The issue of climate change, now omnipresent on the national political stage, made a surprising appearance at the Lighting of the Lawn in the form of a brightly-lit sign reading “DIVEST UVA.” Divestment, a political and financial tool most widely known for its usage against the South African apartheid regime, has recently been adopted as a weapon in the fight against climate change. A consortium of businesses, individuals and universities worth a combined $2.6 trillion have pledged to withdraw their assets from fossil fuel companies. Stanford University recently decided to withdraw its investments in fossil fuels, and at Harvard members of the student body conducted a well-publicized but ultimately unsuccessful battle for Harvard’s endowment to do the same.
Climate change is certainly one of the most pressing issues facing our generation, and divestment would send a message to the world about how seriously the University takes it. However, though it may give us a sense of satisfaction that we have contributed to the fight against climate change, it would be a false sense of accomplishment. The battle against climate change will play out on many fronts, but it must begin with the discovery and promotion of renewable energy resources which can provide a competitively priced substitute for coal and oil.
Fossil fuel companies certainly deserve much of the anger directed toward them. Many have shown that they are unwilling to adopt environmentally sound but more costly practices, and their political influence has impeded important legislative changes. But they also play an essential role in society, lighting our homes and powering the cars we drive. As consumers of their products the blame also lies with us. Since it is unlikely Americans or the rest of the world will be willing to make significant lifestyle changes or drastically increase how much they pay for electricity and gas, the only way to effectively target these companies is to create cost-effective alternatives to the products they provide.
Divestment is tempting in part because it requires little sacrifice on our part. A transfer of assets in the University’s endowment will not have a noticeable effect on our lives at the University. It will also have little effect on these companies, who will see our investment replaced by money from less scrupulous investors. This is not news to its proponents, who believe it is a symbolic gesture signaling a lack of confidence in the future of fossil fuels and taking stance against the actions of fossil fuel companies. That is the weakness of divestment: It frames climate change as a moral crusade when it is in reality a scientific and public policy one. The world desperately needs energy in huge quantities that only fossil fuels can fully provide. A moral fight can still be useful in instilling citizens and leaders with the will and purpose to enact much-needed legislative changes. However, political will can erode quickly when it comes against the harsh fact of our reliance on fossil fuels, and the high cost of cleaner forms of energy. Moves against these companies will only be effective when they have been weakened from our decreased reliance on their services and cheaper alternatives.
It is because of the unlikelihood of divestment alone making a significant change that our energy might be better directed toward making a difference on Grounds. This could include the addition of solar panels to University buildings, a practice already in process at Ruffner Hall and the University Bookstore, and other energy saving initiatives. In addition, efficient practices like this are more likely to receive a positive response from the administration due to the cost savings they produce. These relatively small and uncontroversial actions may not make headlines or give us the same sense of satisfaction. But unlike divestment, they take a concrete step toward diminishing our reliance on fossil fuels.
The greatest contribution the University has to offer is in its role as a research institution. University professors are currently conducting research on key climate change issues, such as energy efficient smart buildings, carbon dioxide emissions and environmental management. The University also recently became the only U.S. institution to enter a partnership with MAXNET Energy, an enterprise of the Max Planck Society, to conduct research on renewable energy sources. By continuing and deepening its involvement in clean energy projects, the University will help lead the world away from fossil fuel dependence.
None of this means that divestment has no role to play. A political message of support for action on climate change can be the start to legislative initiatives to both promote renewable energy and curb harmful carbon dioxide emissions. But it is our actions in developing and using clean energy while minimizing the presence of fossil fuels that give actual substance to the message behind divestment, making it more than a headline undermined by the role fossil fuels continue to play on Grounds. Physical action on energy usage must precede rhetoric for the divestment movement to be taken seriously or have an impact.
Alex Mink is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.mink@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: The truth about nuclear power in Northern Virginia
By Paul Kurtzweil | 14 hours agoYoungkin is trying to entice data centers to move to Northern Virginia for his own political gain, and presenting this to the taxpayer as a service to the citizen is deceiving.
CASTAGNO: One year later — a local zoning ordinance proves its worth
By Conall Costagno | 2 days agoIn its current situation, Charlottesville is an early adopter of the upzoning movement, giving the City the unique opportunity to act as a shining example of its benefits.
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 5 days agoWe need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
