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 »
WITH LIVE BLOGGING
Trump Deposition Video Is Online
9 hours ago
STAFF PICKS

The video of Donald Trump's deposition in his case against restaurateur Jeffrey Zakarian is now live. Slate's Jim Newell and Josh Voorhees are live-blogging it while they watch.

Source:
SOUND LEVEL AFFECTED
Debate Commission Admits Issues with Trump’s Mic
10 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.

Source:
TRUMP VS. CHEFS
Trump Deposition Video to Be Released
11 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."

Source:
A CANDIDATE TO BE ‘PROUD’ OF
Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
14 hours ago
THE LATEST

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
×