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."
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?
No, they weren't intentional; but, given the submitter was a Harvard graduate, any spelling errors were understandable.
#DeleteChrome
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)
Yeah, then they could just buy another planet after this one craps out
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...
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.
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.
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.
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'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...
Harvard has a $32 billion endowment. They're not raising fees anytime soon from a half percent adjustment to their endowment's growth rate. In addition, endowments are specifically meant to be used to perpetually fund aspects of the school, not short term, and thus the professors have a solid point against investing it in an industry that will clearly be unsustainable over the life of the endowment.
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
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.
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
But Kennedys live there.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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
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
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...