The Bowdoin Orient

Since August 2012, Bowdoin students have been voicing their support for divestment from the top 200 fossil fuel companies within five years. This week, Bowdoin Climate Action is proud to say that we have collected the one-thousandth student signature calling for Bowdoin to divest. Now, over half of the current student body supports divestment. Prominent alumni, from Auden Schendler ’92, the Vice President for Sustainability at Aspen Ski Co. to Scott Budde ’81 a former portfolio manager at TIAA-CREF, have supported our activism. Last year, 24 professors wrote a letter to thank us for our efforts on behalf of climate justice. We would like the administration to acknowledge the deep concerns of the Bowdoin community by publically accepting the petitions next Friday, April 18 at 1:00 p.m. on the Park Row side of Hawthorne-Longfellow Library. We students will gather there, and we invite you to join us.

Divestment is a moral imperative for an institution dedicated to the common good. The 1,000 students who have signed the petition stand with student organizations on over 500 college campuses, as well as dozens of churches, cities and municipalities. And while we know divestment will be difficult, 10 colleges, 22 cities, two counties, and dozens of foundations have already committed to divestment. This past week, Harvard, with the largest college endowment in the country, took a big step towards divestment by agreeing to sign on to a United Nations responsible investment code.  Momentum is growing.

Investing in fossil fuels is investing in our planet’s destruction. The burning of just 20 percent of known reserves would lead to irreversible warming. When it comes to extraction, irresponsibility and negligence on the part of fossil fuel companies is the norm, not the exception, as demonstrated by countless oil spills and poisoned water supplies. Fossil fuel companies use their profits to buy political power and undermine scientific research on climate change. The people most harmed by the fossil fuel industry are those least capable of speaking out against it.  This is a matter of justice.

We praise your past commitment to justice and to the common good, which you have shown in making financial aid a top priority of the College.  We share your belief that access to an affordable college education is a pressing moral issue.  Endowments exist for long term purposes and therefore require that we consider longer timescales.  

An investment in the fossil fuel industry is a bet that the world will do nothing to prevent climate change.  By divesting, the College will protect financial aid from the bursting of the carbon bubble while pressuring the industry to phase out fossil fuels in favor of clean energy. 

But one fight for justice should not hinder another: we reject any divestment that comes at the cost of financial aid. This is not either-or. We believe the College can align its mission with its endowment by divesting, while continuing to offer strong financial aid—especially given the five-year timeline, which allows ample opportunity to divest prudently.

Divestment would take away the fossil fuel industry’s social license to operate business as usual. It is a powerful gesture, and has proven effective in the past. We support divestment in the hopes that Bowdoin will make us proud by institutionally recognizing climate change as a moral issue. We hope you can meet us to accept the petitions. If you are not available then, we request that a vice president or trustee accept our petition.

We hope, further, that the support we’ve gathered demonstrates that divestment is an issue worthy of the Board of Trustees. We ask your permission to present our case for divestment to the Board on behalf of our 1,000 signatories.

This past Wednesday, a small but excited contingent of Bowdoin students made the trip to Portland for 350.org’s Do The Math tour, an initiative to spur environmental activism.

The debate about anthropogenic climate change can no longer focus on whether or not it is happening; this has been settled for some time now. As journalist and environmentalist Bill McKibben wrote in his July 19 Rolling Stone article, the U.S. “broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records” in June.

Carbon neutrality by 2020: the rallying cry, the crown jewel of Bowdoin's sustainability plan. There are, of course, plenty of other initiatives geared towards "going green," from zero-sort recycling to the Yellow Bike Club. But reigning in an institution's carbon footprint has become the green standard; talk of sustainable campuses does not happen without hearing the phrase. Just ask any high school junior or senior touring around the NESCAC how many times they have heard about carbon neutrality goals.

I feel obligated to address what has been the subject of much discussion as of late: President Obama's so-called "all of the above" energy policy. It is being lauded as a sign of the president's commitment to energy independence, his willingness to cooperate. It is hailed as egalitarian, even patriotic.

The idea of nature, of a pristine wilderness characterized by its separation from man, is a widely accepted notion. We are told—and believe—that to "experience" nature, we must step off of the paved road, away from the comforts of civilization. Some environments are more "natural" than others like, say, New York City, but true nature is inherently separate. Bill McKibben perfectly defines our concept of nature in his book, "The End of Nature," as "the separate and wild province, the world apart from man."

While the official process of setting the federal budget for the fiscal year doesn't begin until October 1, Obama's energy department released its "wish list" earlier this week. Among other things, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and associates are proposing to remove $4 billion in subsidies to fossil fuel companies. At the same time, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would benefit from a 29 percent hike in funding, up to $2.34 billion.

For better or worse, modern-day environmentalism has become an increasingly global movement. There is plenty of logic behind this transition: greenhouse gas emissions from a coal-powered plant in China or South Africa do not just impact local populations, but on people around the world. Population growth in Nigeria or India will increase demand for food commodities and valuable resources worldwide.