One of the most important aspects of the Divestment movement is the opportunity it presents for us to engage our community

in discussion about climate change. This document is meant to help you communicate the purpose of the divestment movement and to make a compelling case for Harvard to divest. Please continue to add to this document as you engage in conversation.

The urgency and severity of climate change. The powerful movement for divestment that has spread across the country. The importance of Harvard acting in a manner that is morally consistent with its mission and the values it espouses. The leadership that Harvard can provide in solving the most significant problem of our time.
*

Divestment-doesnt-work Arguments Economic Arguments Its-not-the-best-way-to-solve-climate-change Arguments Justice Arguments Other Common Arguments

Divestment won't really make a difference to the fossil fuel companies. Divestment is primarily a moral and political strategy. o Just like in the struggle for Civil Rights in America or the fight to end Apartheid in South Africa, the more we can make climate change a

deeply moral issue, the more we will push society towards action. If it is wrong to wreck the planet, then it is wrong to profit from the wreckage of the planet. By investing in fossil fuel companies, Harvard is sponsoring climate change, and that is morally impermissible. o Divestment draws attention to the importance of addressing climate change NOW by Building power: Divestment campaigns have already spread to over 230 campuses across the country. Pension funds, cities, state government, and individuals are also working to divest. Unity and Hampshire Colleges have already divested from fossil fuels, and the mayor of Seattle announced that the city was divesting. Sparking discussion: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse mentioned the movement on the congress floor. Divestment has been heavily featured in the press with special mention of our efforts at Harvard. There have been articles in the New York Times, Boston Globe, The Guardian, NPR, Time Magazine, Al Jazeera, and more. Even though divestment is primarily a moral and political strategy, there are important economic impacts: o The top 500 or so College and University endowments hold nearly $400 billion, and Harvard has a nice $3.7 billion of that. Getting all of that money out of coal, oil and gas is significant. Add in the big state pension funds, and church, synagogue and mosque investments, and were well on our way to making the fossil fuel industry worry. o Divestment starts to raise uncertainty about the viability of the fossil fuel industrys business model. In order to keep warming below 2C, which all countries on Earth have agreed to, the fossil fuel industry will need to refrain from burning about 80% of their reserves of coal, oil, and gas. Even though these fossil fuels are still below ground, they are calculated as part of fossil fuel companies assets, and are valued at about $20 trillion worldwide. By divesting, we start discussion about these stranded assets. o Divestment starts to build momentum for moving money into clean energy, community development, and other more sustainable investments. If this campaign succeeds in moving just 1% of the $400 billion that is in college endowments towards sustainable alternatives, thats roughly $4 billion worth of new investments in things like solar bonds, revolving loan funds, and advanced energy industries.

o When other investors (individuals, pension funds, etc) see the nations leading universities begin to move away from fossil fuels, theyll also look into divestment. Who are we students to say what makes a good investment? The people making these decisions know what theyre doing and we have no place in it. Student activism spearheading huge movements for change is nothing new. In the 1980s, fueled by student activism, Harvard divested from the apartheid state of South Africa. Nelson Mandela credited American divestment as an important contributor to the end of apartheid.

If we take the endowment out of fossil fuels, then we'll lose a lot of money. Divesting from fossil fuels likely will not result in large losses. o A recent report from the Aperio Group, found that the theoretical risk to return when you take fossil fuels out of a portfolio is very small (0.0044%). In the long run, investments in fossil fuels are not good investments. o The value of investments in fossil fuels is based off of the expected earnings on their reserves. However, 80% of the fossil fuel companies reserves are unburnable. Thus, carbon is being mispriced, creating a carbon bubble. Additionally, as public opinion continues to shift and people demand government action to address climate change, the value of carbon will decline further. Getting Harvards investments out of the fossil fuel industry and reinvested in alternative energy, will be good for long-term returns. Divestment doesnt mean we want to take money away from the endowment, we just want to reinvest it, and there are other good investment options that dont involve destroying the Earth. o Investing in clean energy, efficiency and other sustainable technologies can be even more profitable than fossil fuels. Its a growing market, with over $260 billion invested globally last year, and a safer investment.

Doing anything to shrink the endowment will cut financial aid. During the recession in FY2009, Brown Universitys endowment shrunk 29%, yet financial aid increased 10.9%. Harvard has a bigger endowment than any university in the world, and financial aid is the last thing to be cut when the endowment shrinks.

Divestment is an extreme tactic. Climate change is an extreme problem. o Scientists agree that levels of carbon in the atmosphere need to be kept below 350 ppm. Today we are already over 390 ppm, and that number is only rising. o 2012 was the hottest year on record and witnessed the worst drought since the 1950s. o Climate change has already wreaked havoc as weve seen more severe storms, horrible droughts, sea-level rise, and an increase in ocean acidity among other things. o A recent report released by the World Bank says that if we dont act within five years, we could be locked into 4 C global temperature rise by the end of the century, which may be inadaptable. Our ask is very reasonable. o We are calling on Harvard to freeze new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest any investments they have in the 200 publicly traded fossil fuel companies that own the majority of the world's carbon reserves within the next five years. Harvard fights climate change through research and education - we dont need divestment. The contributions that Harvard makes through its research is crucially important for fighting climate change, but that doesnt excuse the University for owning the companies that cause it. It is inconsistent for Harvard to fight climate change with one hand and sponsor it with the other. Even as climate change research has proliferated at universities across the country, fossil fuel emissions have risen. There is no reason to think that business as usual will work in the future. We must get at the root of the problem the fossil fuel companies or else all of our good research

and education will literally be wiped out.

Divestment is counterproductive because fossil fuel companies are some of the largest investors in renewable energy research. Fossil fuel corporations have had a dodgy history with renewable energy investments. o Several years ago, BP changed its named to "Beyond Petroleum" but then ditched all its solar investments and changed the name back to "British Petroleum." o It took 18 years of advocacy by the Rockefeller Foundation to get Shell to even include a page about climate change on their website. Fossil fuel corporations have the capital to invest in transforming our energy system into a renewables-based one, but theyre not going to do it without a ton of pressure because they can make so much money by just going along with business as usual. Divestment is a great tactic for pushing the fossil fuel industry to change. If a company makes a serious commitment to transforming its practices, we can rescind our call for divestment. But failed attempt after failed attempt of discussing change with these companies, weve seen clearly that its going to take more than just asking nicely. We should be fighting climate change in other ways (ie. individual and political action). Working to stop fossil fuel infrastructure projects (coal plants, fracking, pipelines, etc) is important, but, we cant stop global warming one pipeline, coal plant or fracking well at a timethe numbers just dont add up. To make our efforts to stop these projects count, we need to loosen the grip that coal, oil and gas companies have on our government and financial markets. Harvard is a leader in campus sustainability with LEED certified buildings and an ambitious campus carbon reduction goal, but whats the sense in greening the campus if were not going to green the portfolio? Its time to go right at the root of the problemthe fossil fuel companies themselvesand make sure they hear us in terms they might understand, like their share price, or else the devastating affects of climate change will wipe out all of our good work. Okay we need to put pressure on the fossil fuel industry, but cant we do it through shareholder resolutions? Divestment is extreme. Over the past decade, there have been attempts to use shareholder action to change the behavior of the fossil fuel industry to no avail. The fossil fuel industry continues to insist on dumping massive amounts of carbon into

the atmosphere for free. Voting for climate friendly resolutions is a good thing to do, but its not going to solve the problem. No group or shareholder is going to willingly vote to keep 80% of the fossil fuel industrys current reserves underground. Divestment helps make the economic point that we should be moving our money into the solution as supposed to the problem. We could have talked about using shareholder resolutions thirty years ago, but now we have a rapidly closing window for action, we need to act swiftly and boldly. Divestment can be an uncomfortable step to take, but its the right thing to do and it will make a far greater impact than any shareholder resolution we could ever pass.

Doing anything to raise the price of carbon will really hurt low-income families. Doing nothing to combat climate change will really hurt low-income families. As climate change hinders our ability to produce food, prices climb, leaving millions more people hungry. Further, many low income countries that have contributed very little to climate change are being hit hardest by its consequences. We need to develop renewable energy that is affordable and accessible to everyone, and the power exerted by the fossil fuel industry is hindering our ability to do this. The fossil fuel industry creates a lot of jobs. Are you trying to leave people jobless?!? Renewable energy production tends to be more labor-intensive than fossil fuels, which rely on expensive production equipment. A transition toward renewables will create jobs. Automation and corporate consolidation are cutting jobs in the fossil fuel industry while production increases. Fossil fuel companies could still make a profit and provide jobs as energy companies if they transitioned their massive wealth and expertise over to renewables, but theyll do it because of government regulation, not because they willingly decide to make the move.

The endowment is not a tool for making political statements. We are an institution of higher learning, and the consensus of climate scientists is that climate change is a rapidly occurring fact. Divestment is an academic and ethical statement, not a political statement. Climate change is bigger than politics. It is a global issue that transcends race, class, gender, age, and time. Harvard's investments are a reflection of its values, regardless of the political impacts of divestment. Currently, Harvard actively sponsors climate change by owning shares of fossil fuel companies; this damages the quality of life not only of Harvard students, but of all humans around the globe for thousands of years into the future. This is not a matter of politics, it is a matter of a responsibility to not actively harm the whole of the human race, now and into the future, for short-sighted returns. Until Harvard divests, it will be an active sponsor of climate change. Further, in the past, Harvard has not been afraid to take a stand on a politicized issue when it is a worthy cause such as in the case of apartheid and tobacco divestment. Just like past divestments, fossil fuel divestment is an issue of morality. Its individuals fault for using fossil fuels. There are things that all of us can do to reduce our energy consumption and we should do these things, but it is not our fault for using fossil fuels because we have no alternative. And that is the fossil fuel industries fault. The fossil fuel industry is extremely wealthy and exerts unbelievable power in our government. Compared to renewable energy companies, fossil fuel industry groups spend 20 times more on lobbying and get 6 times more in federal subsidies. By making huge contributions to candidates, the fossil fuel industry exerts a huge amount of influence on national policy. They work endlessly to block carbon controls in Congress, and continue to raise skepticism about the validity of climate change, something that scientists are in nearly unanimously agreement about. o For example, when the House was voting on matters related to the Keystone Pipeline, the 234 congressional representatives who voted pro-pipeline had received $42 million in campaign

contributions from the fossil-fuel industry, while the 193 who voted anti-pipeline had received only $8 million. We are not advocating for a world without energy. Fossil fuels have powered the modern world and led to incredible advances. We want a modern world, just not one that is unsustainable and abusive. Divestment is about making this a fair fight, so that alternatives to fossil fuels can flourish and consumers can choose renewable energy.

* Many of these arguments are adapted from 350s website: http://gofossilfree.org/faq/