The best chance for vulnerable nations to affect climate change is not through nations or organizations, but actually through The United Methodist Church.
The Problem: Location
The problem with the climate change debate is that the countries who will be most affected by climate change are not those that are contributing the most to climate change. Industrialized nations that deplete the ozone layer and send teams that mine fossil fuels and level forests will feel the effects of climate change, surely, but not as severely as the smaller countries.
For example, the Philippines are a series of low-lying islands, and have suffered greatly from climate change that sends storm after powerful storm their way. Africa has seen significant changes to water supply due to shrinking mountain snow caps, changing how vulnerable populations live day-to-day.
The problem is that political and national efforts to halt climate change from these countries have little effect on the multinational conglomerates and corporations that operate outside their jurisdiction. Other than sanctions or efforts against the fossil fuel industries that operate locally, which are rare due to financial considerations, there’s a sense of hopelessness of what a country can do to stop a process that will substantially affect them.
The deck is stacked against the most vulnerable nations to a climate change situation they did not create. What can they do?
The Solution: The Church
It is to this situation that I am convinced the countries most affected by climate change can do the most good through The United Methodist Church. In May 2016, The United Methodist Church will vote at General Conference whether to divest its holdings in fossil fuel companies and permanently state that such pension and financial investments are anathema to people called Methodists.
This is a big deal with a lot of money. According to Fossil Free UMC, a movement of United Methodists who want fossil fuels added to their denomination’s investment screens (ie. added to the list of companies that we will not invest in, like porn, gambling, prisons, etc):
The General Board of Pension and Health Benefits has nearly $600 million invested in the largest fossil fuel companies in the world, with investments in 31 of the top 100 coal companies and 80 of the top 100 oil and gas companies by reserves.
As we’ve shared before at Hacking Christianity, this is a tremendous powerhouse of money that could overnight change the game by divesting worldwide from the petroleum industry and reinvesting in sustainable clean energy sources. There would be financial upheaval, there would be difficulty, but after the transition decades, historians might point to this moment as the turning point when the Church took the lead and chose to be a headlight rather than a taillight.
The Solution: The Global Church
While it seems like The UMC has the same problems with money and power, that’s not entirely the case. The UMC has a global polity which means that every Methodist around the world has a vote through their delegates at General Conference. In fact, over 40% of the votes to effect change in The UMC come from outside the United States. That number will likely reach 50% by 2024, which is the same year that General Conference will be held outside the USA for the first time.
So the international church is a powerhouse when it comes to church decisions. In a world where politics and money stop change from being effected, I believe the Church is where radical change can actually take place.
The math supports this. Let’s imagine that every African delegation (260 delegates), Filipino delegation (50 delegates), and the 11 annual conferences that has already passed a divestment resolution (70 delegates) support divestment. Out of the 864 voting delegates, that leaves 380 delegates in support, needing only 52 more individual delegates to vote to authorize the UMC to divest. While it is unreasonable to expect entire delegations vote in bloc, though some caucus groups encourage this, the countries most affected by climate change can actually do this.
The potential is there and the math is very close. And such an incredible amount of money can then be reinvested in clean energy sources, which can leapfrog parts of Africa from no infrastructure to a solar infrastructure, bypassing fossil fuels entirely.
The Problem: The UMC Money People
However, the dream has one powerful entity standing in its way: the General Board of Pensions and Health Benefits. For the past year, GBPHB has sent staffers to annual conferences that were considering divestment proposals in order to lobby against them. They sent a very powerful speaker to the Pre-Conference briefing for the American delegates, and speakers to the international briefings as well. I think they are sincere in their belief that shareholder advocacy works and The UMC should not divest, but as we’ve explored earlier, that’s often like asking Nike to stop selling shoes.
We know the money people are worried about divestment because they overplayed their hand by sending a disturbing video to the Central Conferences. As Fossil Free UMC, Reconciling Ministries, and the United Methodist News Service have reported, the GBPHB created a video sent to the Central Conference (non-USA) briefings that explicitly told delegates to NOT vote for divestment. Then, after being called on it, they edited the video to still say the same things, but the caption no longer reads “do not vote for divestment” as if that makes it better.
I don’t actually have a problem with our agencies submitting legislation and proposals and advocating for them. For example, if the practice of missions causes Global Missions to have ideas about how to better do things, I want to hear from them. If the Pensions people have better ideas about how to do things, I want to hear from them. But offering critical reflection on issues for American delegates, while being directive about how to vote for international delegates, strikes me as hypocritical and desperate because the math is so close.
The Time is Now
As Rev. Phillips concludes in the UMNS article:
“This is the time for The United Methodist Church to step out and say we are not going to profit from this industry any longer,” she said. “We want to stand on the side of people who are suffering the impact of climate change.”
May we find this courage and the willingness to risk some money to do good for the entire planet.
Thoughts?
Exxon currently has a market cap of $342B, and an average daily volume of $1.77B(*). Assuming that we have 10% of our $600M invested in XOM, dumping our stock in one day would cause a 3% blip in the daily volume, with approximately zero effect on the stock price, and the only “financial upheaval,” if any, would be to the UMC pension system. It would be a good gesture, but it reminds me of the old poster of a mouse raising a last defiant middle finger to a diving hawk.
*source: https://www.google.com/finance?q=xom
I would be curious to know if the pension board’s portfolios have suffered from fossil fuel stocks in the past year/s. The industry is volatile in general and has been tanking considerably recently. There does not seem to be an end to the Saudi oil glut in sight, and if nations hold to the Paris agreement (which I would sincerely HOPE we are counting on–betting on continued burning of fossil fuels is the height of cynicism) these stocks are bad, bad news. If money HAS indeed been lost, I think it is the board’s professional duty to disclose this as the decision comes up so that their clients (the UMC) can make an informed decision.
The goal of divestment is not so much to cause quantitative financial harm to fossil fuel companies, but to send a loud/clear message to society & world leaders that business models that guarantee catastrophic climate change are absolutely unacceptable to us as Christians. It adds significant energy & momentum to the global climate justice movement (which is making significant gains–the Paris Agreement we got would NOT have come about without the growing pressure from the global grassroots climate movement). It is another act of faith (we are not the first–3 trillion has been divested in the past few years and a great deal from religious organizations) to turn to the tide and undermine the myth that a rapid shift away from fossil fuels is not economically and practically possible. It absolutely is.
For people of faith–this goes deeper. Faith in Christ means that we do the right thing, regardless of whether we think we are going to “win.” Divesting from fossil fuels is unquestionably the right thing to do, so why would we hesitate to do it?
I think David may be right in pointing out this potential flaw in the argument. Of course, the diminutive size of our holdings is the same reason why shareholder advocacy, a big argument of GBOPHB, is a flawed strategy as well.
At this point they came in sight of thirty forty windmills that there are on plain, and as soon as Don Quixote saw them he said to his squire, “Fortune is arranging matters for us better than we could have shaped our desires ourselves, for look there, friend Sancho Panza, where thirty or more monstrous giants present themselves, all of whom I mean to engage in battle and slay, and with whose spoils we shall begin to make our fortunes; for this is righteous warfare, and it is God’s good service to sweep so evil a breed from off the face of the earth.” Chapter 8 – Don Quixote.
I am a United Methodist clergyperson and eager for General Conference to vote to divest from the fossil fuel industry. Continuing to profit from an industry that is wrecking our planet and causing suffering to so many vulnerable people in developing countries does not reflect Christian values.
Amen As a longtime member of Arkansas and
National Wildlife Federations, this type of positive thinking has been the thrust for years. Go, UMC!
As a Filipino UMC member, I am conflicted about this issue. On the one hand, we here are experiencing stronger storms as of late, and it has been argued that climate change has some influence in it. But we also understand that our denomination is global and needs the funds to help in our global mission for evangelism and social welfare.
As some commenters have already pointed out, divesting is an empty gesture at best. We should aim to reduce carbon emissions by driving less and using public transport more. I have been to the mainland USA once and it is a land of muscle cars and SUVs. Perhaps if we use hybrids or fuel efficient cars our emissions would lessen. The fossil fuel industry is just feeding the problem, not causing it. I visited a UMC church in North Carolina and almost every vehicle in the lot was a truck or an SUV.
Also, divesting would be an insincere gesture if we, in turn, accept money from people who work in the fossil fuel industry. I am reminded of our Roman Catholic church here in the Philippines. They condemn gambling on the one hand, and accept billions of pesos in donations from the gambling industry. When called out by the media on it, they merely shrug their shoulders and claim that money is money, no matter where it came from. If money made by Exxon Mobil is dirty money, then surely it is just as dirty when it is put into the collection plate by Exxon Mobil employees, suppliers, investors, partners, distributors, etc.
Again, I am conflicted on this. I hope wiser people in our denomination can find a solution to this, a golden mean. We are Methodists, we always go the middle way!
We are so focused on keeping our holdings in the fossil fuel industry, an industry that is not sustainable and threatens our future. We don’t hold enough shares of any one company to make any impact at all, whether it be persuasive at shareholder meetings, or influencing stock prices by dumping our shares. If we divest of those holdings, which is inevitable because they cannot continue to be lucrative, we could invest in equally profitable holdings in a more earth/future friendly industry. Doing that now could allow us to enter some new sustainable markets that can take us into the future knowing we have done the right thing.
I’m not sure how much of an immediate impact UMC divestment would actually have; the prison and gambling industries seem to be thriving without our support. And as others have pointed out, the UMC doesn’t have large fossil fuel holdings.
Still, divestment is probably a wise decision purely on economic grounds. The fossil fuel industry is reeling due to low gas prices, and it doesn’t look like it will recover in the near future. There are a lot of other investments that would bring a better return for the money. There’s no point in holding onto companies that are bad the planet and bad for the pocketbook.