Edward McKelvey

Think of it as environmental money laundering.

Dick Hobby

     Thank you, Paul, for stepping in to discourage uncivilized behavior here.

      Perhaps it caused Edward McKelvey to give us his perspective.  He certainly has done it in a thoughtful way.  Thank you, Edward.  I disagree with you, Edward, but it is a pleasure hearing you and engaging with you.

Dick Hobby

Ted Morgan

To Bob Dickinson, here's my take on the "logic of divestment" in the fossil fuel industry:

First of all, divestment, along with economic sanctions (in part politically prompted by the divestment campaign) were hugely responsible for the fall of South Africa's apartheid system.  Along with growing unrest in South Africa, thanks to the ANC campaign, the divestment campaign was a factor in several corporations withdrawing their investments in SA.  So divestment undertaken via a collective campaign can have a powerful political impact on both political and economic actors.

The fossil-fuel divestment campaign has been growing on many campuses.  I guess the question might be, should Oberlin play a progressive role, or lag behind until it seems safer to act?

The fossil fuel industry includes enormously powerful political actors, and, especially in the case of Exxon, they hid their own awareness of their negative impact on climate for years, maybe decades,  Yes, some of these corporations are investing more in sustainable energies.  The point of divestment is well known to them: phase out of fossil fuels and invest more in sustainable energy.

That all seems logical to me.

Richard Zitrin

A brief comment designed to not add fuel to the fire. But ... ya never know....

I agree about one thing Dick Hobby has said in recent posts: That Paul Safyan was "thoughtful, courteous, and open." He always is.

I don't think Dick's critics have a monopoly on condescension or some other long nouns. He's pretty good at it himself.

Finally, I agree with Ralph Shapira about recyling plastics. While I'm no scientist, I do read stuff. And what I've read causes me to conclude, sadly, that the public has again had the wool pulled over its eyes while the plastics industry gets away with what is largely a faux-environmental idea.

rich

Bernie Mayer

As with several you, I am entering into this discussion with some trepidation, mostly because I want to challenge a norm that seems to be underlying many of the comments and I am not feeling very polite.

 I think the call for civility and politeness is a cop out.  That is the defense that people of privilege have always used to put down the passion and anger of the oppressed or those fighting for progressive social change.

Grading how polite, even-handed, and respectful someone is in the face of nonsense about climate change, vaccines, HIV, and no doubt guns and more, is pretty much like worrying about the deck chair arrangement on the Titanic.  We are facing a catastrophe of epic proportions, and we are worrying about how polite we are being?

Take a look at this excellent op ed piece by Roxane Gay from the NY Times of May 25 for an important perspective on this. ( Or for that matter, take a look at this book I co-authored that came out earlier this year about what social change requires—sorry to self-promote but it is what I have been thinking, writing, and speaking about for quite a while.)

I am thankful for the careful, thoughtful and knowledgeable responses of Daniel Miller, Don Salisbury, and others about the science involved in climate change.  I also appreciate the clarity, directness and poignance of Ralph Shapira, Rich Zitrin, Ted Morgan and others.  I think Paul’s efforts to encourage a frank exchange about our differences is valuable.  And I am more than happy to hear the opinions of people I disagree with and to share mine.  But don’t expect me or others to respond to dangerous nonsense in a polite or dispassionate way,  We will not address our most fundamental problems by polite and respectful discourse but by engaging in movements for change. These movements (and I agree with Ted's analysis of this) require passion and as John Lewis put it ‘getting into good trouble, necessary trouble.”

I am all for keeping a multi-voiced dialogue going, but please let’s speak to what is really important and not hide behind “rational discourse” (the favorite phrase of President Robert Carr when he was trying to shut down anti-war protests at Oberlin when we were students).

Daniel Miller

We have the ice caps at both poles losing ice faster than it is being formed along with loss of glaciers everywhere.  And the rate at which they are losing ice is increasing over time.

We have warming in the Arctic region faster than the rest of the world so that the jet stream is losing force and wandering all over the place allowing Arctic weather to descend as far as the southern US.

Each decade in the last 40 years has been hotter than the previous one.

We have a drought covering most of the western US so bad that the last one was approximately 1200 years ago and destroyed the Anasazi civilization.  Reservoirs are way below any of their former levels.

We have minidroughts in the areas which have more rainfall than before so that during the two to three weeks with no rainfall because of the increaed heat the evapotranspiration rate has been great enough to affect plant growth.

We have arthropod vectors (ticks, mosquitoes, flies) moving north to areas where previously it was too cold to survive so now we have diseases (Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever, Zika and Dengue, blue tongue) moving into areas where they never existed.

We have birds and fish native to the Mediterranean area showing up in Great Britain.

Spring is starting weeks earlier and winter is starting weeks later than previously.  Ask the Wisconsin ice fishermen and snowmobilers.  Because of that the price of olive oil is going through the roof because a pest of olives now has four generations rather than three a summer.

We have sea level rise to the point that now shore cities have streets flooded during high tide and the forests that grew in the Keys are dying from salt infiltration.

Back in 1865 a woman scientist showed that CO2 was a GHG.

We have measured the output of GHG caused by human behavior and have shown that it is responsible for global warming.

We have warming in the Atlantic and particularly the Gulf causing increased strength of hurricanes and more level 3 - 5 hurricanes than in recorded history.  

Each UN report by the people who are actually studying the phenomenon is worse than the previous report.  But we are assured with no evidence whatsoever that thousands of scientists are engaged in some sort of a conspiracy to fabricate evidence  

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115452

And yet we have people quoting a contrarian (Lindzen) without explaining the logic as if they were some sort of authority sent by God denying that this is happening.

Aside 1: In addition, these people claim that AIDS isn't caused by HIV citing another "authority" who has been rejected by the evidence, and again, no evidence for the pronouncement is offered.  

Everyone with AIDS is also infected with HIV.  No one not infected with HIV has ever developed AIDS.  Infecting a person with HIV is likely to result in AIDS (Koch's postulates).  

When you treat an AIDS person with drugs that prevent HIV from reproducing, the sick people recover and their level of HIV drops to low to undetectable levels.  A few people who are in constant risk of being infected with HIV (prostitutes in East Africa) never develop AIDS or HIV infection.  Closer examination show that they have a mutation of the receptor site that prevents HIV from attaching to their cells.  

Aside 2: Citing another authority (Robert Kennedy, a politician), some people maintain that vaccinations are more dangerous than the disease they prevent without presenting any evidence whatsoever.  You will notice that the people who know Kennedy best, his family, say he is off his rocker and needs to be ignored.  But, of course, they are part of the conspiracy.

Edward McKelvey

Once again we need to distinguish between two things: divestment and sanctions.  Both were at work with South Africa, so it's hard to say which dealt the ultimate blow.  We do see a number of other situations, including presently with Russia and Iran, where sanctions operate with considerable effect and overt efforts at divestment are not much in evidence.  Correct me if I'm wrong on this.  By the same token, efforts to divest from fossil-based energy companies and other bad actors have been around for many years, with no discernible effect as far as I can tell.

I agree with Ted that coordinated actions on a large enough scale could conceivably work, but I firmly believe that the prospects for success would be much better from the domestic equivalent of sanctions, namely changes in behavior on energy use itself.  Stated in financial terms this would be a direct attack on the revenues and profits of energy companies, which in turn are the underlying fundamentals of their stock prices.  If enough people and companies took this route we would not even talk about divestment because the stocks would not be attractive on basic return considerations.  Governments could help both by altering their own behavior and by taxing fossil fuels much more heavily than they now do.  (I have to laugh when Americans get all torqued up at $5/gallon gasoline when the cost in Europe is roughly double that.  Large increases in gas taxes would have to be coupled with other measures, like making the tax code more progressive, to offset the adverse effects on lower income households.)

In contrast to sanctions, I think coordinated divestment runs into the problem I mentioned in my earlier post.  Absent a change in the fundamentals you sell your stock to another investor, whose expected return increases to the extent you sell at a reduced price.  Given the depth of the US capital markets and the availability of many institutional investors who see their job -- rightly in most people's minds -- as trying to maximize returns for their clients (and also for themselves), I think the bar for effective divestment is extraordinarily high.  Put differently, divestment -- even by many actors in the markets -- is more likely to enhance the returns to investors who are disinclined to play ball.  Under these circumstances why not collect those returns instead and direct them to environmentally sustainable purposes?  Or, if newly public companies in the renewable energy space offer more attractive returns at acceptable risk, then shift funds to them -- but this is simply sound portfolio management, nothing more.

Paula Gordon

Well, Gentlemen (and I see a glaring absence  here of women, gentle or otherwise) you have just been spared my perhaps over-long and undeniably elegant response to the responses.  The system and I managed that together.

Suffice it to say, I was *honored* to be among those initiating (thank you Paul Safyan for inviting ALL of us to do so) the excellent letter to the Board of Trustees, strongly urging to PUBLICly act to align the campus environmental efforts with our fiscal ones.

To summarize my loving words to you all, I turn first to My Congressman of 30+ years, speaking from the wisdom tradition of West Africa:"When you pray, move your feet!" 

Closer to home, Bayard Rustin's articulation -- in the American Friends Service Committee 1955's pamphlet of the same name -- provides the clarion call which guides my own life: "Speak Truth To Power"*.

I have been privileged to be enlightened by both.

Let The (Sovereign) People say... Amen, AWOMEN!

P.S.  PLASTIC??   KEEP [ALL fossil fuels] IN THE GROUND triumphs over any way-shape-form treatment of petrochemical's evil spawn.

*https://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/essays/american-friends-service-committee/

Paul Safyan

Thanks to Bernie Mayer for calling attention both to the place of passion and to Ralph Shapira's calling out a petroeum-industry-related problem:  the waste residual of single use plastics.  My comments weren't intended just to encourage civility which I think helps to keep the dialog going.  That's democracy we don't have much today.  I also support the scientist and economists who  stick to the data, not the citing of particular sourcess as "superior".  Most of us see evidence of climate change; most of us believe fervently from what we read and hear that there is a finance-based human underlying cause for this. Those that don't cite "evidence" of alternaives, but there seems to be less of that.  As a matter of policy, if most scientists think these human causes are significant, it's time we apply our knowledge to do something about it. That "experiment" is the one we need to conduct.

Steve Kravitz

The late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan must have had someone like Dick Hobby in mind when he said 

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

Dick Hobby

My closing remarks:

1   There is no point to trying have a conversation with people who think that insult, smear, condescension, and intimidation are legitimate and then when this is pointed out the response is:  oh stop whining.

2    Robert Kennedy Jr---like his father before him---is a national hero.  He points out that the vaccines cause death and serious injury.  People on this forum think that because his relatives smear him then somehow they are great for doing this and his ideas---in his talks, his articles, and his book The Real Anthony Fauci---are somehow wrong.

3    A serious scientific inquiry requires both sides to be heard---as if in a court:  witness for the prosecution, cross examination, redirect, witness for the defense, cross examination, redirect, back and forth, witness after witness, again and again and again.  This allows the judge/jury to have the best chance of determining the truth or falsehood of the allegation/hypothesis.   Just repeating what experts from just one side say is an echo chamber that will inevitably lead to the obvious self-congratulatory conclusion.

4    Anything other than this approach is about power and winning is the object---not a genuine search for the truth.  It becomes political.

5    Treating people with respect and looking at both sides openly is essential.   Otherwise things quickly become boring and a complete waste of time.

Dick Hobby

Dick Hobby

 
PS:   Having used this approach---listening to BOTH sides openly and carefully---I repeat my conclusions:

1   Lindzen is right:  CO2 is a harmless trace gas and global warming is not a problem

2   Duesberg is right:  AIDS is not caused by HIV

3   Kennedy is right:   the vaccines are very dangerous---they cause death and serious injury

Dick Hobby

Robert Wolfe

A lot of good ideas and a lot of information flowing here! All inspired by the work of a few who invested their time to draft a petition to the board. Few! = For Everyone's Welfare! Thank you to the Few!

I have a reaction to Ed's support for the well-established idea of a carbon tax. The idea is appropriate, fair, and necessary. However, the word "Tax" is wrong for many reasons. The fossil fuel industry has been getting away with massive theft by not paying for the damages that it causes. How much of our defense budget is to protect the fossil fuel industry relationships in the Middle East and elsewhere? How much of the cost of floods, forest fires, drought, crop failures, famine, and pollution clean-up is to clean up the messes that the fossil fuel industry gets away with? I posit that the percentage caused by burning fossil fuels is well over 10% of each of these. Maybe closer to 30%. We could add up these costs each year, divide by an appropriate measure of carbon fuel consumed that year, and charge the suppliers of carbon fuel for last year's cost with a fee which is applied to consumption the subsequent year. This would be a direct fee for costs incurred.

So, let's call it what it is. Rather than a Carbon Tax, I propose a PHEW! fee on fossil fuels. PHEW! is an acronym for Pollution, Health, Environment, and Weather! PHEW!

OK, so I am not a very good poet.

Richard Zitrin

I LOVE Robert's idea of not calling it a "tax." Labeling can be more important than substance, sad to say, particularly in the hyper-social-media era. Just look at "Defund the Police" instead of "Reform the Police." The left seems to have a monopoly on lousy branding. "Black Lives Matter Too" instead of "Black Lives Matter" would have eliminated "White Lives Matter Too." (Bad) labels and branding: HATE 'em.

Rich

Ralph Shapira

Good points about branding, Rich.  Enjoy your contributions!

Paul Safyan

Citizens' Climate Lobby has struggled with this terminology for over 10 years in their efforts to get "carrot and stick" incentives for carbon usage and production.  Their plan rebates the carbon fee to consumers during early stages of implementation.  I'm not fully behind the idea, but it's been there awhile.

Robert Wolfe

Paul, 
What concerns do you have about a fee? Whether it is a tax or a fee, the cost of fossil fuels will be passed on to the consumer. Unfortunately, the cost will fall disproportionally on lower income people. But the indirect costs of fossil fuels are real and should be reflected in the price paid for fossil fuels.  Rather than providing financial subidies for the failed fossil fuel industry through redirecting assets to that sector, perhaps we should direct assets to income redistribution (guaranteed income?) and then let the people speak through their spending patterns about whether they want to buy expensive fossil fuels. I apologize for asking a question and then giving a projected response before hearing your answer, but feel free to ignnore my prospective comments.

Edna Chun

Colleagues,

I just received this message from the University of California, fyi.

Effective June 30, 2022, companies that own fossil fuel reserves will be removed from the fund options in the UC Retirement Savings Program - 403(b), 457(b) and DC plans.

UC is making this change because the Chief Investment Officer to the Regents has determined that the long-term prospects of companies that own fossil fuel reserves no longer meet the financial criteria for inclusion in the fund offerings for the Retirement Savings Program. The removal of fossil fuel-related companies will reduce the long-term financial risks associated with fossil fuel reserves. This reduction in risk is consistent with the approach already implemented in the UC Pension, Endowment and Working Capital

Edward McKelvey

The University of California announcement is carefully worded.  It emphasizes the long-term financial prospects of companies owning fossil fuel reserves and the risks surrounding those prospects.  To me that sounds like a call on the current high level of oil prices relative to some long-term norm and not like a decision to divest on moral or ethical grounds.  A decision to divest on those grounds would regard the financial prospects as irrelevant.  See what they say when oil drops to $50/bbl.

Daniel Miller

I don't quite follow the argument.  On a strictly financial basis, doesn't it make more sense to sell fossil fuel stocks now when they are high rather than when they are on the way down to irrelevancy?  If they go to $50/barrel, it's because either there is a glut (unlikely given the market control) or because renewable energy is taking over and there would be no reason to buy them hoping they would rebound.  That would relegate fossil fuel to the same place buggy makers found themselves a century ago.  What am I missing?

Ralph Shapira

Edward McKelvey:  they have to say it's for financial reasons, even though that's just a cover story, because if they admitted it was a moral stand the Chief Investment Advisor could be accused of not doing his or her job.

Richard Zitrin

Agree with Ralph. They don't want to say it's political.

Edward McKelvey

Dan, that's my point.  And to Ralph and Rich, as for whether the primary reason is financial or divestment, we'll see if hey have a different posture at $50/bbl.  Rig now nothing in what Edna passed on allows one to tell hitch is the primary motive.

Edward McKelvey

Further on the significance of $50/vbl, the statement --as I read it -- emphasized the indirect ownership of oil reserves that stock in these companies conveys.  If you look at it that way the level of the price relative to some (perceived or assumed) long-term norm becomes a reason to sell at a high price and buy at a low price.  Obviously the level of the price also affects revenue so it becomes a balancing act between the effect of a high price on revenue (a reason to own the stock) and the likelihood that the price will fall (a reason to sell).

Edward McKelvey

...and the price, like most commodity prices fluctuates wildly for all kinds of reasons, real or perceived.  Only two years ago the futures price closest to delivery was -$35/bbl.  So $50 is well within thr range of possibility.