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...
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?
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.
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?
Because obviously only left leaning folks believe we might have to do something about reducing carbon emissions.
It's fascinating how this issue has been successfully been turned into a partisan one. How is it that I'd have decent odds at guessing someone's position on climate change by asking about their opinion, say, on obamacare, abortion, the second amendment? It seems to me a situation almost unique to the US.
You really could use a couple more parties, because it seems highly unlikely that every individual agrees with one of only two parties in almost every issue. It's almost as if a lot of people don't actually consider their own position, but think of themselves as red or blue and adopt all those opinions wholesale.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
Let's test that theory. Ask be one question on each of those three topics. Make it a specific 'yes or no' question. I'll provide a 'yes' or 'no' answer, and then you analyze my position on climate change.
I'll let you know how close you are after you post your results. I promise I am being sincere, and will answer honestly.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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...
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.
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.
Well, I suppose you wouldn't have asked me that if you didn't consider yourself an exception to this theory. Not sure how well it translates, but we have a dutch saying which has it that "the exception confirms the rule".
I wish there were more of you -- or were you arguing that actually there are a lot more than I had guessed? That would be welcome news to me, but from where I am standing that is not readily apparent.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
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
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.
Well, I don't think I would be a complete exception. I'm sure you would be able to guess which end of the AGW believer/disbeliever spectrum I'm closer to. The exception would be the nuances of my own beliefs on the details, and which arguments I think hold the most importance.
As far as how many think my way, yes, I also wish there were more. But there may be more then you think. They may just be avoiding the spotlight. (One can hope.)
Anyway, if you still want to test it, ask the questions. I'm not the only one who would be allowed to answer.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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...
- 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
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.
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)
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).
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.
You seem to think that Harvard divesting from fossil fuels will cause companies like Exxon-Mobil to collapse overnight.
This is largely a symbolic action. If many other institutional investors follow suit, it's *still* not going to stop companies from pumping natural gas out of their wells, any more than divesting in gold mining would cause gold mines to stop taking gold out of the ground. The last thing a troubled business would do is starve a cash cow.
What divestiture *might* do, in the most wildly optimistic scenario imaginable, is divert a *tiny* fraction of the world's investment in developing new energy stocks toward renewables. Were that to lead eventually to electricity shortages, the price of fossil fuels would automatically rise. That would attract plenty of new investment. A modest rise in prices would swamp any conceivable stock price effect of divestiture, even if all the universities in the world did this.
Finally, as an MIT alum who's taken courses at Harvard, people who manage to land a professorship at the country's oldest and most prestigious university are usually pretty damned smart. That doesn't mean "always right", but it does mean that they probably understand the practical effects of such a move better than you apparently do. This is a university that has managed to build the largest endowment of any educational institution in the world: over 32 *billion*. If that were *market capitalization*, it'd put them on S&P's list of the 100 largest companies in the world. Halliburton's only worth 30 billion.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
Is it to do with wanting to reduce emissions? I'd have thought it was a much more pragmatic requirement. Fossil fuel extraction costs are going to keep increasing. The costs of alternatives are going to keep decreasing. At some point, they will cross over and at this point the value of stocks in a fossil fuels will suddenly drop. Currently, they are quite high and probably will be for quite a few more years (although increased difficulty in extraction is going to make expensive accidents more common, which won't help). Harvard expects endowments to last a period measured in hundreds of years. Now is probably a good time to start selling off the shares in fossil fuel companies, while there are still people who want to buy them at a high price.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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
But Kennedys live there.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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.
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
RTFA. The letter was talking about investments that the Harvard foundation makes in fossil fuels jack ass. People need to learn how to read.
you got modded down for your charged comment about "leftwingnuts" Your point was a good one, I want to know how they plan to make due as well, but when you start name calling by the end of your first sentence, you are just trolling
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I see your point and it makes my laugh, my father is a hardcore republican, however I dont know anyone who recycles more than he does. hell if I throw colored paper into the normal paper bin he throws a fit. On the other hand, my liberal friends have no issue tossing a water bottle out the car window
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
yes
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Neither are most investors, but that doesn't stop them from investing in industries they know nothing about...
speaking like someone who has never been there. Damn near everyone of the staff is a bleeding heart
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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.
Simply compare the policy initiates advocated by the AGW camp with those advocated by the radical environmentalists and other "Green" parties.
You will see they are mostly aligned.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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.
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.
Simply compare the policy initiates advocated by the AGW camp with those advocated by the radical environmentalists and other "Green" parties.
You will see they are mostly aligned.
Well, yes, they share a common ideal to minimize our footprint, sure. To consider all of them similarly "radical" though would be a mistake I believe. For one thing the AGW camp, as you call it, is as close as we've got to scientific consensus, a majority opinion. To be "radical" in the climate change debate is to be skeptic.
The fact that poor nations would likely suffer the most from the possible consequences of more or less drastic changes is partly due to geography, and partly because they lack the means to deploy countermeasures.
Also, there are a lot of them.
Developed nations are disproportionally to blame for the problems, at least inasmuch the AGW contention that pollution is a major factor is accurate.
So it does not require one to be a full blown Marxist, it seems to me, to come up with proposals for action that amount, in some ways, to a kind of wealth distribution.
Even though I am somewhat leftist myself, I think this unfortunate. We'd have an easier time getting stuff done if the skeptics were unable to bring up the canard of "green is the new red", along with those who have vested interests in maintaining status quo for reasons that have nothing to a with either climate science or political persuasions.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
It has been pointed out previously in the comments section of The Crimson that such an act of divestment would be only symbolic. The reason is that publicly traded shares only fund a company in its initial sale during the IPO (which, for oil companies, was decades ago at the very least). All subsequent trades of shares only impact valuation of the company. Harvard's divestment would take down the price of an oil company stock by a fraction of a fraction of a dollar* which means any purchases or sales of assets using shares in the near term subsequent to this divestment would require a fraction of a fraction more shares, which, in the grand scheme of things is meaningless.
*in all likelihood the investment managers would try to divest in portions to minimize losses, so the price movement might be even closer to zero.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
You and Harvard don't understand how the market works. They bought securities. That means that no money went to the oil companies; money went to other investors. It's a wealth-transfer scheme.
These are people who are so fucking out of touch with reality that they think buying stocks means putting money into the hands of the companies whose stocks you buy. I've seen people on Slashdot say they invest in stocks for companies they want to support, and that's hilariously stupid. You bought $3000 of SIRI? That's funny. Do you know how much of that purchase went to SIRI? $0! They got all their money when they went IPO!
A divestment might hurt the stock price. So let's say Harvard sells $50 million of XOM. Exxon Mobil's stock price plummets. Exxon's board then buys back a ton of the stock. A few weeks later, the stock price comes back up; Exxon-Mobil is now better vested in its own stock, has more control, and is better able to capitalize by issuing new stock.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
"So it does not require one to be a full blown Marxist"
So just a mostly Marxist?
Wealth redistribution, blaming the West, and are you advocating that skeptics not be able to voice an opinion?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"So it does not require one to be a full blown Marxist"
So just a mostly Marxist?
Or not a Marxist at all, even. That was kind of my point, sometimes similar conclusions follow from different, unrelated arguments.
Case in point, some of the most straightforward approaches to combatting effects of AGW happen to (partially) resonate with classic left wing ideals.
This does not mean (as some seem to believe, not you per se) that climate scientists are agents of some kind of International Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.
Wealth redistribution,
Sort of. More precisely, a global strategy for a global problem, which given the inequities amounts to same.
blaming the West
We break it, we pay for it. Not exclusively, of course. China, India, Russia, Brazil, and so on.
and are you advocating that skeptics not be able to voice an opinion?
Certainly not, I said nothing of the sort. Voice your opinion loudly, I applaud it. And having a minority opinion doesn't prove you wrong. Only statistically less likely to be right, natch.
But to call the mainstream theories "radical" is simply incorrect, which is what I meant to point out.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
You and Harvard don't understand how the market works
Right.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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!