More Key Messaging For Fossil Fuel Divestment

I wrote about key messaging for fossil fuel divestment in a previous post.  However–as I was prepping for another meeting with the Harvard administration today–I realized another crucial point.

One argument that I hear all the time is that divestment can’t change the fossil fuel industry. This is how I realized that we need to respond:

When people divested from Big Tobacco, were they trying to take down the tobacco industry? Not directly. They divested because of human health reasons.

When people–and institutions like Harvard–divested from one company (PetroChina) that was colluding with genocide in Darfur, did they think that they were going to stop genocide by divesting from one company? No. But they knew that it was morally wrong to invest in a company that supports mass murder.

Today I say: divest from fossil fuels because it is immoral  to be supporting companies that are dooming current and future generations. It’s not about taking down the industry–it’s about taking a stand. If not now, when?

Why the Climate Movement is Historically Unique

I just wrote this article for The Nation. Would love to hear your thoughts!

Chloe Maxmin  April 4, 2013 – 3:46 PM ET

The climate movement can’t  be compared to any other social movement in history. Here’s why it’s unprecedented and why we need new strategies to transition from the current climate movement of the few to a vibrant worldwide movement of the many.

First, the climate movement is historically unique in scope and urgency. Never before has an issue involved every single human being on this planet, and never before has the window for action been so short. (An International Energy Agency report states that we have until 2017 to start the transition away from fossil fuels before irreversible calamity.)

Second, the climate movement challenges human nature. Past social movements have focused on immediate and visible injustices. People fought against the here and now for a better tomorrow and beyond. That model of activism is consistent with human nature: we are creatures of immediate benefit and short-term thinking. But climate change is a completely different animal. Yes, global warming is having an undeniable and tangible effect on people’s lives. But by the time enough people–especially in the US–have experienced enough of the consequences of climate change to be compelled to action, it will be too late to mitigate the effects of rising planetary temperatures. Therefore, fighting climate change means fighting something that is abstract now but will be real later. This requirement defies the deep pull of human nature. It is antithetical to our normal ways of thinking and acting. This is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to mobilize a climate movement. This is new territory. There is no parallel in human experience.

Third, past social movements have largely relied on the active participation of those affected to push for change. But with the climate movement, we’re not talking about injustices against one age group, region, gender, sexual orientation, or race. Every single person on Planet Earth is or will be affected. A social movement cannot expect every individual–with their varying passions, interests, and capabilities–to join the cause. We can’t expect everyone to devote time and energy to organizing for climate efforts. This is where new strategies and tactics are vital. Climate activists must provide wide ranging opportunities for others to take action. Our passion is fighting climate change, but we have to recognize that not everyone is prepared to give the same amount of time and effort. We can structure our campaigns so that others can donate as much or as little time as they are able, while still having a significant impact. For example, we develop the networks, and then we call on people to come out for a one-hour rally. Or instead of exhorting people to put solar panels on every building, we can start non-profits that install solar panels and provide free solar energy educational curricula for schools.

Fourth, since the climate movement encompasses every single person, individualized messaging is essential. Each person will connect to climate issues for different reasons with different motivations: social solidarity, real estate values, love of nature, concern for their children, uncertainty about food and water sources….the variety of motives is endless. Activists can’t rely on a one-size-fits-all rationale. Climate activists need to think inclusively and connect climate change to what others care about, showing how the skiers, farmers, property owners, human rights activists, health providers, poverty advocates, and every interest group has some way in which their immediate concerns are linked to global warming. That is how the movement will grow as it learns to accommodate each voice on the planet.

Past formulations and methodologies do not fit the new climate change puzzle. We’re in unchartered territory. Ironically, our most important lesson from history is that we cannot rely on historical precedent. We are forging a new movement, and we have to do it in a new way.

Targeting Government Or The Fossil Fuel Industry?

As I mentioned in my post on how I visualize fossil fuel divestment, the movement bypasses the government–which is ineffective and currently untrusted–and targets the fossil fuel industry.

But one of the major arguments that I hear against divestment is that we should be fighting for political legislation and political wins.

Yes, the end goal of divestment is to open up space in the political system,  but there is a reason why we’ve pivoted to target the fossil fuel industry instead of continuing to push through government legislation. We know that the power of the fossil fuel lobby is too strong for any meaningful climate legislation.

Case in point: On February 17th, 50,000 people rallied in Washington DC to protest the Keystone XL pipeline. But last week, the Senate passed a non-binding approval of Keystone XL. Why? Mostly because they were paid to. According to The Price Of Oil, a pro-Keystone Senator received 3.5 times more money from the fossil fuel industry than an anti-KXL Senator.

So we tried (as have people in the past) to go the political route. But it doesn’t work because of powerful lobbying forces. 

The power of the fossil fuel industry and their current unrestricted social pass cannot continue. That is why we divest–to advocate for a government that is truly representative of the people and listens to our voices. And right now, our voices call for action on climate change.

Visualizing Fossil Fuel Divestment

This is how I visualize the origin, structure, and goals of the fossil fuel divestment movement.

For decades people have been trying to push for governmental action on climate change–on local, national, and international levels. But these efforts have largely been blocked by the fossil fuel industry. Their lobbying power and spreading of climate denial have had an undeniable effect.

So the people decided that they would target the root of the problem, the source of political inaction: the fossil fuel industry. The only way that masses of people could have an effect in entire industry is through divestment. And this is what happened. People are still working through the political system, but the mass movement has BYPASSED our government and gone straight to the fossil fuel industry.

The goal is to open space in the political system for meaningful climate legislation. This is the only way that a large-scale societal transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy can take place.

Responsible Investment Campaigns On Campuses

If you are in the Boston area, you might be interested in this event!

Divest Harvard Weekly Updates

We just established a way for your to receive weekly updates from Divest Harvard!

Click here to subscribe to our newsletter

Off To DC For Forward on Climate Keystone XL Rally!

Tomorrow, I’m off to Washington DC! The Forward on Climate rally is on Sunday (February 17), but I’m heading down a day early. There are many Harvard student going, and I’ve heard that over 20,000 will be in DC…making it the largest climate rally in history. Check out www.forwardonclimate.com for more information.

As a reminder about why we need to stop Keystone, read this blog post from the NRDC blog, “Just the facts: Climate Impacts from the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline.” This paragraph is particularly poignant:

Expanding the exploitation of tar sands would significantly undermine efforts to reduce carbon pollution.  The International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook includes scenarios with different levels of Canadian tar sands production in 2035.  In the scenario that keeps atmospheric carbon at 450 parts per million (which results in a 50 percent chance of keeping the average global temperature below the 2 degree C threshold), tar sands production is 3.3 million barrels a day.  The scenario with production at 4.6 million barrels a day  — still below industry’s 2030 goal — estimates that global temperature will rise by 6 degrees Celsius with catastrophic results.

So on we go! I made this quick video below about why we need to go to DC this weekend. I’m not very talented with video-making, so please excuse poor quality.

I will blog about my experiences in DC when I get back on Monday!

Fossil Fuel Industry Coerces

One of the main reasons why divestment is effective is because it highlights the anti-social status of the fossil fuel industry and reveals how it coerces society into using its products. As I wrote in an article for The Nation:

“The divestment movement exposes the coercive tactics of the fossil fuel industry and challenges its free market mythology.  Critics say that divestment isn’t necessary if individual consumers simply use their buying power to choose to not purchase fossil fuels. But the divestment movement confronts that sophistry, revealing how the fossil fuel industry coerces consumers into using carbon-based energy.”

Here are four of the ways in which a dominant industry influences our society:

1) Media: Around 97 percent of climate scientists confirm anthropogenic global warming. Yet only 44 percent of Americans believe that most scientists agree the earth’s atmosphere is warming at an unprecedented rate, and 36 percent say that there is disagreement among scientists. The gap in the data is mostly due to the influence of paid climate change deniers.The Koch Brothers and other wealthy donors give millions of dollars to shadowy organizations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, which then give that money to entities like the Heartland Institute—an extreme right-wing think tank that propagates anti-science and anti-global warming commentary.

2) Government influence: The fossil fuel industry dominates the American energy and political landscapes. From 2002 to 2008, fossil fuel companies received $72 billion in federal subsidies–six times the funding that went to renewable energy. Now Exxon Mobil is the most profitable company in the world. As a result, the fossil fuel industry is able to pour millions of dollars into political lobbying, spending twenty times more than the clean energy lobby. In the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney received $13 million in donations from fossil fuel companies. Barack Obama received only $950,000 over the past two years from the industry

3) Automobile industry: The fossil fuel industry’s efforts to inhibit change are so effective that, by the end of the 1990’s, the average car or truck went about a mile less per gallon of gas than 10 years earlier The  fossil fuel lobby combined with the automobile industry lobby to block legislation that would mandate higher levels of fuel efficiency in cars and trucks.

4) Waxman-Markey Bill: When the American Clean Energy and Security Act was proposed in Congress, the fossil fuel lobby ramped up spending, convincing enough Senators to veto the bill. Theda Skocpol’s recent report also alludes to this phenomenon. (I will post soon about Theda’s report!)

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/09/27/206784/dirty-money-oil-companies-special-interest-polluters-spend-millions-to-kill-climate-bil/

Some food for thought. These points refute the idea that it’s the individual’s fault for using fossil fuels. It’s not our fault because we have no choice. It’s not a free market. Divestment is declaring a new kind of freedom, a freedom that allows individuals to choose an energy source that doesn’t actively threaten their future.

Making History: The Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement

When I tell people that my mission to make climate change the defining issue of my generation, most people say: “you’re on the right side of history.” In other words, they say that I’m part of a movement that will be recounted in the historical record for generations to come (hopefully…if we mitigate global warming). I understand and agree with this sentiment, but today I read something that made me stop short with overwhelming inspiration and honor and gave me a new perspective on the historical narrative.

It was this blog post, “DIVESTMENT RISING: Student #FossilFree Movement Demands 230 Campuses #DivestNow,” from the Energy Action Coalition.

It’s one thing to say that you’re part of history. It’s another thing to say that you’re making history. And the divestment movement is making history. I am honored to be working with activists at Harvard and around the country. While I’m almost too cognizant of the challenges that my generation faces, seeing a movement like this gives me an indefatigable hope that we will mitigate global warming, change the world, and create a new economy for generations to come.

A Quote From Bill McKibben On Fossil Fuel Companies

I had to share this quote by Bill McKibben because it’s fantastic.

“Mr McKibben, founder of the 350.org climate campaign group, wants universities, governments and churches to divest from what he calls “outlaw companies”, whose coal, gas and oil cannot be safely burnt if the world is to avoid potentially dangerous global warming, according to climate scientists.

“These are no longer normal companies,” he said in an interview. “There is no flaw in their business plans. The flaw is their business plans.”“

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100420292