Divestment Gets Its Power From the People | Opinion
Activists and faculty are the driving forces behind the University’s shift away from fossil fuel companies
Aaron Serianni ’25 was in linguistics class when he heard the news.
The University announced Sept. 29 it is dissociating from — or ending financial relationships with — 90 fossil-fuel companies, and divesting from all publicly traded fossil-fuel companies.
A few moments later, Serianni was on a conference call with his colleagues at Divest Princeton, a climate-change activist group run by alumni and students. They couldn’t believe the University had taken such a dramatic move after years of talk.
“Being an activist, you have to take everything from the University with some cynicism,” Serianni told PAW. “But Princeton really did take a big step towards what the students have been pushing for more than a decade.”
For sure, the University is to be credited. The new policy, approved by the Board of Trustees in September, in many ways goes further than that of any other higher-ed institution. Others have divested from fossil-fuel holdings, but Princeton is also dissociating from companies it said are among the largest contributors to carbon emissions — those active in the thermal coal or tar sands segments.
Cutting business ties with some of the world’s worst polluters is an important leadership moment for Princeton and, yes, the world.
But does the University get to this point without activists, alumni, and faculty forcing the issue? Starting in 2014, a string of student groups called on the University to take more aggressive climate action. Divest Princeton became a leading voice shortly after it was founded in 2019, submitting petitions, making recommendations, and organizing protests. And the Resources Committee of the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) authored a report in May outlining many of the actions adopted by the University.
“No school has announced any partial or full divestment without students pushing for it, or the community pushing for it,” said Serianni, who is Divest Princeton’s co-coordinator along with Nate Howard ’25. “It definitely would not have happened here if not for activists.”
And there is more pushing to be done, says Serianni.
One of the most important pieces of Princeton’s announcement is that it will create a fund to offset research resources lost because of dissociation. In March, the CPUC reported that in the previous five years the University had received $26.2 million from 11 gas and oil companies, including Exxon Mobil and BP.
Exxon Mobil is among the 90 companies targeted for dissociation, but BP is not because it doesn’t meet the criteria recommended to the CPUC by a faculty panel and now adopted by the University. Serianni says Princeton must eliminate all research funding from fossil-fuel companies.
“Princeton showed that these things people claim to be impossible are possible,” he said. “There’s no downside for them to stop accepting fossil-fuel money. Even better research will happen. They’ll be unencumbered from these grants. There’s no reason why Princeton can’t end research funding from BP tomorrow.”
Indeed, climate-change action must be as quick as it is dramatic. Princeton took another important step in 2019 with its Sustainability Action Plan, which aims to have the University at zero emissions by 2046. What can it do next?
“Princeton is doing a lot for the climate,” Serianni said. “As a student, you see this and think that’s really good, and I know Princeton has the power to deal with these things. How can we encourage them to do more?”
Peter Barzilai s'97 is editor of Princeton Alumni Weekly.
4 Responses
Brandon Rogers ’06
2 Years AgoLife Without Fossil Fuels
I am surprised that the climate activists behind Divest Princeton were pleased with the measures that the University has taken to drop fossil fuels. Your cover stated, “Dropping Fossil Fuels,” but the dissociation is far from dropping fossil fuels. This seems like a half measure that doesn’t achieve any of the change that the activists are seeking. If the University were serious about divesting from these companies and ultimately dropping fossil fuels, it could ensure that no products from Exxon Mobil and the other 89 blacklisted companies make their way onto campus. That includes natural gas that provides electricity, gasoline and diesel used in motor vehicles, and the rubber and plastics used throughout campus. Additionally, it could stop accepting Annual Giving money from alumni who work for or have investments in these companies. It could cut ties with any company with operations in Canada until it outlaws tar sand development. The University could also dissociate from China since it stubbornly continues to be the world’s worst polluter.
If Princeton truly wants to drop fossil fuels it has a lot more work to do. So why doesn’t the University do more? It’s because life without fossil fuels is much worse than life with them. Fossil fuels have allowed human flourishing and the high standard of living that Princeton’s students, activists, professors, and trustees enjoy. Instead of pandering to the activists, the University should own up to the fact that to have a high standard of living the University must use fossil fuels.
James Potzick *64
1 Year AgoConsumption Is Key
Brandon Rogers’ letter in the January issue of PAW is right on. It is not the production of fossil fuels that raises atmospheric CO2, is it their consumption.
In addition, my own studies, based on historic data from multiple sources, have shown that both atmospheric CO2 and global average surface temperature (GAST) are directly proportional to world human population. If we do not curb our population growth, Mother Nature will do it for us.
E.E. Norris ’72
2 Years AgoImportance of Fossil Fuels Today
While we face a nationwide diesel supply that has dwindled to a number of days; while America reels from prices at the gas pump that have helped cause the worst inflation we’ve seen in decades; and while Joe Biden treats us to more delusional blather about shutting down all coal plants in favor of the “reliability” of wind and solar (rightfully blasted by Sen. Joe Manchin) … we have the editor of PAW getting giddy about the University cutting all ties to companies that produce the one thing people still need to keep from freezing.
And that’s why I don’t pay much attention to this magazine any more.
Fran Allen ’76
2 Years AgoA Poor Policy Decision
This is yet another example of why I no longer contribute to Princeton. The inmates are running the asylum, and our country is being ruined by crazed climate alarmists whose religion has become the pseudoscience being pushed by the liberal elite. It is very sad to see such a once great university succumb to the far-left ideologues and make bad policy decisions. If green energy is our future, there needs to be a transition, not a train wreck, to get us there.