Opinion
Environmental groups continue to push administration on sustainability policy
By Zack Baum ’19
September 22, 2016
Tags opinion
Divestment is nothing new on the Hill. In December 2013, Student Assembly passed a resolution calling for the divestment of the Hamilton endowment from fossil fuels. After months of contentious debate, the administration announced in March 2014 its distaste for divestment and unwillingness to move forward with the proposed plan. Divestment at Hamilton seemed dead.
The following fall however, the conversation continued. Hamilton hosted a debate amongst four accomplished economists in September 2015 weighing either side. The opposing side highlighted the administration’s fears displayed back in March. Echoing Hamilton Trustee Investment Committee Chair Henry Bedford in his 2014 letter rejecting divestment, they argued that the financial portfolio must remain committed to the highest achievable economic growth. In order to provide the best education possible to Hamilton College students, he argues, it must be unbound by moral considerations such as divestment.
Bedford fails to embrace the ideology of Hamilton College and separate the idea that fiscal growth and investment in fossil fuels is the only way to safely invest with a seemingly guaranteed monetary gain. His view is too clouded by the assumption that economic growth remains inseparable to dangerous emissions. This is simply not the case anymore. Studies pitting United States GDP growth against its total emissions by both the World Resources Institute and the International Energy Agency show over a decade of sustained economic growth while emissions have stalled in comparison.
The markets for solar and wind energy has tracked as some of the most profitable this year. Investment in sustainable energy is at an all-time high. The United States just completed its first offshore windfarm off the coast of Rhode Island, with plans for more in the next five years. A study by the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century found that from 2004 to 2014 investment in solar and wind energy grew by 4,746 and 662 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, the coal industry is stalling and is in danger of toppling off of its subsidy-driven economic tower. The Virginia State Department of Mines reported coal production falling from 30.2 million tons to 15.3 million tons from 2004 to 2014, a decline of 49 percent. Not to mention the volatility of an OPEC controlled oil market. My question for Mr. Bedford is not why he thinks financial security is better for Hamilton, but why he subscribes to the convention that fossil fuels are the way to get there?
It is even more troubling that Bedford claims that the investment portfolio’s preservation is intrinsic to the quality of Hamilton’s success. It exposes both a lack of respect for the students’ opinions and also a commitment to the preservation of Hamilton’s financial reputation, over a commitment to respecting and providing for its students.
Hamilton is an institution, and institutions are built on values and goals. It pursues a fair, equal and well-rounded education for its students to help them find success later in life. The focus has always been and should always be on the students, ensuring they are given the opportunities to explore different avenues of academic, political and scientific enlightenment. Two of Hamilton’s most popular majors, World Politics and Government, show Hamilton students’ fascination with representation and the formation of governing structures. By denying Student Assembly’s rightful voice, the administration jeopardizes the pursuit of education of all those students by sending the hypocritical message that their voice, even when united, does not matter.
Now the Hamilton Environmental Action Group is pushing to ban bottled water on campus. Considering the administration’s history regarding student resolutions, I wouldn’t hold my breath that much will change.