New Low in Climate Posturing

At least Madonna posing was entertaining, and children get to feel good about skipping school in order to stop the climate from changing.  But some posturing is both vapid and damaging.

The New York Post Editorial Board explains: A new low in posturing over climate change. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Of all New York politicians’ efforts to posture on climate change, the drive to divest public pension funds from fossil fuels may be the most deranged.

The bill from state Sen. Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan) and Assemblyman Felix Ortiz (D-B’klyn) would force state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli to sell off all the fund’s holdings in the 200 largest oil, gas and coal companies within five years.

The unions whose members’ retirements depend on the funds are against it. A union-funded report found that the fossil-fuel holdings outperform their green-energy counterparts in the long term.

Also in opposition is DiNapoli, who notes that “manipulation by legislative fiat has hurt pension funds in other states.”

The pension fund pays more than $1 billion a month in benefits. With an unaudited value of $210.2 billion, it now has about $6 billion in fossil-fuel stocks. Diversification of investments is central to fiscal prudence: Let politicians start banning any given stock, and you’re well on the road to requiring a massive taxpayer bailout — and/or huge cuts to the pensions of some classes of retirees.

Thankfully, New York courts have struck down past legislative efforts to mandate specific investment decisions: The state Constitution protects the comptroller’s discretion.

But that’s no guarantee that the principle will survive the climate-change zealots. After all, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has called on the state authorities he controls (the MTA, the New York Power Authority, the Thruway Authority) to divest from fossil fuels.

All that magical thinking about fighting climate change just might persuade state judges. And DiNapoli is surely worried that, if he goes to court over the issue, he’ll face a challenger in the next election who’ll promise to do as the green extremists demand.

Sensible lawmakers need to quash this nonsense before it goes any further.


  1. uwe.roland.gross · May 25, 2019

    Reblogged this on Climate- Science.


  2. Bob Greene · May 25, 2019

    Somehow these fine folks believe, or would have us believe, that all of this can be done for “free” or the cost would be minimal. Obama DOE Secretary Chu wanted fuel prices like Europe. About 2011, before the shale gas revolution was kicking into gear in my area we were looking at gasoline approaching $4/gallon and natural gas bouncing between $12-$14/MMBtu. The latter made my landfill gas to electricity plant BACT permit application sections easy because of cost. The rack price of diesel pushed diesel fueled electricity costs to above $275/MWhr just for fuel. We are now complaining when gasoline is $2.60/gal and high natural gas costs are under $3/gallon.

    Getting out of fossil fuels will not only harm pension plans, it will depress markets, jobs, etc, because of higher energy costs. If you are on a fixed income, you can enjoy the lower prices and some could really suffer if the prices increased. The pols ignore this as they merrily march on to somehow saving the planet.

    Oh, and never, ever, ask the question of how much global warming will this reduce.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s