By Joseph A. Curtatone

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)

The saying goes, “first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” According to that timeline, it appears that we’re in the third stage of the movement to divest from fossil fuel companies. Opponents argue that fossil fuel divestment is a poor financial strategy, or make straw man arguments about the unfeasibility of immediately ending fossil fuel use or investments. Simple research shows that these arguments are unfounded, and I stand by my call for the Somerville Retirement Board to divest from fossil fuel companies.

If divestment were a poor financial strategy, why did the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (yes, that Rockefeller, of Standard Oil Company fame) announce in September of last year that it would no longer invest in fossil fuels? And what has happened since that time? The price of oil has almost been cut in half and energy has been the worst performing sector in the stock market this year. Rockefeller Brothers Fund President Stephen Heintz said that the fund divested because of the moral imperative to tackle climate change, but it’s more than a moral obligation—it’s upholding the fund’s obligation of sound financial management. “People are beginning to see a shorter horizon for the fossil fuel economy,” Heintz told CNN.

That horizon is not only rapidly approaching—it’s already here. Massachusetts’ own Pension Reserves Investment Trust Fund (PRIT) lost $521 million on oil, coal and gas holdings in fiscal 2015, according to Trillium Asset Management. That’s more than a half billion. Over three years, PRIT’s fossil fuel investment only yielded a return of 1%, while the broader market gained 61% cumulatively. Meanwhile, California’s pension funds lost more than $5 billion on their fossil fuel investments in fiscal 2015.

The financial outlook is unlikely to improve from here. We already know that fossil fuel reserves are overvalued because of climate change agreements made by the United States and 113 other countries, and that because of it, there is a looming $20 trillion carbon bubble. The market won’t get any easier. The president of the World Bank has called upon investors and fund managers to act, saying, “Rethink what fiduciary responsibility means in this changing world.  It’s simple self-interest.  Every company, investor, and bank that screens new and existing investments for climate risk is simply being pragmatic.”

More and more investors and fund managers are making that pragmatic choice. In light of the investment losses that public employee pension funds saw over the last fiscal year, the California legislature passed a coal divestment bill in September—and they have two of the world’s largest pension funds. Norway’s $900 billion sovereign wealth fund, the largest in the world, is divesting from coal. Ten universities in the United Kingdom with endowments worth almost $175 million in U.S. dollars are, in varying ways, divesting from fossil fuel companies. The facts are all too clear now: fossil fuel divestment is not only the sound moral choice, it’s the financially responsible choice.

Some still try to claim that divestment is not an effective tool for scaling back our contribution to climate change. But companies like Shell are pulling back on expensive drilling explorations not because of protests, but economic forces. Divestment is the kind of economic force that companies focused on profits will pay attention to first and foremost. Others make the straw man argument that divestment alone will not solve climate change, but none of us in favor of divestment are saying that is the case. It’s just one necessary step we have to take as part of a larger effort. Or, they point out that completely divesting from fossil fuels immediately is unfeasible. But again, nobody in favor of divestment is saying that’s the goal. Rockefeller Brothers Fund is divesting over the course of three years. Others are starting with divestment from coal and tar sands. There is a reasonable, logical and sound way to divest from fossil fuels while protecting people’s investments.

I applaud the Somerville Retirement Board for the work it has done so far on divestment. They are tackling this issue the way we tackle every issue in Somerville: collecting the data and studying the facts, before making prudent, patient investments and decisions today with an eye on tomorrow. The Retirement Board should be thanked for its commitment to a fair and honest appraisal of this issue. As they continue their work, I will continue to advocate for what I believe the facts say: Fossil fuels are a bad investment, both for our financial future and our planet’s future. We must begin to divest from fossil fuel companies.