Often, discussions about what we can do about climate change center around divestment, but divestment alone may not be sufficient.
Soon Ohio will exit the 10,000 years of stability that allowed for the development and proliferation of human civilizations. Already, the effects of climate change are felt here and across the Midwest and will worsen in the future. The resulting environment will be comparatively unstable and will present challenges to our current way of living.
Average annual temperatures will rise and the number of major heat waves will increase. Heavy rains and flash flooding will become increasingly more common, and winters and springs will become wetter. Because hotter weather is conducive to severe smog problems, air quality will deteriorate, and because major heat waves will be commonplace, crops and livestock will suffer from much more heat stress and as a result agricultural productivity will decrease. Because winters will shorten and growing seasons will lengthen, pests such as the corn earworm will be able to expand their range and further impair crop productivity.
Given the problems climate change will cause both here and around the world if nothing is done, action addressing this ‘wicked problem’ is urgently needed. Often, fossil fuel divestment makes its way into the discussion surrounding action on climate change. Divestment refers to the opposite of investment — when an organization, such as an university, sells stock in companies in support of political or social causes. This strategy was first employed in the ‘70s and ‘80s to protest apartheid in South Africa, and it has since been used since to protest tobacco, birth control and weapons of mass destruction, among other things. Fossil fuel divestment involves divestment from large companies that deal in coal and oil, such as ExxonMobil, Shell and BP.
The Sierra Student Coalition here at OU has called for the university to divest its endowment from all fossil fuel investments by 2020. Earlier this month, Yale University announced that it has divested $10 million in coal and tar sands investments out of its endowment. These happenings are all part of a larger divestment movement taking place around the world.
Divestment is a useful strategy so long as it is not expected to do more than it can. It’s good for bringing attention to the issue at hand, or for setting a positive example and encouraging so-called green universities to practice what they preach. It cannot, however, actually harm fossil fuel companies or influence their activities in any way. The influence of divestment is therefore, somewhat limited. Mike Hulme, a professor of climate and culture at King’s College London, is more critical of the movement. He calls the divestment campaign gesture politics and reductionist, offering simplistic solutions to a complex problem. He further asserts that divestment ultimately only offers symbolic successes and will do nothing to actually address climate change.
Hulme may be right in that divestment does not offer anything beyond symbolic successes, but he may be underestimating the importance of a symbolic gesture. Given that divestment draws attention and makes a statement, it may serve as a catalyst for change. But only if it encourages reflection on the issue and the action we as individuals might be able to take to actively encourage political and social action that would actually result in a shift toward renewables. In that way, divestment could play a role in the shift toward sustainable energy, if it is followed by a concrete strategy that maps out the path to accomplishment of that goal.
Austin Miles is a senior studying biology. What do you know about fossil fuel divestment? Email him at am343011@ohio.edu.
