10 CommentsUpdate, 8:55 pm: Read the statement Columbia Divest read to ASCRI below.
Students involved with Columbia Divest for Climate Justice held a protest on Columbia’s campus this afternoon. In response to the today’s Advisory Committee for Socially Responsible Investing (ACSRI) meeting, students organized a protest to call for divestment from fossil fuels and work against “Stand Up For Science.”
We will be updating this post as the protest continues. Check out our Twitter for live coverage, as well.
Here is the letter CU Divest read to Professor Jeff Gordon, chair of the ACSRI:
We reject Stand Up for Science, because it is not enough to send the message that fossil fuel companies must accept climate change. Plenty of them say climate change is real, but continue to spend billions of dollars on finding more carbon to burn. Time is running out.
We are accountable to the thousands of Columbians who have signed our petition for fossil fuel divestment over the past 5 years. We call on you to commit to meeting with us urgently. We invite you to use your meeting tonight to draft a new proposal for divestment from fossil fuel companies that sends the message that 80% of carbon reserves must stay in the ground. We look forward to hearing your new proposal at our meeting.
When you avoid action, you choose the side of fossil fuel companies over our futures – and we will come to every meeting. We will come to where you teach and where you work, because this is where we live – we are the university. We will build student power on this campus until you stand with us. Whose side are you on?
Loading …
10 Comments
@my fav part the video though
@-*-*-*- #divestnow
@Curiosity Where does stipulation that 80% of carbon reserves stay in the ground come from? Does this mean 80% of proven reserves at the moment or does it include probable reserves too? Is the stipulation only for the US? I am trying to understand the demands of the group to see if I might want to sign on.
@Affiliated 80% is the proven reserves. Reporting probable reserves would be pretty hard bc congress has a say, so its all up in the air until the lm. Except for the fact that they always choose to side with oil against community rights. idk.
google “do the math” tour bill mckibben. or check out 350
@read on a flyer pretty sure the stipulation is for the whole world, not just the US. although the US will have some pressuring affect over the decisions going to be made latter this year at a conference called COP 21. so thats why it is an amazing rallying point
@CDCJ Member The idea that 80% of proven fossil fuel reserves need to stay underground is based on data from an IPCC report that stipulated a “Carbon Budget” i.e. the amount of CO2 emissions the world (so not just the U.S.) can collectively emit while still having a likely chance (50%) of remaining below 2°C of global warming beyond preindustrial levels, after which positive feedback loops will make climate change catastrophic and irreversible.
Financial experts, scientists, and economists quantified the carbon content of the proven reserves that are on the balance sheets of fossil fuel companies and, using the IPCC Carbon Budget as a baseline, determined that fossil fuel companies have 5x the amount that can be safely burned to stay below 2°C. To have a 50-50 chance of staying below 2°C, 66% of fossil fuel reserves must be kept underground (this figure is conservative and is used by the International Energy Agency). For a 66% chance of remaining below 2°C, 80% must be kept underground. Policymakers, civil society, and grassroots activists have rallied behind the 80% figure since they argue (logically) that humanity deserves more than a 50-50 chance.
This figure does not include probable reserves, and if it did, the amount of fossil fuel that would have to stay underground would be even larger (and exponentially so if you want to account for Resource Base as well).
Finally, the Carbon Budget is global and does not apply to the U.S. However, scientists and economists have taken this further and have explored the idea of adding geographical and political layers to these figures. A study recently published in the journal Nature found that 80% of coal reserves, 50% of natural gas reserves, and 30% of oil reserves must be kept underground, and they also outlined which nations’ reserves are most at risk (e.g. 90% of U.S. coal reserves must be kept underground).
Please contact CDCJ for these studies and materials and we will happily provide them for you.
@Anonymous Fossil fuels are really important to the global economy and modern society. We all know the obvious uses for fossil fuels: gasoline and the like. But through the petrochemicals industry fossils fuels touch our daily life in more ways than you may realize. For example, any plastic is made from a fossil fuel. In modern society, it is nearly impossible to live without using fossil fuels. Perhaps we could power our cars and heat our homes with alternative energy resources, but we could not make plastics and all of the other chemical products we made from oil and gas. When calling for fossil fuel divestment, it is important to see the products that oil and gas companies give to our society and the fact that their use is unavoidable. Many people simply don’t understand all of the products that are made from oil gas and therefore don’t understand how important the industry is.
@CDCJ Member Any analysis of the benefits of fossil fuels cannot be taken seriously without discussing the costs. No one is making the case that fossil fuels are not in the products we use on a daily basis, nor that fossil fuels are not one of the main reasons humanity has collectively achieved huge gains in living standards. However, you completely omit climate change in your analysis.
Unmitigated climate change threatens to roll back two decades of development, according to the World Bank; and decades of global public health gains, according to leading public health experts. This week, a study came out in the journal Nature finding that global air pollution is responsible for 3.3 million deaths every year – this is more than the deaths from HIV and malaria combined – and much of it from fossil fuel use in our transportation, agricultural, and power sectors.
The international community has agreed that we must limit global warming to 2°C beyond pre-industrial levels, and that deep cuts in emissions are necessary to achieve that. Given these facts, and your legitimate point about the issue of alternatives, would you not agree that we should be using our minuscule Carbon Budget in areas where substitutes are not readily available, such as petrochemicals, but not in areas where alternatives do exist, such as the power sector? The costs of renewable energy are plummeting every year, and it makes no environmental, or even financial, sense to continue investing in fossil fuel power infrastructure.
And yet, fossil fuel companies continue lobbying against meaningful public policies that would lower our reliance on them and, potentially, increase funding into the very research that could lead to the alternatives you seek. So you see, this is not an economics issue—it is very much a political one, and that is why fossil fuel divestment is one crucial part of the equation.
@CDCJ Hey! Stand Up for Science is a proposal the ACSRI has been working on – to divest from fossil fuel companies for the reason that they fund climate change denial, to put it in brief. This is the wrong message to send – it says that fossil fuel companies must simply accept climate change. Really, most publicly state that climate change is an issue, but continue to explore for new reserves with billions of dollars each year. Burning those reserves (and the ones already accounted for) will skyrocket us past 2°C of global warming. 80% of fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground. We must divest from fossil fuel companies, on the basis that they plan to burn fossil fuels. That sends the right message. Columbia is one of the best producers of climate change research. One of our scientists, Wally Broecker, coined the term “global warming.” We are past the point of standing up for science. We need to stand for action.
@Anonymous What is Stand Up For Science?