A few weeks ago, a draft of the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, was leaked. Like its predecessors, the leaked report proved to be a cautious, dry document. But the report’s conclusions are worth sharing, if only because its authors were able to paint a dismal portrait of humanity’s future on this planet.
After having updated its assessment in 2013 by remarking that “it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the IPCC has now pointed out that we are on the cusp of disaster. By 2030, at current emission rates, we will exceed the upper limit for the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide agreed upon by the majority of the world’s nations. While clean technologies are spreading, any progress being made is countered by the increased use of fossil fuels by developing nations and the decreased use of nuclear power across the world. Worst of all, within 16 years, all our existing technologies will be unable to fix the problem. In other words, we’re screwed.
Can anything be done? Outside of the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. government has proved that it has little appetite for this fight. But as maddening as that is, the United States is not the only place responsible for this mess. With Africa, China and India still early in the industrialization process and the world population slated to increase by as much as 3 billion by 2050, things can only get worse. Unfortunately, as the IPCC seems to be hinting, our only real hope is a major technological breakthrough. But if our best answer to this problem is to hope for the best, maybe we really are in trouble.
In light of this impending disaster, I’d like to revisit the Corporation’s recent decision not to divest from major coal companies. As a crude form of energy, coal is responsible for 43.1 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions. It is also true, as President Christina Paxson and others have pointed out, that coal is a major global commodity that supports many communities economically. Thus, eliminating coal from the marketplace would undoubtedly cause some short-term pain. But, as the IPCC report makes clear, the cost of inaction is now too great to ignore. Doing nothing, which has conveniently served humanity for the last 250 years, now puts our species at risk of self-destruction.
Only a small sliver of the University’s endowment is invested in coal — about 0.1 percent, as The Herald reported in November. Given that small amount, could divesting from coal companies actually have an impact? Absolutely. History has proven that symbolic acts of divestment can have a profound effect on shaping society’s views. As a well-reputed Ivy League university whose actions are closely monitored by many across the globe, Brown has a valuable opportunity to not only become a leader on the most pressing issue of our time, but also act as a role model for others considering similar routes of action. While there is no guarantee that such an approach would succeed, the Corporation owes it to posterity to try. As the IPCC report points out, we have few other clear paths forward to combat this problem.
Aside from the clear ethical case to be made, divestment would have clear financial benefits for the University. Such an announcement would undoubtedly bring favorable publicity, enhance the University’s credibility with students and job applicants and assist with fundraising efforts. Additionally, by basing its actions on the work of the IPCC, generally regarded as the world’s foremost authority on climate change, Brown would stay true to its central mission of “communicating knowledge,” as Paxson outlined in the October announcement of the Corporation’s decision. Why would the Corporation want to pass on that opportunity?
Moreover, the Corporation’s decision perplexingly ignores the coal industry’s weak underlying fundamentals. Simply put, coal is a terrible investment. With a plethora of novel EPA regulations forthcoming and increasing competition from the more efficient, cleaner fuels mentioned in the IPCC report, coal companies can expect smaller profits and slower growth in the future, ultimately leading to less money in the hands of their investors. One-tenth of a percent may represent only a tiny slice of the University’s portfolio, but surely it could be invested in industries that offer higher returns.
The most stunning aspect of the Corporation’s decision, however, was that it showed an abject disregard for us as students. Not too many of the Corporation’s members will be around to manage the superstorms, rising oceans and devastating ecological damage outlined by the IPCC. But we will. And as members of the first generation in human history forced to inherit a scarred planet, we deserve a say in the divestment debate. The Corporation’s unilateral exercise of power to support an antiquated form of energy that promises to destroy our environment was not only ethically unconscionable, but also incredibly selfish.
In light of the leaked IPCC report, I am calling on the Corporation to reconsider its stance on divestment. With catastrophe on the horizon, now is the perfect opportunity to step up and act as an agent of change in an otherwise frightful time. It’s time to listen to the students, the scientists and the investment professionals. It’s time to demonstrate that the Corporation values our opinions and understands the scale of the problem outlined by the IPCC. It’s time to rectify past mistakes. It’s time to divest from coal.
Kunal Sindhu MD’17 can be contacted at kunal_sindhu@brown.edu.
ADVERTISEMENT
