April 21, 2020

Harvard’s environmental science faculty split on divestment, call it “counterproductive”

Faculty within Harvard’s environmental science community questioned fossil fuel divestment’s efficacy as the best tactic to address climate change during discussions this week to pass a resolution before the University’s Faculty Council.

The Harvard Crimson reports that while schools including the Arts and Science and the Medical School have supported divestment for its “largely symbolic act,” Harvard’s Environmental studies and policy professors have split on the issue, with many joining the ranks of Harvard leadership calling it a distraction.

John P. Holdren, professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard, wrote:

“It’s counterproductive because it would lead many Harvard faculty and students to imagine they’d struck an effective blow against climate change—and would likely reduce their focus on more productive measures—when it would actually be a misdirected blow. Just advocating for it is distracting people from measures that would actually be effective.

Holdren continued, highlighting how divestment from fossil fuels ignores the reality that all industries and individuals rely on this industry. From his remarks:

“If university divestment of fossil-fuel companies were a good idea, surely divesting from all companies that use fossil fuels would be a much better one. Of course, that would entail divestment of virtually all companies in the portfolio.”

Dustin Tingley, professor of Government at the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, also argued that there are other more effective methods to mitigate climate change, including research:

“Today, I will vote no to divestment, but yes to investment in the research, teaching, and learning around climate change. […] Yes to investment by Harvard in this vital space that has clearly struck a nerve among our students, staff, and faculty.”

The University has stayed firm with its decision to not divest, arguing that divestment is not the alternative to tackle climate change concerns and contrary to the values of the school. President Lawrence Bacow, former environmental policy professor at MIT, has agreed that working with the industry and fostering research is the best tactic, noting “engaging with industry to confront the challenge of climate change is ultimately a sounder and more effective approach for our university.”

Former President Drew G. Faust also expressed concern about using the university’s endowment as a political weapon, stating:

 “I don’t think the endowment should be used for exerting political pressure.  It is meant to fund the wide range of activities that the University undertakes.  As we said before, 35 percent of our operating budget comes from the endowment.  It should not be used as a weapon to exert pressure on one group or another.”

This recent commentary on divestment continues to add to the growing voices in opposition to divestment gestures in favor of real solutions. But regardless of this disagreement, there is no doubt this is a complex time for Harvard faculty, and our collective priority will be the safe return of students and staff to campus this fall.