Hollywood actor Leonardo DiCaprio on Tuesday joined more than 400 institutions and 2,000 individuals who have promised to divest from fossil fuels, as new research showed they hold total assets of $2.6 trillion.

The report by investment experts reveals the movement to take money out of fossil fuels like oil, coal and gas has grown 50-fold in one year. At the same time, more capital is flowing into renewable energy and other solutions to climate change problems, it said.

"Climate change is severely impacting the health of our planet and all of its inhabitants," said DiCaprio, announcing his promise to divest on behalf of himself and the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, which supports conservation projects around the world. "We must transition to a clean energy economy that does not rely on fossil fuels, the main driver of this global problem," the celebrity environmentalist added in a statement.

Local governments and investors from 43 countries have committed to stop supporting fossil fuels, including municipalities, pension funds, medical associations and churches, the coalition backing the movement said. The report, launched in New York by investment consultancy Arabella Advisors, did not specify how much of the $2.6 trillion in overall assets represented by those that have pledged to divest was invested in fossil fuels.

Thomas Van Dyck, managing director of SRI Wealth Management Group, said the research showed a growing number of investors wanted to reduce their carbon risk and switch their money into clean-growth industries. "That underscores what I see every day as a financial advisor – that the demand for fossil-free investment products is increasing," he said in a statement.

AP_104147184121-1024x749.jpg

Catching Fire

In the past year, activists have targeted the shareholders and creditors of fossil fuel companies and their corporate and social partners, while ramping up pressure on universities and religious institutions to stop investing in those firms.

The tactics are getting results – particularly in the United States, Britain and some Scandinavian countries, campaigners say.

"If these numbers tell us anything, it's that the divestment movement is catching fire," said May Boeve, executive director of 350.org, an online climate action group. She said the expansion of the movement should send a clear message to world leaders ahead of U.N. talks in Paris, where they are due to agree on a new global deal to tackle climate change in December.

"It's time for them to follow suit, and divest our governments from fossil fuel companies too," Boeve added.

Divestment strategies differ across organizations, the coalition noted. Some are withdrawing their money from all fossil fuel companies, while others are beginning with firms involved in coal or tar sands.

A papal pronouncement issued by Pope Francis in June demanding swift action to save the planet from environmental ruin has influenced religious institutions, experts say.

"The pace of fossil fuel divestment within faith communities worldwide, combined with the growing commitment to investing in clean energy, particularly for the world's poor, show that the world's spiritual and moral leaders grasp the urgency of the climate crisis and are ready to act," said Rev. Fletcher Harper, executive director of GreenFaith, a U.S.-based interfaith coalition for the environment.

*

Unknown.jpeg

MEANWHILE, Rebecca Leber reports in The New Republic that Hillary Clinton's announcement Tuesday that she no longer supports the Keystone XL pipeline comes as a huge win for the climate movement:

On Tuesday afternoon, with the nation’s attention turned to Pope Francis making landfall in Washington, D.C., Hillary Clinton gave an Iowa town hall the answer environmentalists have long waited to hear from her on the Keystone XL pipeline. “I oppose it,” she said.

For years, the former secretary of state has insisted she could not come forward with her personal opinion on the project, using an assortment of excuses to explain that she would not comment while the State Department’s review of the project – which has stretched on endlessly, and conveniently for Clinton, since 2009 – was still in progress.

That's recently changed, as the pressure for her to come forward has only grown with Senator Bernie Sanders’ rise in the polls. Last week, she warned, "I'm putting the White House on notice” on Keystone; on Tuesday, she handed Keystone activists a clear win, yet still made clear that she sees the project as one giant nuisance.

"I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone Pipeline as what I believe it is, a distraction from important work we have to do on climate change,” Clinton said. “And unfortunately from my perspective, one that interferes with our ability to move forward with all other issues."

Ignore Clinton’s grudging comments. This is a huge political victory for environmentalists. It reflects how significantly the politics around Keystone have shifted in a few years – after all, Clinton herself said she was "inclined" to approve it in 2010. Now, the expectation is Obama too will reject it. It also means the leading Democratic candidate has adopted not one, but two of green activists' key issues. Last month, Clinton said she opposes drilling in the U.S. Arctic, in a significant break from the Obama administration. "It's not worth the risk of drilling," she tweeted.

Her reasons for championing the policies that are near and dear to environmentalists probably have more to do with fending off Sanders’ unexpected success early in the campaign cycle. Sanders has long opposed Keystone, and as the White House decision has lingered, Clinton was increasingly painted into a corner. She could dodge endless questions about her position on Keystone, or she could finally silence critics who say Sanders is a better climate ally than Clinton.

But now, in a dramatic shift in perception, Clinton herself has become an ally applying pressure to the administration. Today grassroots groups praised Clinton for shaking her sometimes-aloof reputation on climate change. “Hillary is now standing with us to ask President Obama to reject the pipeline once and for all," said one anti-Keystone activist, Bold Nebraska Director Jane Kleeb, adding, "We are proud Sec. Clinton stood up for clean water today."

The question now: How much further will she go? Was the Keystone announcement politics or principle? The early primary season offers progressive activists the best chance they'll have to push Clinton to stake out aggressive climate policies, and they know it. What they hope to see next is a bold stand against federal policies that promote fossil fuel development. “I think logically the train of thought would lead anyone to say, we have to leave carbon in the ground,” Bill McKibben, a climate activist and journalist who's led the Keystone opposition, told me in an email after Clinton finally spoke out.

If Clinton continues to break with Obama on the areas where he remains weakest on the environment, she could outpace his accomplishments in office if elected president. The key is whether she continues to focus on policies that discourage the production of fossil fuels, like mining and drilling on public lands. The federal government leases 67 million acres to the fossil fuel industry, and Obama has approved leases for a quarter of them. “And the president of the U.S. actually has control over a lot of ground, without even having to ask anyone in Congress.” Clinton has clearly decided to go after the climate vote, but she will have to do more to fully earn it.

Originally published by Reuters