Our Proposal

 

In order to respond to the urgent threat of climate change and fulfill its commitments to sustainability, Northwestern should follow a “stop, drop, and roll” policy as has been pursued by other leading universities. This would encompass an immediate halt in future investments from fossil fuel extraction and sales companies, a five-year period to drop existing investments, and rolling out a reinvestment plan in renewable energy companies. 

According to the Carbon Underground’s Fossil Free Index (Appendix A)*, there are 200 top companies which emit the most greenhouse gases based on their calculated emissions from their reserves. The list includes the top 100 oil and gas companies, and the top 100 coal companies.  Our proposal demands divesting from any company in this list through the timeline presented above. 

​

Northwestern has substantial holdings in coal, gas, and oil companies within the Carbon Underground’s list. Regarding coal, Northwestern has $3.9 million directly invested in ArcelorMittal, BHP Billiton, Glencore, ITOCHU, Mitsubishi, and Rio Tinto. In terms of oil and gas, Northwestern has $45.4 million directly invested in Anadarko Petroleum, Antero Resources, BASF, BHP Billiton, BP, Denbury Resources, Inpex, Noble Energy, Peyto E & D, Range Resources, Statoil, Total, Tourmaline Oil, and WPX Energy. This excludes Northwestern’s indirect investments in oil and gas through its commingled funds, which encompass approximately 90% of the endowment. 

​

We propose reinvestment across a diverse portfolio of non-fossil fuel companies, with a particular emphasis on investment in renewable energies and energy efficiency.  Other leading institutions have successfully followed this path by divesting from fossil fuels and reinvesting in clean energy. For example, the University of California system divested $200 million and plans on reinvesting in renewable energy. At this point in the energy economy, it is crucial that funds are allocated to building green infrastructure so that the global economy can shift away from fossil fuel reliance and toward a clean energy future.

​

The Board of Trustees has demonstrated concern surrounding the efficacy of fossil fuel divestment. Yet, when coupled with strategic and sustainable reinvestment, divestment can help both bolster the clean energy industry as well as fulfill Northwestern’s strategic mission of contributing to sustainable solutions, a proactive as opposed to solely extractive action to take in response to the largest threat to the environment and human rights of the 21st century. We ask the Board to publicly respond to this proposal with a policy plan regarding how environmental sustainability and climate change will factor into future investment decisions.

​

The Environment and Climate Change

The phenomenon of climate change is widely accepted in scientific and academic communities, including by Northwestern University. The evidence of anthropogenic climate change is clear and compelling, demonstrated foremost by rising global temperatures, as well as by warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, glacial retreat, decreased snow cover, declining Arctic sea ice, sea level rise and acidification, and increased rates of extreme weather events. Since the 19th century, the average surface temperature of the planet has risen 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit, an increase and time span corresponding to human-made emissions of carbon dioxide through the extraction and use of fossil fuels.  There is scientific consensus that humans have triggered climate change through the extraction of fossil fuels, emitting CO2 which absorbs heat. Northwestern research has corroborated these facts, starting on its own website: “The Earth is getting warmer, ocean levels are rising and extreme weather events are becoming more frequent.” 

​

Scientists warn that 350 parts per million (ppm) of atmospheric carbon dioxide molecules is the safe level before catastrophic environmental change. As of February 2018, this number rests at 408.35 ppm. Knowing that excess atmospheric carbon directly causes a global increase in temperature, and that the combustion of fossil fuels contributes more atmospheric carbon than any other human activity, the specter of climate change is no longer looming; it is upon us. There is also an upper limit on what is considered safe for the rise in global temperature beyond pre-industrial averages. An increase of more than two degrees Celsius sets the stage for frequent and widespread natural disasters, including major droughts, rise in sea levels, and increases in oceanic acidity.

​

 As established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the 2015 Paris Agreement, global average temperatures must be kept well below 2˚C above pre-industrial levels, and encourage limiting this increase to 1.5˚C to reduce the detrimental effects of climate change. If continuing upon our current path of extraction, the world is heading towards the catastrophic path of 5˚C degree of warming. By investing in these companies, Northwestern is incentivizing future fossil extraction, putting itself at odds with its stated goals of reversing climate change and internationally agreed upon standards. While there are trillions of dollars of fossil fuels still resting under the Earth’s surface, they cannot be extracted if the world is to stay under that two-degree limit. There are three times more reserves that could be exploited today than are compatible with this limit, so these fossil fuels must be kept unburned and underground in order to comply with international obligations and scientific calls of warning. 
 

Human Rights and Climate Change 

 

Climate change arguably poses the single greatest threat to human rights in the 21st century. Not only do the scientifically-proven effects of climate change pose an existential threat to world environments and livelihoods, but they do so in an unequal manner: the countries and individuals with the lowest consumption of fossil fuel are likely to experience the strongest effects of their emissions. By investing in fossil fuels, Northwestern is thus investing in environmental injustice, and in an industry which directly poses a threat to the right to life, food, health, education, and to an adequate standard of living. In line with the University’s commitment to “sustainNU,” Northwestern cannot ignore its role in financing the inequality flowing out of the fossil fuel industry -- polluting indigenous peoples’ lands, disproportionately contaminating low-income communities of color, and contributing to the many other human vulnerabilities caused by climate change. 

This linkage has been clearly codified beyond dispute. In 2009 the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights became the first international body to conclude that “climate change threatens the enjoyment of a broad array of human rights,” thus declaring an international legal duty to prevent climate change in order to defend human  rights. That same year, a study in the Northwestern Buffett Center Working Paper Series stressed that “among the linkages identified between human rights law and environmental protection, the problem of anthropogenic climate change has emerged as a central concern,” a concern which has only grown in gravity in the nearly 10 years since the study’s publication. 

In the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, the role of human rights was again tied to climate change in the international arena, as UN Special Rapporteur John Knox declared that “states’ human rights obligations also encompass climate change” and encouraged state parties to use a human rights approach in responding to the crisis, a call to action aligned with the environmental justice movement. Within this framework of increased international awareness, the difficulty of intergovernmental action and cooperation must be considered, further exemplifying the need for private actors such as Northwestern to play a role in the fight for the defense of climate change-threatened human rights. 

​

The threat to human rights posed by fossil fuel emissions is not a predicted abstraction but an existing reality, as climate change has already begun to affect agricultural productivity, temperature, and the general functioning of ecosystems throughout the world, endangering food security and causing displacement among other disastrous effects. The harms of climate change are reverberating across the globe, increasing heat stroke and malaria, reducing food production and water supplies, and aggravating social conflict and starvation. Although wealthy countries are the main generators and profiteers of climate change, its worst effects plague countries who have not caused the problem, primarily in Africa and Asia, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere., The burden of mitigating climate change has also been placed squarely on the shoulders of developing countries. Even if every country met their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), the amount of reduction in emissions pledged by each country in the 2015 Paris Agreement, there is a mitigation ambition gap between developed and developing countries, the former pledging to cut only 38 percent of their fair share of emissions, as opposed to the later, which pledged to cut 126 percent of their fair share. 

​

This phenomenon makes oil, gas, and coal consumption not just issues of climate change, but also of climate justice. Nomadic and agrarian communities face threats to their livelihoods and existence by harsh weather. Inhabitants of low-lying islands have been forced to evacuate their homes from sea level rise, becoming “climate refugees.” Some Pacific islands-- like Tuvalu and Kiribati-- face possible extinction. In the Arctic, melting permafrost has forced villages to relocate and live in the constant possibility of eviction. 26 million people worldwide have already had to move due to the effects of climate change, and the Environmental Justice Foundation reports that figure could grow to 150 million by 2050. In fact, the group estimates that 10% of the world’s population is at risk of becoming climate refugees. As a globally-minded institution with a proven record of international and justice-oriented thinking, Northwestern must consider the impacts of its investments on people throughout the world, particularly on the most vulnerable. 

​

The environmental injustice of climate change is also domestic, as hundreds of studies conclude that people of color, ethnic minorities, indigenous persons, and low-income communities are faced with a higher burden of harmful environmental exposure due to fossil fuel emissions, though they are not emitting or polluting at higher rates. Coal pollution negatively affects humans’ health, safety, and well-being around the world. Coal consumption releases toxins into the air, including mercury, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide; these pollutants in turn adversely affect people’s respiratory, cardiovascular, and nervous systems, leading to asthma, lung disease, blocked arteries, heart failure, strokes, and mercury poisoning. The Clean Air Task Force in 2010 estimated that more than 13,000 premature deaths and 20,000 heart attacks were caused by pollution from coal-fired power plants in the United States. The people hit the hardest by this pollution are the elderly, children, and people with pre-existing respiratory diseases. Furthermore, studies of air quality data have found that communities of color in the U.S. suffer worse air quality across many metrics. 

​

Although coal production has adverse effects on everyone’s health, the risks of coal are not evenly distributed. There are two million individuals in the United States living within three miles of one of the 12 most polluting coal-fired power plants; out of these residents, the average annual income is $14,626 and 76% are people of color. 71% of African Americans live in counties that violate federal air pollution standards, as compared to 58% of the white population. The effects on health caused by living in these coal-polluted areas are extremely concerning. Asthma affects African Americans at a 36% higher rate of incidence than whites. Medscape studies show that three times more blacks than whites die from asthma, and this ratio becomes 5:1 among children. By investing in the fossil fuel industry, Northwestern is investing in pollution, environmental injustice, and contributing to human rights violations. 

​

The Effectiveness of Divestment 

 

Previous divestment movements have proven to be both powerful and effective. From tobacco to the South African Apartheid to Darfur, divestment movements have preceded and served as catalysts to restrictive legislation. Student organizers at top universities were critical to the success of these movements. Northwestern’s decision to join many of its peer institutions in fossil fuel divestment will add to the impact of the global movement to create a sustainable future. Divestment is not only an important moral statement, but a financially viable one. 

​

Part of the goal of divestment campaigns is to create stranded assets within fossil fuel companies. Stranded assets are essentially an investment made on the part of the company which has no future potential return in profit. According to one study, fossil fuel divestment campaigns, which are occuring on a global scale, “threaten to erode the social licence of some targeted companies and could increase their cost of capital.” Furthermore, recent research has pointed to the lagging returns on investments in fossil fuel industries: energy was the worst performing sector in the S&P 500 Index in 2017 and has shown “volatile revenues, limited growth, and a negative outlook” due to the speculative aspect of investment portfolios and the uncertainty of oil-price (Appendix B). This research concludes that it is not only possible for managers, such as the Board of Trustees, to reach targets without investing in fossil fuels, but that investors will likely lose out if they continue ignoring divestment movements. As stressed by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, there are far better ways to direct capital, principally in growing sectors. 

​

Already, $6.09 trillion has been divested globally from 884 institutions and over 58,000 individuals. Should Northwestern divest, it would join a long list of peer universities such as Stanford, the University of California, Yale, Oxford, Syracuse, Johns Hopkins, the New School, Georgetown, and Columbia. Other organization such as AXA, ING, the World Bank, and the country of Norway have too announced plans to divest holdings in oil, gas, and coal sectors. Thus, divesting sends a global message in terms of financial totals and the potential for stranded assets. We believe that these messages will encourage a movement away from fossil fuels and towards renewables in the energy sector. Divestment would also send a powerful message to Northwestern’s international network that the university is taking tangible steps towards its stated commitment to creating a sustainable future.

​

In 2014, Stanford’s board of trustees voted to divest from publicly traded coal companies after a recommendation made from their Advisory Panel on Investment Responsibility and Licensing. Stanford’s implementation of its divestment plan means it will divest from the top 100 coal companies and cease all future investments. The board acknowledged the impact of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its decision. In a 2014 article, Buzz Schmidt, previously named “NonProfit Executive of the Year” wrote that Stanford’s decision to divest may not seem like a significant move but it has the possibility to influence other funds invested in the fossil fuel industry. “Stanford might influence the $500 billion in college endowments, the $1 trillion in charitable trusts and foundations, the trillions more in state pensions, etc. A trillion here, a trillion there—pretty soon it adds up to real money. More significantly, this strong statement lends weight and intellectual ballast to the larger movement to change policy.” Therefore, within the context of the global environmental movement, Stanford’s divestment has influenced the public consciousness. Should Northwestern divest, it would join the global effort to mitigate climate change. 

 

Peer Institutions

 

Should it choose to divest from fossil fuels, Northwestern would be following along with peer institutions in the path towards a sustainable future. In February of 2019, Middlebury College divested, planning to phase out direct investments in oil and gas by 25% in 5 years, 50% in 8 years, and full elimination of all fossil fuel investments in 15 years or sooner. Middlebury’s board of trustees acknowledged that that divestment potentially poses a small cost to the endowment over time, but decided divesting was still the most responsible choice. However, not all peer institutions have even viewed divestment as potentially harmful to their fiscal returns. In 2017, John Hopkins University barred future purchase of stocks or bonds of companies that earn more than 35% of their revenue from thermal coal and to sell from its endowment or other investments any securities it directly owns from those companies, on a schedule that minimizes financial loss. The next year, Michael Bloomberg - an avid supporter of action on climate change - donated $1.8 million to the school. 

With an endowment of $18.7 billion, Stanford University divested from coal in 2014.  This was after their advisory board reviewed and voted to divest, leaving the decision to the board of trustees. Fossil Free Stanford is currently working on divestment from oil and gas. In addition, of the three percent of the University of California stakes in fossil fuels, the school system voted to have $500 million reallocated away from nonrenewable energy sources. According to this decision in 2018, no future investments from the University of California would be placed in stocks, assets, or equity funds tied to fossil fuels. In addition, Pitzer College voted to divest in 2014, shifting its “endowment money for the sake of the planet.”
 

The Economics of Divestment

 

While the human and environmental cost of investment in fossil fuels far exceeds any discussion of economics, the truth is that there is a diminishing return on investment in the fossil fuel industry. The industry is heavily subsidized by the government, receiving over $20 billion annually in direct subsidies alone. Friendly policy from federal and state governments certainly contributes to the industry’s profitability – the collapsing coal industry is heavily propped up by last-ditch efforts to save it – but the profitability of continued investment is eclipsed by the hidden costs resulting directly and indirectly from the mining, burning, and consumption of fossil fuels. On a global scale, averting climate change will be significantly more affordable than mitigating it. Additionally, as the rest of the world moves towards low-carbon economies, trillions of dollars in assets invested in fossil fuels will be stranded. This effect is known as the “carbon bubble,” and bursting this bubble could trigger a global economic crisis. 

In addition to economic pressure, an equally important effect of fossil fuel divestment would come through the process of stigmatization, wherein the “uncertainty surrounding the future cash flows of fossil-fuel companies” would increase. As a leading institution on the world stage, Northwestern’s decisions are looked upon globally, and thus the effects of fossil fuel divestment and, in turn, stigmatization would prove far-reaching. 

 

Discourse with Fossil Fuel Companies is not an Option

 

Oil and gas companies have historically made their views on climate change clear. They have denied the science of climate change and financed misinformation campaigns about the anthropogenic effects on earth’s climate. 

For example, Exxon Mobil funded climate change research throughout the 1980s. At an Exxon board meeting, one employee presented that “Fossil fuels contribute to most of the C02.” However in 1990, the company started to fund misinformation campaigns that questioned whether humans were causing climate change. According to the Los Angeles Times, the company “feared a growing public consensus would lead to financially burdensome policies.” In an internal memo, Exxon was supposed to “emphasize the uncertainty” of climate science. Therefore, Exxon purposefully misled the public about climate science when they knew that their products were contributing to anthropogenic global warming. 

The misinformation campaigns do not stop with Exxon. In 2015, the Union of Concerned Scientists acquired documents through a Freedom of Information Act request which show that fossil fuel companies including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Peabody Energy, Royal Dutch Shell, and the American Petroleum Institute, spent tens of millions of dollars on climate skepticism. Using front groups as a shield, these companies funded elaborate astroturf campaigns to create what looked like a grassroots movement against climate action. Fossil fuel companies sponsor scientists, most of whom have no expertise in climate science, to spread misinformation and create an echo chamber of climate change denial. As stated before, Northwestern is directly invested in BP. These misinformation campaigns make one thing clear: fossil fuel companies have used elaborate and expensive methods of maintaining their profits. Therefore, we believe discourse with these companies is not an option in changing their practices regarding climate change, as they have misled the public on science which they used to champion. 

Another alternative to divestment is proxy voting, whereby members of fossil fuel companies boards would vote to institute measures to mitigate the effects of climate change. However, this is not a worthy alternative because, as discussed above, fossil fuel companies have historically gone out of their way to maintain their bottom line. Voting to mitigate climate change is not in the financial interests of these companies and goes directly against their modus operandi. In addition, it has been reported that proxy voting in general does not work as a path toward making companies more ethical. Therefore, proxy voting is not a viable alternative to divestment from fossil fuel companies. 

 

 

Northwestern’s Role

 

Given its publicized interest in sustainability and capacity for influence, Northwestern should be consistent in its commitments and transition to clean energy to its fullest capacity, a feat best achieved by fossil fuel divestment. As shown in previous citations, Northwestern as an institution as well as its scientists and professors have agreed upon the impacts of climate change, their anthropogenic cause, and the imperative to act in response. Furthermore, in its strategic plan and through the creation of the sustainNU program, Northwestern explicitly pledges to be a leader in sustainability and in addressing climate change. Yet this mission rests in a striking contradiction; although the University has invested in sustainable programs, staff, and infrastructure, it invests far larger assets in companies that aggressively perpetuate the very problems it claims to be committed to solve.  

The Strategic Sustainability Plan of 2017-2019 states sustainNU’s primordial mission to be the reduction, and eventual elimination, of the University’s contributions to climate change, as well as pledging to establish an institutional climate action plan by 2019. Considering that Northwestern’s multi-million dollar investments in the fossil fuel industry represent a large contribution to climate change, divestment must be included in this action plan in order to meet internally mandated obligations. There are also external obligations that must be respected. In June of last year, Northwestern signing the We Are Still In declaration, which states that “colleges and universities...will pursue ambitious climate goals, working together to take forceful action.” Northwestern must remain true these commitments, and cannot do so fully without evaluating its investment practices. 

Divesting from fossil fuels provide the most powerful means by which Northwestern can meet its commitment to sustainability and truly “sustainNU.” Moreover, the sustainNU plan states it will benchmark sustainability efforts against peer and best-in-class institutions. Until Northwestern divests from these extractive industries, it will continue to rank far behind the institutions that have already taken this important step, such as Yale, Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, and Columbia. Alternatively, a reinvestment in clean energy would allow Northwestern to join the ranks of these truly “best-in-class institutions.” Aligning investment with the University’s obligations to combat climate change would also be consistent with Northwestern’s tradition of supporting student activism, such as in the recent celebration of the Bursar Office Takeover in 1968 among other initiatives. 

If reducing energy-related greenhouse gas emissions are in fact a “top priority” for Northwestern, the University must move beyond performative policies and pledges. Though we recognize the importance of implementing sustainable changes such as reducing energy consumption, divestment provides the opportunity to make a change outside of campus limits. Climate change is a daunting problem because the actions of individuals, even individual institutions, has a limited impact on the large scale. Encouraging collective action is the only path towards a livable climate. As a premier institution in research and higher education, Northwestern is in the unique position to lead by example as its decisions have global reverberations. Divestment would not only make a powerful statement, but also a tangible impact, and would allow the University to meet its so-far ignored obligations towards sustainability and ethical stewardship. Considering that “Northwestern strives to be exemplary in addressing sustainability (and) climate change,” the University must recognize that its most powerful capacity for meaningful change rests in changing its investment practices. 

 

Conclusion 

 

Climate change is no longer a distant worry but an imminent threat to global health and human rights. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations-led coalition of environmental scientists, has made this warning paramount. Their most recent report, published in October of 2018, lays out the necessary path we must embark on to save the planet: the world must remain below a warming of 1.5 degrees celsius from pre-industrial levels. If fossil fuel extraction and consumption is not dramatically reduced, catastrophic environmental damages will manifest as early as 2050: deadly heat waves, extreme droughts, extinctions, and dozens of feet of sea level rise. In the backdrop of this deadly warning is a call to action, our last resort. 

There is clear path by which to mitigate the costs of global warming and remain under the crucial 1.5 degree celsius benchmark; by 2050, 80% of global electricity must come from renewable sources, and coal can only provide 7% of this electricity. By 2030, the world needs to cut its annual carbon emission by half.  Given the difficulties of collective action on the governmental level, it is crucial for non-state actors and private institutions to spearhead the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Northwestern is in the unique position to set an example and make a meaningful impact in this movement by divesting from fossil fuels -- it is the most powerful way that the institution can match its stated beliefs with action.  If we do not heed the IPCC’s warning, global warming will far surpass the 1.5 degrees celsius limit, and the catastrophic effects of climate change will continue to manifest in increasingly dramatic and costly ways. If fossil fuels continue to be extracted at the pace they are now, the IPCC predicts -- through evidence from 6,000 peer-reviewed studies -- that the world will warm to 2 degrees celcius, far surpassing a temperature compatible with healthy human life. In this type of world, 99% of the world’s coral reefs will perish, global fisheries will drop by 50%, and the individuals facing water scarcity will double.

Fossil fuel companies are to blame for the emission of greenhouse gases and the profitization of an unsustainable industry.  These companies internatize profits reaped from externalized costs. From the 1980s onward, Fossil fuel companies have also historically misled the public about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. As stated before, negotiating with coal, oil, and gas companies to make them more “green” is not an option. Their financial bottom line necessitates fossil fuel extraction and use, putting them at odds with the global effort to mitigate climate change.

 In order for Northwestern to enact meaningful change for the environment and humanity and prevent future fossil fuel extraction, it must divest from and cease all future investments in coal, oil, and gas companies immediately. By investing in these industries, Northwestern is ignoring the desperate call of last resort to save our planet -- plans to reduce fossil fuel emissions and switch to renewables must begin immediately in order to meet these goals.