OMG, so many white people!

There’s been a lot in the news lately about 350.org’s new Do the Math Tour, starring Middlebury professor Bill McKibben. They were able to get the New York Times article on the most-emailed list, ensuring it spreads further. But having been touring for a month, what kind of traction is 350’s endeavor enjoying with the universities it’s targeting?

The Monterey Institute has the interesting placement of being a graduate institute of Middlebury college, and therefore our endowment is theirs. I assumed (wrongly) that since I’m part of the institution that kicked off this whole movement, we would automatically be participating.

But within hours of receiving a self-congratulatory email from 350 about the progress made, I got another email from the Middlebury College President, Ron Liebowitz. This charming update felt more like a defensive strategy than an attempt to engage community involvement on the pressing issue of climate change, and the moral and historical responsibility of fossil fuel and extractive industries. As Ron points out, “the primary fiduciary responsibility of our investment committee is to maximize its investment returns to support vital programs including financial aid and staff and faculty compensation, while managing risk. Currently, the endowment finances approximately 20 percent of the College’s annual operating cost—approximately $50 million this past year.”

It’s no laughing matter to jeopardize financial aid or employee entitlements, and I don’t think anyone is plunging willy-nilly into this movement. But what kind of a straw-man argument is it that fossil fuel companies are somehow offering better returns, are more risk averse, or in any meaningful way improve a portfolio? This seems like specious pandering to the biggest global industry, which given is a gorilla in the stock market, but not particularly fast or promising future returns. Depending on how carbon taxes play out and a myriad of other factors, fossil fuel companies could conceivably compare poorly to their renewable energy counterparts.

Ron goes on to say that whatever outcome is reached “must also be respectful and inclusive of all opinions. A look at divestment must include the consequences, both pro and con, of such a direction, including how likely it will be to achieve the hoped-for results and what the implications might be for the College, for faculty, staff, and individual students.” Fine, who exactly do you think is going to object to divesting from fossil fuels? As he points out, Middlebury only has 3.6% directly invested in fossil fuel companies. So why not just divest?

Two steps forward, one step back, it feels like. If Middlebury, McKibben’s own college, can’t get on board with this attempt to take a fiscal stand against these fossil fuel giants, who will play David? Or has Goliath already won? The intergenerational genocide we’re perpetrating is real, and here. Hemming and hawing about inclusive risk-averse action, while greed-driven multinationals sell future biodiveristy for a better fiscal quarter, will achieve nothing. I’m disappointed in the defensive tone of Liebowitz’s email, and hope that was just setting the stage for a real conversation about the future of the planet, not just Middlebury’s endowment. It’s all well and good to closely protect peoples’ savings, but considering that everyone took a 40% hit in 2008 because of Wall Street’s mismanagement and criminal negligence, it seems like a bad time to start playing it safe with our funds. They may be our best chance to save our future, considering how much air time climate change got in the Presidential debates.