To the editor: Having taught at a public neighborhood school for a few years, I’ve benefited from investments made by the California State Lecturers’ Retirement System. And for a few years I’ve written to name for divestment from the fossil gasoline trade, with out success. (“CalPERS Should Drop Investments in Fossil Fuels. Its New ‘Sustainable’ Plan Will not,” Chief, Dec. 3)
Suspending disposal is irresponsible as local weather change endangers human well being. If the laws goes to perform what the board members of CalSTRS and the California Public Staff’ Retirement System have failed to perform, I hope it comes sooner relatively than later.
In any other case, these pension funds will “proceed to gasoline a worsening local weather disaster,” as your chief says.
Lenore Navarro Dowling, Los Angeles
To the editor: If CalPERS drops its investments in fossil fuels, there might be no affect on the surroundings. The one factor that can change is the combo of shareholders.
This is able to set a nasty precedent. Ought to CalPERS additionally divest its holdings in transportation, utilities and plenty of manufacturing firms, which additionally contribute to local weather change?
Are the individuals who assume fossil gasoline investments are too dangerous monetary specialists? Many buyers, together with Warren Buffett, assume in any other case. Limiting funding decisions creates higher danger for a portfolio.
Authorities has a job to play in reducing emissions by means of its legislative and tax insurance policies. place to begin can be to implement congestion costs which might decrease emissions with much less site visitors and the proceeds might be used to cut back different taxes.
Allen Wisniewski, Redondo Seashore