Opinion: UC investments are going fossil free. But not exactly for the reasons you may think (2024)

Our job is to make money for the University of California, and we’re betting we can do that without fossil fuels investments.

We are investors and fiduciaries for what is widely considered the best public research university in the world. That makes us fiscally conservative by nature and by policy — “Risk rules” is one of the 10 pillars of what we call the UC Investments Way. We want to ensure that the more than 320,000 people currently receiving a UC pension actually get paid, that we can continue to fund research and scholarships throughout the UC system, and that our campuses and medical centers earn the best possible return on their investments.

We believe hanging on to fossil fuel assets is a financial risk. That’s why we will have made our $13.4-billion endowment “fossil free” as of the end of this month, and why our $70-billion pension will soon be that way as well.

Advertisem*nt

This risk-averse reasoning might not jibe with what you will read in a newspaper headline or scroll through in a news feed on your phone. Some might see our action as born of political pressure, or as green movement idealism or perhaps political correctness run amok. So be it; we are part of a university system where diversity of opinion thrives.

But none of these perspectives paints a full picture of what UC Investments has done or why it matters. The bigger, more significant story of how we manage UC’s money began five years ago and reflects a long view of investing for the benefit of the university.

In 2014, when both of us were brand new to our roles, UC Investments had no structural approach to sustainable investing. Today, we are on track to beat our own five-year goal of investing at least $1 billion in climatechange solutions and, by incorporating environmental, social and governance factors — ESG factors — into our investment decision-making, we’ve become better stewards of university funds.

That year we were the first public university in the United States to sign onto the U.N.’s Principles for Responsible Investing. In 2015, UC Investments published its own Framework for Sustainable Investing, which identifies the eight ESG factors most salient to our work. In 2018, the UC Board of Regents publicly changed the university’s investment policy to explicitly include ESG in investment decision-making. And this year, in response to these and other initiatives, the Responsible Asset Allocator Initiative at New America recognized UC Investments as one of the world’s 25 most responsible institutional investors.

So what’s the bottom line?

In April 2014, when Jagdeep arrived to become UC’s chief investment officer, UC Investments had a total of $91.6 billion in assets under management. As of June 30, the total portfolio stood at $126.1 billion. In five years, that includes $2.4 billion in value added above our benchmarksand a savings of $1 billion in reduced costs of management.

During that same time frame, we made no new investments in fossil fuels and four years ago, we sold our exposure to coal and oil sands. We found them too risky — and it’s worth noting that Jagdeep joined UC from one of Canada’ sovereign wealth funds in the heart of the oil sands region. We continue to believe there are more attractive investment opportunities in new energy sources than in old fossil fuels.

Advertisem*nt

All of this is by way of saying that we don’t make investment decisions simply based on the preferences of one group or another of our stakeholders, which is not to say we don’t listen to them. We should and we do, such as when the UC Academic Senate presented a “memorial” to the UC Board of Regents in July calling on us to divest our endowment of fossil fuels. We were already going there, or as Richard said in a statement at the time, we were “on a glide path to zero.” The same applies to the pension as well.

While our rationale may not be the moral imperative that many activists embrace, our investment decision-making process leads us to the same result. We’re in the business of helping to ensure the financial viability of a great university whose stakeholders frequently come at an issue — even one as terrifyingly consequential as climate change — from different perspectives.

The reason we sold some $150 million in fossil fuel assets from our endowment was the reason we sell other assets: They posed a long-term risk to generating strong returns for UC’s diversified portfolios.

We have been looking years, decades and centuries ahead as we place our bets that clean energy will fuel the world’s future. That means we believe there is money to be made. We have chosen to invest for a better planet, and reap the financial rewards for UC, rather than simply divest for a headline.

Jagdeep Singh Bachher is the University of California’s chief investment officer and treasurer. Richard Sherman is chairman of the UC Board of Regents’ Investments Committee.

More to Read

  • Letters to the Editor: Oil companies are killing the planet. Now they want to sell us a fake solution?

    Jan. 22, 2024

  • Environmentalists investing in Big Oil? Inside the surprising stock portfolios of California lawmakers

    Dec. 17, 2023

  • Letters to the Editor: Start treating fossil fuel companies like Purdue Pharma

    Dec. 8, 2023

Opinion: UC investments are going fossil free. But not exactly for the reasons you may think (2024)

FAQs

What are the arguments against fossil energy? ›

We understand today that humanity's use of fossil fuels is severely damaging our environment. Fossil fuels cause local pollution where they are produced and used, and their ongoing use is causing lasting harm to the climate of our entire planet.

What is the argument against fossil fuel divestment? ›

Divestment distracts from real solutions to climate change (i.e., ones that truly affect how much fossil fuel stays in the ground) including carbon taxes, cap and trade, regulation, and engineering solutions like carbon capture and storage. 6.

What are 3 problems with using fossil fuels? ›

But burning them creates climate change and releases pollutants that lead to early death, heart attacks, respiratory disorders, stroke, asthma, and absenteeism at school and work. It has also been linked to autism spectrum disorder and Alzheimer's disease.

Why fossil fuel subsidies are bad? ›

The $5.6 trillion of the so-called implicit subsidies are what economists call “negative externalities,” such as global warming and air pollution. The authors conclude that fossil fuels could be causing large damage to the planet in the future, and negatively affecting people's health—a difficult number to calculate.

Why should companies stop using fossil fuels? ›

The energy business is one of the largest industries in the world. Major fossil fuel companies routinely make billion-dollar profits, extracting and distributing oil, gas, and coal. Unfortunately, fossil fuels produce carbon dioxide (CO2) when burnt—and CO2 is the main driver of climate change.

What is the biggest negative consequence of fossil fuel use? ›

When fossil fuels are burned, they release large amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the air. Greenhouse gases trap heat in our atmosphere, causing global warming.

What is the problem with fossil energy? ›

When fossil fuels are burned, they release large amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the air. Greenhouse gases trap heat in our atmosphere, causing global warming.

What are the arguments for using fossil fuels? ›

Fossil fuels are cheap to turn into energy and they are reliable. They will produce energy at all times and when oil, gas or coal is found, it is usually in large amounts. They contribute to making lots of different, useful things, for example things made from steel and most plastics.

What are two weaknesses of the fossil record? ›

Many fossil records are incomplete because some animals were soft bodied or soft tissue which decays quickly. Also, due to movement of tectonic plates, fossils are destroyed so there are many new fossilised organisms which are destroyed and we don't know about them.

Why are fossil fuels bad evidence? ›

Fossil fuel extraction and burning impacts on deep-sea life

These gases trap heat, leading to global warming, including ocean warming. Rising ocean temperatures can impact deep-sea ecosystems by altering the distribution, abundance, and behavior of species.

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Msgr. Benton Quitzon

Last Updated:

Views: 6335

Rating: 4.2 / 5 (43 voted)

Reviews: 82% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Msgr. Benton Quitzon

Birthday: 2001-08-13

Address: 96487 Kris Cliff, Teresiafurt, WI 95201

Phone: +9418513585781

Job: Senior Designer

Hobby: Calligraphy, Rowing, Vacation, Geocaching, Web surfing, Electronics, Electronics

Introduction: My name is Msgr. Benton Quitzon, I am a comfortable, charming, thankful, happy, adventurous, handsome, precious person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.