel company. Those assets will have to be written off when governments finally decide to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. By divesting from fossil fuels, we are building the case for that government action.
  • Divestment also starts to build momentum for moving money into clean energy, community development, and other more sustainable investments. It is moving our money from the problem to the solution.
  • The divestment movement creates public discourse which can create momentum for legislation to limit carbon emissions.

Can we still make a reasonable return without investing in Exxon or Peabody Coal?
  • While it’s true that fossil fuel companies are extremely profitable, they’re also very risky investments.  Coal, oil and gas companies’ business models rest on emitting five times more carbon into the atmosphere than civilization can handle.  Disasters like Exxon Valdez and the BP oil spill also make these investments risky.
  • Report after report has shown that investing in clean energy, efficiency and other sustainable technologies can be even more profitable than fossil fuels. It’s a growing market and a safe place for an institution to invest.
  • There are also a number of ways to re-invest locally that help build your community and stimulate good jobs. Projects like energy efficiency and rooftop solar have high up-front and labor costs, but save institutions money in the long run, because electricity, heating and other costs are reduced significantly.
  • The five year divestment plan allows ample opportunity to develop an alternative investment strategy.

·        We encourage institutions to bring about shareholder pressure over the next 5 years as they gradually divest.  If they are successful in getting the fossil fuel companies to give up their core business in the next 5 years, that’s wonderful.  If not, the companies know that there is a consequence for refusing to move away from fossil fuels to become more broad-based energy companies.
·        We are a bit skeptical that companies will respond sufficiently to shareholder engagement.  Shareholder action can be an effective tool to make small reforms at a company, such as pressuring Apple to institute better labor practices at the factories it works with in China. But there haven’t been any shareholder resolutions that have been able to address the core problem with the fossil fuel industry: the massive amounts of carbon they insist on dumping into the atmosphere for free. Exxon could still make a profit as an energy company if it transitioned its massive wealth and expertise over to renewables, but they won’t do it willingly and we doubt that any group of shareholders would pass such a resolution.  They are more likely to do it only if there is enough public pressure and moral outrage to finally bring about government regulation.
·        It’s unlikely the fossil fuel companies can be convinced to give up their core business and move to renewables through shareholder action

That’s why it’s time for divestment. We need to make the moral stakes of our current situation clear: the fossil fuel industry is destroying the planet and it’s immoral to profit off that destruction that harms humans and all creation. Divestment is a clear and powerful action that helps build the case through education and publicity so that there will eventually be government action. Divestment powerfully makes the point that we should be moving our money into the solution as opposed to the problem. If we’d started this campaign 30 years ago, then shareholder action would make more sense, but with the rapidly closing window for action, we need to act swiftly and boldly. Divestment can be an uncomfortable step to take, but it’s the right thing to do — and it will make a far greater impact than any shareholder resolution we could ever pass.

What about the hard-working people who mine coal, drill oil and run fracking equipment for a living?  How can I support this overture given the hardships it would cause them?
(with thanks to UCC’s FAQs)

·        We are profoundly and humbly aware of the vast economic disruptions and personal costs that will result from moving beyond a fossil-fuel-based economy.
·        The church will need to have a role in helping individuals deal with grief and change, and in advocating for corporate and governmental policies to mitigate the damage.  The church must stand with those who lose their jobs, even as we pursue this change.
·        But if humanity does not make this transition, the disruption and cost will be incalculable, as our world will cease to be habitable for miners, drillers, or any of us.
·        Our economy has gone through severe dislocations in the past.  When slavery was an issue, many felt that the economy (the textile industry in the North included) could not survive the loss of cheap cotton harvested by slave labor.  This did not deter our nation’s leaders from passing the 13th Amendment. It is not easy to make these changes, but sometimes it is necessary.
·        There will be many new jobs created in the renewable energy sector.

What about the people who are just getting by and see any rise in gasoline prices as a threat to their well-being?  These are the folks, for example, who have to drive great distances to get to any sort of employment and cannot afford to live close to the available jobs.  Public transportation is not a real option in many places.  Some people will see this plan as making their lives immediately worse for a very small future reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

·        No question this will create hardship for all of us, especially those who live close to the margin and depend on low gas prices.
·        We have to stay focused on the larger danger in our lives. Our planet is threatened and this danger poses a larger threat to even more people.
·        When our legislators finally take on the issue of carbon taxes making polluters pay for externalities, they will have added financial resources to create viable public transportation and subsidies (like food stamps) available for those who can’t afford fuel.
·        It will be important for people of faith to be willing to stand with people on the margins who will suffer the impact of more realistic (non-subsidized) gas prices.

Church-specific Questions

Our church avoids political issues. 

·        We certainly know from experience that it’s tough for a church to take on an issue that may be divisive.  But we also know that sometimes that is necessary. In the Gospels Jesus calls us again and again to work for those who suffer, to care for those who need healing, and to speak up for those who are voiceless. Jesus offers us a model of standing up to those in power who create and enforce economic and political systems that add to suffering and injustice.
·        We don’t see this as a political issue.  It’s not a Republican or Democratic issue; it’s a human issue. 
·        We see this as an issue of morality and of social justice and both of those concerns are at the heart of our Christian faith.
·        The 183rd General Assembly of the PCUSA resolved that church investment is “an instrument of mission and includes social, theological and economic considerations.”

Isn’t the fate of the world in God’s hands, not ours? 
·        Perhaps the problem is that we humans have taken over God’s role. 
References: Job 38, Genesis 3

·        1 Samuel 2:8 reads “All the earth is the Lord’s, and he has set the world in order.” So, yes, the fate of the world is up to God, but God also calls us in Genesis to till and keep the garden. “That means we have the responsibility to protect our air… we need to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.”[1]
·        (ask the person you are talking to) How do you understand how God acts in history, in the world?
·        In 2006 PCUSA passed a resolution saying we have a Christian mandate to care for creation by “acting now and acting boldly to lead the way in reducing our energy useage.”
·        Prophetic voice?  God works through prophets and God is still calling us to speak up in the world

Is the overture asking only PC(USA) to divest or is it also asking individual churches and people to divest?
·        The overture asks only PC(USA) to divest its holdings at a denominational level.  Although divestment by individuals and smaller organizations is very welcome, the divestment movement is focusing on large institutions.  Such institutions tend to have significant retirement funds and larger budgets and, at least initially, their actions will draw the greatest attention. 
·         That said, we encourage individual churches and people to pursue divestment.  The more demand there is for fossil-free funds, the sooner those investment options will expand.  The more re-investment there is into clean energy companies, the stronger they will become. 

Don’t the fund managers have a fiduciary responsibility to invest PC(USA)’s funds to get the most benefit for their client?     
·        Monetary profit is not the only benefit we are looking for.  A secure future is what we really seek.  An investment that wrecks the place we call home cannot be defended as fulfilling the fiduciary obligation to benefit investors. Succinctly, how can it be a good investment if it leads to the destruction of our home and future?
·        Fiduciary responsibility means acting in the best interest of the institution. In PCUSA, our “best interest” may be served by having a sustainable planet.

What is the policy of PCUSA on divestment?
The General Assembly of PCUSA has over the years instructed its investing groups to divest from tobacco, alcohol, gambling, and pornography along with some companies related to guns and weapons production. We believe fossil fuel companies should be on that list.

Do we know how much $ the PCUSA has invested in fossil fuels?
·        No. We are working on finding answers to this question.

Questions about the Science 

Isn’t there still disagreement among scientists?
·        There is almost no disagreement among experts in the field of climate science.  (Among 14,000 authors of peer-reviewed scientific articles on global warming published between 1991 and Nov. 2012, only 24 reject human-caused global warming.)
·        Suppose your child had symptoms of ill-health and you took him to 100 medical specialists.  98 of them said you need to treat this illness now and 2 said “let’s wait and see what happens”, what would you do?

Where can I learn more about climate change?
A good book on faith and the science of climate change is A Climate for Change by Katharine Hayhoe and Andrew Farley. We also recommend the Union for Concerned Scientists ( as an excellent resource.

Other Questions

This is so unrealistic.  We depend on fossil fuels.  We need to keep the lights and heat on and be able to move people and goods from place to place.
·        Yes, of course we want energy.  But most of us would not care what the source of that energy is (oil or wind) as long as it could keep the lights and heat on.
·        We also need to continue to reduce our energy use.
·        Only certain sources of energy (fossil fuels) have received subsidies and have not had to pay to dump their waste.  Because of the power grip of these companies, we’ve been led to believe that only fossil fuels can meet our energy needs.

Wouldn’t a better way to solve the problem be to put a price on energy (fee and dividend/carbon tax)?
We do need to continue to contact our legislators about that.  But we won’t get that kind of action from Congress until we radically change the conversation about global warming.  First, we need to draw more and more attention to the problem.  And we need to put moral pressure on the fossil fuel companies so that they will no longer have a strangle hold (think big money lobbying) on the political process.

You know, nothing’s going to solve this problem until…people stop driving, or people stop consuming so much, or China stops polluting, or …fill in the blank)
·  I agree that no one strategy can, by itself, solve the problem.  It would be wonderful if… (people drove less, China cut back on emissions, etc).
·  But divestment is one concrete strategy aimed at the root of the problem, which is that the fossil fuel companies continuing with their business as usual will wreck the planet.
·   Religious institutions are especially well suited to take a moral stand and speak with a prophetic voice. 
·  It will take many changes to solve our climate problem, this is one.

Population growth over the next 50 years will force us to use every available source of energy to meet demand.  It seems stupid to cut off some of those sources. 
·        We have to weigh this reality against the reality of what the world will be like in 50 years if we continue burning carbon as we are now.
·        Increasingly frequent and severe storms will play havoc with the power systems we now have.
·        No question we must also address the issue of population growth.
·        Limiting carbon emissions preserves more capacity for food and water for future generations.

Do you really think divestment will work?  
·        I don’t know whether we can do enough fast enough to stem the tide.  But I know that I must do all I can to respond to the moral crisis of our age.
·        As people of faith, we bring the element of hope, not a naive optimism, but a hope that does not depend on continuity.  Hope embraces breakthrough; hope embraces miracle.  Hope believes that a single sermon can change your life.  Hope believes that a single person can change history.  However strong the forces against us may be, we do not lose hope.  (Thanks for this wording, UCC.)

[1] From I love God’s Green Earth by Michael and Caroline Carroll

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Gasland, “Truthland,” and the CHPC Earth Care Team:
By Stephen Bartlett
The movie “Gasland” was shown at CHPC on Friday evening, August 30, to a rarified Labor Day weekend audience.  I wasn’t  able to make it at the last minute, after having agreed to write a review.  So in lieu of a proper review, and based on a survey of prevailing research on hydraulic fracturing, alias “fracking”, as well as reading through controversies swirling about the movie and the production of counter movies, such as “Truthland” (I smell a rat in that one.), as well as my own understanding of our current energy, climate and human civilization crises, I would like to offer some thoughts surrounding this issue. 

First thought:  we must proceed with caution when reading opinions about this volatile issue.  The profit motive for the energy corporations is so enormous, and the dependency of our society on fossil fuels so deep, that the debate is tainted by conflicts of interest at many levels, including the way mainstream media is controlled by corporations, as well as governmental agencies such as the EPA tainted by undue influence of corporate money in campaigns, revolving doors, etc… Knowing who is saying what and following the money are essential to discerning the truth.

On the other hand, purely emotional responses to the igniting of one’s water tap, a dramatic demonstration of something definitely wrong, could also be misleading, depending on the honesty of everyone involved.

Second thought:  debating whether natural gas may be a "solution" to the problem of the “far worse” coal and oil pollution may be the wrong question to ask.   The millions of dollars going into spinning that message also make me cringe.  Alternatively,  a question that might be worth asking is:  can the increased use of natural gas allow our society a temporary, less harmful transition from all forms of fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, OR NOT?  Related to that:  can we invest more time, money, etc… in energy conservation and reducing our carbon foot prints than in pursuing new fossil fuel use that is supposedly “better” for us, and runs all manner of risks to life and limb and our precious water supplies.  Tar sand production, for example, is without any doubt laying waste to vast areas of Canada and causing untold health issues and human suffering among the indigenous peoples living in that region.  The approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline would only add fuel to that evil fire!

Third thought:  Are humans justified in pulverizing rocks deep in the Earth on a massive scale through violent means including the injecting of diesel fuel and related contaminating chemicals, mixed in water, thereby releasing natural gas up to the surface (presumably up through pipes only), when it is the burning of fossil fuels that we know is tipping our planet’s climate over the brink of an abyss for our living systems?   Whether the fuel is natural gas, (which, yes, at least does not pollute with sulfur or cause acid rain), or it is coal which has such pollutants, or petroleum which also contains such pollutants in lesser amounts, all of them are contributing to global warming as surely as 1 + 1 = 2.   Any natural gas that leaks from fracking becomes a potent greenhouse gas 25 times more harmful than CO2.  Making a claim that natural gas is less polluting also begs the point.  We are still planning to continue burning coal and oil, in quantities to meet the growing world demand, as is China and other countries.  So this is not actually going to reduce the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere, at a time when we are challenged, morally and pragmatically required, I would argue,  to dramatically reduce such CO2 emissions. 

So regardless of whether the methane in someone’s tap was due to natural gas leaks caused by fracking, or this is because this house lies over a landfill producing methane or a manure slew brewing upstream, etc… I think for us the question is whether we are willing to tackle the most important question:  how are we as human society going to reduce our carbon footprints?  Are we willing to condition our bodies to withstanding hot summer temps at home with fans instead of AC, and cool homes and wood burning stoves in winter?  Are we willing to demand public policy changes to promote greater and faster conservation practices for all our major energy usages, and to find ways within our own community and congregation to further reduce our carbon footprints, to lead by example?   Can we get out of our heavy cars, SUVs and dramatically reduce our use of fossil fuels?   I see the beginnings of a barter economy among members of our congregation:  why just today I received at church hot peppers from a member and will repay in cucumbers delivered by bicycle.  One less trip to the supermarket.  The bonus if multiplied:  one less farmworker exploited in the agribusiness fields where such crops are grown and harvested!  Maybe, hopefully and by the Grace of God in our lives, one day that kind of revitalized local food economy multiplied across the U.S.  will add up to fewer immigrants forced to leave their countries due to agribusiness commodity dumping in their countries of origin, or one less military intervention launched at the behest of corporations perpetually thirsty for the minerals and fossil fuels that lie under their lands.  

Thursday, September 5, 2013

On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 the session approved an overture that if passed by the Presbytery and the General Assembly in 2014 will lead to PC-USA divesting from stocks of fossil fuel companies. Crescent Hill thus became the sixth congregation to pass this overture (after 1st Pres Palo Alto, 1st Pres Oak Ridge, Church of the Covenant, Boston, Oakhurst, Decatur, GA, 1st Pres San Anselmo). 

The complete text of the overture follows.



   The General Assembly expresses its profound concern about the destructive effects of climate change on all God’s creation. Climate change has had a disproportionate impact on those living in poverty and in the least developed countries, the elderly and children, and those least responsible for the emissions of greenhouse gases. General Assembly thus recognizes the moral mandate for humanity to shift to a sustainable energy plan in a way that is both just and compassionate. This mandate propels us to action as a denomination: to divest from the fossil fuel industry even as we reduce our use of fossil fuels and shrink our carbon footprint.

1.   The General Assembly calls upon the Board of Pensions and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Foundation to:
a.        Immediately stop any new investment in fossil fuel companies and instruct asset managers in their work for the denomination to do the same; and
b.        Ensure that within 5 years none of its directly held or commingled assets includes holdings of either equities or corporate bonds in fossil fuel companies as determined by the Carbon Tracker list[1]; and
c.        Incorporate, into already existing financial reports, regular updates detailing progress made towards full divestment. These reports will be made available to the public.

2.   The General Assembly calls upon the Stated Clerk of the PC(USA) to inform those fossil fuel companies of the passage and implementation of this resolution.


The realities of climate change require prophetic and strategic action by people of faith seeking to be faithful to the everlasting covenant God has made with us, with every living creature, and with all future generations. If fossil fuel companies simply fulfill their business model, the earth will become irreversibly inhospitable to life as we know it. This overture urges the PC(USA) to divest from fossil fuel companies as part of a worldwide movement. Over the past three or more decades, many bodies of the Presbyterian Church (USA), including the General Assembly on numerous occasions, have recognized our moral obligation to be faithful stewards of God’s creation as well as acknowledging, in one way or another, that harming creation is a sin. This overture seeks to inspire and accelerate an unswerving commitment—as the 202nd General Assembly in 1991 affirmed in the Statement on Restoring Creation for Ecology and Justice—to “insisting on sustainability––the ongoing capacity of natural and social systems to thrive together––which requires human beings to practice wise, humble, responsible stewardship, after the model of servanthood that we have in Jesus.”  The 217th General Assembly in 2006 resolved that “the urgency, injustice and seriousness of this issue calls us as Christians to act NOW and act boldly to lead the way in reducing our energy usage” and that “we should make a bold witness by aspiring to live carbon neutral lives.” Eight years later, the urgency has increased dramatically and the PC(USA) must act boldly by divesting from fossil fuels.

Biblical and Theological Rationale
The actions this resolution recommends are rooted in an expression of several of the most foundational theological and biblical principles of our Presbyterian identity. In Genesis 9, God makes a covenant not only with Noah, but with all of humanity; a covenant not only with all of humanity, but with every living creature; a covenant not only with all creatures alive today, but with all future generations. It is now clear that the past few generations of humans have burned so much of the earth’s energy reserves that we are on the verge of irreversibly rendering the entire earth inhospitable for life as it has existed for all of recorded history. By any measure, this is a violation of covenant with future generations and the rest of creation—an action that works against God’s covenant to never again destroy creation.

In Matthew 25: 31-46 Jesus calls us to care for the “least of these.” Climate change is creating a reality where there are more people than ever who are hungry, thirsty, and homeless. It is thus poised to create the most massive human rights violation the world has ever seen.  Furthermore it creates more suffering, directly at odds with caring for the least of these and loving our neighbor in response to Jesus’ commandments to us in Scripture.  If we are called to love one another, then it is morally and theologically wrong to profit from the destruction of creation.

Because we are a covenant people and affirm Jesus’ call in Scripture to love our neighbors as ourselves, we recognize our obligation as people of faith to take into account how our decisions and activities affect all of creation now and into the future.

Background Information
The leaders of 167 countries, including the United States, have agreed that any warming of the planet above a 2°C (3.6°F) rise would be unsafe, and we have already (as of 2012) raised the temperature 0.8°C, causing far more damage, in the forms of extreme weather events, drought, flood, and sea level rise, than most scientists had expected. Computer models show that even if we stopped increasing CO2 levels now, the temperature would continue to rise another 0.8°C, bringing the planet over three-quarters of the way to the 2°C limit. Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and still have some reasonable hope of staying below 2°C.

The proven coal, oil, and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies—and the countries (e.g. Venezuela or Kuwait) which act like fossil-fuel companies—equals about 2,795 gigatons of CO2, or five times the amount we can release and still maintain a 2°C limit to planetary warming.  The sole objective of fossil fuel companies is to make money for their shareholders by providing energy to the nations of the world using the resources the companies currently own or have rights to tap—and if they simply continue to carry out their business plan to fulfill this objective, they will raise the temperature of the earth far beyond what scientists have estimated can safely sustain plant, animal, and human life as they have been for thousands of years.

As a result of fossil fuel use, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has now been measured at over 400 parts per million (ppm), 50ppm over what many scientists say is the safe upper limit, and a 43% increase in the last 250 years. Almost half (44%) of this 43% increase has occurred in the past 25 years alone, and the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere in the past decade is over three times the average addition per decade in the period 1950-80.  These numbers are the most concrete evidence we have that climate change is happening at an accelerating rate.

Why Divestment?
This overture is part of a worldwide movement focused on keeping as much of the earth’s carbon reserves as possible in the ground. As part of that campaign, this resolution proposes the PC(USA) divest from fossil fuel companies. The Carbon Tracker Initiative, a team of London financial analysts and environmentalists, estimates that proven coal, oil, and gas reserves of the fossil fuel companies, and the countries that act like fossil fuel companies, equals about 2,795 gigatons of CO2, or five times the amount we can release to maintain 2 degrees of warming.

From 1983-1989, General Assembly passed many resolutions[3] committing the corporate expressions of the PC(USA) to divest from companies doing business with South Africa as an expression of protest against apartheid in South Africa. Their action began as a prophetic witness, but once thousands of institutions and individuals joined together to divest from companies doing business in South Africa, apartheid came to an end, in part, because of pressure from divestment.

Following that path, what begins as a prophetic act of divestment from fossil fuel companies will:
a.   Drive public awareness of the massive damage being done by the fossil fuel industry as it generates huge short-term profits by moving carbon from the rocks of the earth into Earth’s atmosphere;
b.   Build public recognition of the urgent need to drastically and rapidly reduce humanity’s dependence on fossil fuels, ending the “business as usual” approach that continues and even accelerates extracting, marketing and burning fossil fuel;
c.    Lead to inspiring an urgent, accelerated and popular commitment to leave untapped 80% of the known carbon reserves, while developing renewable energy resources capable of meeting humanity’s needs – thus making possible that all life as we have known it might continue for future generations on God’s good earth;
d.    Call the denomination to reinvest a portion of the divested funds in initiatives to reduce the energy use and carbon footprint of PCUSA churches and in investments in companies primarily focused on energy efficiency and renewable energy;
e.    No longer allow the PC(USA) to profit from the destruction of creation and the suffering of humanity caused by climate change from burning fossil fuels.

[1]           The current list of 200 coal, oil and gas companies can be found at:
[2]              Portions of this document were written in collaboration with and permission from the Rev. Dr. Jim Antal, UCC climate activist and Minister and President, Massachusetts Conference, United Church of Christ.
[3]           1983: The Fourteenth General Assembly adopts as amended the Resolution on Investment and Corporate Responsibility with Regards to South Africa. 1985: The Fifteenth General Assembly adopts the Proposal for Action "PCUSA Full Divestment of All Financial Resources from All Corporations Doing Business with South Africa."1987: The Sixteenth General Assembly adopts "Expanded Criteria for Divestment and Advocacy Related to South Africa" as amended. 1989: The Seventeenth General Assembly adopts the Resolution "Boycott of Royal Dutch/Shell Oil," as amended.