Students across the nation, such as those at Tufts (pictured above) are on board with the divestment movement and continue to pressure their schools to divest. (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia)
By KATIE MEYER
ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR
“It’s wrong to profit from wrecking the climate.”
That is the statement emblazoned across the homepage of Fossil Free, a project run by an organization called 350.org, which is “building a global grassroots movement to solve the climate crisis,” according to its website. Fossil Free’s mission is to lessen the impact that massive oil, gas and coal companies have on the environment. Specifically, the organization wants institutions like colleges, universities, churches and counties to divest (withdraw investments) from fossil fuel companies.
Founded in 2008, 350.org’s sphere of influence has spread across the United States, Canada and Europe, with many institutions starting their own Fossil Free campaigns. Fordham University is one of those institutions.
Duncan Magidson, FCRH ’16, is one of the students involved in Fossil Free Fordham. After joining the organization last year, he became one of its most active members, though he notes that it is very much a group movement.
“There are no official positions on Fossil Free Fordham,” Magidson said. “We are a subset of SEAJ, Students for Environmental Awareness and Justice, so we’re not a club or anything. I have been taking the reins on Fossil Free Fordham. You could call me leader or president, but I would reject any kind of title.”
The group has six core members, and Magidson says that its sphere of influence reaches roughly 60 students.
The platform of Fossil Free Fordham, and of the Fossil Free movement at large, is largely built on the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, a document that was drafted at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference and approved by 167 countries, including the United States.
The Accord indicates that in order to avoid climate catastrophe in the near future, the global temperature cannot increase more than two degrees Celsius. Many leading scientists and climate experts have agreed that in order to meet this temperature cap, carbon dioxide emissions worldwide must be limited to roughly 565 gigatons through 2050.
Currently, Earth’s atmosphere contains 400 PPM (parts per million) carbon dioxide, a number that drastically exceeds the natural carbon dioxide level of 275 PPM. According to climate experts, a level as high as 400 is both unsafe and unsustainable, with 350 being the highest safe amount.
Organizations like 350.org (which is named for highest safe PPM level) hope to lower carbon dioxide levels by limiting the use of fossil fuels around the world, thus avoiding devastating climate change as a result.
However, fossil fuel companies pose a significant obstacle for such organizations. Collectively, they have identified a plan to burn 2795 gigatons of fuel through 2050, which is almost five times the recommended limit.
Magidson cites these statistics as a major motivation behind Fossil Free Fordham.
“This [level of carbon dioxide emissions] would push us way past our climate limit, and could and will lead to climate disaster,” he said. “We feel that with these numbers in mind, we have an ethical and moral obligation to not be investing in these companies that are basically running full steam ahead and trying to destroy the world.”
This is where divestment comes in.
According to the Fossil Free website, the most effective way to “loosen the grip that coal, oil and gas companies have on our government and financial markets,” is to make a stand that appeals directly to the source — the fossil fuel companies themselves. By divesting, institutions cut into fossil fuel companies’ profits, and more importantly, create doubt about the sustainability of the fossil fuel business model.
Magidson conceded that while Fordham’s divestment alone would not necessarily be significant in the global divestment movement, it could potentially have far-reaching positive effects.
“Any individual endowment, even one the size of Fordham’s, is not going to make a dent in the fossil fuel industry,” Magidson said. He added, however, that “I do believe that we can have an economic effect on these companies, especially if we could be among the first schools to divest…that would be incredible, and it would be a real point of pride for Fordham University… it would be a leader to the entire movement.”
Fossil Free Fordham started gaining traction last year. According to Magidson, the initial work involved gathering student support and trying to create a strong presence on campus. This year, bigger things are in the works.
“We’re really taking a plunge into the deep end this year,” Magidson said. “Last year we were really meticulous and trying to build a movement. We haven’t given up on movement building this year; we’re really throwing ourselves in there and trying to accomplish as much as we can as quickly as possible, which I see as a necessary goal.”
Part of that goal has involved getting other groups on campus interested in Fossil Free Fordham, an effort that has yielded mixed results. Last Thursday, Magidson brought a statement before USG asking for their support for the movement and its goals. However, it overwhelmingly failed.
“I feel like the main issues…were not with the movement as a whole, [and] were not with the idea of divesting but there were issues with the wording of the statement in a couple clauses, especially there was concern with the amount of data that was available,” Magidson said. “The nature of the movement [means that] it’s really hard to come up with speculative data…and that did make USG members a little uncomfortable.”
Still, Magidson remains optimistic about the future of Fossil Free Fordham.
“USG is just one of many organizations across campus, and I am going to take this statement back out…there are faculty members that I would like to go to, and we want to get the most influential people we can to sign onto this movement,” he said.
One faculty member who has been closely involved in the movement is John Van Buren, director of Fordham’s environmental studies program. Van Buren advises environmental studies majors and other students involved in the Fordham fossil divestment initiative.
Van Buren also supports divestment and believes that it could have a significant impact.
“The world currently has to rely equally on the voluntary leadership of governments, businesses, consumers and postsecondary institutions like Fordham University,” Van Buren said. “This approach worked in the 1980s with the South African divestment initiative against apartheid. Fordham participated in this initiative, and can do so again with fossil fuel divestment, even if its initial actions are modest and largely symbolic.”
Now that other institutions have begun to divest, Van Buren sees little excuse for Fordham’s resistance to doing the same.
“Some of its aspirant schools have already joined the national divestment campaign, and its time for Fordham to step up, elevating its national ranking in the process,” he said.
Currently, Fordham’s endowment holdings and investments are not open for public viewing, a fact that Fossil Free Fordham sees as problematic.
“Unfortunately, Fordham does not publicize its endowment and investment breakdown, which is why we received an “F” for endowment transparency on our Green Report Card,” Fossil Free Fordham member Camille Danielich, FCRH ‘16, said. “This is something Fossil Free Fordham is looking to change as we believe this information should be public.”
Magidson understands why Fordham and other universities may be apprehensive about divestment, though he maintains that the benefits of divestment outweigh the inconveniences.
“The biggest obstacle [associated with divestment] is that it is harder for an investment manager to operate his endowment with these restrictions, especially with an endowment the size of Fordham’s,” Magidson said. “That said, there are not specific costs associated with divesting, you reinvest in mutual finds, and…you’re not losing money by doing that. In fact…these funds, that have divested themselves from fossil fuel [often] perform as well and in many cases better than the other mutual finds that are traditionally invested in.”
Despite the difficulties, reception to Fossil Free Fordham has been generally positive on campus.
“Nobody’s been really problematic with us so far,” Magidson said. “I was really impressed with [Chief Investment Officer] Eric Wood; he said he was on board with the idea of divestment. He said he wouldn’t do it himself, but he was very welcoming to us, he gave us that spot on the agenda. Obviously it’s a tough movement to run and we’re going to run into some opposition, but so far there hasn’t been anyone who has been needlessly oppositional to us.”
Negotiations aside, the students and faculty involved with Fossil Free Fordham remain committed to the cause, and they are hopeful for the future of their movement.
“If anything, divestment has taught me that nothing concerning environmental issues is ever black and white. There are so many considerations, which is why beginning a conversation is really crucial,” said Danielich. “We have to understand each side’s stance and their prevailing priorities. In terms of the future — yes, the denial by USG is disappointing. However Fossil Free Fordham will continue to move forward in an attempt to begin a conversation with the student body and the administration about the economic and ethical implications of divesting from fossil fuels, and why it is in our best interest as a community leader and as a city fixture.”
