Clifton on Public Pension Divestment From Oil, vs Investing in Green Tech

Posted on Updated on

Candidate for Comptroller John  Clifton recently commented on the issue of the possibility of shifting the use of state pension money into supporting Green efforts:

“As NYS Comptroller, you would be the sole trustee of the now $180 billion NYS Common Retirement Fund. The CRF, our public pension fund, invests heavily in fossil fuels – especially Exxon Mobil Corporation. What is your position on fossil fuel divestment – from financial, social and environmental perspectives?

What is your position on investing the CRF in beneficial portfolio options such as green energy, energy efficiency and sustainable agriculture?

Thank you. Fossil Free & Green NY”

A Libertarian official who is focused on liberty-based, fiscally responsible outcomes will support measures that end or reduce the coercion of taxpayers, without further burdening the public with being compelled to underwrite high risk ventures that are better absorbed by the private economy. That means seeking the reform of public employee pensions that are typically bankrupting cities, counties and the state. To a Libertarian, just because there is a perceived problem, it doesn’t mean that government force, or more authoritarian centralized planning is the solution. Nor do pro-liberty people subscribe to the the loaded term “sustainable” whatever, as that is a well-known code word for Agenda 21 concepts of Total State planning, many of which are both disputable and overbearing in transferring control to centralized planners.

The answer to corporate welfare for oil and gas companies, is not corporate welfare for the ‘green’ companies. The success of alternative energy is mixed, with some encouraging progress in solar technology, but significant ‘money pit’ problems have developed with implementing wind power, based on the track record so far in European countries. Regardless of the feasibility (or not) of several emerging ‘green’ energy sources, the funding and stabilizing of the new industry should be the voluntary endeavor of private entrepreneurs, not government workers whose funds should be invested in already stable industries, if they are to be invested at all.

The answer is neither divestment nor investment, as it is a false choice in either case that embraces initiation of force to solve problems. Supporters of using public pension funds for subsidizing the green sector, by implication, appear to expect the public to foot the bill for any loss of money invested in failing green companies, so that the pension payouts to retirees get fully funded or guaranteed by taxpayers in any event. They also appear to see the funds used for the green efforts regardless of whether a given pension participant wants their money or credit used for that purpose or not. There are too many layers of direct or indirect coercion in this concept for a liberty-minded Comptroller to accept.

Beyond the secondary issue of the investment of the pension funds, the entire concept of “public pension funds” is subject to reconsideration by a Libertarian Comptroller. Support for public pensions in New York and elsewhere has been dominated by the unions that benefit from unsustainably generous benefit packages. In office, I would advocate or consider dismantling and prohibiting all government unions, as only private sector unions that receive no funding from government should be legal. Ultimately, we should replace government employee retirement packages with Social Security, or an altogether private nest egg.

As Libertarian Alliance in the UK puts it, “Quite simply, everyone should be expected to build up funds for his own retirement, [which] should be paid into one’s own Self Invested Personal Pension (SIPP). It would be a mandatory savings vehicle similar to schemes in Hong Kong and elsewhere and would ensure everyone had some provision.” Let the private pension recipients or retirees then determine what to do with the deposited money, at their own risk or benefit.


2 thoughts on “Clifton on Public Pension Divestment From Oil, vs Investing in Green Tech

    Bob Armstrong said:
    October 11, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    The eKo-statist war on the “green” molecule , the very building block of life itself , CO2 , is the most anti-science anti-human-welfare willfully ignorant delusion since classic economic marxism itself . This anti-prosperity fraud is being disproven constantly as the planet greens but does not warm .

    I am astounded by the urban watermelons who think “wind” and “solar” will heat their apartments thru a January storm without the natural gas which does it far more efficiently and affordably than those two niche players can . I am astounded that arrogant urbanites can be so ignorant as to believe the freight trains and 18 wheelers which bring them their food and clothing , and the tractors and harvesters which help produce it in quantities to have virtually eliminated starvation can run on sunlight and breezes . I’m astounded at their cruelty in insisting that the third world must always stay that way without the carbon energy to smelt the metals and kiln the concrete to join the developed world’s prosperity and longevity .

    Never has the evil of statism been more factually indisputable .

    Mark E. Glogowski said:
    October 11, 2014 at 6:06 pm

    I agree with John Clifton’s position entirely. Private enterprise is fine tuned to respond in positive ways to opportunity and to unwanted expenses. Government is totally inadequate in its response to changing conditions to venture into anything except the provision of capital for technologies that have proven track records. The only energy technology with a proven track record is fossil fuels. As for CO2, if CO2 is a problem, then we should ground all planes. Historically, carbon dioxide was found in the lower layers of the atmosphere, approximately a 1 mile blanket that has two major mechanisms for its removal – absorption in the oceans and absorption by plants. The primary source was animal life. Today, instead of a 1 mile blanket, we have a 10 mile blanket of CO2 created by Airplanes. So, if we need to eliminate the 10 mile blanket, get rid of airplanes. The truth is, CO2 is essential for plant life and if we are going to insure the survival of the human race we need to stimulate plant growth, which increased concentrations of CO2 will do. If environmentalists want to address some real issues concerning our environment, there are plenty that are out there that are being ignored.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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