Critics say divestment is a distraction and does little to reduce global carbon output. “[C]limate change is fundamentally a scientific, economic, and political challenge,” Robert Stavins, director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, wrote in a widely read blog post critiquing divestment in 2013. “Viewing it as a moral crusade, I fear, will only play into and exacerbate the terrible political polarization that is already paralyzing Washington....”
Harvard University’s president, Drew Faust, has repeatedly opposed calls for divestment. The university’s endowment is a financial – not political – instrument, she has argued. “We will continue to confront the problem of climate change in ways that a university as an academic institution most meaningfully can and should – through research, education, innovative sustainability practices, and thoughtful engagement with others who can help the world find real solutions to such a complex and consequential challenge,” Dr. Faust wrote in a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe in April.
Some say divestment is overly simplistic. For example, a broad shift from carbon-heavy coal to cleaner-burning natural gas in the US power mix has helped to lower overall US carbon emissions. It’s why some institutions have chosen to divest specifically from coal, but not oil or natural gas. In many developing countries, fossil fuels bring significant benefits – spreading electricity to those without it and eliminating the negative effects of burning wood or dung for heat and cooking.
