Harvard recently announced it's divesting from fossil fuels - sort of.

As someone who's pushed Harvard to divest for years, I have a few thoughts on Harvard's new investment policy, for what they're worth. (thread)

Harvard announced its endowment will be "greenhouse gas neutral" by the year 2050, & its focus will be not on fossil fuel supply, but rather on "reducing the demand for fossil fuels."

"If we are successful," Harvard says, "we will ... achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.”

First, the big picture.

This is a major victory, b/c for years Harvard's position has been that it has NO responsibility as an investor when it comes to climate change: that its only duty is to make as much money as possible, regardless of the climate damages that result.

This announcement is an abandonment of that policy, & it only came about b/c of overwhelming pressure from students, faculty, alumni, & the world.

Now the question is not WHETHER Harvard should take responsibility for its investments, but HOW. That shift is a major victory.

Additionally, it's good that Harvard's new policy applies to its ENTIRE endowment, & not just a small slice like direct investments or publicly traded stocks.

Not only is the financial impact bigger, but other investors may follow suit & it may lead to greater transparency.

At the same time, Harvard's new policy has some red flags.

First, the focus on "net zero" emissions. Harvard has explained that this means it can continue to invest in fossil fuels so long as it also invests in technologies that remove carbon from the atmosphere.

In other words, instead of divesting from fossil fuels, Harvard will apparently invest in carbon capture & sequestration (CCS).

The problem is that CCS doesn't exist at any meaningful scale, & its prospects don't look good given its cost.

Does this mean that Harvard will divest from fossil fuels until CCS is widespread?

That, I suppose, would be all right, but Harvard has taken pains to make clear that its new policy is NOT fossil fuel divestment.

So it's not clear precisely what Harvard means by "net zero."

In any case, what Harvard SHOULDN'T do is say, "We'll invest in fossil fuels now, & we'll invest in CCS later."

Obviously, that later might never come. And even if it does, it wouldn't negate the damages caused by investments in fossil fuels now.

Red flag 2: Harvard says its policy will focus on reducing the demand for fossil fuels, NOT on changing the energy supply.

Again, what this means is unclear. Apparently Harvard will keep investing in fossil fuels while asking companies in its portfolio to use less fossil fuel.

If Harvard wants to engage with utilities, chemical companies, auto manufacturers & others to push them to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, that's great.

But here's the thing: Harvard doesn't need to invest in fossil fuels to do that.

In fact, there's a danger that Harvard will continue its old policy while merely asking co's in its portfolio to reduce their fossil fuel use.

Not only would Harvard be working at cross-purposes, but focusing on demand alone is a weak approach for changing energy infrastructure.

Note, too, that Harvard says it will achieve net-zero emissions only "IF we are successful".

Aspirational goals are fine, but that "if" means Harvard is not actually committing to any outcome, even by 2050.

As Bart Simpson said, "I can't promise to try, but I'll try to try."

Red flag 3: Harvard's president continues to promote fossil fuel propaganda.

This is a trend. Harvard's trustees have suggested writing thank-you letters to oil co's for being clean energy leaders. And former president Faust insisted fossil co's aren't blocking climate policies.

Now, Harvard's new president Bacow says Harvard can't divest from fossil fuels b/c "We cannot risk alienating & demonizing possible partners, some of which have committed to transitioning to carbon neutrality & to funding research on alternative fuels".

A few problems with this:

First, the theory, apparently, is that if Harvard divests, then fossil co's will feel upset, & they'll in some way cling to fossil fuels.

But if Harvard keeps praising & investing in fossil co's, then they'll move to clean energy.

Simply put, that doesn't make any sense.

Second, Harvard's president is promoting disinformation. Fossil co's do not have sustainable business plans & are not major developers of clean energy.

About 1% of the industry's investments go to clean energy. The vast majority - 99% - goes to fossil fuels.

Harvard's pres. also says Harvard can't divest b/c we "need to work" w/ fossil co's & "recognize .. the special knowledge & expertise they possess."

This is a frame called "we need fossil fuel co's to save us from fossil fuels." It was developed in the late 1990s by fossil co's.

That frame was developed precisely as the industry felt it was losing its seat at the table & could no longer control climate policy (that is, could no longer block it).

It worked then for the industry & continues to today - evidently so, as the president of Harvard parrots it.

Funny thing is, this argument that "we need fossil co's to save us from fossil fuels" has been used for decades, but it's always light on specifics.

Instead, it gestures vaguely in the direction of the industry's bigness or "expertise," year after year, with nothing more to say.

So, Harvard's announcement is a step forward & a testament to the work of countless people since 2012 to compel Harvard (& the broader world) to stop investing in our collective destruction.

It's also a reminder of how deeply in Big Fossil's pocket Harvard's leadership still is.

The IPCC, International Energy Agency, & scientific research still show unambiguously that fossil fuel investments must decline rapidly in order to avoid climate catastrophe.

That fact won't change, & the task will be to ensure that Harvard cannot continue to ignore & deny it.

At Stanford, the trustees are currently examining what they should do about fossil fuel investments.

Harvard's announcement should compel them to act, but Stanford can do much better.

Another click of the ratchet: the harder we push, the faster it goes. https://harvardmagazine.com/2020/04/harvard-s-endowment-to-go-greenhouse-gas-neutral-by-2050