If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

Harvard Refuses to Divest from Fossil Fuels

HarvardHarvard University, which has the world’s largest college endowment valued at $32.7 billion, has decided to continue its investment in fossil fuels, despite heavy pressure from environmental activists.

The announcement comes after the August hire of Jameela Pedicini as Harvard’s first vice president for sustainable investment, a position created following a student-led activist campaign demanding the school divest its holdings in fossil fuel companies.

In a letter posted on Harvard‘s website, the college’s president Drew Faust says despite numerous conversations with students criticizing the university’s fossil fuel investments and her own belief in the “importance” of addressing climate change, she and the university’s corporation committee on shareholder responsibility have agreed that divestment from the fossil fuel industry would be neither “warranted or wise.”

Faust’s argument against divestment hinges on Harvard’s existence as an educational institution rather than an advocacy platform. The funds in the endowment, Faust says, were given to Harvard by benefactors seeking to advance academic aims, not to serve other purposes, “however worthy.” As a result, those in charge of the investments maintain a “strong presumption” against divesting investment assets for reasons unrelated to the endowment’s financial strength, Faust writes.

The endowment currently funds more than one-third of the university activities each year, the letter says.

Furthermore, Faust says that the university needs to be wary of using its financial clout to exert political pressure, a situation that she says could “entail serious risks” to the independence of Harvard’s academic enterprise. Faust also says it would be somewhat hypocritical to boycott a whole class of companies whose products and services the Harvard community is “extensively relying on” in their day-to-day lives.

A Bloomberg study published in June found that despite multiple colleges — including Green Mountain College, College of the Atlantic, Hampshire College, and Sterling College — divesting from fossil fuels, the moves have yet to financially impact large electric oil, and gas companies. However, the schools choosing to divest have not been impacted either, the news service reported.

The San Jose-based Santa Clara Valley Water District unanimously voted in August to divest from fossil fuel companies.

Video: Expense & Data Management for Complex Payables
Sponsored By: Ecova, Inc.

  
Four Key Questions to Ask Before Your Next Energy Purchase
Sponsored By: EnerNOC, Inc.

  
The Corporate Sustainability Professional's Guide to Better Data Management
Sponsored By: Urjanet

  
Planning for a Sustainable Future
Sponsored By: Dakota Software

  

4 thoughts on “Harvard Refuses to Divest from Fossil Fuels

  1. When will those kiddies at Harvard own up to the fact that their laptops, tablets, cell phone and various other technology require destruction of the earth for precious metals to build them. Not to mention the toxic waste left over. Oh no!

  2. Why should they? Here we have the same group of “intellectuals” that helped to bring about the “madmade global warming” and climate change scare. Look no further with the latest climate gate and the recent IPCC report that is riddled with inaccuracies and factual omissions. Its no wonder they continue to support fossil fuels. Harvard wins both ways with grants and endowments in support of global warming and investment of said money in big time, proven fossil fuel investments. You can spin it anyway you want, but when the potential is there to adversely affect their bottom line, big money is going to win out. Smart move on their part.

  3. It is an inaccuracy on Red’s part to claim that “the recent IPCC report … is riddled with inaccuracies and factual omissions”. I won’t comment on the rest of his remarks, but I am calling out his lie on that matter. The IPCC report is a careful summary of the scientific findings of climate scientists all over the globe. It is far more accurate and factually complete than any denier ‘argument’ that has been raised before or that could be raised. And unless Red can verify and document the ‘riddling’ that he claims, then such claims are not worth the electrons that were spent to record them.

  4. Investing companies that calculate their assets to include extracting and burning enough carbon to drive humans into extinction, as outlined in the worst case scenario in the IPCC report, is a bad investment. Look out for the carbon bubble.

Leave a Comment