User:Sibersalam: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:06, 15 December 2012

Divestment (or disinvestment) from Fossil Fuels was first heavily advocated in 2012, in protest of global warming, and started being implemented by many US universities the same year.

United Nations campaign

Campaigns to divest from fossil fuels have been influenced by many other campaigns, including Disinvestment from South Africa and the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (Goal number 7 in particular).

United States campaign

University campuses

As written by Justin Gillis in the December 4th edition of The New York Times: "Students who have signed on see it as a conscious imitation of the successful effort in the 1980s to pressure colleges and other institutions to divest themselves of the stocks of companies doing business in South Africa under apartheid. A small institution in Maine, Unity College, has already voted to get out of fossil fuels. Another, Hampshire College in Massachusetts, has adopted a broad investment policy that is ridding its portfolio of fossil fuel stocks. ... But at colleges with large endowments, many administrators are viewing the demand skeptically, saying it would undermine their goal of maximum returns in support of education. Fossil fuel companies represent a significant portion of the stock market, comprising nearly 10 percent of the value of the Russell 3000, a broad index of 3,000 American companies. No school with an endowment exceeding $1 billion has agreed to divest itself of fossil fuel stocks. At Harvard, which holds the largest endowment in the country at $31 billion, the student body recently voted to ask the school to do so. With roughly half the undergraduates voting, 72 percent of them supported the demand." But Harvard University has not yet made any commitment to divest from fossil fuels. ^[1]

States and cities

In addition to campuses, climate activists find concerned and sympathetic legislators in cities and states. One example is California which although not in a direct divestment campaign, did incline away from fossil fuels by applying to the US Environmental Protection Agency for California to enforce stricter air pollution standards and although initially denied by the Bush Administration ^[2], was later granted by the Obama administration: From the US EPA website, "The Clean Air Act gives California special authority to enact stricter air pollution standards for motor vehicles than the federal government’s. EPA must approve a waiver, however, before California’s rules may go into effect." and "On June 30, 2009, EPA granted a waiver (PDF) (42 pp, 280K, July 2009) of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year". ^[3]

Federal involvement

Myriad efforts to reduce global warming have been made by cities and states (see above), including California, but so far there has been little effort by the federal government to divest from fossil fuels.

Economic effects

As written by Alli Welton on November 20, 2012 in The Nation, "Given that only 565 more gigatons of carbon can be burnt if the planet hopes to stay under 2 degrees Celsius warming (the upper limit set by the UN), 80 percent of the top 200 publicly-traded fossil fuel companies’ apparent reserves—worth $20 trillion—are untouchable. This creates a huge carbon bubble in the market." ^[4]

Also, as written by Nina Chestney on September 26th, 2012 in Reuters, "100 million to die by 2030 if world fails to act on climate" and "More than 100 million people will die and global economic growth will be cut by 3.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change, a report commissioned by 20 governments said". ^[5]

Anti-Divestment opposition

While disinvestment, boycotts and sanctions aim at the removal of the burning of fossil fuels, there is also considerable opposition from within the anti-global warming movement.

Outside criticism

Many criticize disinvestment because of its economic impact.

Many conservatives oppose the divestment campaign.

References

^ JUSTIN GILLIS, "To Stop Climate Change, Students Aim at College Portfolios", The New York Times, December 4th, 2012
^ MICHELINE MAYNARD, E.P.A. Denies California Emission’s Waiver, The New York Times, December 19th, 2007
^ [1], epa.gov
^ Alli Welton, "Harvard Students Vote 72 Percent Support for Fossil Fuel Divestment", The Nation, November 20th, 2012
^ Nina Chestney, "100 million to die by 2030 if world fails to act on climate", Reuters, September 26th, 2012

External links

[1] JUSTIN GILLIS, "To Stop Climate Change, Students Aim at College Portfolios", The New York Times, December 4th, 2012

[2] MICHELINE MAYNARD, E.P.A. Denies California Emission’s Waiver, The New York Times, December 19th, 2007

[3] [1], epa.gov

[4] Alli Welton, "Harvard Students Vote 72 Percent Support for Fossil Fuel Divestment", The Nation, November 20th, 2012

[5] Nina Chestney, "100 million to die by 2030 if world fails to act on climate", Reuters, September 26th, 2012

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ==United States campaign==
-Myriad efforts to reduce global warming have been made by cities and states (see below), including California, but so far there has been little effort by the federal government to divest from fossil fuels.
@@ Line 14: / Line 13: @@
 ====States and cities====
-In addition to campuses, climate activists find concerned and sympathetic legislators in cities and states. One example is California which applied to the US [[Epa|Environmental Protection Agency]] for California to enforce stricter air pollution standards and although initially denied by the Bush Administration<ref>MICHELINE MAYNARD, [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/washington/20epa-web.html E.P.A. Denies California Emission’s Waiver], ''The New York Times'', December 19th, 2007</ref>, was later granted by the Obama administration: From the US EPA website, "The Clean Air Act gives California special authority to enact stricter air pollution standards for motor vehicles than the federal government’s. EPA must approve a waiver, however, before California’s rules may go into effect." and "On June 30, 2009, EPA granted a waiver (PDF) (42 pp, 280K, July 2009) of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year". <ref>[http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/ca-waiver.htm], ''epa.gov''</ref>
+In addition to campuses, climate activists find concerned and sympathetic legislators in cities and states. One example is California which although not in a direct divestment campaign, did incline away from fossil fuels by applying to the US [[Epa|Environmental Protection Agency]] for California to enforce stricter air pollution standards and although initially denied by the Bush Administration <ref>MICHELINE MAYNARD, [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/washington/20epa-web.html E.P.A. Denies California Emission’s Waiver], ''The New York Times'', December 19th, 2007</ref>, was later granted by the Obama administration: From the US EPA website, "The Clean Air Act gives California special authority to enact stricter air pollution standards for motor vehicles than the federal government’s. EPA must approve a waiver, however, before California’s rules may go into effect." and "On June 30, 2009, EPA granted a waiver (PDF) (42 pp, 280K, July 2009) of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year". <ref>[http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/ca-waiver.htm], ''epa.gov''</ref>
 ====Federal involvement====
+Myriad efforts to reduce global warming have been made by cities and states (see above), including California, but so far there has been little effort by the federal government to divest from fossil fuels.
-The activity at the state and city level set the stage for action at the federal level.