5529698153ab13dd4efff65c_IPAA.png

Blog

‹ All Blog Posts



January 9, 2017

Reject 350.org’s ‘Shallow and Misleading’ Divestment Campaign, Denver Post Columnist Tells DU

As the University of Denver (DU) nears a decision on fossil-fuel divestment this month, one of Colorado’s top political commentators has urged the college to reject 350.org’s “shallow and misleading” case.

Vincent Carroll, a columnist who recently retired as the editorial page editor of The Denver Post, savaged the arguments of divestment activists with 350.org in a Jan. 7 column. Shunning investments with any connection to coal, oil and natural gas would be “hypocritical and divisive,” Carroll concluded after reviewing hours of testimony DU’s divestment task force. He continued:

“[Fossil-fuel divestment] would demonize an industry — and the people who work in it — that remains critical to civilization and whose byproducts are used every hour of every day by nearly every one of us. Fortunately, it’s likely the board of trustees’ three-member task force, which will report to the full board on Jan. 20, understands this after seven meetings over the summer and fall. Task force members  Jim Griesemer, Catherine Shopneck, and Craig Harrison were unfailingly polite and respectful of all who appeared before them, but the shallow and misleading testimony by activists from 350.org, which is spearheading the divestment movement on college campuses, cannot have escaped their notice.

“The fatal conceit of divestment activists is their insistence that they have special insight into the future of energy companies that professional investment managers have missed.  They argue that these companies will be stuck with huge reserves of ‘stranded assets’ as society accelerates the transition into clean energy, and that investors who dump these stocks now will be rewarded later. To buttress their case, they cherrypick statistics, misrepresent the political and technological obstacles to a full transition to carbon-free energy, and recite obvious investment risks as if they were a revelation.”

Carroll also cited the task force testimony of DU professor Frank Laird, a renewable energy advocate who has been sharply critical of fossil-fuel divestment. On divestment, Laird told the task force:

“[I]t’s not merely ineffective but I think it can have a negative effect on decarbonizing the energy system because frankly it’s a distraction from a set of large and complex tasks.”

Carroll’s column follows a similar call from the Denver Post’s editorial board, which recently concluded divestment is “unrealistic and unwise” for DU. As the board concluded:

“We’ve long been in favor of taking reasonable steps toward a greater reliance on energy sources — like wind and solar — that don’t contribute to a warmer planet. … [B]ut it’s completely unrealistic to think that our state, our nation or other others can immediately stop depending on the plentiful fossil fuels available to provide the power we need to live the lives to which we are accustomed. It would be cruel to poor and hardworking people in our country and impoverished nations beyond our borders to do so.”

Indeed, economists, students and academic leaders have repudiated this flawed thinking and highlighted the fact that fossil fuel divestment would do just the opposite of rewarding those who abandon these stocks. At a forum in Denver last year, Dr. Chris Fiore, Senior Economist at Compass Lexecon, calculated a possible $250 million price tag over 20 years if DU were to divest. Current DU students like Scott Albertoni have objected to this type of reckless spending of the endowment, noting:

“[T]hese efforts could have a significant financial impact on the entire student body. That is why I hope the task force will consider the larger student population when crafting their recommendation.”

Leaders of other Colorado academic institutions have also been vocal in their opposition to risking the endowment their students and faculty depend on.  In an interview, Colorado College President Jill Tiefenthaler pointed out that the Board should focus on maximizing the endowment’s performance to support the college’s academic mission to “provide a scholarship for every student now through 100 years from now.” Similarly, Heidi Ganahl, a member of the University of Colorado (CU) Board of Regents, called divestment a “questionable investment strategy” that “is likely to reduce investment returns and is therefore not in agreement with [endowment managers’] fiduciary responsibility.” The CU board rejected divestment in 2015 in a 7-2 bipartisan vote.

As DU prepares to close the lid on fossil fuel divestment this month in an official decision, many are hoping activists can finally “drop the morality tale” and move on to pragmatic solutions that don’t threaten the health of the university endowment and those who depend on it.