350.org founder Bill McKibben and organization spokesman Daniel Kessler have challenged the arguments made on Thursday by Harvard President Drew Faust in explaining the university’s decision not to divest from fossil fuel companies. 350.org is leading a nation-wide divestment campaign.
In her statement, Ms. Faust wrote that divestment could limit Harvard’s influence over energy companies. “Divestment is likely to have negligible financial impact on the affected companies,” Ms. Faust wrote. “And such a strategy would diminish the influence or voice we might have with this industry.”
“In the case of fossil fuel companies, we should think about how we might use our voice not to ostracize such companies but to encourage them to be a positive force both in meeting society’s long-term energy needs while addressing pressing environmental imperatives,” Ms. Faust wrote.
In an email exchange on Friday, McKibben dismissed the argument. “This is what folks have been trying for 25 years without notable success,” he wrote. “Another 25 and it will be far too late. Look into say, British Petroleum, which became Beyond Petroleum, and then sold all its wind and solar stuff (what little there was) to concentrate on its ‘core business’: hydrocarbons.”
Reached for comment on Friday, Daniel Kessler said the immense budget of major energy corporations means that individual investors already wield minimal leverage over their policies. He emphasized instead the public relations aspect of the divestment campaign.
“Better to send a public message that you don’t want to be affiliated with companies that are hell bent on destroying the climate,” Kessler said of Harvard’s choice.
In her statement, Ms. Faust also wrote that she felt it was hypocritical for the university to divest while still using power from fossil fuel sources.
“Given our pervasive dependence on these companies for the energy to heat and light our buildings, to fuel our transportation, and to run our computers and appliances, it is hard for me to reconcile that reliance with a refusal to countenance any relationship with these companies through our investments,” Ms. Faust wrote.
“This is the point,” McKibben replied. “The fossil fuel industry has managed to maintain a pervasive control of our energy systems. This is why we need to challenge them. What a copout!”
“We live in the word that we live in, not the world that we’re trying to create,” Kessler added. “It’s not hypocritical to drive a car or turn your lights on.”
Ms. Faust emphasized Harvard’s extensive research on climate change science and policy, the institution’s commitment to renewable design and energy usage on campus, and the recent hiring of a “vice-president for sustainable investing” who will “help us think in more nuanced, forward-looking ways about sustainable investment, including the consideration of environmental, social, and governance factors.”
"That stuff is great,” Kessler said, “but that doesn’t mean that they can’t do that stuff and [also] not invest in the companies that are destroying the planet."
In a previously released statement, 350.org also disputed the notion, advanced by Ms. Faust, that the university’s endowment could suffer financially if divestment took place. 350.org cited an “Associated Press analysis” which “showed that fossil fuel free endowments would have a better rate of return over the past decade.”
Kesser said that it will be up to Harvard students to decide how next to engage the university’s administration. 72 percent of the Harvard students who voted in a poll taken last November said they wanted the university to divest from fossil fuel companies.
On Thursday, Divest Harvard, a student-led group advocating for divestment, released a preliminary statement in response to Ms. Faust’s remarks.
“Leadership requires courage and vision – President Faust demonstrated neither,” the statement read. “Today, she chose the fossil fuel industry over her students.”
