Divestment in Fossil Fuels Pushed in Response to Climate-Change Inaction

Harvard University President Drew Faust.
National Journal
Clare Foran
Add to Briefcase
Clare Foran
Nov. 29, 2013, 12:30 a.m.

Reg­u­la­tions to lim­it car­bon emis­sions are a key in­gredi­ent in Pres­id­ent Obama’s second-term cli­mate-change agenda, but en­vir­on­ment­al act­iv­ists say poli­cy­makers still haven’t gone far enough to com­bat glob­al warm­ing. A grass­roots move­ment has bubbled up in re­sponse to put pres­sure on pub­lic and private in­sti­tu­tions and mu­ni­cip­al gov­ern­ments to end in­vest­ments in fossil fuels.

The past year has seen a groundswell of sup­port for such di­vest­ment. Stu­dent groups and en­vir­on­ment­al act­iv­ists have launched close to 400 cam­paigns call­ing on Amer­ic­an uni­versit­ies and col­leges to with­draw sup­port for fossil fuels by pulling their in­vest­ments in com­pan­ies with large coal, nat­ur­al gas, and pet­ro­leum re­serves.

And polit­ic­al dis­il­lu­sion­ment has been a ma­jor driver of the move­ment. “We have a gov­ern­ment that has been taken over by the fossil-fuel in­dustry, so we’re go­ing to pres­sure the fossil-fuel in­dustry it­self,” Chloe Maxmin, a Har­vard Uni­versity stu­dent in­volved in a cam­paign to per­suade the uni­versity to di­vest from fossil fuels, told The Wash­ing­ton Post.

En­vir­on­ment­al groups have also fo­cused on polit­ic­al in­ac­tion in mak­ing the case for di­vest­ment. “Not only has Con­gress not taken up this is­sue but mem­bers are act­ively work­ing against ef­forts to reg­u­late green­house gases,” Matt Gra­son, one of the founders of DC Di­vest, a cam­paign to en­cour­age the Dis­trict of Columbia to di­vest in fossil fuels, told Na­tion­al Journ­al.

DC Di­vest has made this line of at­tack a cent­ral part of its cam­paign. “If we know we need to stop burn­ing fossil fuels, why don’t we?” the group’s web­site asks. “Be­cause fossil fuel com­pan­ies spend bil­lions to lobby Con­gress to do noth­ing and con­fuse the pub­lic about the ef­fects of their products. And it’s work­ing.”

Some politi­cians are act­ing at the loc­al level, however. In April, Seattle May­or Mike Mc­Ginn led a co­ali­tion of may­ors and city coun­cil mem­bers from nine oth­er cit­ies, in­clud­ing San Fran­cisco; Boulder, Colo.; and Madis­on, Wis., in mak­ing a com­mit­ment to work to­ward fossil-fuel di­vest­ment in their re­spect­ive cit­ies.

Closer to home, mem­bers of the D.C. Coun­cil are also push­ing for di­vest­ment. Coun­cil Chair­man Phil Mendel­son, a Demo­crat, and a num­ber of oth­er coun­cil mem­bers in­tro­duced di­vest­ment le­gis­la­tion in Septem­ber that was sub­ject to a hear­ing this week.

The bill in ques­tion would re­quire the city to pull its hold­ings in the 200 pub­licly traded com­pan­ies with the largest fossil-fuel re­serves from the Dis­trict’s re­tire­ment funds and Health An­nu­ity Trust. If it passes, the meas­ure would be largely sym­bol­ic. But it would send a strong sig­nal that the polit­ic­al will ex­ists to ad­vance the cause, act­iv­ists say.

The road to di­vest­ment is rocky, however.

Oil and gas in­dustry stake­hold­ers have cri­ti­cized the move­ment and fin­an­cial ad­visers have de­bated wheth­er or not di­vest­ment is well-con­sidered fisc­al policy.

Har­vard Pres­id­ent Drew Faust made head­lines this fall when she an­nounced that the uni­versity, which holds the largest en­dow­ment of any U.S. aca­dem­ic in­sti­tu­tion, would not di­vest in fossil-fuel com­pan­ies.

In an open let­ter, Faust ar­gued that uni­versit­ies should steer clear of polit­ic­al en­tan­gle­ments.

“We should … be very wary of steps in­ten­ded to in­stru­ment­al­ize our en­dow­ment in ways that would ap­pear to po­s­i­tion the Uni­versity as a polit­ic­al act­or rather than an aca­dem­ic in­sti­tu­tion,” she com­men­ted.

On the polit­ic­al end of the spec­trum, a de­cision to di­vest in the Dis­trict of Columbia could also face fed­er­al road­b­locks. After the coun­cil passes le­gis­la­tion, Con­gress has a 30-day win­dow dur­ing which time it could pass a joint res­ol­u­tion to over­turn the bill. If the pres­id­ent ap­proved the res­ol­u­tion it would ef­fect­ively deny the bill a chance to be­come law.

Even if this were to hap­pen, however, it would still in­crease vis­ib­il­ity around the is­sue.

“If D.C. were to di­vest I think it would have na­tion­al and even in­ter­na­tion­al im­plic­a­tions,” Gra­son said, adding: “And if Con­gress were to take up the is­sue, it would force a na­tion­al con­ver­sa­tion that would go far bey­ond the na­tion’s cap­it­al.”

What We're Following See More »
ANOTHER NUCLEAR OPTION?
Byrd Rule Could Trip Up Health Legislation
20 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Even if House Republicans manage to get enough members of their party on board with the latest version of their health care bill, they will face another battle in the Senate: whether the bill complies with the chamber’s arcane ... Byrd rule, which stipulates all provisions in a reconciliation bill must affect federal spending and revenues in a way that is not merely incidental." Democrats should have the advantage in that fight, "unless the Senate pulls another 'nuclear option.'”

Source:
ONE WEEK
Senate Votes To Fund Government
1 days ago
BREAKING
ON TO SENATE
House Passes Spending Bill
1 days ago
BREAKING

The House has passed a one-week spending bill that will avert a government shutdown which was set to begin at midnight. Lawmakers now have an extra week to come to a longer agreement which is expected to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year in September. The legislation now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass before President Trump signs it.

PRESIDENT CALLS MEDICAID FUNDS A “BAILOUT”
Puerto Rico Another Sticking Point in Budget Talks
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

President Trump’s portrayal of an effort to funnel more Medicaid dollars to Puerto Rico as a "bailout" is complicating negotiations over a continuing resolution on the budget. "House Democrats are now requiring such assistance as a condition for supporting the continuing resolution," a position that the GOP leadership is amenable to. "But Mr. Trump’s apparent skepticism aligns him with conservative House Republicans inclined to view its request as a bailout, leaving the deal a narrow path to passage in Congress."

Source:
POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN?
Democrats Threaten Spending Bill Over Obamacare
2 days ago
BREAKING

Democrats in the House are threatening to shut down the government if Republicans expedite a vote on a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, said Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer Thursday. Lawmakers have introduced a one-week spending bill to give themselves an extra week to reach a long-term funding deal, which seemed poised to pass easily. However, the White House is pressuring House Republicans to take a vote on their Obamacare replacement Friday to give Trump a legislative victory, though it is still not clear that they have the necessary votes to pass the health care bill. This could go down to the wire.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login