I do believe the riskiest fossil fuels are easily identifiable youve gotten rid of some of them already. And there are others that can be done in a more immediate fashion. And in how many weve sold in the thermal area, what, Nine Companies . Right. Restricted. Okay. Thats what were looking to build on right now. How many people have come to you and said, weve divested and we made a mistake . Or we wanted to slow it down, if we had a chance to resell . Walk me through none of our signatories whatever divestment theyve done. Its important to differentiate. If you divest from all fossil fuels and you do that tomorrow, thats different than selling off two Coal Companies or whatever it is. So i think what ill say is that every signatory thats taken some kind of divestment action, has done it in a thought out, procedural way and not a reactive, getridofthistomorrow way. I can safely say that, right . Thank you. Thats helpful. Are we on time . Behind. Shall we go to alan or do you have more q
Impact of fossil fuel usage. Second, the committee is encourages by the sixpoint recommendation for taking action on this topic, but would like to request more information regarding specific timelines for each of the action items lefted in the staff plan. The committee would like to communicate their grave concern regarding the possibility of a mass divestment of fossil fuels within a short time frame. The committee would advocate that the board undertake no such rash action until completing a complete analysis of the Financial Impact the effect it would have on pension performance and costs. We appreciate and understand the desire to divest from fossil fuels from different entities, but we must understand the implications of such a decision before its made. Sorry. Time. Thank you very much. Again, everyone has 1 minute. Were going to announce loudly when you are at your 1minute mark. Understand the constraints we have. Sara greenwald, are you present . Seeing shes not here. I will set
That we double up in this category then . You are a consultant. You are giving us advice for now and in the future. So if you believe its going to go up, why was that not in the recommendation that came before the board . Everybody in this room needs to understand that you hold securities in two places. You give them to managers and those managers make the decision on if the security is attractively valued or not. As a consultant, why dont you recommend us investing more money in the field if you think its going to go up . Were not recommending adding Additional Energy to the portfolio unless a manager hired to make that recommendation determines that thats what they should do. Were arguing that you dont take away that choice from them. The figures i quoted to you do not embed an expectation that Energy Prices will increase. What they do embed is taking energy away diversifies the portfolio. You made a statement that were making a political statement. Could you please back that up . My
Would have on pension performance and costs. We appreciate and understand the desire to divest from fossil fuels from different entities, but we must understand the implications of such a decision before its made. Sorry. Time. Thank you very much. Again, everyone has 1 minute. Were going to announce loudly when you are at your 1minute mark. Understand the constraints we have. Sara greenwald, are you present . Seeing shes not here. I will set her speaker card aside. Phil casky, followed by margaret pierce. Phil casky, retired from the Water Department. I think i want to say briefly the Water Department is an incredibly wonderful system. Its one of the most protected systems in the world. And we didnt get that way by being unprotective of the environment. So burning fossil fuels is not protective of the environment. And i would like to keep the water system the way it is and i think that San Francisco can be a leader in many, many ways and by divesting is one way to do it. Thank you. Tha
What the state Attorney Generals Office wants. Dozens of victims many of them elderly tell fox 29 investigates the same story. They bought furniture from furniture sir plus which changed hands became furniture king. They got nothing from either. Now both the old and the new owners are being sued by the state. The law in this case is pretty straight forward. Unequivocal and clear f they accepted money from the from the consumers for furniture they have to provide the furniture or they have to provide refunds. They dont have the furniture. They have to provide dollar for dollar refunds to the consumer. Reporter we wanted to ask the stores new owner about the lawsuit. Daniel roberts was busy working in the store very much open late this afternoon about this late case. He said hes trying to make things right. First were here to help customers. Reporter youre trying to make right with the customers. Ive been trying to make it right. Whatever they trying to do. Reporter so what the state is