An unwavering call for divestment

The threat of climate change is the most pressing political, ethical, social and economic challenge of our time. Public policy and industry have moved at a glacial pace for decades, and we must shift the paradigm of climate action and public pressure to prevent the worst climate disasters from materializing. Divestment from fossil fuels is a powerful means to help achieve this. But while divestment is gaining favor worldwide, the call to divest Duke’s endowment has not yet been answered favorably.

The Advisory Committee on Investment Responsibility and Campus Sustainability Committee hosted a public forum Monday night to discuss socially responsible investment practices at Duke. A primary focus of discussion was divestment from fossil fuels, a proposal rejected by the ACIR last spring. Chair of ACIR Dr. Jim Cox reiterated the committee’s rationale for rejecting divestment, arguing that fossil fuels are not a moral issue, that divestment lacks impact as a singular action and that shareholder engagement might prove more effective. In the following editorial, the Divest Duke campaign responds to these claims with an even more committed call for a fossil free endowment.

Duke has not always shied away from divestment. We as Duke students can take pride in the university’s role as a moral leader during the historic international movement to divest from the South African apartheid. Similarly, Duke’s decision to divest from blood diamonds and conflict minerals clearly affirmed the core principles we share as students, staff and faculty. In both cases, our community spoke out strongly against maintaining connections with businesses and industries linked to moral outrage.

Though Dr. Cox plainly stated that he did not believe that fossil fuel use constituted a moral issue, climate change, the result of that fossil fuel use, has clear moral significance. Climate change endangers millions worldwide and the impacts of fossil fuel emissions will reverberate for centuries. While smokestacks and drilling pads may be a less direct instigator of harm than police truncheons and machetes, the end results are much the same. Droughts, extreme weather and flash floods caused by a business model built upon the wholesale destruction of the Earth’s environmental balance are no less of a moral outrage. Nor is the threat of drowning, starvation and displacement of the vulnerable any less powerful of a moral call to action.

One of the main objections of the ACIR is that divestment is an action with only a “single occurrence.” This factor was highlighted as one of the reasons for the rejection of Divest Duke’s proposal last spring and was further discussed at the ACIR public forum. The ACIR claims there is no “next step” after divestment, advocating that the university focus on other environmental initiatives, such as the Climate Action Plan. However, Divest Duke believes this need not be an “either-or” situation. We are proud of several Duke University and Campus Sustainability Committee initiatives, including the CAP goal of carbon net neutrality by 2024. Divestment is not a mutually exclusive action; it is just one important part of a multi-pronged approach in a vision for a sustainable future. The Duke Climate Coalition—the umbrella organization for climate-related advocacy at Duke, under which Divest Duke operates—itself currently partners with Duke Seize the Grid, which is working to increase renewable energy on campus and throughout North Carolina. A choice to divest by Duke University could complement and empower the Campus Sustainability Committee’s other environmental commitments.

The ACIR considers shareholder engagement a plausible course of action for Duke to fulfill its goals as a sustainability leader. Shareholder engagement entails submitting resolutions from investors to positively influence a company’s business practices. Dr. Cox admitted at the forum that, while he believed shareholder engagement was an effective tool, the ACIR found no evidence in its research (for or against) that proxy voting or resolutions on climate issues have resulted in positive change. Shareholder effectiveness on climate issues, particularly from universities, is doubtful. Preventing the worst impacts of climate change requires keeping 80 percent of fossil fuels in the ground, a reality fundamentally at odds with industry goals. When it is now public knowledge that Exxon-Mobil has ignored opposing climate science research for decades despite internal acknowledgement of the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions, shareholder engagement seems a dubious prospect indeed.

The ACIR simultaneously argues that Duke’s direct holdings in energy companies are minuscule and that the university could exert a meaningful impact using its investor voice. Those claims do not add up. Fossil free campaign research has shown that, because universities hold a small percentage of total shareholder votes, even a consortium of universities would be extremely unlikely to win a shareholder resolution. The dialogue that results from these votes may be important, as the ACIR asserts, but the urgency of the climate change threat requires that we take meaningful action now. Duke is a prominent university with a national brand, and the positive media attention that would result from a Duke divestment from fossil fuels would cultivate far more dialogue than a doomed shareholder vote behind the closed doors of a corporate office.

With collective action from all corners of society, we can contain the climate consequences of unrestrained fossil fuel emissions. Duke, too, must play a part in the push for reform. United against the peril faced by our generation and generations to come, we call on Duke University to—once again—divest, taking a firm moral stand for a brighter future.