Natural gas should be considered a strategic resource in the US. We should have enough export capacity to eliminate Russia's market share but leave it unused so we can benefit from our own low gas prices. This would provide us a great deal of leverage and industrial advantage simultaneously.
Uranium will run out in less than a century at the current rate of use. No point in increasing the rate of use if it means the new power plants won't have fuel for their rated lifetime.
Certainly knowledge is often advanced by students. But, I think this is probably about betterment of youth. There was a religious education aspect back in 1650.
It is worth looking at history too. Harvard divested to help end apartheid based in part on student effort. Since Harvard considers student interests in that case, they may well be required to do so again.
The Harvard Moto, Varitas, may give standing through the good sciences clause. One is not teaching good sciences if embroiled in fossil fuel interests. Students have an interest is being taught well.
This letter from Harvard Magazine suggests you are mistaken:
In light of reporting in the July-August issue on Harvard’s position on fossil fuel divestment, we wrote Messrs. Paul J. Finnegan and James F. Rothenberg [members of the Harvard Corporation, and Treasurer and past Treasurer, respectively], expressing the perspective summarized below.
Harvard currently holds substantial investments in fossil fuel. The past is no longer prologue for this asset class.
The scientific community—including Harvard’s distinguished climate-related faculty—assert the world must hold global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees C above the preindustrial figure. Governments agree. And, yet, we have already gone half the distance to this ceiling, and are actually accelerating our rapid approach to it. We face an existential planetary threat.
By investing in fossil fuel companies that cling to the outdated business model of measuring success by discovery of new reserves, Harvard is encouraging (and expecting to profit from) the search for more fossil fuel—which will become unburnable if we stabilize global temperatures at levels necessary to sustain life as we know it. When the lid is put on, and carbon emissions are severely limited—as they must be—Harvard will be left holding stranded and devalued assets that can never be burned. (Proven reserves are three to four times what’s needed to transition to renewables by 2050.)
Across the country, hundreds of student organizations work to persuade their institutions’ endowments to divest. Sooner or later, as in the case of companies doing business in apartheid South Africa, divestment from fossil fuel companies will occur. Harvard should be among the first to do so. There are strong, independently sufficient arguments beyond the financial one of stranding to justify divestment. They include the moral (it is repugnant to profit from enterprises directly responsible for carbon emissions or to allow shareholder funds to be deployed in searching for more fossil fuel), the practical (a well-led institution should not wound itself by permitting endowment holdings to demoralize faculty and students, with adverse effects on quality of education, enrollment, and campus environment) and, in Harvard’s case, the unique opportunity (and corresponding duty) it has, as one of a handful of world leaders in education, to lead on this
planetary issue.
We support these other arguments for divestment. However, we wanted to bring the financial argument, in particular, to Harvard’s attention. Over the past three years, equities in the coal industry declined by over 60 percent while the S&P 500 rose by some 47 percent. Coal, we submit, is the “canary in the oil well.” Disinvestment now, before this opinion becomes commonplace, is just sound, risk-averse investment judgment, fitting well within the duties of a fiduciary.
Bevis Longstreth, J.D. ’61
Retired partner, Debevoise & Plimpton; former member, Securities and Exchange Commission
Timothy E. Wirth ’61
Former U.S. Senator, president of the United Nations Foundation, and Harvard Overseer
There are two aspects of the Harvard Charter which may give standing. First, the endowment has a specific purpose: "be for the advancement and education of youth, in all manner of good literature, arts, and sciences." And, good sciences say that investing in fossil fuels is a bad idea. Second, the Harvard Corporation is established so that it may be sued: "and also may sue and plead, or be sued and impleaded by the name aforesaid, in all Courts and places of judicature, within the jurisdiction aforesaid." http://library.harvard.edu/uni... So, disagreements about the endowment are supposed to be settled in court.
Executive action carried out to comply with a court order would be difficult to undo. Same goes for action taken to comply with a ratified treaty like the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Some executive action is just carrying out the law of the land. That sort of thing is hard to reveres.
Neither is mercury specified yet it is regulated. A substance only needs to be found dangerous to be regulated. That is how the Clean Air Act is written.
It is already in the regulations that came in to being as a result of a Supreme Court order. We are already delivering through CAFE standards, new point source regulations and the regulations that are available for public comment for existing point sources. There is nothing that congress needs to do. In fact, since Paris in 2015 will just be an update to the already ratified Framework Convention on Climate Change, there will be nothing to ratify for that either. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08...
You've got that completely wrong. The court ordered the EPA to consider if carbon dioxide was dangerous. Patience had run out because the former administration was dragging its feet and not complying with the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Natural gas should be considered a strategic resource in the US. We should have enough export capacity to eliminate Russia's market share but leave it unused so we can benefit from our own low gas prices. This would provide us a great deal of leverage and industrial advantage simultaneously.
Back in 1991, this was to be the year to launch to Mars: http://articles.latimes.com/19...
Here is a blog reporting lift to the second orbit: http://space.io9.com/will-orio...
There is not enough uranium to replace coal. So, there is no proven nuclear technology, just fast breeders that blow up pretty often.
Uranium will run out in less than a century at the current rate of use. No point in increasing the rate of use if it means the new power plants won't have fuel for their rated lifetime.
Looks like they missed a Stanford result. http://news.stanford.edu/news/...
Certainly knowledge is often advanced by students. But, I think this is probably about betterment of youth. There was a religious education aspect back in 1650.
It is worth looking at history too. Harvard divested to help end apartheid based in part on student effort. Since Harvard considers student interests in that case, they may well be required to do so again.
So, Harvard must run brothels to keep pimps from selling their souls?
The future generations part of the suit seems to have that aspect for sure according to the IPCC.
The Harvard Moto, Varitas, may give standing through the good sciences clause. One is not teaching good sciences if embroiled in fossil fuel interests. Students have an interest is being taught well.
This letter from Harvard Magazine suggests you are mistaken:
In light of reporting in the July-August issue on Harvard’s position on fossil fuel divestment, we wrote Messrs. Paul J. Finnegan and James F. Rothenberg [members of the Harvard Corporation, and Treasurer and past Treasurer, respectively], expressing the perspective summarized below.
Harvard currently holds substantial investments in fossil fuel. The past is no longer prologue for this asset class.
The scientific community—including Harvard’s distinguished climate-related faculty—assert the world must hold global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees C above the preindustrial figure. Governments agree. And, yet, we have already gone half the distance to this ceiling, and are actually accelerating our rapid approach to it. We face an existential planetary threat.
By investing in fossil fuel companies that cling to the outdated business model of measuring success by discovery of new reserves, Harvard is encouraging (and expecting to profit from) the search for more fossil fuel—which will become unburnable if we stabilize global temperatures at levels necessary to sustain life as we know it. When the lid is put on, and carbon emissions are severely limited—as they must be—Harvard will be left holding stranded and devalued assets that can never be burned. (Proven reserves are three to four times what’s needed to transition to renewables by 2050.)
Across the country, hundreds of student organizations work to persuade their institutions’ endowments to divest. Sooner or later, as in the case of companies doing business in apartheid South Africa, divestment from fossil fuel companies will occur. Harvard should be among the first to do so. There are strong, independently sufficient arguments beyond the financial one of stranding to justify divestment. They include the moral (it is repugnant to profit from enterprises directly responsible for carbon emissions or to allow shareholder funds to be deployed in searching for more fossil fuel), the practical (a well-led institution should not wound itself by permitting endowment holdings to demoralize faculty and students, with adverse effects on quality of education, enrollment, and campus environment) and, in Harvard’s case, the unique opportunity (and corresponding duty) it has, as one of a handful of world leaders in education, to lead on this planetary issue.
We support these other arguments for divestment. However, we wanted to bring the financial argument, in particular, to Harvard’s attention. Over the past three years, equities in the coal industry declined by over 60 percent while the S&P 500 rose by some 47 percent. Coal, we submit, is the “canary in the oil well.” Disinvestment now, before this opinion becomes commonplace, is just sound, risk-averse investment judgment, fitting well within the duties of a fiduciary.
Bevis Longstreth, J.D. ’61
Retired partner, Debevoise & Plimpton; former member, Securities and Exchange Commission
Timothy E. Wirth ’61
Former U.S. Senator, president of the United Nations Foundation, and Harvard Overseer
http://harvardmagazine.com/201...
There are two aspects of the Harvard Charter which may give standing. First, the endowment has a specific purpose: "be for the advancement and education of youth, in all manner of good literature, arts, and sciences." And, good sciences say that investing in fossil fuels is a bad idea. Second, the Harvard Corporation is established so that it may be sued: "and also may sue and plead, or be sued and impleaded by the name aforesaid, in all Courts and places of judicature, within the jurisdiction aforesaid." http://library.harvard.edu/uni... So, disagreements about the endowment are supposed to be settled in court.
The US is raising CAFE standards. Silly to go on a natural gas excursion just as electric cars and fuel cells are coming on line. Stop Keystone.
An order contrary to an existing court decision will get an immediate injunction. You really seem confused.
You are very confused. http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...
You are talking in circles. The more expensive the tar sands are, the less they will be mined. Allow no permit for Keystone.
Executive action carried out to comply with a court order would be difficult to undo. Same goes for action taken to comply with a ratified treaty like the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Some executive action is just carrying out the law of the land. That sort of thing is hard to reveres.
Show votes are pretty silly when it is known they won't pass in the other house.
We'll be at war if nothing is done. Too much territory lost to desert with be very destabilizing.
You may not have noticed that DoD is making climate change a priority. Are you really worried about enforcement?
Neither is mercury specified yet it is regulated. A substance only needs to be found dangerous to be regulated. That is how the Clean Air Act is written.
It is already in the regulations that came in to being as a result of a Supreme Court order. We are already delivering through CAFE standards, new point source regulations and the regulations that are available for public comment for existing point sources. There is nothing that congress needs to do. In fact, since Paris in 2015 will just be an update to the already ratified Framework Convention on Climate Change, there will be nothing to ratify for that either. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08...
The NYT is about three steps ahead of you. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08...
You've got that completely wrong. The court ordered the EPA to consider if carbon dioxide was dangerous. Patience had run out because the former administration was dragging its feet and not complying with the law.