No more profit over planet
Addressing climate emergency requires large-scale action to end corporate pollution
Eric Boose / Opinion Editor / The USD Vista
Last week, the University of California system did the right thing for the wrong reasons. Calling them a financial risk, the UC dropped all of their investments in companies “involved with extracting fossil fuels.”
Institutional divestment from fossil fuels is a key victory in the fight against climate change, and the UC system is only part of a growing movement which has led to the divestment of approximately $11 trillion in fossil fuel assets from over 1,000 companies, according to the environmental organization 350.org.
However, the UC’s divestment is slightly problematic. First, the university system has not laid out a detailed plan for how they will divest, or what they consider to be a fossil fuel asset, only that they would divest by the end of this month. Second, and far more importantly, the UC did not divest for idealistic, environmentalist reasons. In an Op-Ed in The Los Angeles Times announcing the decision, the UC’s fund managers wrote, “The reason we sold some $150 million in fossil fuel assets from our endowment was the reason we sell other assets: They posed a long-term risk to generating strong returns for UC’s diversified portfolios.”
This disconnect, taking environmentalist action for financial reasons rather than idealistic ones, is worth remembering. The University of California will by no means be the last institution to make a similar choice, for similar reasons. Regardless of their reasoning, the UC’s decision to divest still counts as a victory in combatting climate change. In total, the UC system holds $80 billion in assets. For an organization with that much investment power to consciously invest none of that money in fossil fuel organizations sends a message that a move away from those companies is a wise one. Ultimately, divestment from fossil fuels should be a moral imperative. According to a 2017 report from the Climate Accountability Institute, one fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions are supported by investment from public institutions like the University of California. Now is the time to put serious financial pressure on companies which do significant harm to the environment, who have historically downplayed the danger of climate change, and who actively resist necessarily strict emissions restrictions. At this point in time, the fight against climate change must turn to a bigger picture.
In general, corporations have a far greater impact on the environment than any one individual. Between 1988 and 2017, a group of only 100 companies generated 71 percent of all global emissions, according to The Guardian. Despite this, we as individuals seem to have been convinced that we carry the greatest blame for the changing climate. We are told to recycle, to carpool, to buy local products, and to avoid plastic straws and bags. Only recently have we begun trying to hold corporations, governments, and even universities accountable for the massive role they play in creating this climate crisis. All of the efforts we make as individuals should not be downplayed, but even if every person in the world made those small changes we are told to make, as long as corporations continue their current emissions habits, it might not be enough.
There is something we can do, as individuals, which may have enough of an impact to make meaningful change. On Friday, Sept. 20, over four million people across 163 countries took to the streets in the single largest climate protest ever. At the time of writing this, no major change has come of it, but the global climate strike is a demonstration of how powerful a unified group of individuals can be. And in the fight against climate change, unified action can take many forms.
In the United States, at least in principle, power is ultimately vested in the people, both in government and in business. In terms of large-scale institutional action, there is no more effective way to combat climate change than to vote, and to vote for candidates who will make serious change. While the federal government under the current administration has gone to great lengths to roll back environmental protections, states and cities have taken positive action. California has boasted some of the strictest environmental protections in the country for years, and is now gearing up for a federal lawsuit in order to keep those protections in place. On election day, every race matters, from the president to the city council.
While the government’s ability to create restrictions and fund clean energy infrastructure makes it the most powerful institution in the fight against climate change, corporations are the most culpable institutions in the creation of the climate emergency. However, corporations answer to the general public much less than governments. Corporations do answer to their shareholders and investors.
This is why the University of California’s divestment is important. $150 million dollars of investment should be enough to catch people’s attention. The $11 trillion touted by 350.org should be even more eye-catching. Investors everywhere, whether individuals or institutions, ought to realize that the world is shifting from the dinosaur of fossil fuels to newer, cleaner energy sources.
It is also worth remembering that the UC’s decision was motivated by financial reasons, not moral ones. It is time to start reminding investors of just how risky investing in fossil fuels can be. It is time to encourage investors to change those fossil fuel investments into clean energy investment. If that can only be accomplished by switching from a moral rhetoric to an economical one, so be it.
This change will take a historical effort, from all of us. However you choose to fight, it matters that you fight. At this point, inaction is akin to being on the wrong side.
We are facing a climate crisis, and we are on the clock. According to a report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we now have 11 years to significantly reduce the worldwide negative impact we are making on the environment. Otherwise, we will face serious, irreversible consequences: heat waves and droughts, bigger and more frequent wildfires, rising sea levels, and even more devastating hurricanes, to name a few. The time for baby steps has long been over. It is time for leaps and bounds.