Skip to main content

Divestment

I just got back from a student faculty meeting on divestment, and unfortunately I was never called on to talk, but there were so many things I wanted to ask.

For those of you that don't know, divestment refers to a movement asking universities and other large bodies to take their investments out of the top 200 fossil fuel companies. At the University of Wisconsin at Madison we are asking our foundation (which is worth 2.3 billion dollars) to take their investment out of fossil fuels (the numbers are not given to the public, but nationally a 3% investment in fossil fuels is assumed. For our university that amounts to 69 million dollars). Our foundation gets a variety of donations and then invests that money into a spread of stocks (risk aversion). As mentioned 3% of those stocks are likely in fossil fuel companies.

Today the faculty had a forum on the issue, and whether or not they were going to stand as a body and support divestment or not. In particular, my respected teacher Galen McKinley was on that board. She went over the graphs I was already familiar with of 'business as usual' warming, and severely mitigated warming. She argued against divestment, and instead advocated for personal lifestyle change. I don't disagree with her, but I answer, porque no los dos?

In particular I would like to ask Galen McKinley three questions.

1. In your opinion, is the growth of the fossil fuel industry positively associated with the increased combustion of fossil fuels?

2. Would the increased combustion of fossil fuels put us closer to the higher end of warming or the lower end of warming? (which curve will it mimick)?

3. Is it ethical to support a 69 million dollar investment that intends on the fossil fuel industry increasing their capacity to combust fossil fuels?

I think sometimes cowardice is camouflaged in false complexity.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An Argument Against Sociology Being a Bullshit Study

So, as a Sociology major I have (perhaps inevitably) come across people who have voiced their opinions on why sociology is a crock, convoluted, an unacceptable method for conducting science, and not a valid (impractical) study. I hope to address these issues and give a thorough defense of my field, for (obviously) if I had no defense, I should not be a sociology major. I do completely welcome criticism and comments to what I write, and in fact I would love some. I thoroughly believe that the best analysis is derived from discussion and (logical) argumentation. I have put in  bold  the main points since I realize many of you probably do not want to read my god-knows-how-long argument.  SO on with it. I guess I will address the different arguments I have come across one by one Sociology is not credible because it borrows from so many other fields .  Indeed, Sociology is extremely interdisciplinary, but I think the complexity is what makes it so grand. We coul...
12 comments
Read more

My problems with the strong is the new skinny campaign

When the 'strong is the new skinny' campaign first started, I was pretty excited about it. The first article I saw was a woman who used to be what she considered anorexic. She said she was weak, and barely ate. She fell in love with weight lifting, and said it gave her confidence, strength and courage. She explained how before lifting she was taught to deprive herself, to lack confidence in her body, and be weak. After lifting she felt proud of her new strength, could eat (and was supposed to eat) more, and felt a sense of progress towards muscle, versus progress towards being smaller. She posted new photos of herself showing she didn't look much different (she didn't 'get huge'). Her photos though were fairly normal looking. She probably had a healthy 10-20% body fat, and you could tell she had some solid muscle. Her muscle, however, wasn't rippling out of her skin, and it isn't supposed to be. There are two main types of weight training I want to tal...
4 comments
Read more

Open Letter to the UW-Madison Faculty Senate on Climate Change and Supporting Divestment

The UW Foundation handles incoming donations, and invests them into a variety of stock. The divestment campaign is asking the UW Foundation to take their money out of stock in fossil fuels.  In 2013, the UW-Madison Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee hosted forums for the students and public to participate in a discussion on whether or not the university should divest form fossil fuels. The Senate Committee will be deciding whether or not the faculty will be supporting the University in a move toward divestment. Many professors on the committee are leading climate scientists. This letter was formed from a collaborative effort from a variety of orgs on campus that participate in the Fossil Free UW Coalition, a student movement which strives for a cleaner, greener, UW.  ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Members of the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Divestment, We are writing to you to thank you for ...
Post a Comment
Read more