A group of Harvard activists has blockaded the University’s main administrative building. Their goal is to get Harvard to stop investing in fossil fuel companies.
The protests are part of a growing movement to fight global warming by pressing universities, cities, charities, and private investors to sell off stock in energy companies whose products contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.
Such “divestment” campaigns can work, but not necessarily because they affect companies’ bottom lines. Instead, successful efforts damage businesses’ reputations, shining a withering spotlight on controversial practices.
How big is the divestment campaign against global warming?
Since the movement began in 2012, dozens of cities and universities across the US, Europe and Australia have voted to shift their investments away from fossil fuels.
Hampshire College, right here in Massachusetts, was among the first to embrace divestment. And while Harvard may be reluctant to join, the Cambridge City Council has already asked the municipal retirement board to stop putting money into the fossil fuel industry.
Among the most prominent divestors are Stanford University, which dropped coal companies from its portfolio in 2014, and a string of large cities, including San Francisco, Seattle, Boulder, and Providence.
Have there been similar efforts on other issues?
Global warming isn’t the only issue inspiring a campus divestment movement in the United States. Other institutions have seen efforts to block investments to companies that work with Israel.
But the exemplar and inspiration for most divestment movements is the anti-apartheid activism of the Reagan years. At its peak in the mid-1980s, over 100 US universities had agreed to stop investing in companies with ties to South Africa. So had half the states and dozens of US cities.
Do divestment movements work?
They can work, but not because they starve companies of needed investments. When a University like Stanford stops investing in coal, that doesn’t mean coal companies lose money. It just means other people buy up the stock.
Plus, we’re not really talking about a lot of money. Only about 2 cents of every dollar invested by US universities goes to fossil fuel companies.
What makes divestment an effective political tool is its ability to change public perception and create a sense of stigma. If activists can make fossil fuels look like a growing problem, and fossil fuel companies like the enemy, it becomes easier to build political support for broader solutions to global warming — be it a carbon tax, an international accord, conservation, or all of the above.
Why won’t Harvard join?
The very fact that Stanford has taken a step towards divestment shows that the real costs can’t be that high. After all, with the collapsing price of oil and the increasing competitiveness of renewables, the future of fossil fuels doesn’t look quite as profitable.
One reason for Harvard’s reluctance may simply be that university administrators don’t want to cede control to activists. Every they let outside pressure affect their behavior, it creates an incentive for more outside pressure.
But that doesn’t mean they can avoid negative press. It’s part of the dance. Activists will continue to draw attention to Harvard’s unflattering or controversial practices, and the University will keep pushing back — but only until the negative attention becomes too costly.
Where do we go from here?
Harvard is hardly the only big target. The world is moving towards a new global treaty on climate change, expected to be finalized this year in Paris. That should bring a lot more attention to the risks of global warming and the costs of global complacency. Which, in turn, will mean more pressure for cities and universities to stop investing in fossil fuels — and perhaps even more blocked office buildings.
Evan Horowitz digs through data to find information that illuminates the policy issues facing Massachusetts and the U.S. He can be reached at evan.horowitz@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @GlobeHorowitz