We are running out of time. While our public policymakers equivocate and avoid the topic of climate change, the window of opportunity for salvaging a livable planet for our children and grandchildren is rapidly closing.
The way forward is clear, though for many confrontation-averse academics the path seems impassable. It requires action that is unnatural to the scientifically initiated: to fight to regain the territory illegitimately occupied by the climate change deniers.
Every day we avoid taking action represents additional emissions and infrastructure dependent on our fossil-fuel-based economy. In our zeal to be collegial, we engage with those who are paid by vested interests to argue that our Earth is not in crisis. When these individuals demonize public investment in alternative energy, we fail to point out how the oil industry benefited from significant taxpayer support in its infancy and continues to receive government subsidies today. We also sidestep the thorny issue of how oil and coal, in particular, fund large-scale organized opposition efforts to deny legitimate science, winning the battle for climate change public opinion with slogans, junk science and money.
While there is much uncertainty about how climate change will play out with respect to specific regions and weather patterns, one thing is very clear: Our current emissions trajectory will carry us beyond 5-degree (Celsius) average global warming by 2100. This will be a planet that is not consistent with our civilization, and the effect will be largely irreversible for a millennium. I don’t know how the stakes could get any higher.
Higher education is positioned to determine the future by training a generation of problem solvers. Unlike any time in the history of higher education, we must now produce leading-edge professionals who are able to integrate knowledge from multiple disciplines and understand social, economic and resource tradeoffs among possible solutions. Imagine being a college president and looking in the mirror 20 years from now. What would you see? Would you be looking at a professional who did his or her best to avert catastrophe? For me, the alternative is unacceptable.
Those within higher education must now do something they have largely avoided at all costs: confront the policymakers who refuse to accept scientific reality. We must be willing to lead by example. Like the colleges and universities of the 1980s that disinvested from apartheid South African interests — and successfully pressured the South African government to dismantle the apartheid system — we must be willing to exclude fossil fuels from our investment portfolios. We must divest.
The colleges and universities of this nation have billions invested in fossil fuels. Like the funding of public campaigns to deny climate change, such investments are fundamentally unethical. The terrifying math of the 350.org campaign is based on realistic, reviewed science. Moreover, in our country it is clear that economic pressure gets results where other means fail. If we are to honor our commitment to the future, divestment is not optional. This is especially true for Unity College, where sustainability science, as developed by the U.S. National Academy of Science, guides our academic mission.
I am honored and proud to be a part of the 350.org program of divestment, and I am especially proud of the Unity College Board of Trustees. Indeed, the college has been on this path for more than five years. The trustees have looked at the college’s finances in the context of our ethical obligation to our students, and they have chosen to make a stand. I can think of no stronger statement about the mission of Unity College.
Our college community will lead by fearless action. We will confront policymakers who continue to deny the existence of climate change. We will encourage those who work in higher education to bravely step out from behind manicured, taxpayer-funded hedges and do what needs to be done. We will not equivocate, and we will meet those who have been misled by climate change denial in their communities.
The time is long overdue for all investors to take a hard look at the consequences of supporting an industry that persists in destructive practices. Because of its infrastructure and enormous economic clout, fossil fuel corporations could pump trillions into the development of alternative energy. Government subsidies and stockholder shares could be used constructively to move these corporations to behave responsibly.
Higher education is the crown jewel of the United States system of education, and it remains the envy of the world. Higher education has always been dedicated to the highest standards of honesty and integrity. If our nation’s colleges and universities will not take a stand now, who will?
Stephen Mulkey is president of Unity College.
An alternative path would be to retain investment in energy company and,k as stockholders, try to influence appropriate actions.
Climates have always changed . Always will. Any prof fossil fuels are even fossil fuels? Methane gas on Titan . Maybe thier are dinosaurs on Saturns moons? I do not know. Can we predict the sunspot cycle yet? No I do not think so.
The Earth is not Titan so the rest of your wild SF is just that. No we, can’t accurately predict the extent of the sunspot cycle. The current warming trend is proceeding at a much higher velocity than ever seen before. We are definitely exacerbating any historical trends.
I think global warming may be happening might even be man made . The real issue is greed that we humans can not seem to fix and self serving bias . We always say these people are evil so we start a war without looking at why it might have happened in the first place . Was Germany evil during WW11 or was it the oppression of Germany that caused it? Till we can fix Greed (the root cause of oppression) violence etc . I do not think we can fix the environment . Yes I agree polluting is bad even if it is or is not the cause of global warming. The sun dose not burn at a constant the sun affect the the earths temperture much more than man dose . We do not have all the answers . That being said I would support measures to reduce “fossil fuels” use . I live about 200 feet above sea level so I am not too worried about the ocean rising I would save money on heating my house so global warming might not be as bad for me as society as a whole . Everything is relative . If my standard of living drops 20% and other people 80% it would be a net gain for me compared to others . Not going to win the global warming debate without putting all the cards on the table and making people less greedy.
Because, of course, you know *so* much more than 98% of all scientists — across disciplines, across institutions, across nations.
Science cannot be trusted. Scientific consensus is a made up concept. Consensus is achieved by sweeping valid but alternative viewpoints under the rug. Peer review is a rigged system because theses written from an alternative viewpoint are often not even considered by the peers conducting review.
Academia likes to pick and choose their stances based on a fallacious system. Certainly funding goes up when you tell everyone that something bad will happen if they cannot conduct more research. When scientists come forward with evidence against global warming, they are openly ridiculed because their viewpoint is contrary to the (made up) consensus.
1500 years ago, everyone KNEW the world was flat. 1500 years ago every living scientist was WRONG.
Ah, welcome to anti-intellectualism 101. And, by the way, 1500 years ago, all educated people in the West knew that the world was round — they’d known that since the ancient Greeks, who more accurately predicted the earth’s circumference than did Columbus. One can hardly judge science in ~500 AD (I suspect what you actually meant was 1500 but never mind) by today’s standards, since the scientific method had yet to be developed. Even most of the people the Koch brothers paid big money to in order to claim that climate change was not taking place (cf. William Muller) have now come around on this issue, the notable exception being Willie Soon, who has thus far received $1 million in funds from the Kochs, so small wonder. So who can be trusted, the folks who receive millions of dollars from the industrialists, or a scientist at a research university who, unless he’s a senior researcher, earns under $100K per annum?
I dont trust either. I form my own opinion based on my own experience and observations, and take both sides into account.
I believe that this planet and universe is about 6000 years old. Whether you believe its 6000 or 4-14 billion is not relative to this point. We have about 200 years of heavy industry under our collective belt. 200 years is a blip on a 6000 year timeline, and even smaller blip on the 4-14 billion year timeline. There is not enough evidence to prove mankind is responsible for global warming. (I believe in GW, I just disagree with the extent of mankind’s contribution to it).
I believe it is incredibly arrogant of mankind to think that we have the power to affect the weather. In the grand scheme of things, all we have done is light a few fires, something that has been naturally occurring since the beginning of time.
Remember, mankind is also “naturally occurring”.
Actually, what one believes about the age of the earth and the universe *is* relevant, because otherwise one cannot understand the processes by which scientists determine what has occurred and is occurring.
And while your experience and observations are certainly not unimportant, they cannot provide a full and complete picture. For example, since weather patterns determine what form climate change takes in any given location (weather is not the same as climate), what you’ve experienced wherever you live cannot give you a complete picture of what is occurring worldwide.
Yes that is why Education told us people thought the world was flat going back to indoctrination of education with Columbus.
What I am stating is I do not know and willing to admit it . I said thier might be Dinosaurs on Saturn’s moons. I do not have the answers . Can scientist prove the eath has never warmed up or cooled off before .I would say the earth is 4.7 billion years old . Not the data the earth has warmed as a trend on a constant every year lets say the last 100 years . That would only be a 47 millionth of the time earth has been hear could be going into the biggest cooling off period . Like saying you fell better for one second you much be getting better .
More indoctrination of education.
We should go along with your dogma and denialism? That would be indoctrination.
So one’s indoctrination is okay and the other is not?
Like the story of the brave explorer Christopher Columbus ? Wasn’t he one of the biggest slaver traders in world history? Didn’t he commit genocide? Well he is a hero in the school text books . Maybe Hitler is a hero to some too . The truth always seems to be biased. Hence indoctrination. Myths they still teach like about IQ in Psychology . How it dose not change much over a lifetime . Well teachers who care are indoctrinated to believe this when the real truth is it can change by as much as 30 points in just a few years .
Crap , yes a big pile of Crap…
End the department of education today!
Drill Baby Drill!!! And all those global warrmers should hold their breath and really do their part to stop carbon emmissions.
Lower education says that climate change does not exist. Higher education says it does. Those egg heads getting all uppity again?
Thank you Stephen for taking the lead. It’s time to stand up to the fossil fuel industry. It’s time to make the switch to clean energy.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!