Your retirement investments are probably fueling climate change

View in browser | Support our newsroom

THE WEEKLY REVEAL

Saturday, September 14, 2024

Hello! In this issue:

Discover how your retirement savings might be supporting the fossil fuel industry—and what you can do about it.
Imprecise drug tests are still in wide use—and they can be the basis of life-altering decisions by child welfare agencies.

Support deep investigations that change lives. Become a member.

THIS WEEK’S PODCAST

Your Retirement Investments Are Probably Fueling Climate Change

At an intersection, a group of about 25 people sit in folding chairs, many of them holding signs that are out of the picture. Across the street, two people hold a banner that says Vanguard invests in climate destruction.

Quakers and environmental activists hold a prayer service outside The Vanguard Group’s headquarters in Malvern, Pennsylvania. Their protest signs urge the company to stop investing in fossil fuels. CREDIT: Jonathan Jones/Reveal

Reveal reporter Jonathan Jones was working on a story about a massive coal plant expansion in Montana when he wondered who was bankrolling the project. It turns out a major shareholder of the energy company driving the project was The Vanguard Group, the investment firm where he happens to have his retirement savings.

This discovery put Jones on a quest to find out why Vanguard and other asset managers continue to invest in fossil fuels at a time when we need to burn less oil, gas, and coal.

This week on Reveal, we look at the unsettling truth that our retirement savings could be fueling the very climate crisis that threatens our planet. From the site of a massive natural gas pipeline cutting through Appalachia to the boardrooms of Vanguard, we explore how our investments might be working against our values—and what can be done to align them with a sustainable future.

Listen to the episode

🎧 Other places to listen: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Pandora, or wherever you get your podcasts.

A Quote to Remember

“Actions should not be taken based on a single drug testing result, period.”

Dr. Gwen McMillin is a toxicologist and medical director of a lab that analyzes drug tests—including for mothers who give birth. McMillin says drug tests should be a two-step process: After a pee-in-a-cup test turns up positive, there should be a more definitive test in which a toxicologist looks at the molecules in that sample to determine whether they are the illicit substance that the screen identified.

But for thousands of new mothers, this second step isn’t happening. And child protective services are taking action anyway.

Reveal partnered with The Marshall Project’s Shoshana Walter to investigate the error-prone drug tests that can determine whether brand-new parents are allowed to take their newborn home.

Listen: She Ate a Poppy Seed Salad. Child Services Took Her Baby.

Read the written version of this investigation, in partnership with The Marshall Project.

In Case You Missed It

🎧 They Followed Doctors’ Orders. The State Took Their Babies.

🎧 A Baby Adopted, A Family Divided

This issue of The Weekly Reveal was written by Kate Howard and edited by Nikki Frick. If you enjoyed this issue, forward it to a friend. Have some thoughts? Drop us a line with feedback or ideas!

Donate

The Center for Investigative Reporting

PO Box 584

San Francisco, CA 94104

Add us to your address book

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from all Reveal emails.