Christian Church group votes to divest in fossile fuels over GW

Freewill

Platinum Member
Oct 26, 2011
31,158
5,073
1,130
So should they have their lights turned off? I wonder if they look so closely at their investments into health care organizations that provide abortions. I guess they will now be walking. Can't ride horse they create green house gases. So if they are true to what they are doing they will be sitting in the dark with no where to go.

Protestant Group Votes to Divest From Fossil Fuels - ABC News

A group of Protestant churches has become the first U.S. religious body to vote to divest its pension funds and investments from fossil fuel companies because of climate change concerns.

The United Church of Christ, which traces its origins back to the Pilgrims in 1620 and has about 1.1 million members in 5,100 congregations, voted on Monday to divest in stages over the next five years. But it left open the possibility of keeping some investments if the fossil fuel companies meet certain standards.

"Implementing the multiple strategies outlined in this resolution will demand time, money and care — but we believe creation deserves no less," United Church Funds President Donald Hart said in a statement. The affiliated group has managed church investments since 1909.
 
there are many idiots on this planet just not in one place together :rolleyes:
 
:lol:

Well, it is also possible to ensure your electricity is 100% renewables sourced. Our city recently entered into an aggregated purchase agreement and this is the path they took.

I went to the city council meeting and read them the riot act.

Needless to say, I opted out.
 
Last edited:
:lol:

Well, it is also possible to ensure your electricity is 100% renewables sourced. Our city recently entered into an aggregated purchase agreement and this is the path they took.

I went to the city council meeting and read them the riot act.

Needless to say, I opted out.

What you are ensuring by doing so is you will pay more for the same electricity. There is one grid, except Texas, and there is no way to differentiate between renewable and non. It is a joke.
 
:lol:

Well, it is also possible to ensure your electricity is 100% renewables sourced. Our city recently entered into an aggregated purchase agreement and this is the path they took.

I went to the city council meeting and read them the riot act.

Needless to say, I opted out.

What you are ensuring by doing so is you will pay more for the same electricity. There is one grid, except Texas, and there is no way to differentiate between renewable and non. It is a joke.

I agree.

When our city was first considering aggregation, they held a public meeting during which it was explained that the cheapest rate was from 100% conventional-sourced electricity while the most expensive rate was totally "renewables"-sourced.

So I turned to the mayor and asked where the city council stood on this, and he said "we are after the cheapest rate possible".

Fast forward a couple of weeks when I read in the paper that they did the exact opposite!

So I went to that night's council meeting and confronted the mayor. He and the city manager both gave some song-and-dance and that was the end of it.

Then I mentioned the recent EIA report extolling the benefits of natural gas and how it has resulted in a 20-year low in emissions. I followed that by saying if the city wanted to have the most profound, immediate, positive impact on the environment that they should have chosen the cheapest rate. They all nodded their heads in agreement, but what's done is done.

It boiled down to politics pure and simple. The little prick liberal environmentalist working with the university got to them before I could. He's a smug fucker.
 
They always leave out something and it's so easy to find it. The UCC is known for it's liberal social issues like gay rights and abortion so it's not strange that they would be liberal on the eco front. It's surprising they waited so long. What pension funds to they work with I wonder. You almost gotta laugh though. In the post script it seems that they reserve the right to keep investing in fossil fuel. The whole thing is political propaganda.
 
:lol:

Well, it is also possible to ensure your electricity is 100% renewables sourced. Our city recently entered into an aggregated purchase agreement and this is the path they took.

I went to the city council meeting and read them the riot act.

Needless to say, I opted out.

What you are ensuring by doing so is you will pay more for the same electricity. There is one grid, except Texas, and there is no way to differentiate between renewable and non. It is a joke.

I agree.

When our city was first considering aggregation, they held a public meeting during which it was explained that the cheapest rate was from 100% conventional-sourced electricity while the most expensive rate was totally "renewables"-sourced.

So I turned to the mayor and asked where the city council stood on this, and he said "we are after the cheapest rate possible".

Fast forward a couple of weeks when I read in the paper that they did the exact opposite!

So I went to that night's council meeting and confronted the mayor. He and the city manager both gave some song-and-dance and that was the end of it.

Then I mentioned the recent EIA report extolling the benefits of natural gas and how it has resulted in a 20-year low in emissions. I followed that by saying if the city wanted to have the most profound, immediate, positive impact on the environment that they should have chosen the cheapest rate. They all nodded their heads in agreement, but what's done is done.

It boiled down to politics pure and simple. The little prick liberal environmentalist working with the university got to them before I could. He's a smug fucker.

I served on council with democrats as the only Republican. I cared about people they just wanted to screw those who were not their friends and reward those who were. You might find out that some relative of the mayor or councilmen made money selling electricity.
 

Forum List

Back
Top