Analysis & Opinions - The New York Times
Pitching Divestment as a 'Moral' Crusade is Misguided
Room for Debate
Students are right to be concerned about climate change, but the focus of the divestment movement is fundamentally misguided. Students, faculty and staff can be effective by acting in ways that will make a real difference, but the symbolic action of divestment — and the fight to convince universities to do so — has opportunity costs: It diverts us from focusing on what really matters.
Divestment doesn't affect the ability of fossil fuel companies to raise capital: For each institution that divests, there are other investors that take its place. As long as the world still continues to rely on fossil fuels, and consumes them at current rates, the companies that supply them will have a ready market for their products.
What really matters for addressing climate change is enlightened public policy at the international, national and sub-national levels. In particular, it will take serious, economy-wide, carbon-pricing regimes — either carbon taxes or cap-and-trade systems — to bring about meaningful reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.
At Harvard, where I teach, the student leaders of the divestment movement themselves acknowledge that divestment would not have a financial impact on fossil fuel companies. For them, divestment is a "moral strategy." This, to me, presents another problem.
Pitching divestment as a moral crusade will play into and exacerbate the ideological divide and political polarization that has paralyzed Washington on climate change (and other issues), diminishing even further the prospects for effective climate policy in the United States. Whatever moral statement divestment might make is not worth risking further disintegration of the climate-policy process.
The real contributions of Harvard and other great research universities to climate change policies will be through our products: our research, teaching and outreach to policy makers. That is how great universities have made a difference on other societal challenges for decades and centuries, and it is how we will make a real difference on this one.
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via the original publication source.
For more information on this publication:
Please contact
Harvard Project on Climate Agreements
For Academic Citation:
Stavins, Robert N..“Pitching Divestment as a 'Moral' Crusade is Misguided.” The New York Times, August 8, 2015.
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Audio
- Radio Open Source
JFK in the American Century
Analysis & Opinions
- Foreign Policy
The Realist Case for the Non-Realist Biden
News
- Harvard Project on Climate Agreements
Joseph Aldy Shares his Thoughts on Incorporating Green Energy into an Economic Stimulus Package: Lessons Learned from the 2009 Recovery Act
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Policy Brief
- Quarterly Journal: International Security
The Future of U.S. Nuclear Policy: The Case for No First Use
Discussion Paper
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Why the United States Should Spread Democracy
Students are right to be concerned about climate change, but the focus of the divestment movement is fundamentally misguided. Students, faculty and staff can be effective by acting in ways that will make a real difference, but the symbolic action of divestment — and the fight to convince universities to do so — has opportunity costs: It diverts us from focusing on what really matters.
Divestment doesn't affect the ability of fossil fuel companies to raise capital: For each institution that divests, there are other investors that take its place. As long as the world still continues to rely on fossil fuels, and consumes them at current rates, the companies that supply them will have a ready market for their products.
What really matters for addressing climate change is enlightened public policy at the international, national and sub-national levels. In particular, it will take serious, economy-wide, carbon-pricing regimes — either carbon taxes or cap-and-trade systems — to bring about meaningful reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.
At Harvard, where I teach, the student leaders of the divestment movement themselves acknowledge that divestment would not have a financial impact on fossil fuel companies. For them, divestment is a "moral strategy." This, to me, presents another problem.
Pitching divestment as a moral crusade will play into and exacerbate the ideological divide and political polarization that has paralyzed Washington on climate change (and other issues), diminishing even further the prospects for effective climate policy in the United States. Whatever moral statement divestment might make is not worth risking further disintegration of the climate-policy process.
The real contributions of Harvard and other great research universities to climate change policies will be through our products: our research, teaching and outreach to policy makers. That is how great universities have made a difference on other societal challenges for decades and centuries, and it is how we will make a real difference on this one.
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via the original publication source.- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Audio - Radio Open Source
JFK in the American Century
Analysis & Opinions - Foreign Policy
The Realist Case for the Non-Realist Biden
News - Harvard Project on Climate Agreements
Joseph Aldy Shares his Thoughts on Incorporating Green Energy into an Economic Stimulus Package: Lessons Learned from the 2009 Recovery Act
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Policy Brief - Quarterly Journal: International Security
The Future of U.S. Nuclear Policy: The Case for No First Use
Discussion Paper - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Why the United States Should Spread Democracy


