Blog – Paradox and Bedrock

ESA at 50: A Few Reasons for Support

On October 24, 2023

Secretariat sculpture stock image. Image of brown, morning – 35070547 (dreamstime.com)

“‘Do you give the horse its might?
    Do you clothe its neck with mane?”

…

“‘Is it by your wisdom that the hawk soars
    and spreads its wings toward the south?
Is it at your command that the eagle mounts up
    and makes its nest on high?”
Job 39:19 & 26-27 NRSVUE

2023 marks the 50-year anniversary of both the Endangered Species Act (abbreviated “ESA”) and Secretariat’s famous triple crown win. If you’ve seen the movie, you know Secretariat opens with the passage from Job quoted here, albeit using a different translation and highlighting some different lines. In a more dramatic scene than this post, it depicts a horse that “laughs at fear, afraid of nothing” and “cannot stand still when the trumpet sounds.” Job 39:19-25 (NIV). That scene, and this passage, came first to mind in thinking about the anniversary and some political attacks on its future.

These verses evoke the majesty and mystery of creation. They also remind us that it is by His wisdom, and with His intimate familiarity that the intricacies of the natural world exist—not our own.

In the 1970s, when Congress passed the Endangered Species Act with broad bipartisan support, then-President Nixon evoked the language of stewardship and generational blessing in signing it into law.[1] Polls still show strong public support, across party lines.[2] Why should this still matter to us now, especially if other issues are also a concern? Among other reasons:

Humility

O LORD, what a variety of things you have made! In wisdom you have made them all. The earth is full of your creatures.
Psalm 104:24

“By wisdom the LORD founded the earth…,” Proverbs 3:19, including the rich diversity of life. In so doing, He did not make the world “a chaos, he formed it to be inhabited,” imbuing order into what He had made. Isaiah 45:18-19 (NRSV).

In preparing for the flood and reestablishment, God directed Noah to conserve animal species that would otherwise perish on the ark, specifically instructing “to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth.” Genesis 7:3.

We may not understand how a particular species fits into the created order or has relationship to our own survival or wellbeing, if at all. We know, however, that “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” James 4:6 (ESV); see also Proverbs 3:34; 1 Peter 5:5. We see in the scriptures that creation has value to God. As also illustrated to Job in the passage above, care and intentionality went into each. Why would we second-guess, or fail to protect, the gift we received?

Artistry

John Eldredge describes creation as “epic and intimate,” filled with “beauty and attention to detail.”[3] His book Beautiful Outlaw urges people to remember that “the heart of the artist is revealed in their work,” and ask how the personality of Jesus “leaks through” in the creatures He made.[4] Examples to ponder include, among others, polar bear cubs, who “hurl themselves down snowy hillsides headfirst and upside down, just for fun” and otters playing tag.[5] Both polar bears and some types of otters (sea otters) are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. If we lost them, how would future generations answer to those questions?

Apart from specific examples, the availability and rich variety of plant and animal life speaks to the abundance and generosity of God.[6] Presently, with biodiversity in crisis, news sources cite an almost 70% decline in wildlife populations, along with heightened extinction risk.[7] That risk extends to almost 30% of mammals, a fifth of birds, and other living things, including, at highest risk, certain, ancient seed-bearing plants.[8] What would that mean for our perception as well?

Practicality & Fidelity

The U.S. Department of State highlights the global loss of biodiversity as “an existential threat to livelihoods, food systems, and health.”[9] Turning that tide has practical implications, while also comporting with Biblical principles.

As believers, the lifestyle to which we are called is not one of all-consuming grasping at every available resource. Principles of gleaning, for example, provide that that instead of reaping a field “right up to its edge,” and “strip[ping a] vineyard bare,” landowners are to leave behind a form of provision “for the poor and for the sojourner.” Leviticus 19:9-10 (ESV); see also Leviticus 23:22. Leaving a forgotten sheaf in the field “for the stranger, for the orphan, and for the widow,” instead of returning to gather it is both for their benefit and “so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.” Deuteronomy 24:19 (AMP). Similarly, instead of working at every possible hour, the rhythm of life God provides entails remembering the sabbath and keeping it holy. See Exodus 20:8-11. Instead of lack, our confident trust in God as our source and obedience to his commands brings abundant provision and blessing. See Deuteronomy 28. Compare also Proverbs 23:4 (BSB) (“Do not wear yourself out to get rich; be wise enough to restrain yourself.”).

In a similar vein, but secular context, Charles Wilkinson wrote that: “The Endangered Species Act also benefits the human race, and not just by achieving pragmatic objectives,’ but by “pull[ing] out the best in us” and “elevat[ing] us by its proof that our unique ability to develop technology is coupled with the capacity and will to exercise a humane restraint in the name of a high calling.”[10]

***

Someone once told me that she loves the Secretariat movie because it is pure victory. We have seen notable successes with the Endangered Species Act as well, including recovery of our national symbol, the bald eagle. Following this anniversary, may we continue to go, as Pastor Mark says, from victory to victory.

[1] Statement on Signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973. | The American Presidency Project (ucsb.edu)

[2] See, e.g.., Support for the Endangered Species Act remains high as Trump administration and Congress try to gut it | PBS NewsHour

[3] John Eldredge, Beautiful Outlaw: Experiencing the Playful, Disruptive, Extravagant Personality of Jesus, at 19 & 57 (FaithWords 2011).

[4] Id. at 62.

[5] Id. at 19-20, excerpt available at See the Artist by His Artistry | Wild at Heart.

[6] Id. at 56-66.

[7] The biodiversity crisis in numbers – a visual guide | Cop15 | The Guardian

[8] Id.

[9] Highlighting U.S. Efforts to Combat the Biodiversity Crisis – United States Department of State

[10] Charles Wilkinson, The Eagle Bird: Mapping a New West, at 139-40 (Johnson Books 1999).

Two Impediments to Consumer Solar: Contract Terms and Finance Charges

By lsaltzburg

On January 3, 2023

In Energy

For Consumers & Homeowners

*Image created using Glass Zoom Icon – Free photo on Pixabay (background photo)*

I support solar energy. Which means mixed feelings about writing this post. On the one hand, there is a real need for consumer protection in this area to ensure that companies aren’t taking advantage of the people to whom they sell their panels. On the other, I don’t want to give fodder to any knee-jerk political reaction. (If that’s you, please move on.)

While I hesitate for that reason, this is an area with which people who have not been through the process themselves (or tried to) are likely unaware. And, realistically, individuals or entities are not automatically transformed into saints by entry into the renewable energy arena. Nor do they become immune from issues that could plague any industry absent adequate oversight.

Further, solar companies capitalize on the solar tax credits available to consumers as part of their business model (at least in my experience spending months finding one whose contract I could sign). That’s not unique to the solar industry — we have long had subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuels.[1] And, not something I’m criticizing here. Recognizing that it’s not something we’ve demanded of other businesses though, I still feel that there is an implicit obligation, at least morally, for companies who make incentives intended to benefit the public so central to their business model. Specifically, they ought to act in return with a public conscience and high levels of fairness towards their customers. This is particularly true where some of those consumers may well be motivated not only by cost savings, but a desire to be socially responsible through renewable energy.

Too often, what I saw was solar companies offering one-sided adhesion contracts with terms too oppressive for me to be willing to sign, much less want to recommend to a neighbor a company with such terms. And, I really wanted to be able to recommend them. As much as I value clean (and the idea is, less expensive) energy, though, I also like to sleep well at night. Which meant, mainly, I did not want to take on potential liability the company really should shoulder and have insurance for. (See below).

These are the top three terms that would (and did) give me pause in solar contracts:

Broad Indemnity Clauses – These are parts of an agreement saying, essentially, that if the company does something wrong, you will be on the hook for making it right instead of them. In what I saw, this included even for injury to third parties caused by the solar company’s own errors. (Which, given that these panels are meant to stay on your house for more than 20 years or so, could, in theory, arise years down the road, perhaps even after you have sold that home and moved on.)

One-sided fee shifting and/or arbitration provisions – Terms might say, for example, that if a dispute arises, you can only arbitrate and have no right to go to court, but the company can sue you in court. Similarly, they may provide that the company can obtain its attorneys’ fees from you if it prevails but give you no reciprocal right if you win.

Obligation to file disputes in distant forums – Contracts may have what’s called a “forum selection” or “venue” clause. Through these terms, you agree that if you find yourselves in a formal dispute, that dispute will be filed in a certain place. Or, you consent to someone else filing in a particular location. That place could be the location of the company’s home office. That, in turn, could mean that you agree to file or defend a suit thousands of miles from where you live, in a place where you know no one (including an attorney to potentially represent you), and may be unfamiliar with the court system.

Now, this is not to suggest that all of these terms would necessarily be enforceable were a dispute to arise. The combination of terms, however, makes them particularly concerning. If, for example, you are going to challenge the validity of an indemnity clause, are you willing to risk the one-sided fees and can you do that in a convenient forum? Even if you can, did you sign up for the solar panels with the expectation that you would not need to have significant resources?

It took me eleven months to find an agreement I could sign. That was just on principle. But I also wound up glad I held out from a practical standpoint too — because of what happened next. (Stay tuned as to why I almost had a new experience representing myself in arbitration. To be vaguely discussed in subsequent post.)

These terms are especially troubling because the solar companies typically market the panels as a no-up-front-cost and no-expertise-needed investment. As such, they promise to handle the permitting and approval process. Those I encountered also offer to quote prices with no up-front payment. Instead, you make a monthly payment on a solar loan and ultimately receive a tax credit. People are therefore entering from a position of trust, assuming that experts are handling issues that might otherwise be intimidating and complicated, as well as without the expectation of significant financial issues.

Finally, separate, but equally concerning, are solar loan fees. These in my experience were shockingly high. The interest rates weren’t the part that raised my eyebrows. Rather, the loan fees seemed exorbitant. I recall being quoted as much as $6,000, or almost a third of system cost, above and beyond the up-front price offered – simply to take out a loan (and then still pay interest on that loan). I’m working from memory here. So, I may be off. But it was startingly high.

By way of comparison, googling home closing costs suggests that if you figure an average of 2-6% and take the low end of 2%, you would need to borrow $300,000 (multiples more than the cost of a solar system), to reach $6,000 in such costs. And, many of those costs would go towards identifiable work, like appraisals, title search, attorneys’ fees, and brokers’ commissions.[2]

Why would solar loan fees be so high? As far as I could tell, it lacked any logic, especially given that companies calculate proposals against the backdrop of utility payments that have been within the person’s budget to pay before they installed the system. Additionally, it seems they expect people to be more financially than environmentally motivated, such that they present the overall package as worthwhile if it makes financial sense for the household. Accordingly, they would not seem to have any reason to expect an unusually high risk with respect to repayment.

Not only would it be hard to feel responsible recommending a solar loan offering like that to someone, it begs the question – are these fees essentially offsetting a substantial portion of tax credits being offered to make solar more affordable and available? Credits that were intended, ultimately, to put more money back into consumers’ pockets? And which would be especially beneficial in a time of inflation?

These issues are shared in hopes that some will change. For homeowners and families, solar has the potential of reduced dependence on fossil fuels, insulation with respect to energy costs, and even providing energy back to the grid. We ought to have fair terms in line with the purpose of public policy promoting solar to help achieve them.

[1] See, e.g., Why fossil fuel subsidies are so hard to kill (nature.com)

[2] How Much Are Closing Costs? | Real Estate | U.S. News (usnews.com)

ESG and Defund Disney: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

By lsaltzburg

On November 30, 2022

In Economy

Something of a conundrum is playing out in Florida when it comes to efforts by members of the public to “vote with their feet” in influencing corporate conduct. One the one hand, there are those working to frustrate use of “environmental, social, and governance” (“ESG”) considerations in investment decisions, even by private parties. On the other, a well-known, publicly-traded company faced backlash from seemingly the same people opposing ESG because of that company (Disney)’s stance on a controversial “social” issue.

Conceptually, it seems difficult to distinguish ESG and defund Disney (each discussed below) are their core. Both involve a desire not to funnel funding to corporations whose practices are perceived as harmful (or, to some extent under ESG, to instead support those perceived as having more positive impacts). What puts them in different camps seems to be not so much the nature of the activity involved, but where someone has stamped a “woke” label.

This post is intended for Evangelicals, as an encouragement to consider whether opposing everything about ESG out of disagreement with some factors may undermine their long-term interests, including in inviting people to church. Already, there are those who perceive Evangelicals’ activity as centered around opposition in particular areas (especially LGBTQ issues) instead of support for applying ethical principles evenhandedly. How will it come across to express outrage over anticipated changes in Disney programming — due to a professed desire to protect children — but oppose ESG principles intended to address (or at least disclose) whether an entity has due diligence practices to protect against forced child labor in its supply chain? Does that not implicate the same interests? And what if one of the industries in which serious allegations have been made may include makers of our Christmas and Easter candy?

I say all of this (and the information outlined below) not to shame anyone involved with a particular industry or company, or with Florida or other government, but because I cannot reconcile the contrast. And do think there is food for thought below:

ESG banned from Florida pension fund:

Credit: Shutterstock: Esg Concept Environmental Social Governance Sustainable Stock Photo 2039969135 | Shutterstock

Looking first at ESG: This summer, Florida’s governor announced that he, together with “fellow Trustees of the State Board of Administration (SBA)” passed a resolution obligating state pension funds to invest in a manner that ignores all “non-pecuniary” factors.[1] In some circumstances, one might take “non-pecuniary” to mean “not consisting of money.”[2] In other words, as inclusive of things like ethics, morals, integrity, and the values by which we try to live.

That would be wrong, at least according to this particular resolution and related media release. Both adopt the posture that there is nothing noble about the non-pecuniary. Rather, the resolution depicts considering such factors as inherently an effort to further someone’s “social, political, or ideological interests.”[3] In harsher terms, a media announcement dismisses them as “whimsical notions of a utopian tomorrow” with no place in investment decisions.[4]

The action is framed as one to “protect Floridians from the environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) movement.”[5] (For brief background on what ESG is, see this post: Be the Change? Is Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) or “ESG” for Believers? – Paradox and Bedrock). It begs the question, if Florida pension funds do not already embrace ESG, how do they need protection?

To be sure, there are federal proposed rules concerning ESG under consideration. None, though, would tell state pension funds what to do. Instead, any rule applied by the federal Department of Labor (“DOL”) would concern funds governed by federal “ERISA” laws — which have no application to state and local government pension plans.[6] As such “protection” would be from indirect influence, with the Board preventing itself from being persuaded to follow suit.[7]

Another, federal Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), proposed rule is designed to aid informed decision-making amidst increasing demand from members of the public for ESG investment “services, products, data.”[8] It, too, imposes no dictates on state pension funds. If anything, it may well benefit those who see ESG as having a liberal lean.

Although partly intended to prevent asset managers from overselling their actual commitment to ESG, duping investors who care about those considerations, another core aim is to provide transparency so that people can understand to what extent a fund applies ESG.[9] The proposed rule notes that some funds apply, across the board, all of the ESG factors, while others embrace only a subset, which may mean considering as few as one of the issues “under the ESG umbrella.”[10] It aims to set standards for disclosures, thereby allowing investors to look “under the hood” of strategies offered them.[11]

The broad range of ESG factors exists in tandem with what would logically seem to be a wide the variation in the extent to which a given factor may generate controversy or be viewed with trepidation in certain circles. On the one hand, some of the ESG considerations, especially certain factors under the “social” umbrella, do include areas that can act as lightening rods for controversy. On the other end of the spectrum, however, are considerations such as assurance of avoidance of illegal conduct, eschewing conflicts of interest among board members, and operating an ethical supply chain that avoids child labor overseas or questionable workplace safety practices[12] that, intuitively, would seem appealing across both sides of the political aisle.

In between are various other ESG factors as well. These include areas that may be subject to heated debate, irrespective of the extent to which underlying evidence is fairly framed debatable. If you were a 90’s country fan (I was/am), this might bring to mind Diamond Rio (“We never walked on the moon; Elvis ain’t dead . . . .”). (For full disclosure on why I would put climate change in this bucket: Climate Change: Gather or Scatter in 2022? – Paradox and Bedrock.)

A flat ban allows none of this nuance. Instead, it rejects all such considerations, and all non-pecuniary factors, with equal scorn. This is an interesting development, given that socially responsible investment efforts have existed for decades and, perhaps ironically, may have started with state laws passed to “to screen out ‘sin’ stocks, such as tobacco, alcohol, and gambling.”[13]

The activity goes further than state pension funds. Notably, a proposed legislative change would make private parties’ consideration of ESG factors unlawful in Florida. A news release in that regard highlights a proposal to amend Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices statute to prohibit “large financial institutions” from using ESG metrics or benchmarks.[14] It appears that, if it passed, use of “ESG scores” would be declared unlawful and subject to civil liability and penalties under the statute.

Revoking Disney’s special status:

Does that mean that Florida financial or business issues will be decided with an entirely apolitical lens? Not exactly. Looking at Disney:

Credit: Pixabay: Mickey Mouse Disney – Free photo on Pixabay

Last April, through a three-day process, initiated in a special session and criticized by some as “rushed,” Florida lawmakers took much-publicized action to strip Disney of its status as a “special district.”[15] Disney had held that status, granted by legislation in 1967 in anticipation of theme park construction, for more than 50 years.[16] Being a special district essentially allowed Disney to “self-govern an area of roughly 25,000-acres in Central Florida where Walt Disney World resort is located.[17] Disney took on the responsibility to provide services within the area, “function[ing] like a county government” and in return received relief from taxes and fees.[18]

The sudden move was widely seen as retaliation for Disney’s recent political speech. In March, the company had reversed (and apologizing for) its stance of silence on Florida’s controversial “Parental Rights in Education” bill and further stated that it would suspend political donations in the state.[19] In fairness, the legislation, in lieu of specifically naming Disney, applies to special districts formed before 1968, meaning it swept in a total of six of Florida’s more than 1,800 special districts.[20] There is also public commentary noting bipartisan sentiment in reevaluating the wisdom of special districts.[21] At the same time, however, the 1968 date, the timing of the legislation, and its apparent urgency, together would call any claim of coincidence into question. And, no one really seems to make such a claim. Indeed, one of Florida’s leaders described Disney as a “woke” corporation that, if it “want[ed] to pick a fight,” had chosen wrongly.[22]

The change will not go into effect until June 2023, allowing time to sort through the practicalities of the decision. Meanwhile, pecuniary considerations may abound and perhaps more for Florida than for Disney. (Some of the media coverage suggested may actually benefit financially.) Local governments expressed concern that they may need to raise taxes in the wake of the law change.[23] “Another potential issue is that the statute that created” Disney’s special district prohibits the state from eliminating that district “without paying off its bond debt, which is upwards of $1 billion.”[24]

When environmental, social, and governance factors become pecuniary factors

Another issue is the potential for “pecuniary” and “non-pecuniary” factors to overlap. The anti-ESG resolution described above frames pecuniary factors as ones expected to materially impact risk and return on the investment horizons.[25] It is possible ESG factors may have that effect. There is commentary to suggest, for example, that “ESG weeds out unsustainable companies with outdated practices and harmful side effects, while also minimizing risk for investors as they invest in more responsible companies with a greater likelihood of succeeding in the long run.”[26] As such, there are those who view the ESG factors as “material factors that can affect returns” and therefore a matter of “Value to investors” rather than “investor Values.”[27]

Biblically, consider also:

Like the partridge that hatches eggs which she has not laid, So is he who makes a fortune in ways that are unjust. It will be lost to him before his days are over. And in the end he will be [nothing but] a fool.
Jeremiah 17:11 [AMP]

The potential for short term gain at the expense of long-term risk and potential larger loss is easier to see in the context of safety and environmental standards, or corporate governance measures. (And delving into impact of ESG on returns is beyond the scope of this post, but I may do a separate one on that debate.)

As relevant here, “social” factors may also implicate investment returns because of public perception. Let’s look back at Disney. Florida lawmakers were not the only ones lashing out. An entire “defund Disney” movement formed among private parties following Disney’s comments on social issues (both its speech about the Florida law and professed plans to make changes to its programming). One article even explains the defund Disney effort as one to “hurt Disney in the pocketbook and bring them to their knees.”[28] It describes Disney as a “poster child” that is especially “easy to hate,” but ultimately only part of a larger effort to “cancel” 116 “woke companies that offend conservatives.”[29]

To be sure, not everyone protesting Disney’s recent plans or public statements embraces the “hate” and “offense” described as animating the movement on the webpage cited above. In the eyes of onlookers, however, it may be difficult to distinguish.

Taking it too far? / Can anti-ESG and “Defund Disney” be reconciled?

Much of the momentum around the Disney backlash seemed to involve people expressing a sentiment that a purportedly family-friendly company had crossed a line. As such, they were moved to action, such as protest in which they might not normally engage, to avoid harm to children.

As noted above, however, an aspect of the ESG — namely, a supply chain that avoids reliance of child labor overseas — serves the same values. Consider, for example, the lawsuits alleging, and media reports involving, the largest companies in the chocolate industry. See, e.g., McCoy v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 173 F. Supp. 3d 954, 956 (N.D. Cal. 2016), aff’d, 730 F. App’x 462 (9^th Cir. 2018) (judicial opinion noting that: “The fact that major corporations source ingredients for their products from supply chains involving slavery and the worst forms of child labor raises significant ethical questions”). Weighing in with a brief in one of these suits, other entities in the industry complained that “[a]s slave-free cocoa and chocolate companies, [they] are at a competitive disadvantage” because their commitment to “compliance with international human rights norms” entails higher production costs, which they must pass on as higher prices.[30]

A relatively recent suit against multiple corporations is described as including, among other allegations, claims on behalf of a child with “visible cuts on his hands and arms from machete accidents,”[31] while a film released in 2000 reportedly quotes a “freed enslaved worker” as describing “something that he suffered to make, adding, ‘[w]hen people eat chocolate, they are eating my flesh.’”[32]

These are not the worst allegations. But I could not get them out of my mind. Why? Because if these are truly the largest U.S. producers of chocolate products, then it stands to reason they are also making, at least in part, our Easter candy.[33] If you are a Christian, what does that last quote call to mind?

Also in seeming contrast is that it seems to typically be conservatives who bemoan a “cancel culture.” Can anyone engaged in an effort to do away with Disney credibly complain if, down the road, he or she faces backlash for speech on the same issues? And if we outlaw private entities such as investment funds from considering ESG, what precedent does that set for prohibiting Christian values as non-pecuniary considerations in these same areas?

Are there important differences between ESG and Defund Disney?

Yes. First, ESG is proactive, while Defund Disney is reactive.

Second, the aims of ESG seem to be about personal integrity for investors, and/or, to the extent they seek to influence corporations, reform or sustainability/taking the long view. (Although critics claim that some industries or entities are “disfavored” that appears only to the extent their practices are inconsistent with the across-the-board standards applied to all. No one is mentioned by name. And, even participants in “disfavored” industries may have already tried to reinvent themselves for purposes of their own marketing long ESG became a popular acronym. BP’s effort some twenty years ago to re-brand itself as “beyond petroleum” comes to mind for me.[34]) “Defund Disney,” by contrast, appears, as the name implies, intended to destroy. If an entity is defunded, there would be nothing left to use to chart a new course.

[1] The State Board of Administration of Florida, A Resolution Directing an Update to the Investment Policy Statement and Proxy Voting Policies for the Florida Retirement System Defined Benefit Pension Plan, and Directing the Organization and Execution of Internal Review (August 23, 2022), ESG-Resolution-Final.pdf (flgov.com)

[2] Nonpecuniary Definition & Meaning – Merriam-Webster

[3] The State Board of Administration of Florida, A Resolution Directing an Update to the Investment Policy Statement and Proxy Voting Policies for the Florida Retirement System Defined Benefit Pension Plan, and Directing the Organization and Execution of Internal Review (August 23, 2022), ESG-Resolution-Final.pdf (flgov.com)

[4] Governor Ron De Santis Eliminates ESG Considerations from State Pension Investments (Aug. 22, 2022), Governor Ron DeSantis Eliminates ESG Considerations from State Pension Investments (flgov.com)

[5] News Release, Governor Ron DeSantis Announces Initiatives to Protect Floridians from ESG Financial Fraud (flgov.com) (July 27, 2022), Governor Ron DeSantis Announces Initiatives to Protect Floridians from ESG Financial Fraud (flgov.com)

[6] Jean-Pierre Aubry, Anqi Chen, Patrick M. Hubbard, and Alicia H. Munnell, ESG Investing and Public Pensions: An Update, Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, State and Local Pension Plans, No. 74 (Oct. 2020), ESG Investing and Public Pensions: An Update (bc.edu)

[7] Id.

[8] Proposing Release: Enhanced Disclosures by Certain Investment Advisers and Investment Companies about Environmental, Social, and Governance Investment Practices (sec.gov)

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] SEC Press Release, SEC Proposes to Enhance Disclosures by Certain Investment Advisers and Investment Companies About ESG Investment Practices (May 25, 2022), SEC.gov | SEC Proposes to Enhance Disclosures by Certain Investment Advisers and Investment Companies About ESG Investment Practices

[12] See, e.g., Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Principles and Criteria (investopedia.com)

[13] Jean-Pierre Aubry, Anqi Chen, Patrick M. Hubbard, and Alicia H. Munnell, ESG Investing and Public Pensions: An Update, Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, State and Local Pension Plans, No. 74 (Oct. 2020), ESG Investing and Public Pensions: An Update (bc.edu)

[14] News Release, Governor Ron DeSantis Announces Initiatives to Protect Floridians from ESG Financial Fraud (flgov.com) (July 27, 2022), Governor Ron DeSantis Announces Initiatives to Protect Floridians from ESG Financial Fraud (flgov.com)

[15] Maria Caspani & Dawn Chmielewski, Florida set to strip Disney of self-governing status in dispute over LGBTQ law, Reuters (Apr. 21, 2022), Florida set to strip Disney of self-governing status in dispute over LGBTQ law | Reuters; Tax Notes Staff, Examining Florida’s Removal of Disney’s Special Tax District, Forbes (June 1, 2022), Examining Florida’s Removal Of Disney’s Special Tax District (forbes.com)

[16] Maria Caspani & Dawn Chmielewski, Florida set to strip Disney of self-governing status in dispute over LGBTQ law, Reuters (Apr. 21, 2022), Florida set to strip Disney of self-governing status in dispute over LGBTQ law | Reuters

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Andrew Atterbury, Disney Pledges to Stop Florida Campaign Donations Over ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill, Politico (March 11, 2022), Disney pledges to stop Florida campaign donations over ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill – POLITICO. In addition to donations directly to individuals, Disney reportedly donated $913,000 to the Republican Party of Florida and another $586,000 to GOP Senate campaigns, and $313,000 to the Florida Democratic Party during the 2020 election cycle. Id.

[20] Tax Notes Staff, Examining Florida’s Removal of Disney’s Special Tax District, Forbes (June 1, 2022), Examining Florida’s Removal Of Disney’s Special Tax District (forbes.com)

[21] Id.

[22] Maya Yang, Disney to lose special tax status for opposing Florida’s ‘don’t say gay’ bill, The Guardian (Apr. 21, 2022), Disney to lose special tax status for opposing Florida’s ‘don’t say gay’ bill | Florida | The Guardian

[23] Tax Notes Staff, Examining Florida’s Removal of Disney’s Special Tax District, Forbes (June 1, 2022), Examining Florida’s Removal Of Disney’s Special Tax District (forbes.com)

[24] Id.

[25] The State Board of Administration of Florida, A Resolution Directing an Update to the Investment Policy Statement and Proxy Voting Policies for the Florida Retirement System Defined Benefit Pension Plan, and Directing the Organization and Execution of Internal Review (August 23, 2022), ESG-Resolution-Final.pdf (flgov.com)

[26] Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Principles and Criteria (investopedia.com)

[27] https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/ESG%20Letter_Final_11.18.22.pdf

[28]DEFUND DISNEY – Investment Watch (investmentwatchblog.com)

[29] Id.

[30] Oliver Balch, Mars, Nestlé and Hershey to face child slavery lawsuit in US, The Guardian (Feb. 12, 2021), Mars, Nestlé and Hershey to face child slavery lawsuit in US | Child labour | The Guardian

[31] Child Labor and Slavery in the Chocolate Industry – Food Empowerment Project (foodispower.org) (quoting Slavery: A Global Investigation. Directed by Brian Woods and Kate Blewett, True Vision TV, 2000, https://www.truevisiontv.com/films/slavery-a-global-investigation); see also Slavery: A Global Investigation — True Vision TV.

[32] See also Memorandum and Order on Motion to Dismiss, Danell Tomasella, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Nestlé USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-cv-10269 (D. Mass. Jan. 30, 2019) (citing “Nestlé seasonal confections” as at issue in a suit alleging omission of information about products).

[33] Peter Whoriskey, Supreme Court weighs child-slavery case against Nestlé USA, Cargill, Washington Post (Dec. 1, 2020), Supreme Court hears child-slavery lawsuit against Nestlé USA and Cargill – The Washington Post

[34] Scott Carpenter, After Abandoned ‘Beyond Petroleum’ Re-brand, BP’s New Renewables Push Has Teeth, Forbes (Aug. 4, 2020), After Abandoned ‘Beyond Petroleum’ Re-brand, BP’s New Renewables Push Has Teeth (forbes.com)

Be the Change? Is Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) or “ESG” for Believers?

By lsaltzburg

On October 16, 2022

In Economy

This post started as an encouragement based on my own experience, not one related to controversy with ESG. (Hence the picture with different letters). Now that the concept has become so controversial in some circles, though, it feels a little ostrich-like to write as if none of that had happened. So, instead this may become more of a series.

Here, I’ll talk about: (1) what are these acronyms anyway? (2) why all the controversy? and (3) is this at all Biblical (in the sense of consistent with Biblical values, not actually in the Bible)?

What is “ESG” or “SRI”?

ESG stands for “environmental and social governance.” It seems to be still evolving somewhat as a concept. As a result, we may be short of a standard definition. I’ve seen “ESG” framed as being the same, or at least essentially the same, as “socially responsible investing” or “SRI” (last acronym for a while) – which was what I’d intended to write about and worth reading the post for, even if you are not into or don’t agree on ESG. An introductory article in one financial magazine speaks in terms of “investing in companies that are compatible with your values;” the author also describes “struggles to invest with a value screen” in the lead-up to an issue with ESG on the cover[1] A different commentary advises: “A good investment is one that integrates your value system with the investments that you make and offers a risk level and return that meets your needs.” [2]

How can that be controversial? The ESG label also seems to get more specific. Efforts have been underway to develop a set of standards aiding in evaluating corporate responsibility, as well as to call for disclosures enabling investors to make more informed decisions in this area. To that end, you can find online various criteria concerning how a company impacts places, treats people, and governs itself; these are grouped into buckets under the applicable “E,” “S,” “G,” letters. [3]

Why the controversy?

As best I can tell, it boils down to two main issues: (1) what if my values aren’t the same as someone else’s?; and (2) what will this mean for my returns? / Can I make enough?

From a personal investing standpoint (the limits of this post), the first has a straightforward answer: that’s ok. The point consistency with your values, not someone else’s. You may disagree about particular criteria and be bothered by some part of the current ESG framing a result. Whatever debate may ensure over standards development, though, will we really argue with responsibility as a concept? And if you do dismiss the entire concept, have you also counted yourself out as a voice or an example of how it should look?

To be sure, lack of uniformity does make it more difficult. When I first started, it seemed like “SRI” plans essentially screened out alcohol and tobacco and called the rest good. For reasons outside the scope of this post, I find that both over and underinclusive. Eventually, I found a professional who could help me build an individualized plan. It may take effort (and please do screen and find the right person if you look to someone to design). But I don’t think anyone opposes effort as part of a moral value.

The second question is one to which I want to be sensitive. The fear and hardship people are experiencing during the shaking happening in the world is real. I want to approach anything financial with care. Going down this path scared me even in a different season, and even though I’d, thankfully, been taught the importance of saving and investing from a young age. Even with that benefit, what would it really mean to do something so different, and for so long?

Still, this is another critique that, while we can talk about whether or not it misses the mark, is ultimately aimed at a different target altogether. I don’t, to my knowledge, know anyone who interprets Biblical values to mean you throw whatever values you have out the window if it means, at least according to conventional wisdom, that you’ll make more money. Instead, Christians tend to praise, for example, Chick-fil-A because it adheres to its owners’ values in closing its doors on Sundays, even after receiving dire warnings about the amount of money that type of restaurant stands to lose by doing so. Despite the projections, the chain has succeeded.

Can we get to the part with the Bible verses now?

Yes. Much of this came to a head for me when I took a well-known financial class at the church I used to attend. It’s one that has helped untold numbers of people get out of debt, understand insurance, and generally get ahead in their finances in various ways. So, I was hesitant to disagree with the experts and don’t want to come across here as knocking the class as a whole. Still, I found myself able to accept every step of their process except for one: investing. The course, as I recall it, advocates investment looking purely at percentage return, omitting any consideration of impacts of the companies on people or places, or the long-term sustainability of the practices involved.

A part of me very much wanted to get on board with that process – especially since you can link to things like a calculator that shows you just how much difference a higher or lower return rate makes. At the same time, I just kept thinking, what about those verses that say “woe to you …” who do wrongful things in your business. Are passive shareholders exempt?

I don’t have an exact quote for this situation, but the general impression I received in reading is that God cares about integrity in our business dealings.

Looking for purposes of this post, you might consider:

“Woe to him who builds his house without righteousness
And his upper rooms without justice, . . .”
Jeremiah 22:13-19

“Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.”
James 5:4

“You shall not oppress or exploit your neighbor, . . .”
Leviticus 19:13

Ultimately, I just couldn’t square dropping value-based criteria with everything else I say I believe. At the end of the day, either I: (1) believe necessity requires supporting something I consider problematic so that I’ll have enough to retire or be ready for old age, or (2) believe that God is my source and will honor an effort to align investing in my financial future with whatever vision and values I have for the future more broadly. I’m not perfect at it, but it is dramatically different than not choosing that path.

[1] Molk Solheim, ESG investing Takes Off, Kiplinger’s Personal Finance, How to Profit from ESG Investing, p. 4 (Nov. 2021)

[2] The New York Times Magazine, Self-Care: Follow Your Passions, Build Healthy Habits and Embrace Optimism, p.63 (Nov. 2020) (quote from Ron Freund, Vice President, Social Equity Group)

[3] See, e.g., Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Principles and Criteria (investopedia.com)

Three Ways to Save on Utilities and Energy: Dominion Virtual Home Energy “Check Up”

By lsaltzburg

On June 23, 2022

In Energy

Credit: Shutterstock (Light Bulb Wood House On Table Stock Photo 1420610747 | Shutterstock)

If you want to save energy, but are worried about what it might cost up front to do that, here are three tips to help you get started. I learned all of these from doing a free “virtual home energy check up” from the power company where I live. It was easy to set up, the person I talked with was very pleasant, and overall, it seemed designed to be very sensitive to people’s budgets. I got a free box of LED lightbulbs at the end, and you can go directly to the source to set one up yourself here (they might be back to doing these in person as well): Virtual Home Energy Check Up | South Carolina | Dominion Energy

The most impactful step was free: changing how you set your thermostat. My memory is they said one degree difference can save 7% on your bill. They recommend 78 degrees in summer, while recognizing that we live in a warm climate where that may be influenced by upstairs rooms winding up hotter in reality than whatever you aim for on the thermostat. In the winter, they suggest 68.
Cover for top of attic stairs: even if your attic is adequately insulated, that insulation won’t cover the door at the top of where the stairs fold up. You can buy a cover for that door space for about $60-$70 (they said not to spend more than that). It just tucks in there and doesn’t have to be attached to anything. If you need to be in the attic, you just move it aside. I felt like saw a real difference with this.
Water heater timer: I had never heard of this. Apparently, you can buy a timer for your water heater so that it isn’t continuously heating. (This is one that sounds like it may make sense for some people who have extended periods of time no one is home during the day, but perhaps not others.) An electrician has to install it, but it sounds like a simpler process than, and a similar idea to, a tankless water heater – without the space saving and extra costs. In the interest of full disclosure, I talked to a plumber recently who said it is pretty easy to skip this and just to turn off the water heater from the breaker if you are traveling or have an extended time away from home. Automated still sounds easier (my “smart” thermostat has really helped me on option #1 above), but if you are comfortable with that, that’s another free alternative. I did the energy check up at the height of the shut downs and have been close enough to needing to replace my water heater for long enough that I just haven’t made any decisions on this front. So, I can’t speak from experience on this one.

Climate Change: Gather or Scatter in 2022?

By lsaltzburg

On March 11, 2022

In Climate

Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. . . .
W.H. Murray

How confident are we that climate change is happening? When people are asked about inactivity, or opposition to global-warming related measures, they may say they are not so much opposed, as waiting to see. That may feel like we are postponing, rather than making, a choice. Walking the same path in the meantime, however, is still a decision, and one to be heading the same place. That is as true whether done out of intentionality or out of the belief in waiting to see where it leads once we arrive, or at least approach more closely.

Whether or to what degree one believes there are questions about climate change, one thing that no longer seems controversial is that “doubt and controversy” is not a new strategy. There is now a repository of previously-internal documents from tobacco companies, from a long time ago as the link between smoking and cancer emerged. One of the most famous, quoted on different websites, is a memo from Brown and Williamson saying: “Doubt is our product[.]”[1] It describes doubt as “the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public” and “also the means of establishing controversy.” [2]

Much older, and what it reminds me of, are the verses from James that “he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind,” and “is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.” James 1:6-7. It’s a different context, of course, but sill an illustration. To have an impact, one need not be completely convinced to the contrary, but can be tossed about and ineffective as seeds of doubt are sown.

One reason doubt and controversy may work so well in the science context is that science is rarely (if ever?) 100% certain. I like this quote in that area from Wendell Berry:

The modern scientific enterprise apparently is directed toward the goal of complete knowledge. But if you had complete knowledge, if you knew everything, could you then act? Could you apply what you knew, or would you be paralyzed by a surplus of considerations?…
The real question that is always to be addressed is the one that arises from our state of ignorance: “how does one act well – sensitively, compassionately, without irreparable damage – on the basis of partial knowledge?
Wendell Berry, Life Is a Miracle, P. 149 (2000).

On how to act well based on partial knowledge, there are modern sources, and articles now cite oil company material recognizing the potential weight of global warming consequences, long ago. As one put it:

Shell’s analysts [] warned of the “disappearance of specific ecosystems or habitat destruction,” predicted an increase in “runoff, destructive floods, and inundation of low-lying farmland,” and said that “new sources of freshwater would be required” to compensate for changes in precipitation. Global changes in air temperature would also “drastically change the way people live and work.” All told, Shell concluded, “the changes may be the greatest in recorded history.”
For its part, Exxon warned of “potentially catastrophic events that must be considered.” Like Shell’s experts, Exxon’s scientists predicted devastating sea-level rise, and warned that the American Midwest and other parts of the world could become desert-like.
Benjamin Franta, Shell and Exxon’s Secret 1980s Climate Change Warnings, the Guardian (Sept. 19, 2018), https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings

Again a different context, and without taking away from the supremacy of this, it also reminds me of this verse:

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters
Matthew 12:30 (NIV)

Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me.
Luke 11:23

[1] See, e.g., Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air, How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science, Union of Concerned Scientists (January 2007), https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf.

[2] Id.

What does this have to do with evangelism and discipleship?

By lsaltzburg

On February 12, 2022

In Inspiration

I was not planning to do this post until later but feel there may be some people who need it before they can read or receive any others. So here is a shot, even if it may not feel quite as polished.

If you are focused on evangelism and discipleship, why care about other issues? Like sustainability, agriculture, climate change, pollution?

Well, what if they are not in conflict, but actually further your goals? Here are 5 reasons for you to consider:

1. It’s appealing

I love this book dedication:

“For Jesus, who lived so lightly on this earth, He didn’t even have a place to lay His head. I want so deeply to be like you.”
Jen Hatmaker, Simple & Free: 7 Experiments Against Excess

Doesn’t that sound appealing? Does she sound like someone you would want to know?

The first Bible I had (and still have) was the Green Bible, around when it came out. While we of course don’t add to the Bible or consider it part of the Bible itself, there are some resources included ahead of this version. Among them is the story of the person who, for lack of a better term, put it together. He talks about his before and after in coming to faith. I remember being impressed that it was someone who truly changed his life, including, in his case, moving to a place the size of his former garage (which he notes shouldn’t attract that much sympathy since he was a doctor and it was a pretty big garage).

Since then, I know people who have no interest in going to church with me, but they love Water Missions, a Christian non-profit where I live.

2. It’s humble

If you care about what others care about and take time to consider if there might be something to learn from them too, won’t they be more likely to hear you? We reap what we sow.

I like this quote for the way it’s so respectful – without getting too much into the meaning, and while acknowledging there are times we need to carry each others’ burdens:

“If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.”
attributed to Lilla Watson and group effort

Often, people interested in evangelism seem to want to know how they can have a chance to interact with others they want to reach more often. While we may be led to do different things at different times, what better way than to ask how can I humbly come alongside you on something that you are called to do? Especially if involves a gap the church would be appropriately standing in all along (see reasons 3-4 below).

I say that with care because I don’t intend to suggest that different groups go seek to use each other to advance their own agenda, rather than genuinely looking to serve one another in love. Only to highlight there are mutual interests, and there is a level of respect in meeting people at that level.

3. It’s Stewardship

“The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof, . . . .”
Psalm 24:1

Churches seem generally accepting of, and may be even big on, stewardship of financial resources. I’ve heard both preaching and a popular class stress that we hold what we have in trust from the Lord. If we encourage people to manage finances well, don’t we also want that to be true of non-money resources?

As we have seen supply chain issues, that may be increasingly apparent. We may be willing to think more about, for example, stewarding our topsoil and the role of small farmers and diverse crops in food security.

It seems like the contrary view is often based on a perception of the command in Genesis 1:28 to “fill the earth and subdue it . . . .” Commenting too much on what exactly that means is beyond me at this time. It does seem, though, like it should be read in context of other verses, which do not advocate a short-sighted view or one that is self-indulgent at the expense of others. Instead, we see verses like:

“. . . . You will lead by a completely different model. The greatest one among you will live as the one who is called to serve others, . . .”
Matthew 20:26 (TPT)

“A good person leaves an inheritance for their children’s children, . . . .”
Proverbs 13:22

For denominations that do Ash Wednesday, apology in this area is actually part of the liturgy:

“For our waste and pollution of your creation, and our lack of concern for those who come after us,
Accept our repentance, Lord.“

We also see in the Bible a God who tenderly cares for His creation:

“You visit the earth and water it;”
Psalm 65:9 (ESV)

“All creatures look to you to give them their food at the proper time.”
Psalm 104:27 (NIV)

Apart from the practical utility, creation is meant to tell us something about our creator:

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”
Pslam 19:1

It often is a way that we still experience awe and wonder. As Wallace Stegner puts it, wilderness is itself a resource, a part of the “geography of hope.”

4. It’s compassion

This is best to illustrate in context of specific issues, so I won’t get into it in an already long post here except to note that “environmental” or “ecological” issues are still about people and have real human impacts. The church is rightly quick to respond to crisis, but in dealing with issues like global warming or responding to hurricanes and flood threats, there is a chance to avoid, rather than mitigate, damage.

5. It’s time

The body of Christ is meant to be the solution. We have the chance to seek the wisdom of God for areas that seem so big and so far along as to feel hopeless if we look at trying to do this ourselves. And, there are places where action is urgently needed.

In Honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day

By lsaltzburg

On January 16, 2022

In Inspiration

Credit: https://123wishesmessages.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Martin-Luther-King-Jr-Day-Images.jpg

A long time ago, I read what I thought was an article, and later realized was a sermon, by Martin Luther King Jr. It was so impactful that I try to go back and remember it from time to time. The whole thing is worth reading in its entirety, and I’ve shared an excerpt here:

“Another way that you love your enemy is this: When the opportunity presents itself for you to defeat your enemy, that is the time which you must not do it. There will come a time, in many instances, when the person who hates you most, the person who has misused you most, the person who has gossiped about you most, the person who has spread false rumors about you most, there will come a time when you will have an opportunity to defeat that person. It might be in terms of a recommendation for a job; it might be in terms of helping that person to make some move in life. That’s the time you must do it. That is the meaning of love. In the final analysis, love is not this sentimental something that we talk about. It’s not merely an emotional something. Love is creative, understanding goodwill for all men. It is the refusal to defeat any individual. When you rise to the level of love, of its great beauty and power, you seek only to defeat evil systems. Individuals who happen to be caught up in that system, you love, but you seek to defeat the system.”
–https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/loving-your-enemies-sermon-delivered-dexter-avenue-baptist-church

At the same time, that doesn’t mean we are to be passive or apathetic. There are many inspiring quotes to choose from on that front and you probably don’t need a link, but here are a couple of quick examples: Strength to Love Quotes by Martin Luther King Jr. (goodreads.com); Martin Luther King, Jr. Quotes – BrainyQuote

For believers, I’m grateful for the five-fold ministries and appreciate that the diversity of gifts and paths are so important. At our church, we take a spiritual gifts test to help us find our strengths and direction. When I was talking with someone about it, he mentioned he scored particularly high on mercy and possibly my first thought was: “I don’t really get that.” That of course is not good and something I need to work on. It is wonderful that he has those gifts and that we are all growing. At the same time, it is not necessarily a bad thing to have a high justice personality. While “mercy triumphs over judgment,” we are made in His image and our heart for justice is meant to reflect God’s heart for justice. We know that He will “make everything right in the end.” Psalm 7:17 TPT.

One of my favorite passages is:

“6Is this not the fast that I have chosen:
To loose the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the [c]heavy burdens,
To let the oppressed go free,
And that you break every yoke? . . .”
Isaiah 58 (NKJV)

There is a famous quote from Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, who “wrote about marching with King from Selma to Montgomery: ‘I felt as if my legs were praying.’” (WE ARE INDEED OUR BROTHERS’ KEEPERS, AND INDEED WE ARE ALL BROTHERS | | greensboro.com – I’m not sure the original source, but there are a variety of websites that quote it, and I pulled something for attribution).