As a former Republican and now independent voter, it continues to amaze me that the governor of the state I grew up in continues to make decisions that are hyper-political, but at odds with data. The new target is banning state pension funds from investing in Environmental, social and government (ESG) funds as they are hostile toward fossil fuel investing. The ruling is the ESG criteria cannot be the primary focus for selecting this investment.
Yet, for the last five years, ESG funds have yielded an average annual return of 14% versus 11% for conventional non-ESG funds. ESG funds also did better in European and Global markets per a Bloomberg article. Why governor are you improperly labeling these funds as “left wing conspiracy“ when they beat the pants off non-ESG funds? Florida pensioners deserve a few answers especially when data is not on the governor’s side.
This decision is part of the fossil-fuel funded strategy of pushing back on investors looking the toward funding environmentally oriented companies through mutual funds. My former party likes to say now, we are not in the business of picking winners and losers when they have been picking winners and losers for decades. No other industry has received more government money than the fossil fuel industry.
From what I read, these funds can still be selected by Florida pension investment managers, but financial returns will be the only criteria. With fossil fuel continuing to face challenges over their polluting product along with a movement to electric cars and renewable energy, the rates of return for the ESG funds may continue to outshine others. It should be noted that many corporate sponsors of 401(k) plans (not impacted by this ruling even in Florida), often offer ESG funds as an option for conscientious investors in their plans who do not want to be associated with environmental degrading industries.
I understand the governor’s argument to a point, but find it funny that he is targeting funds that are helping the environment, especially in a state surrounded by water on three sides and who has a horrible algae bloom problem in its waterways. Miami, its largest city, has been noted globally as the at most risk city in the world to climate change with the encroaching seas and an aquifer protected by porous limestone. Plus, it is par for the course with this governor to attack some perceived slight as a wedge issue to garner votes from ultra-conservatives.
musingsofanoldfart 
This hyper-partisan anti-future, anti-common sense position is entirely what I’d expect from DeSantis, who has done so much damage to his state and its people. I so hope the Florida voters chose Charlie Crist and make DeSantis a loser, thereby improving their lot in life while saving the rest of us from this cruel, mean-spirited, tyrannical autocrat with presidential aspirations and dark money backing already.
Annie, I hope you are right, but voters rewarded former governor Rick Scott for his ostrich-head-in-the-sand approach to climate change. DeSantis is of the same ilk (see Note to Readers). Keith
Note to Readers: Sunny day flooding is increasing in low lying areas. Here are a few paragraphs about Florida from Wikipedia, where then governor and now Senator Rick Scott forbade the use of climate change and related terms by state officials in speeches and print.
“In Florida, controversy arose when state-level government mandated that the term “nuisance flooding” and other terms be used in place of terms such as sea level rise, climate change and global warming, prompting allegations of climate change denial, specifically against Governor Rick Scott. This amid Florida, specifically South Florida and the Miami metropolitan area being one of the most at risk areas in the world for the potential effects of sea level rise, and where the frequency and severity of tidal flooding events increased in the 21st century. The issue is more bipartisan in South Florida, particularly in places like Miami Beach, where a several hundred million dollar project is underway to install more than 50 pumps and physically raise roads to combat the flooding, mainly along the west side of South Beach, formerly a mangrove wetland where the average elevation is less than one meter (3.3 feet).
In the Miami metropolitan area, where the vast majority of the land is below 10 ft (3.0 m), even a one-foot increase over the average high tide can cause widespread flooding. The 2015 and 2016 king tide event levels reached about 4 feet (1.2 m) MLLW, 3 feet (0.9 m) above mean sea level, or about 2 ft (0.61 m) NAVD88, and nearly the same above MHHW.[12] While the tide range is very small in Miami, averaging about 2 ft (0.61 m), with the greatest range being less than 2 m (6.6 ft),[13] the area is very acute to minute differences down to single inches due to the vast area at low elevation. NOAA tide gauge data for most stations shows current water level graphs relative to a fixed vertical datum, as well as mean sea level trends for some stations. During the king tides, the local Miami area tide gauge at Virginia Key shows levels running at times 1 foot (0.30 m) or more over datum.”
I know he is planning on running for president in 2024 but I often wonder if he is aware that a greater percentage of the electorate feels polar opposite of what he spews.
Janis, good point, but if he knows, he does not care. DeSantis’ bullying style dates back to when he was in the US House of Representatives. It was disappointing Florida voters could not see through his schtick, but he also ran against a poor candidate to become governor. Like you, I am weary of politicians playing these zero-sum games around wedge issues that are not that important. It reminds me of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. I want someone to ask him with live coverage, “Governor, you do know Florida we is surrounded on three sides by seas?” Keith
Oh how ridiculous!!! This is a classic example of that old adage, “Cutting off your nose to spite your face”! Apparently the fossil fuel barons and the people who make these decisions don’t have any grandchildren and thus don’t care about the future of humanity, nor do they care about investing in the people’s best interest.
Jill, when people have choices, many like environmental oriented funds. The fact that they are outperforming non-ESG funds is informational and interesting. Keith
I think most people would prefer investing in funds that help try to protect the environment, and the fact that the rate of return is higher than some others is just an added bonus! But of late, the environment has become a political football … our future, the future of men and wolves alike is on the line here, and people are playing political games. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Jill, agreed. These fossil-fuel leaders want to continue the cash cow, yet we are passing a tipping point. They need to leverage this recent law and move forward faster with renewable energy. Sadly for them, they should have been doing this more for several years now. GM could have dominated the Electric Vehicle market if they had not shelved their EV-1 program back just after the turn of the century. Keith