They included: complete fossil fuel divestment; shareholder engagement with energy firms to advocate environmental concerns; frequent proxy voting on the resolutions of coal, oil and gas companies; educational outreach to politicians and the public to convey the gravity of rising emissions; tax incentives; steadfast energy research; and global emissions pricing.
Yet at this forum, an on-campus debate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology over whether the university should divest the fossil fuel holdings within its $11 billion endowment, might not have happened if market forces properly priced the economic and environmental costs of climate change, a theme that Anthony Cortese, the event moderator, alluded to at the outset.
...
Since late 2012, college students in the United States have led the push, starting on their campuses with their school endowments, to boycott the fossil fuel industry by urging investors to sell off any coal, oil or natural gas holdings.
...
The MIT divestment advocates are requesting that the university block any new fossil investments and sell fossil fuel shares within five years.
...
Those in favor of divestment -- John Sterman, a professor at MIT'S management school; Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard University professor and co-author of Merchants of Doubt; and Don Gould, a financial manager who helped oversee Pitzer College's divestment process last year -- said it is a symbolic act that can drive political policies to rein in emissions.
Conventional political efforts to mitigate global warming, this trio argued, have fallen short. Divestment creates the social and political will to shift public discussion on climate change and raise awareness of the risks that come with a hotter planet, they said.
Read more at MIT Holds Debate on Divestment from Fossil and Other Moves to Combat Climate Change
No comments:
Post a Comment