The University Board of Trustees announced that Princeton will divest from some sectors of the FOSSIL-FUEL INDUSTRY. Specifically, the University will divest from the “thermal coal and tar sands segments of the fossil-fuel industry” and from companies that have “engaged in climate disinformation campaigns,” according to a May 27 statement. The University also announced it will set a target date by which to achieve net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions across its endowment portfolio.
The Board of Trustees came to its decision after reviewing recommendations by the Resources Committee of the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC), submitted in May. As part of the administrative process, the University will determine what expert input is needed to “establish, implement, and sustain actionable criteria for dissociation.” The criteria to dissociate will be based on current and prospective actions of companies.
A committee of experts will be established to determine how to “define, measure, and benchmark the greenhouse-gas impact” of the endowment. The University plans to attain net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2046, according to the Sustainability Action Plan.
Divest Princeton, a group of students and alumni who proposed fossil-fuel divestment to the CPUC, said the trustees had moved “in the right direction” and pledged to push for clear timelines.
The Latest
See all
Related News
Professor Ruha Benjamin Named Among 22 MacArthur Fellowship Recipients
The grant recognizes ‘creative individuals with a track record of excellence,’ according to the foundation
Princeton Community Asked to Weigh In on Israel Divestment Proposal
The Resources Committee is seeking comments online through Oct. 11
The Whole Student: Making Space for More Voices
‘It is powerful when people realize they should seek help, get the care they need, and not hide in the shadows,’ said Tiffany Flik Calcutt ’95
2 Responses
Burton A. Weiss ’63 *66
3 Years AgoHuman history includes many wrong paths in science that eventually were corrected. The current attempt to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere including Princeton’s goal to be carbon dioxide neutral and the Trustees’ announcement to divest the endowment from certain carbon dioxide producing industries (On the Campus, July/August issue) are the wrong path of today.
Carbon dioxide and water are converted by photosynthetic organisms, like plants, into sugar and atmospheric oxygen. All life either photosynthesizes sugar using carbon dioxide or consumes other organisms that do. Thus, carbon dioxide is vital, not a pollutant.
The Earth was never stable. The atmosphere now has about 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide. The air in the era of the dinosaurs was about ten times that amount and was warmer with extensive plant growth. If the level of carbon dioxide now would increase to double or about 800 parts per million of carbon dioxide, most crops would greatly increase production in this time of food shortage.
Conversely, lowering the level of carbon dioxide will reduce food production. At half the present level of carbon dioxide, photosynthetic organisms will die. Thereafter, all other life will cease. To preserve life on Earth, more carbon dioxide, not less, should be produced. The movement to reduce carbon dioxide is completely wrong. Fortunately, carbon dioxide production from volcanoes, wildfires, and India and China will save the world despite our negative vogue.
Leslie Hajdo *77
3 Years AgoRegarding the University’s dissociation from some sectors of the fossil-fuel industry (On the Campus, July/August issue): In the middle 1970s, the CPUC, of which I was a member, considered a proposal to terminate investment of Princeton’s endowment in certain companies (e.g., gold miners) conducting business in racist countries (e.g., South Africa). Debate ensued on how to evaluate companies against each other. For example, should tobacco companies be divested? Are food companies evil in adding unnecessary sugar to foods?
The then-dean of the college, Neil Rudenstine ’56, cautioned that expensive outside legal counsel would be required for Princeton to pursue such judgmental investing. My recollection is that President Bill Bowen *58 decided not to take the proposal to the trustees.
Although I spent much of my career in the petroleum business, I want the world to move away from fossil fuels due to pollution and lack of sustainability. Princeton, however, should not engage in, or be distracted by, picking “good” and “bad” companies in managing its income. It remains the fiscal duty of the managers of the endowment to invest as well as possible in legal enterprises. Individuals are free to make choices about investing, possibly forgoing a higher return. Managers of other people’s money should not.