Dot Earth Blog: A Closer Look at Harvard’s Choice on Fossil Fuels

Students from @BardDivest plan out strategic tactics to @GoFossilFree! @350 @endowmentethics #studentpower http://t.co/ULCUsQZTgH

— K.C. Alvey (@AlveyKC) 4 Oct 13

The student effort to get universities and colleges to sell off their investments in companies hawking fossil fuels continues, as can be seen in the Twitter item and photo above from Bard College.

But on Thursday, Harvard University President Drew Gilpin Faust released a long and reasoned explanation of why the school will not remove fossil fuel investments from its portfolio. Her arguments were mostly macroeconomic (why disinvest when society still buys the companies' products?) and financial (the endowment supports school operations, scholarships and much more), although she also wrote that an endowment shift "would appear to position the University as a political actor rather than an academic institution."

The organization leading campus efforts to "Go Fossil Free" responded: "This is the fight we've been waiting for," said Jay Carmona, the Divestment Campaign Manager for 350.org. "Getting a clear rejection from a board of trustees or college president only serves to clarify the fight that's underway on campus. Students are not backing down–they're getting more fired up by the day."

Tim DeChristopher, who served time in federal prison for obstructing auctions of energy leases on federal lands and is now enrolled at Harvard Divinity School, posted a reasoned rebuttal via Wen Stephenson's blog at The Nation.

It's worth reading both Faust's and DeChristopher's arguments in full. (A recent Harvard speech by Stephenson lays out his argument, largely echoing DeChristopher's.)

You can read my thoughts below, but first I asked Robert N. Stavins, a Harvard environmental economist long focused on climate policy, for his view on the matter. Here's his reply:

In my view, President Faust made the right decision. Divestment would at best be a symbolic action only, without meritorious direct effects.

But can't symbolic actions be valuable?  The problem is that symbolic actions often substitute for truly effective actions by fooling ourselves into thinking we are doing something meaningful about a problem when we are not.

But can't symbolic actions be merited for moral crusades?  Yes, but climate change is fundamentally a scientific, economic, and political challenge.  Viewing it as a moral crusade will only play into and exacerbate the political polarization that is already paralyzing Washington.

Divestment of fossil fuel stocks would hurt, not help efforts to address global climate change.  First, natural gas is the crucial transition fuel to address climate change.  The reason for the drop in U.S. CO₂ emissions is the increased use of natural gas to generate electricity.  Second, if divestment were to reduce the financial resources of coal, oil, and gas companies (which it would NOT do), this would only reduce research and development at those same companies of:  carbon capture and storage technologies; other key technological breakthroughs; and renewable sources of energy (the fossil fuel companies are carrying out much of the R&D on renewables).

Harvard's real contributions to fight climate change and promote sound climate change policies will be through our products: research, teaching, and outreach.  That is how this great university has made a difference on other societal challenges for decades and centuries, and it is how we will make a difference on this one.

It'll come as no surprise that I see merits and limits in all of these positions. (My stance as a biological and professional middle child has come up before.) But I do find Faust's argument weakened by her failure even to acknowledge that existing definitions of "endowment" and "fiduciary responsibility" — the duty of trustees to build endowments — need a fresh look.

I'd love to see campus conversations focus less on specific pledges to dump shares of fossil fuel companies — which get complicated in a hurry, as Stavins explains, despite assertions that this is a simple issue — and focus more on broadening everyone's sense of what constitutes our endowment.

I articulated this position on divestment last fall in a Harvard discussion of the legacy of Rachel Carson (which starts about one hour in on the video here), putting my main point this way:

If you're not having the conversation about what you mean by the endowment and what you mean by your responsibility then you're missing an opportunity.

Financial assets are to a significant extent underpinned by what some call "natural capital" — the productivity of soils and seas, the value of clean water, the benefits of a livable climate.

Activism and challenges to the status quo are important, but I think the best odds of progress come if some young people also choose to work within the corporate system and become the next generation of trustees, not just of their universities, but also of humanity's broader set of assets.

But this discussion circles back to two questions I've asked here before. First, "Is There Room for Varied Approaches to Energy and Climate Progress?"

And second, given that building a new generation of trustees takes time — comes this one: "On Issues Like Climate Change, Can Urgency and Patience Coexist?"

Updated, 5:21 p.m. | Belatedly, here's a link to a worthy "Room for Debate" feature on universities and fossil fuel investments that ran in January.

Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang

Dot Earth Blog: A Closer Look at Harvard’s Choice on Fossil Fuels

Dengan url

https://scienceteko.blogspot.com/2013/10/dot-earth-blog-closer-look-at-harvardas.html

Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya

Dot Earth Blog: A Closer Look at Harvard’s Choice on Fossil Fuels

namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link

Dot Earth Blog: A Closer Look at Harvard’s Choice on Fossil Fuels

sebagai sumbernya