Last November, an article was published titled “Digging Deeper into Divestment” which questioned the effectiveness of the fossil fuel divestment movement and in particular the divestment campaign on our campus run by Wes, Divest. This piece is intended to address the valid concerns raised in that article, while maintaining that fossil fuel divestment is indeed both a sound strategy and a necessary course of action.

The goal of Wes, Divest is to “un-invest” (divest) the Wesleyan endowment from fossil fuel companies. We define fossil fuel companies as those whose primary business is the extraction and/or burning of oil, coal, and natural gas. As was mentioned in the November article, this includes both a retraction of current investments in fossil fuel holdings and a freeze on any new fossil fuel investments.

I’d like to begin with a few quick facts about the Wesleyan endowment. According to the most recent financial report, at the end of the 2014 fiscal year, Wesleyan’s endowment stood at over $793 million – an increase of $104 million since the end of fiscal year 2013. Based on investment methods and confidentiality concerns, it is impossible for Wes, Divest to know the full extent of Wesleyan’s investment portfolio. In fact, only 5% of the portfolio is available for public consumption. For this reason, Wes, Divest is unable to propose specific alternative investment strategies. Due to general norms in diversification, however, we can assume that about 5% of the endowment (approx. $40 million) is invested in fossil fuels. In other words, we can say with certainty that fossil fuel divestment is applicable on our campus.

The November article posed two main arguments against divestment. The first is that divestment is an ineffective strategy, and the second is that divestment is counter-productive to reducing fossil fuel pollution. I will address both of these arguments respectively by presenting direct quotes from said article followed by a response.

“…the act of selling stocks will not affect a company like Exxon Mobile financially in any way.”

We would like to make it abundantly clear that Wes, Divest is aware that this statement is true. Yes, if Wesleyan divests from fossil fuel companies, the direct financial impact on those companies will be negligible. In fact, if every single university in the United States divested, the direct financial impact would still be financially insignificant. That is what happens when you try to tackle a gargantuan industry that annually rakes in billions. Fossil fuel divestment alone is primarily a symbolic act working in tandem with a greater movement, together aiming to spur tangible financial and regulatory impacts on the fossil fuel industry.

Through a strong symbolic act, fossil fuel divestment at Wesleyan has the capacity to drastically impact and propel the international divestment movement forward. While several institutions around the world have already committed to divestment, Wesleyan would be among the first high profile American universities to divest as a result of a student initiative. As the administrations at universities like Yale and Harvard refuse to budge, Wesleyan’s divestment would effectively criticize their hypocrisy while rectifying our own, adding weight to other campaigns.

The fossil fuel divestment movement has gained international attention from the media, governments, and fossil fuel executives themselves. To effectively tackle our fossil fuel addiction, we need governments to act. We believe that government action will only follow public action, not the other way around (in contrast to what was once suggested to us by President Roth).

This has worked in the past. The anti-apartheid divestment movement of the 1970s-80s generated broad public support before the Federal Anti-Apartheid Act of the late 80s. Without actions like divestment, we don’t believe governments will take the necessary action soon enough. We cannot afford to wait for them. Millions of people are already being affected by climate change through extreme weather events, droughts, and food shortages. Climate projections put us in a dire and time sensitive situation; the window for taking meaningful action is closing quickly. Waiting for others to take the lead is not an option.

“When divestment activists demand that the endowment sell off its shares in fossil fuel companies, they are literally telling the school to give up the right to its only form of true influence inside of the companies the activists so despise.”

This is an important point that Wes, Divest has not addressed directly in the past. At first glance, why would we give up any chance for Wesleyan to influence companies such as Exxon Mobile? However, just as Wesleyan’s divestment alone will do nothing to financially impact companies like Exxon, Wesleyan’s shareholder vote alone will do absolutely nothing to influence Exxon’s practices. What’s more, what kind of practices do we want to influence? If our end goal is to stop companies like Exxon from burning fossil fuels in the first place, would we really be able to bring in a shareholder resolution to ask Exxon to shift its entire focus to solar energy? I would like to preemptively cut off any counter-point about pushing for “cleaner” practices. First of all, there no such thing as “clean fossil fuels,” despite what the industry would have the public believe. Second of all, according to climate research, the future is not going to be saved by only polluting the atmosphere slightly less; a reformed industry is not enough. If we want to do something meaningful to affect energy production, it means ending fossil fuels altogether. Divestment is how we can refuse to subscribe to the industry-backed paradigm that our society must be dependent on a material that enforces our own self-destruction.

To put it bluntly, Wes, Divest is not pushing for a world in which companies like Exxon reform their practices in a greenwashing campaign. Even if we did have any influence as a tiny shareholder in each of these mega-corporations, that influence would be moot because we frankly don’t want these companies to exist in anything resembling their current state or product. Our influence through divestment is much greater than any shareholder influence. Divestment generates media buzz and grabs public attention, furthering our goals far more than placing faith in a shareholder resolution that would die immediately.

“…the divestment community could demand that any and all profits from fossil fuel companies be re-invested by the college, or, more accurately, the managers of its endowment, into green projects, companies, and so on. This could offset any moralistic issues that one might feel. In that case, Exxon would in a sense be funding green projects on campus.”

If recycling more on campus is what this statement is suggesting, it is nowhere close to a “moral offset.” Green initiatives on campus, while admirable and something we support, do very little to address the broader problem. Tackling the fossil fuel industry is to attack the status quo, it is to attack business as usual, it is to attack our consumption practices. It is to attack the idea that allowing some people to suffer from the climate crisis is permissible because we make their health, homes, culture, and wellbeing invisible. It is to attack the myth that the situation isn’t that bad, it is to attack the assumption that there is not a dire crisis right now. It is to drive home the point that everything about our energy practices must change. Now. The green initiatives advocated in the November article are the same initiatives that companies like Exxon take to say “Look, we recycle! Therefore we are environmental champions.” I call bullshit.

I take issue with the assertion that Wes, Divest is “junk food activism” and simply a way for us to pat ourselves on the back. We are not participating in this campaign to “look good.” It is not lacking substance. We understand that this process will be difficult, but the innovative minds behind “This Is Why” should be innovative enough to work towards a fossil free endowment. The author asserts that “if we work within the rules of capitalism, we will achieve lasting change.” In the case of the future health and safety of the planet and its people, working within the “rules” is not an option. We have to pick one or the other, and I think it is clear which one we pick.