Slashdot Mirror
93 Harvard Faculty Members Call On the University To Divest From Fossil Fuels
Daniel_Stuckey writes: "One hundred faculty members at one of the nation's most renowned university have signed an open letter calling on Harvard to divest its holdings in fossil fuel companies. Harvard's is the largest university endowment in the world. For the last few years, a national movement has called on on universities, foundations, and municipalities to divest from fossil fuels. Led by students, as well as organized groups like 350.org, it has seen a number of significant victories — at least nine colleges and over a dozen cities have pulled their investments in companies that extract or burn fossil fuels like coal and oil."
That is all
Stay tuned for new sig...
Especially solar cells and carbon fiber windmills. All that nasty fossil silicon and fossil carbon from previous supernova. It's clearly a limited resource, in any case.
Ask all those leftwingnuts at Harvard how they intend to run the university without electricity.... ...or are they now finally ready to embrace nuclear power?
Not to be cynical..
OK, that's a lie. Cynical mode is *on*.
How many of these 100 faculty (or is it 93?) are actually qualified to have an opinion about this? How many are involved in hard science (physics, chemistry, engineering)? And how many are in fields that deal in arguments and sophistry above all else?
How many of the signers are in fields that would have been duped by the Sokal Affair and how many have done a good job of curating their facts? How many of those 100 are proprietors of horse-caca? You tell me 100 Harvard faculty want to get out of coal/petroleum... which of them do I care about more than if you told me 100 ballet dancers wanted the same?
that rule that institution will allow that. They hate minorities and LGBT. They've proven themselves not progressive. Just look at how much they demand in order to be allowed to attend classes. They are a school for the rich, by the rich.
93 Harvard faculty call
For 93 faculty to steer
The investments that aren't sound
Cuz they take stuff from the ground
93 Harvard faculty that don't know shit about about how everything in our economy has a huge oil component and divestiture of petro stocks is a stupid idea ta da.
Conservatives make up about 0.01% of the faculty, staff and management there. The "liberal elite" own the institution.
As supply goes down and demand increases based on population growth...
Well it means that University investments will not go towards fossil fuels, but why were they investing in fossil feuls in the first place?
Oh wait. It must be because fossil fuels were the most lucrative alternative. So invest in the second most lucrative investment. The University will just make less money. It just means their endowment will be smaller. Which just means that their budget will be smaller.
'
Nowadays, Universities don't have many alternatives to compensate for smaller budgets, but they do have one major place they traditionally look to to, tuitions.
Except:
They've proven themselves not progressive. Just look at how much they demand in order to be allowed to attend classes. They are a school for the rich, by the rich.
So really raising tuition is not a good idea.
I know! They can simply cut faculty pay!
I'm so glad that 100 faculty are volunteering to have their pay cut.
...they're awfully dumb.
Burma Shave!
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
woohoo! i get paid! where's my check?
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Oh don't worry, they "want" us to invest in expensive energy like solar and windmills. So you can go bankrupt trying to pay to refrigerate your food, or heat your house. I mean don't you want to be like Ontario(cdn), who will very soon have the most expensive electricity in North America? I mean we just got hit with a your electricity price will increase by 42% over the next 5 years. This is of course to cover the massive screw-over from FiT(Feed in Tariff) programs to pay for all of the green energy projects.
Om, nomnomnom...
Political Science, Environmental Science, Law, Philosophy, Sociology, English, Drama. These faculties clearly have a better understanding of the social impacts of yukky old stinky old more than some crazy engineer, chemist or physicist. Clearly that oil stuff is so 19th century, and we don't need any of it anymore.
Geo-Thermal and Ocean Waves are better non-polluting infinite renewable sources of energy.
--
First Contact is coming 2024.
We in the Unitarian Society of Santa Barbara have a small endowment, but still, as a matter of principle, are looking to divest. The Unitarian Universalist Association has also adopted a policy of divestment. I find it amusing that some comments are anti-divestment based on questioning the scientific street cred of those in charge, or asking for, divestment. This is why we have climate scientists. Not everyone is a climate scientist. When 99.8% of the scientists are in agreement on a particular issue... 'nuff said.
Yes they should, pity they can't 'cos that's... illegal
Oh noes! Not completely fucking over the next generations, because you're a dipshit, costs extra??? Who'd a thunk it? I mean, come on, who gives a flying fuck about the weather in 100 years, right? Who cares one shit about somebody 5 generations into the future when you can save a fucking dime per kW used? Nobody, that's who! Mod parent up --
... whatever
Sell off the stock that is generating them funds. Have fun explaining why fees are even higher.
Such economic strategy takes a university mind.
Oh noes! Not completely fucking over the next generations, because you're a dipshit, costs extra??? Who'd a thunk it? I mean, come on, who gives a flying fuck about the weather in 100 years, right? Who cares one shit about somebody 5 generations into the future when you can save a fucking dime per kW used? Nobody, that's who! Mod parent up --
Since this anti-science sentiment seems to be largely limited to America, why don't let them stay in their denial and oil-focused economy and industry while the rest of the world moves on to take the lead with new technology and industry. An America with less economic power and relevance in the world could be a good thing.
You mock the poster yet a lot of people are in this situation. One of the biggest problems we have in Australia at the moment is rising electricity prices (nothing to do with carbon emissions, but rather to do with infrastructure spending). Yet there are people going broke with the 300% increase in electricity costs. Sure it's not everyone, but people in general are on edge, we've just crept out of a global economic fuck-up, manufacturing in this country has gone down the shit, and the cost pressures are being felt more and more.
Something's going to give, and you can see clearly what that is: Donations to disaster appeals and health research is number one, green energy is number two. Both of them are classed in the average person's view as something we can invest in tomorrow when the finances are looking a bit better.
People look out for number 1 first.
Oh noes! Not completely fucking over the next generations, because you're a dipshit, costs extra??? Who'd a thunk it? I mean, come on, who gives a flying fuck about the weather in 100 years, right? Who cares one shit about somebody 5 generations into the future when you can save a fucking dime per kW used? Nobody, that's who! Mod parent up --
A safe and secure world can't be built on human misery. In turn, it can't be built on human suffering. Cheap energy has been one of the greatest equalizers of modern civilization to let people improve their quality of life easily. But hey, never mind I'm sure you're also against nuclear power. As a fun and useful fact I live not all that far away from one of the largest nuclear generating stations in the world. I have no problems with it in my backyard, would you?
So there Cenan, why don't you explain to all of us why it's good that we turn our backs on cheap energy. And increase the cost of it, where it will do no good over all. As well, where these "green energy programs" cause more environmental damage than others. Especially when you calculate in the refining, production, and extraction of various materials.
Pst. So which is it? Weather or climate, I always like it when even the most fervent people screw that one up.
Om, nomnomnom...
we've just crept out of a global economic fuck-up
Well the consequences were global, true, but the fuck-up is neatly limited to south manhattan and their lobbyists in dc.
This has been in the works for years and has been repeatedly derailed by right wing elements not only at Harvard, but at the state and federal level. It is time for this to move forward, because the status quo is unsustainable.
I hate posting as an A.C. but my family has to eat.
At last someone with a brain!!.
Congratulations for actually thinking rather better than the brain dead Muppet reepating Eco-loon garbage you replied too..
Because the benefits of fossil fuel usage are local, while the costs are global. It's your basic tragedy of the commons thing: The optimal strategy for each individual actor is to exploit the available resources maximally, but if everyone does that then it ends in disaster for all.
The average person's ability to "invest tomorrow" is piss poor, that's why they need a push sometimes. Investing in the short term now in renewable energy is going to result in significant price decreases in the future, especially when you consider the likely future path of oil prices.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Well the consequences were global, true
Not entirely. Here in Australia it was a only a minor perturbance (we rode it out on the back of Chinese demand for coal and iron). But we hate feeling left out, so don't tell anyone here that it was worse elsewhere.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
I live not all that far away from one of the largest nuclear generating stations in the world. I have no problems with it in my backyard, would you?
Well I would.
Of course I'd have much greater problems with a coal fired plant in my back yard. Obviously! But given the choice you can keep the nuclear plant (or solar farm or wind farm or 2nd airport) and I'll stick to my nicely wooded nearly sub-urban valley and let other folks suffer all that unsightly modernity. :p
But yes. Clearly nuclear is going to have to do much of the heavy lifting to get us out of this mess. What's the chance for humanity with nearly one half denying a problem even exists and the other unable to accept any of the realistic technological solutions? And who are more culpable, climate science denialists or anti-nuclear activists? Hard to tell.
Clowns to the left of me ... Jokers to the right ... Here I am ...
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/05/analysis-debunking-the-alleged-97-consensus-on-global-warming/
Um, no. I would much prefer wearing the rope and smoking the hemp. But that's just me.
You seem to be arguing against a different quote than the one you posted? Also "weather" is the correct term since he speaking in the ignorant words of his antagonist's voice.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
" As well, where these "green energy programs" cause more environmental damage than others. Especially when you calculate in the refining, production, and extraction of various materials." - i think you are referring to fossil fuels in that statement.
"Who cares one shit about somebody 5 generations into the future" - i think you need to answer that statement as well to make your argument more valid.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Their letter seems to be missing emphatic denial of war atrocities, but at least they got the number of signatories right.
Troll 2.0 Fear my asocial networking!
Have they tried placing windmills near the ocean? It's very windy there.
so i guess you are not for new tech, new advances in energy generation etc. the sort of "i'm okay, who gives a fuck about the future" attitude. why not go back to coal power stations only (or older still just burn wood) and get rid of the relatively new petrol, gas, nucleur power. I bet if you were born 100 years ago, you'd be raging against the new tech of that era as well. i think it called being a luddite
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
That means only about 6% signed. I'll give them a rousing meh.
That's 100 (or 93) faculty members out of "about 2,400 faculty members."
Another headline could be, "2,307 Harvard Faculty Members Don't Call On the University to Divest From Fossil Fuels."
http://www.harvard.edu/harvard...
"Fewer than 4% of Harvard faculty call on University to Divest..."
"96% of Harvard faculty oppose divestment from fossil fuels..."
It's amazing how you can shape a story simply through the headline..
No I think I seem to be arguing against the right person. Perhaps you're just not following the conservation. And with that, sorry no "weather" is not the correct term.
Om, nomnomnom...
Sounds like you believe the crap poured in your ear by Koch owned media.(guess what, they own a bunch of utility companies as well) Poke around, youll find the fishiness of your posit leads to carp.
And, uhm, yeah, Im sure Haavards board is going to see the light, decide money is evil and quit investing in money making projects. Probably hold hands, sing Kum Ba Yah and march down to the Bull and Finch for a beer afterward.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
- i think you are referring to fossil fuels in that statement.
Pretty sure I'm talking about exactly what I stated. It's very similar to recycling paper, vs making it from new trees via tree farms. On average it takes 2-6 times more energy and water to make "recycled" paper than it does to make new paper. In turn, it takes a massive amount of energy to get, collect, refine, and turn minute amounts of trace metals required for specialized use in many of these green energy projects. And many of the processes are exceptionally toxic for the environment.
Om, nomnomnom...
Seriously, Harvard is getting to be overrated. Their admission policies claim to be shooting for all kinds of diversity, racial, ethnic, geographical, socio-economic etc etc. But in reality, American applicants disclose everything, salary, bonus, assets, even unrealized stock options. International applicants produce fake certificates claiming to paupers, and game the system. The Asian Americans, mostly IndianAmericans and ChineseAmericans are such a disadvantage, they need to score 100 to 200 points above other applicants. And after getting in everyone gets As.
And these professors are media celebrities, flying to various international conferences, on their book promotion tours, they hardly have time to talk to students or teach. The professors are unapproachable, intimidating and have a condescending attitude towards the students. I am an Indian American and I know plenty of parents who have sent their children to all the top colleges. In my immediate circle are students in all the top 10 colleges. University of Chicago seems to be the only school left that still strives for academic rigor. Princeton, Yale and Harvard have become jokes when it comes to rigor. Columbia kids complain about the academic load, but still seems to be somewhere in between. Initially students are self motivated and continue to study with the same vigor they displayed in high school. In two semesters it dawns on them, "you don't have to work that hard. Everyone gets A minus or A", so they start going lax, and by the time they are in the final year, they all have jobs, planning on spending the lucrative pay packages, slack off almost completely.
I used to think very highly of these institutions when our kids were in elementary school. Now that they are grown and they are in or have been through these univs, having had a closer look, I am very disappointed. The current set of faculty in Harvard, Yale and Princeton have set the institutes for a big fall. The lack of quality of their grads will become too obvious to conceal in the coming decades.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Are all these faculty members likewise PERSONALLY *completely* divested from fossil fuels - ie no driving, bus riding, train riding, electricity from oil/coal/natgas sources, etc?
Because otherwise they're pretty much hypocrites.
-Styopa
Oceanfront property is expensive. Rich people have political pull. No one likes to look out at the beach and see windmills or blinking red lights. Put the windmills just behind the rich properties you say? Windmills are noisy. Windmills are ugly. Put them in poor people's land, not ours. That is why not.
Unsustainable ivory tower bullshit. You still need base load capability. Where does that come from? They're supposed to be samart over at the school, so why don't they get fusion working?
Why don't they petition to turn OFF the HEAT in the classrooms and offices?
That would save fossil fuel. But that would require real personal commitment.
-- The cost of Harvard tuition has nothing to do with how much money they have. It has to do with how much they can charge.
They may not understand much about economics, but they do understand pushing the price as high as they possibly can.
and its takes nothing to mine, process, refine and transport fossil fuel?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I can appreciate their sentiment, but as one poster said, are they going to stop using electricity? I think instead of saying 'divest from fossil fuels' which is a showy, noisy position that doesn't really achieve anything, they should take a more positive approach and urge the university to invest in alternatives, or even better urge the university to deploy solar technologies or something to be less dependent on fossil fuels for power.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
...how all these people calling for the divestiture still drive cars that use fossil fuel....still buy things made of plastics that are made from oil....still buy other things that are derivatives of fossil fuels....
What you consider cheaper is basically just offloading the costs to future generations. Using fossil fuels, out of which you can also MAKE things, too, for energy which you could get via a million other ways, at a rate much higher than fossil fuels are generated = not a viable plan, and fuck whatever you think in your short-term instant gratification bubble. We also still don't have a way to really deal with nuclear waste for good, which also might incure huge costs at some point down the road (or even "just" maintaining storage for ten thousands of years.. that adds up, and you can't just dismiss this as irrelevant because we don't know the costs yet.. that's a way to be junkies, not stewards of a biosphere).
... don't tell me you dare to tell them in their face that they are not ?
Remember --- it was Harvard Faculties themselves who had forced their own chancellor to resign, over a totally benign "gender issue".
The average person's ability to "invest tomorrow" is piss poor, that's why they need a push sometimes. Investing in the short term now in renewable energy is going to result in significant price decreases in the future, especially when you consider the likely future path of oil prices.
The people who made a killing on Google/Apple stocks were the ones who got in early and took a risk. Is it any different with renewables? The ones who get in early are the ones who reap the most benefits. Whoever invests in renewables research and development now, when it is painful and expensive, will be the one who comes out on top later when everybody else is forced to make that transition in a third of the time and with much more pain than you can do it now because these early adopters will be sitting on mature technology and the means to mass produce it and everybody else will either be doing lots of business with them or frantically playing catch-up.
Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Renewables also have a political dimension. If anybody in Germany thought the Energiewende was expensive (and a lot of people do), they have now had cause to reconsider as they watch Vlad Putin sitting in Moscow with his hand on the gas valve threatening to shut it off unless the NATO powers feed him the Ukraine on a plate.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
...just stop. Please just stop it with this social justice, banding together for good crap.
It's all fine to tell the endowment to divest in this or that, but investments need to be well balanced, which includes energy companies that produce fossil fuels. I would imagine that the endowments have made large gains from the oil industry investments, like most other investors have. So, if they divest and the yields are lower, are these 93 faculty members who feel so strongly about it going to take pay cuts?
It's easy to take a stand on an issue when you have no skin in the game.
This has already come up, been studied, and been rejected. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/10/president_on_divestment/
The companies that offer the energy now are in many cases (but not all) the best positioned to invest in future energy sources. They have distribution networks with rights of way for oil, gas, and electric. Deep geothermal needs drills just like gas and oil does. The gasoline sellers have the convenience stores for quick charging stations, battery swaps, or refills of hydrogen or methanol for fuel cells.
If you cut investment in energy companies that plan on being at the forefront of investment of any viable new energy model, all you're doing is making it harder for them to invest in those new models. The worst case is that by cutting investment in the energy giants this way you start a long, protracted battle between new energy companies and old ones rather than getting the old ones excited about new ways to sell energy.
when they start selling their (fuel consuming) cars, and start riding bikes —then i'll take them seriously.
My favorite bit of this is the "rest of the world moves on to take the lead..." (emphasis mine). Who are they taking it from? Oh... I see.
BTW I feel perfectly fine posting this from an American perspective as the poster decided to deride Americans. I personally feel all nations are alike and we are all citizens of the world. But you awakened an inner nationalism.
Let me play Devil's Advocate on grade inflation at Harvard and other Ivy Leagues. Harvard is so selective that only the best of the best have a hope of getting in. So why would you handicap the best of the best with respect to community colleges and give them bad GPAs? They are *all* A-class students, right? So why not give them all A's?
Second: what's so inherently wrong with the idea of learning without pressure? Who might be more qualified than the best of the best to do that? I.e., those who can get into the Ivies? This also reduces the incentive to cheat, and might create a collaborative environment rather than a cut throat one.
Were I a Harvard professor, I might do this: everyone gets A's and B's at worst, but rank people within the class and never share that internal ranking out of the class. That way, students get REAL feedback, know where they stand relative to each other, and have some incentive, but if they screw up relatively to the other awesome people in there, they don't get branded with a B or a C (or worse). I'd also focus in delivering frank and very critical assessments to these students to help the best become better. But the externally seen grades? Yeah, I'd inflate 'em.
As to "lack of quality", when you have such a grade of material incoming, I doubt that most anyone else will notice a 'lack of quality' in the product. Being lucky enough to be born smart is just such an advantage it's really hard to screw that up.
--PeterM
I'd be more impressed if they demanded all money made from these stocks was 100% redirected back into research on clean energy storage and transportation of that energy.
But Kennedys live there.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
If you click the link, very few of these professors are even in a related field. They might have status as professors, but they are definitely not experts in the matter of climate change or economics. Divesting from fossil fuels just means they won't own the stock and can reap no benefits from them; this may have an impact on stock prices, but it has no material effect on operations. This is, of all things, an opportunity for investors.
Yeah it's not like oil and coal isn't subsidized so it's really cheap...oh wait....
Harvard needs to fire some professors for insubordination. It's good for everyone, really. Lot's of baristas now have a chance to make good on their Masters and PhDs because there are open tenure slots.
yeah, lets fuck up THIS generation so that the next one wont be fucked up?? do you understand how stupid that logic sounds? If we fuck up now, there will be nothing for the next generation to build on
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The kennedys shot down that idea because they didnt want to ruin their view. But they are democrats so they get a pass
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
modded down for even pretending that the media is "koch owned"
I have good news, you have right to invest in fossils fuels, any money you use to invest, will bankrupt moral and financially you in the court of public opinion...
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-30/brazils-once-richest-man-gets-ready-for-oil-company-bankruptcy
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2014/03/04/fumbled-fortunes-meet-the-ex-billionaires-who-lost-their-riches/
divorced (1991-2004) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luma_de_Oliveira
We need to move to clean burning and renewable whale oil.
Nope - early investors make out, early adopters pay a penalty by having poorer quality infrastructure (congratulations on being the guinea pig they worked the kinks out on) and having paid more for it.
9 out of 91 are actual scientist or their discipline *somehow* has something to do with science. All the others do not. Look, everybody is entitled to their opinion and advocate for a particular change within their community. But this isn't any different than, say, a (small) group of citizens advocating for something that affects their community. The real question is: What about the vast majority of other academics at Harvard whose field of expertize would be more insightful towards this goal? Why are they not on it? Answer: because energy policy is difficult, and cannot be trivialized. You only make it simple IF you think it's simple and you have no idea of the overall capabilities, policy, economics and scientific/technological opportunities available today.
Instead, push them to put in geo-thermal into your school for HVAC, OR buy some of their solar panels if they sell them, IOW, make it happen by buying from them and supporting them to change things. Simple as that.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
at least nine colleges and over a dozen cities have pulled their investments in companies that extract or burn fossil fuels like coal and oil
That would be all of them. Every company burns coal or oil, directly or indirectly.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
are they also promoting nuclear? Kinda sounds like it. You cant try to eliminate one energy source without replacing it - unless you are a short-sighted idiot. Sounds like many college grads to me. Good thing all these young, in-experienced people are participating in events like these.
Am I wrong or isn't it the investor's need what drives up the cost of energy? The more demand for commodities means the higher the price. We all know what drove the barrel of oil above $100. Speculators. Quit supporting big oil and do everything you can to thwart them. They won't die...easily. Wind turbines vs. Oil is a stupid comparison. There are better investments out there. Like passive cooling heating devices etc. We can make America what it once was again. But only if we stop listening to the planted rhetoric. Oh and Thanks, Harvard for being wise.
Actually, quite a bit of the phenomenon of big-oil hoovering up renewable energy patents is a tactic to lock up the technologies (patents are good for 20 years).
and its takes nothing to mine, process, refine and transport fossil fuel?
Far less than it does for the other, since we have either pipes in the ground to move it. Or are using byproducts of the refining process to further process it, and in some cases are using non/semi-recyclable materials like car tires, and asphalt.
Om, nomnomnom...
In other news, Germany is now scrambling to cap "renewable energy costs" before it becomes so expensive that no-one can afford it. A link to BCF just incase you don't have a sub to WSJ's paywalled article.
Om, nomnomnom...
Dumbass, what do you think the Citizens for Prosperity ads are?
Kochs own as much media as they can buy space and time for.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!