News
Four panelists debate merits of college divestment movement
By Isaac Kirschner ’17
September 25, 2015
This past Monday, Sept. 21, students, faculty and local residents packed into a crowded Chapel to listen to four panelists debate divestment in an event titled “Should Colleges and Universities Divest from Fossil Fuels?” The event, co-hosted by Hamilton Divests, HEAG, AHI Undergraduate Fellows, Hamilton College Democrats, Hamilton College Republicans, the Environmental Studies Program, the Government Department and the Office of the Dean of Faculty, brought together opinions on both sides of the divestment debate.
The idea for the panel originated when the Hamilton Divests club, as well as other students and faculty members, decided to have a public debate on the issue. “The goal of the event was to create an honest, open and balanced discussion to bring people from different perspectives together,” said Professor Peter Cannavo, one of the event’s organizers.
Organizers of the event also made a point to ensure that multiple perspectives on the issue were represented in the debate. “I think we need more events like this on campus where we are not necessarily all going to agree, but at least be in the same room and have a discussion,” continued Cannavo.
The evening began with a brief introduction by Cannavo, followed by statements from each panelist describing their stance on divestment. First to speak was Victoria Fernandez, an Associate Analyst at 350.org and a former student divestment leader at UC Berkley. Fernandez framed the divestment debate in the context of the broader problems associated with climate change. In her opinion, colleges and universities have a moral obligation to divest from the fossil fuel industry so that they no longer contributed to climate change and all its negative consequences. Fernandez also claimed that divestment would help “pressure” college students to cease supporting fossil fuel industries and become more conscious of the challenges posed by climate change.
The next speaker was Katelyn Kriesel, a financial advisor at Koenig & Selzer Asset Management Group who specializes in sustainable portfolios. Kriesel presented the divestment issue from a financial standpoint, including whether or not investments in sustainable businesses could produce the same returns as those in the fossil fuel industry. Based on her professional experience, Kriesel argued that these investments could produce the same returns, and in some instances even better ones. She also cited a recent Morgan Stanley report which asserted that sustainable mutual equity funds preform equal to if not better than comparable investments.
The discussion then shifted to the panelists opposed to divestment. Rachelle Peterson, a Research Associate at the National Association of Scholars, first made an argument against the practicality of divestment. Peterson claimed that divesting doesn’t harm fossil fuel industries, as other investors immediately buy up divested shares. Furthermore, divestment will not solve society’s incessant demand for fossil fuels, which is the real driver behind climate change. Peterson also asserted that the divestment movement actually prevents innovative thinking on climate change because it polarizes the debate and oversimplifies the complexities of the issue.
Last, Rafael Castilla, the Director of Investment Risk Management at the University of Michigan, questioned the practicality of divestment. Echoing many of Peterson’s points, Castilla pointed out that the true driver of climate change is our fossil fuel-based infrastructure. Investing in sustainable companies would not fix this problem, and would have consequences of its own. Castilla also acknowledged many of the difficulties of both actually withdrawing endowment funds from their investments in fossil fuel companies and convincing Boards of Trustees that divestment is a worthwhile cause.
The event ended with a Q&A session where panelists answered the audience’s questions and responded to claims made by other panelists.
This event was not the first time that Hamilton has faced the divestment issue. In December 2013, with support from students, faculty and staff, Student Assembly passed a resolution urging the administration to remove companies involved in the fossil fuel industry from the endowment. Citing similar concerns raised by the anti-divestment panelists, the Board of Trustees rejected the proposal in March 2014.
“The importance of this [talk] is to bring the issue back to the table, back to people’s consciousness,” said Cannavo. “I think the next step is to really carefully develop proposals for divestment but also reinvestment. I think one can go even further to work out the financial strategy because it is about money -- the endowment, but it is also about ethics and our future.”