francisco to come up with a better project. and we've heard how it's going to positively impact the people. and it's no secret we're losing a lot of people from san francisco that can no longer afford to stay here, and this is an example of what can be done to try to keep people here and to work with people, create jobs for those that are here and as you said also, bring people back. this is really a thoughtful project. i was struck as i was reviewing the project before the meeting, the wonderful little details, too, and the things that people got right, from figuring out how to phase in the parks, and kr orrine, i want to thank you again for keeping that front and center. and also thank the giants for this work in recognizing that and the importance of the parks and the needs the community and having that open space and bringing that in the fashion, that it comes in earlier rather

than later. even though that's not necessarily the easiyes easiye eastiest thing to have done, it was the right thing to do. and port staff, i used to say port staff is the best in the city, and then, i stopped because i didn't want to poach. i guess i can go back to saying, this really is a fantastic place for people to work with just an extraordinary team at the port at every level. and i think given the fact we've got mike martin over here, that's another example of how it's a nice place to be. but no, truly, thank you all for the hard work that's been done, and i'm going to quote jack yet when he called to see if i had any further questions. he said you know, people at the port are really pretty

fabulous, but somebody who's sat on the other side of a negotiation table, to be able to say that is really quite a tribute to both sides. the negotiations were certainly not easy, but it resulted in such a solid project is a testament to all involved. and of course to have labor show up and talk about support for this project, and to have the support of labor in the project, again, on so many levels, this was as pointed out, how to do it right. bringing everyone together is only going to make for a better project, and i'm really excited to see this move forward, and as commissioner wu helped point out, this is the kind of thing that we as commissioners hope that we get right so that 10, 20, 30 years from now, people say well, they did something decent at least. but this is really one of those projects that i think really will have a positive effect on the face of san francisco and

excited and honored to be a part of it and look forward to see what comes next. thank you. >> wow, jack. a wise man once ses it's not the amount of breaths that you take, it's the amount that takes your breath away. it's hard to take any eye off the titanic organization of the giants and how you guys are beyond a sports team. a cultural figure. you've done something that has helped to transform this city, and i know mayor lee would be very, very proud. because one thing that i like about living in this city -- you go to other cities like l.a., you hear the word me, myself, and i. but in san francisco, you always hear two words, me and us. and to bring everybody together

to do something -- and we don't put ourselves above any project, it's amazing. and to deal with the issues towards homelessness, jobs, i mean, this sets san francisco apart. those coming behind us will one day look back and look at the recipe how the blueprint that the giants and how we in san francisco, we might fight among ourselves, but we have a way of figuring out, and we have moved this project. you know what, jack? i don't care that it look 11 years. really, seriously, you know? anything that's worth having -- i just got through reading mandela's book, the long road to freedom -- if it would have taken you another five, it would have been well worth it. going to erase that. but to the giants organization, to the port staff and to all

our partners and to our community, the corrines of the world and everyone, and toby, we all pitched in to get this thing right. we were worried about all the issues, and i think that we're there. and for me, i am more proud for commissioner brandon, who has been on this commission for 21 years, that as president, she really gets to see this come to fruition 'cause she was with you during all those days. so i couldn't be prouder to be up here with you with my fellow commissioners and hearing the public speak volumes. and recently, you weren't here, jack, but we had a gentleman come in from pier 70, and my words was, if you want to do business in san francisco, you need to go back to the giants, 'cause they know how to get it right, and you guys have a winning formula. and i will say this again: the commitment that you have to this city, even when you guys

are losing, your games are sold out. that means this community and the people in san francisco believe, support, and stand behind the giants just as this commission do, and that speaks volumes. 'cause most people when you're winning, they're with you. but when something happens, they go the other way. you know you have loyal fans in this city, and i'll tell you something. you don't know, but generations to come, they will benefit from this vision, and mayor lee's vision, and the best way to serve his memory and all those that have passed along the way, to make sure this project is done. thank you. >> thank you. phil, carl a, adam, thank you for such a wonderful report.

this is a historic day. i think i was here more than 11 years ago -- probably 12, 13 years ago when this idea first came to bear, and before we started the slanting process. i'm just so happy today we are voting on this project. this is going to be a wonderful -- we are creating a new community. the giants always have just been great corporate neighbors and so easy to deal with and so easy to work with. we don't always agree at the time but we get there, just like today. and i think the only thing that's changed since november , at the presentation, is that the port is going to get more money. yea. but i just want to thank everybody, the mission rock

team and jack and our attorneys, all the city agencies that have touched this project throughout the 11 years. we couldn't have done it without you, and our community leaders led by corrine and toby and bruce who have been active since day one. i mean, all of us together, this is a historic day, so thank you very much for -- oh, yeah, labor. of course labor was involved. labor is involved and will continue to be involved throughout the project, yes. yes. thank everybody. okay. commissioners. are we ready to vote? all in favor? any opposed? resolution 18-03 through 18-10 have been approved. [applause]

>> clerk: item 12, new business. >> i just have one thing for new business, and that is the southern bay front negotiation framework. i think this is a great document, and i think this is absolutely wonderful, and the fact that we have nine projects of -- of new opportunities in the southern waterfront. it takes me 45 minutes to an hour to get to work every day, so there are existing traffic problems that have to be addressed, and i totally appreciate that mission rock and forest city are going to contribute $90 million to this part of the waterfront. but i just need to know how it all works together and how we're going to correct the transportation issues that are going to affect everybody in these areas. so if we could just have some same of presentation in the

future on the southern bay strategy for the total southern bay front would be absolutely wonderful. >> thank you. >> anyone else? >> director forbes, we talked about having a periodic financial review. is that coming up on the calendar? >> yes. we're moving into budget, which will be on -- in february , two meetings, and then, we'll have a financial review in march. is that right, katey? >> yes. yes. we'll put it on the forward calendar. >> financial situations, it's looking good, but i think we should celebrate that and understand the challenges. >> okay. thank you. >> any other new business? >> i would like to -- >> no, no, go ahead. >> no, no, i don't have -- >> i just wanted to thank my felly commissioners who were coughing on either siwere -- fellow commissioners who were coughing on or the side of

me -- on either side of me. so i would just like to thank my wonderful commissioners for joining me today. can i have a motion to adjourn? >> motion. >> all in favor? >> meeting adjourned. >> they tend to come up here and drive right up to the vehicle and in and out of their car and into the victim's vehicle, i

would say from 10-15 seconds is all it takes to break into a car and they're gone. yeah, we get a lot of break-ins in the area. we try to -- >> i just want to say goodbye. thank you. >> sometimes that's all it takes. >> i never leave anything in my car. >> we let them know there's been a lot of vehicle break-ins in this area specifically, they target this area, rental cars or vehicles with visible items. >> this is just warning about vehicle break-ins. take a look at it. >> if we can get them to take it with them, take it out of the cars, it helps. adjourned. >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shop & dine in the 49 with within the 49 square miles of

san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 my name is jim woods i'm the founder of woods beer company and the proprietor of woods copy k open 2 henry adams what makes us unique is that we're reintegrated brooeg the beer and serving that cross the table people are sitting next to the xurpz drinking alongside we're having a lot of ingredient that get there's a lot to do the district of retail shop having that really close connection with the consumer allows us to do exciting things we decided to come to treasure island because we saw it as an amazing opportunity can't be beat the views and real estate

that great county starting to develop on treasure island like minded business owners with last week products and want to get on the ground floor a no-brainer for us when you you, you buying local goods made locally our supporting small business those are not created an, an sprinkle scale with all the machines and one person procreating them people are making them by hand as a result more interesting and can't get that of minor or anywhere else and san francisco a hot bed for local manufacturing in support that is what keeps your city vibrant we'll make a compelling place to live and visit i think that local business is the lifeblood of san francisco and a vibrant community

everyone, thank you for coming here today, i know a lot of you have been waiting a long time. thank you for making the time to be here today. will you please join us by rising and joining us in the pledge of allegiance. >> i allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> mr. secretary, roll call. >> commissioner bridges? commissioner drig col? here. commissioner makras? present.

we'll be starting off today by going right into staff presentation, and what we'll do is after they've had a chance to present we'll open up to public comment. we'll only be calling public comment once today. we have approximately 75 to 90 speaker cards here and if we were to call everyone and give everyone two minutes, it would be three hours, so what we're going to do is limit it to one minute per person so everyone has a chance to hear what everyone else has to say. what i do ask, you please be respectful. not everyone in the room is going to have the same opinion, but core values is being respectful of everyone's opinion and have an intelligent discussion today. staff, go ahead and start off. >> before we get started, i wanted to acknowledge, thank you for being here, thank you for being engaged and active participants in democracy. i want to let you know in the

interest of full disclosure i'm leaving this evening earlier than anticipated, i have a sick relative in the hospital that is being discharged, so i need to go pick him up. i will let you know, but i may have to ask for the vote to be called before everyone has an opportunity to speak. i want to acknowledge, again, many of you have come, written, e-mailed, this body as well as the board of supervisors and the editorial pages of the local newspapers, your voice has been heard and i want to acknowledge that. >> president stansbury: i'd like to add one thing, i'd like to thank supervisor peskin for showing up today, it's important that our supervisors are here to add their opinion, because it's helpful for our commission to hear from them. so thank you.

>> we have several invited guests, you know allan at the far left. stephanie ivy and john goldstein from goldman sachs, john will speak first. and then ofear second. they'll be 15 minutes. third will be allan and i will go last and allan and i, we pledge total of 15 minutes of two, if he takes 8, i have 7. john, if you could. stephanie, please reintroduce yourselves. >> good afternoon to the board, thank you for having us. protecting the environment and thinking about esg, it's been a longstanding focus of our firm. we have a very large clean energy business, we've already deployed about $40 billion in capital to clean energy and have expanded that goal to $150 billion by 2025.

we've held 89 companies scale up the clean energy and renewable efforts in 29 countries. our own building was built to the gold esg standard, so we focus a lot of resources thinking about this from an investment perspective as well as business. we worked with some of the largest institutions on ways to think about reducing the carbon footprint because we agree this is a critical issue that needs to be addressed. we did partnership with the state of new york which was announced at the paris climate talk last year that helped them reduce carbon emissions by 70%. to address this issue more aggressively we acquired a firm with john goldstein, working with the largest foundations on how to think about these issues. we believe there is a way to reduce the carbon footprint, but also retain the power to engage

with companies that have violators and high carbon emitters and organizations like san francisco, enable them to maintain and keep the portfolio focus as fiduciaries. i'm going to turn it to john. >> i'm going to go over a couple of basic things. number one, about my background and context. number two, talk about the particular challenges of climate risk and integrating portfolios and the world is at a point of whether to think about it, but how. the third point is getting to how, what is a way to tackle the challenge and potentcy of climate change. and finally reflections on some of the materials we presented. my handy watch, i'm going to try to stick to the time, so

everybody can go through what they need to say. i cofounded a impact investing firm back in 2007, focused working with u.s. foundations and other institutions on this question of changing world, value impact and capital. made 125 investments across, worked with lots of institutions. and frankly, the sign this is important to investors across the world, we were acquired by goldman sachs two years ago, and help clients take concrete action on issues. that gets to the next -- i think have touched the questions around fossil fuel for many angles. we have clients that have taken a spectrum of approaches to low carbon to engagement to investing in solutions and all points in between. so we've deployed capital and worked with clients on the

spectrum and can comment from that basis. i think the second thing is talk about climate change as an investment problem. huge societal issue as well documented and understood, but as investment, it's a potent one because it has these two characteristics. number one between policy change, physical change and market change, it's pretty much unquestionable there will be pre-found impact over the next 20 years affecting every nook and cranny. the challenge, which ones of those will happen, when and where and how that relates to market pricing is really hard to figure out. the scenarios of how things unfold around physical change, policy response. it's certain the world is going to look different, but making bets on how that is going to look is really, really hard. back to approach, to tackle that, the approach is not to be

paralyzed. it's thoughtful actions to take with the basis of knowledge one has today to really start on a path of action and improvement and engagement, as opposed to staying in the analytical phase, which a lot of companies do. so back to the investment lens. this is laid out in a simple picture in the pact, but i can do a little word picture. against the backdrop of significant change, but uncertainty about the specifics of those change, what are things that make sense for action today? we found three general casts of things that generally make sense across portfolios. number one, risk management. if people can find ways to significantly reduce their risk posture, without otherwise affecting their financial exposure, kind of like getting cheaper free insurance. we don't know how the world is going to unfold, but if the

insurance is cheap or free, it's a positive thing to do. they found a way with 25 basis points of tracking error, if you map the russell 1,000 and their portfolio, it doesn't look like two lines, it's one line, but it reduces their carbon footprint by 72%. that allows to you say i'm not making a bet on how this is going to play out, but i'm getting really well priced insurance. if i can free or cheap insurance. the right tail. other opportunities that may benefit from a changing world, that can get a free option on. if you can find opportunities for example to invest in rooftop solar that gives attractive returns today, but even more at the transition. the materials have example of a client we're getting started

with, they wanted to make active bet that the trends will accelerate faster than they think. there are investments you can make that will look better under those scenarios. a free call option on upside around transition. similarly, if the world doesn't change, you're fine. if it changes you're even better. those types of things. asymmetry that makes sense from institutional perspective. the third thing is the middle. engagement, esg analysis, working to understand companies are going to take very different paths on this. and being an engaged owner can drive what path they actually take. i think the example is a good one, in addition to the low carbon portfolio, they were part of the 2° planning and having a different conversation with management at companies about what the future should look like and the seriousness of the

issues. this is something shareholders want to have a significant conversation about to manage their risk. having a seat at the table, instead of opting out. because what is decided around that table, matters an awful lot what the world is going to look like in 20-30 years. one thing that is interesting is carbon tracker, a great organization. ironically, and there is sort of a lot of the research is used around the divestment question. we sat down and said, we were never talking when we started di vesting from companies, has we wanted was to sit down with the companies and figure that the risk return on the high carbon assets was unattractive and the real lever was not to not own the companies, but talk to the management about the prudence of those projects.

the question of having a seat at the table, the engagement works on multiple levels. shareholder of a publicly traded company, which is engaging around strategic planning. but with the investment managers. we've found we're spending more time talking to private equity firms about how are they working with their company? they own these companies, they're controlled positions. they can drive carbon reporting, change in practices. this engagement can permeate a whole portfolio to drive improvement. if you own the assets and make the assets perform better, you can -- yeah? >> just to clarify, you're advocating don't sell the company -- don't sell the company stock, but look at the actual projects that are within that company and move down to that level? >> so number one, i'm not

advocating -- >> or whatever. >> what i think the point is that as part of transitioning to a low carbon future, there is a lot of critical choices companies make about what they invest in, how they operate and how they're assessed. there is a fork in the road, do you want to be in the board room as part of that conversation to push in a certain direction or opt out? there is no perfect approach, but there are pros cons and one of the cons is losing the seat at the table around the cap x decision. there are choices to be made and the world would be better off in the choices move in a more sustainable direction than less. and one of the questions is what role do you want or not want to play in the conversation? does that answer your question. and so the optimization, the

nice thing, there is a great way for that to have real legs because the economic case matters a lot. in some ways it gets popped out in interesting ways. so we had our real estate team help us assess a real estate fund. we were excited to understand. they talked about the properties. after we were debriefing on the conversation and you know, they told us what they liked and didn't like. but then there was a awkward silence. we said what are you not telling us? they said all the things they want to do around community engagement, we do more of that because it's good business. i think the world is changing in part because consumer attitudes are changing, and economics are getting better and better on being the right side, benefitting from the trends and driving the trends, at multiple levels with the companies you

own, it's a powerful level. if you can invest in an asset manager that is skilled in a changing world, instead of one that has their head pointed down, from a risk perspective, i think generally we'd rather have them staying in touch with the world as it will be, than stuck in the world as it was. how do you optimize that exposure? with whom you invest? we have slides. that broad question of not just in whom you invest, but how you invest, how you engage. i think there is a lot of opportunity. i don't know if there is a way to get -- >> i'm sorry, john, can you briefly just explain people that are engaging with you that want to reduce the carbon footprint, simply for the audience, why are they doing it and what are they able to accomplish? >> so, i would put the people

who approach us to do that into two categories and there is overlap. so there is some people it is purely from a mission perspective. so one of the large foundation clients was in town, one of their key areas where they give around money is driving transition to a low carbon economy, it's what they believe in, care about and to be giving money away to solve problems they feel like they're creating, there would be a distance. we see that with individuals we work with, we see it with investors. there is a distance between the world they want to see and certain ways of investing. and i'll talk about each model and what they tend to do. the second are fiduciaries, asset owners, money on behalf of someone else, generally pension. they see the world changing. 60% of new power generation in

the u.s. was renewable. the world is changing. and they see it. and they want to be -- figure out if there is a smart way without making a bet, i'm putting it all on black. they want to position themselves for a future that is changing. new york state is a good example of what that looks like. i'd say that first category, it's more value-aligned investors tend to take a spectrum. some of them will divest from fossil fuels because they don't want to see them from identity perspective. they want to have their voice added from a movement perspective. and others invest in solutions. we do a lot of conversation and the divest, but the invest piece is neglected in terms of what are things that may benefit from the investment. on the institutional side, i think, this is what is exciting about the conversation today, we've seen pension funds nibble

at pieces of this. new york state low carbon index, the engagement around the 2° resolution, the climate 100 put together, we've seen bits and pieces in those, but what is exciting about the recommendation i read in the materials, i think overnight it would put sfers at the leading edge -- >> that's what the current recommendations? >> yeah. hiring people to make it real, plug into partnerships to engage your reach, look at whether there are ways in terms of fossil fuels and clean energy, that kind of looks across the spectrum in a way that once again i think would position you more with the vanguard. we've seen individual actions along the spectrum, but to come out of the gate a little more

powerfully across the tools is a big deal. >> why is that more powerful than new york? >> so, i mean, number one, for us, and you know, inability to move dollars, like to move money versus a broad process, that makes a difference. >> how long was new york's process? >> new york city? so i haven't been involved in that. the release says they're going to go i think work with consultants to develop a set of options that they will then study and have reviewed by a fiduciary counsel that says that is prudent. >> so no set time line. >> i'm not the expert on that, but no guideline and it's not clear what would result, and it would be interesting to see the dynamic between how aggressive

and what will pass muster in terms of the process they've set up, in terms of the legal bar. this is more me speculating having read the same materials you read. but i think it's important to note, what is significant, have a broad aspiration. the world is changing we wanted to be positioned for it. make a down payment, move money away from the worst actors toward better, you're -- actions that take to move money, bodies and vote today while still having longer term aspiration. i think it feels like either, or. it's either aspirational statement that puts off action, or it's action. and a combination of those two seems potent. i think i've gotten to the 15 minutes. i think that kind of covers all

of it. the question, it is important to recognize the profound challenge of climate change as investing question. the trick is to find -- not to get started and this if you can find ways to get cheap or free insurance, or free or cheap options and optimize the performance of the middle, where you invest and how you invest, that is a way to allow folks to get started. and it's an on ramp, not a conversation, but an actual way to get started. so much comes down to good execution. back to being an example, the example that has action, aspiration, but good implementation, because when we talk to institutions that are intrigued but skeptical, they have questions about will this be implemented well? this is going back to the days, are we manufacturing models of success or cautionary tales.

do we reinforce those by stubbing our toe, or do we show people that can work in a methodical way that gives its legs. there is a desire to have a leadership position not just for your own pensioners and what you're trying to do, but impact and extend. i think not to be really boring, but good execution is innovation. and i think it's important to not lose sight of that. >> one of the things we as a board, it's really easy to take things out, but we have to find things to put it in, and we have to find things with a bogey, so i think finding those clean renewables, enough of them, everybody around the world is chasing those kind of companies now. where can we find them? and so our fear is always something that happened to cal

feres and others, they put their money in things and they lost money. we need the help to identify the good projects. when you're saying implementation, we need to -- that's a key for us. >> yeah. i'm a few minutes over, apologies, but hopefully that was useful. with the 15 minutes i had and i'm going to caveat it that the presentation i prepared is longer than that, so i'm going to try to cover the most important points. but i'm going to spend a couple of minutes on my background. it's relevant to folks in the room. so in 2012, as a student uc

berkeley, during that time i was divestment fellow at 350.org and spoke in favor of sfers divesting at the first council hearing in 2013. thereafter, i passed the resolution. after graduating i went on to work at shareholder advocacy nonprofit where i basically supported divestment campaigns nationwide and also worked connected research that underpinned shareholder proposals, targeted fossil fuel companies. after that i went to work at the university of california investment office, where they manage the $100 billion for the uc system and i basically spent my time helping them develop a framework for responsible investment and specifically had to tack the question of climate change. so during that time, uc, you know, we came out with -- the uc

came out with a multi-pronged approach. they joined the principles for responsible investment where i work now and something sfers did a few months ago. the uc sold off the investment in the coal and oil sand companies in a short time frame. they committed a billion dollars through private market vehicles. and they committed to active ownership, so where they had a seat at the table, they joined climate-related engagement initiatives. and they hired staff to implement all this. so it's probably -- you can see the similarities there with the proposed plan. in my opinion, the staff proposal standalone goes above and beyond that. i joined the principles for responsible investment. we've got just under 2000 constitutional investor and service provider signatories or

members that represent 70 there will, over half of the world's wealth. and you know, it's become abundantly clear that the climate change is sort of a top issue for the vast majority of the signatories, of our members, so the pri has prioritized climate change within our 10-year strategy. we spend a lot of time thinking about it. and advising our signatories on it. and what i'll say through the whole journey, you know, if i didn't think divestment was a powerful tool, i wouldn't have been an activist for years. and this journey broadened by perspective. i worked in an institutional investment office that had the responsibility to manage the pension assets of tens of thousands -- hundreds of thousands of people indefinitely. and so that journey has -- you

know, helped me understand that divestment is powerful and if it is undertaken, it shouldn't be standalone, it should be part of a thoughtful multi-pronged approach. because there are many levers to address climate change. and i think the conversation needs to be had around not isolating one lever at the expense of all of the others, let's talk about how each lever can be thoughtfully executed in the way that has the most impact on the issue we care about, while fulfilling the fiduciary duty this board is charged to execute on behalf of pensioners. so how do you balance all those differing approaches? and create a really holistic approach that can certainly include divestment if that's the way the board wants to go, and at the same time, doesn't stop

there. so, you know, i think each of the proposals that are on the table that have been discussed, each have their own merits and i think there is a path forward for this board that incorporates elements of each and as john said, they're a leader among pension funds in the u.s. and the world and that is the opportunity on the table today. please stand by.

cheap natural gas, renewable energy. policies targeting carbon emissions, as we all know, decimated the coal industry, depressed oil prices, and have left assets stranded and will continue to do so. as we all know, the directionality is clear. the international community is committed to keeping warming well below 2 degrees celcius. and that has real implications for institutional investors. john highlighted a number of them. and i will just add to them and provide a little more color. just yesterday, lloyds of london, oldest insurance market

in the world, committed to divesting from coal. norway's sovereign wealth fund, largest in the world, is considering a divestment from fossil fuel as well. world bank announced that it will no longer finance fossil fuels. they announced that i've come together to engage the largest carbon emmitters, under even umbrella, new umbrella, called the climate action 100, which john mentioned. that is to say, that the directionality is clear and transition to a low-carbon economy is nuanced in the impact it's going to have. john spoke really well to the

nuances. it will create winners. it will create losers. the question is, how do you manage that downside risk and capitalize on the upsides of the transition? this response, how do you manage that and mitigates the solutions. time check? >> i haven't been timing you. >> that's all right. bill mckibbon called for a managed transition off fossil fuels. if we're talking specifically about fossil fuel companies, which oil and gas companies are currently aligned with a two degree pathway and which are spending capital on projects that will be stranded down the line.

to answer that question, there was a report that ranks the 69 largest oil and gas companies on the proportion of their capital expediture that falls either inside or outside of a two degree budget. what emerges is a picture of which companies are most exposed to asset risk and least exposed. with that information, investors can choose a number of pathways. you can hedge that risk in a number of ways. john mentioned some of them. you can allocate to a low-carbon index. it reweights towards better performers and underweights carbon emissions and momentum, transitioning to become more sustainable companies. and you can engage with the laggards and help them become more sustainable. and then you can, of course,

just divest all together and take a phased approach to text itting -- to exiting the conversation. what i will say is that it's being done in a measured approach. some of the key aspects to engagement, which 5 want to spend a few moments on. a, to improve management and corporate governance at the board level. b, to improve disclosure and align that disclosure in a way that's decision-useful for investors. and, c, to actually reduce

carbon emissions. and so there's a financial stability board. the financial stability board was created by central bank governors and bank of england and it was created to avoid another 2009 financial crisis. they identified climate change

and been able to make capital allegation decisions. and the tcfd marks a significant evolution in terms of how institutional investors and, you know, the market and private market actors, just signalling how this is an issue that will affect us all. let's glean the data we need to make informed decisions. >> just for time sake -- >> you were on a personal journey from divestment to coming back to pris mission. can you explain briefly why you've changed your perspective. >> it's not really that i've changed my perspective. >> your approach. >> every institutional investor has a path they can take. john can probably speak to this

better than i can. if you are a foundation with a clear mission of solving climate change, you have more leeway to make decisions, bound by if ied -- fiduciary duties and it may cause you to make certain decisions that others don't. in that context, it's a multipronged approach that will win the day. not to throw the baby out with the bath water and take an approach that ultimately, again, is thought out. it has teeth. if you are going to engage with companies, put a timeline on it and articulate the consequences if they don't shift in alignment with how you want them to shift. and use the other levers at your

disposal. we need $1 trillion in investments annually to meet the paris agreement. a small chunk of that will come from governments. the rest from investors, finance institutions, and companies, and so investors have a key role to play to help us achieve a 2-degree target. you have a plan on the table today. that's one aspect. engagement. whether to engage with fossil fuel companies or not, that's up to the board to decide. but we can provide guidance and experience. i mentioned a report that ranks these companies. engage across other sectors, help the automotive industry transition to more efficient vehicles, electric vehicles,

etc. >> so when i was engaging with calpers, you were imploring on me to please do not divest and walk away. calpers has said, be at the table. go to level 2, not level 3. go to level 2. >> yeah. >> and be at the table negotiating with us, so we have the clout. and if we do it together, we can move a lot of the bad players and hold -- put some teeth in to how we're doing it, because we haven't put any teeth in and they held themselves accountable. >> there's historical context. sfpers committed in 2015 and not much has been done. the environment is much different today.

it was last month that it was launched. it has teeth. collectively, this group of investors owns roughly around 25% of the companies that are being engaged. so companies will listen to that group. i think the question -- part of the question and part of the answer to the question is, what kind of teeth are you putting behind it. $40 billion pension fund, dutch pension fund, said we will engage, but if we don't see change in three to five years, we'll divest. there is a middle ground that can be struck. i will not tell you what to do, but i'm trying to paint a picture that there are multiple avenues. you can take the new york city route. as john mentioned, they have not

ta tangibly committed to anything today. >> i'm picking up, we commit in 2015 to do something, to go to level two, but that's not strong enough because we're not putting teeth in it. if you go to level two and want to be at the table, get a commitment from the companies that we have real standards we can judge their actions within two, three -- whatever the time period. >> yes. figure out exactly what you want those companies to become and give a time frame. if they don't transition in that time frame, make an informed decision. so that's one side of the conversation. >> so i'm trying to think about our progress, too, as a board. we went to that 2015. and some of the other pensions did what we did. we're going to be a the at table, going to level two.

we're going to engage. are you saying now because we've committed to being much more trying to put teeth in it that other organizations are doing that with us. >> and to get back to boring operational stuff, but the fact that there is a head count. >> yes. it's a great idea, but who will do it. >> like we don't have 20 people like calpers does. >> but adding actual, dedicated people to the task. and as i understand it, number one, have someone whose day job is that, and, two, plug into the initiatives, so you can extend the reach. you nope what it is you want to do. >> let's progress on that.

it's important to see that we have moved ahead. we haven't moved ahead fast enough and we want to put some teeth into this. so i think what we're really saying is, 215, we did that. we need more responses. we need to have more effect. so what we're doing now, putting on the table, is that we're actually hiring somebody now to do it full time. so we're putting money behind it. and we haven't done that before. calpers has 20 people behind it. i don't know if new york city has anybody behind it. >> i think it's a question of how you word it, right? it's a question of what you are committing to. new york city said, in five years, our desire is to not have these companies in our portfolio.

>> that's a long time. to me, it doesn't seem like a lot of teeth. it's where people have gone, but it seems like they're studying it, looking at it. we have people in the audience saying, we need some teeth in this to see results. >> this is one of the nice things about the proposal. step one is moving $1 billion, right, this idea that, you know, all of this other stuff is good and important and go to have aspiration and process, but moving money is important. >> to be clear, getting rid of all fossil fuels, selling them all tomorrow, is just fiducia fiduciarily, legally imprudent. it exposes you to a lot of risk. everyone who will make this decision and has made this decision, hasn't just done it the night after. they've done it in a phased, prudent approach. you have responsibilities. >> when you say "phased, prudent

approach," don't you still need a timeline? you don't think it's prudent to do it tomorrow, but don't you think you have to put a timeline on it at some point? >> i do. 100%, yes. [applause] if the decision you are making is to divest -- and i'm not telling you to do that -- but if that's your decision, of course, give it teeth. if you are going to engage, give that teeth, too. in the meantime, don't -- don't get rid of the proposals on the table to invest in solutions to invest to a low-carbon index. if this passes, it will be, as far as i understand, the largest allocation to low-carbon index. >> so number one, recommending

to put this amount of money to a carbon index. we're doing something finally. so i think most of us like that. and i think, two, the fossil fuel -- you're saying, recommending from your standpoint, it's not prudent to do it tomorrow, but it is important for you to now identify those companies, analyze them, figure out which ones are not a good investment and dirty and will be bad for the portfolio anyway. >> i will steer away from making that kind of a recommendation, but what i will say is that, whatever decision you to make, yes, needs to be really well thought out, so if you do divest over a period of time, if that's what you choose to do, you are doing it in a prudent wa