Report comment

It needs to be mentioned that Daniel Fischel works for Compass Lexecon, a consulting company which has produced multiple reports critical of divestment, some of which were funded by the Independent Petroleum Producers of America. Fischel's 50-year retrospective has nothing to do with the realities of today. Similarly, the current stock-value rallies of coal companies, based upon Trump's boosterism, do not reflect the very poor financial fundamentals of the industry.

The actual performance of well-managed fossil-free portfolios has in fact been quite good:

http://dailyorange.com/.../divestment-fossil-fuels-not.../

http://www.benefitscanada.com/.../fossil-fuel-free-fund...

Note that even Harvard University - often cited by divestment critics as being an institution which has opposed divestment - actually sold off all of its public-equity fossil fuel holdings. The Harvard Management Company head of natural-resources investments has stated that there are no plans to additionally invest in such assets.

As to engagement: No amount of it is going to result in these companies altering their basic business plans and practices. That was the conclusion which the Rockefeller Brothers Fund came to after years' worth of engagement efforts such as higher-education endowment and pension-fund managers have not whatsoever attempted. The Union of Concerned Scientists put out a set of criteria as guidelines for what would be acceptable practices, but no fossil-fuel company is likely to be thusly more so operating in alignment with a sustainable future, and in fact the UCS has divested also.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-accountability-scorecard-ranking-major-fossil-fuel-companies#.WfKCStApCBZ