Home | About | Donate

'Backwards and Shameful': Swarthmore College Refuses to Divest from Fossil Fuels


#1


#2

If, and only if and when there is a credible shift toward renewable energy, they'll divest.


#4

Swarthmore's board has always been dominated by that peculiarly Pennsylvanian brand of the throw-back right. Some years ago, the board ordered the Swarthmore radio station to stop broadcasting Democracy Now after they found out that Amy Goodman has on occasion interviewed Mumia Abu Jamal.

Then there us Mike Kelly, congressman and Chevy dealership owner in the district north of mine, who railed against the Chevy volt in the committee rooms and fired a manager for ordering a Chevy volt for a customer at his dealership.


#5

Maybe they are waiting for Hillary to divest from Saudi Arabia...


#6

Excellent analysis.

"Unified Narrative of the Corporate Media Cartel" is a great descriptor for what is the "Deep State" of the MSM. I'll borrow that term if you don't mind!


#7

Aha... Wasn't Swarthmore considered a "progressive" college years ago? Looks like the managers value that fat endowment fund more than Life on Earth. Tsk. Tsk. Proof on how money corrupts.


#9

That is exactly right Jonny! if you can borrow all that you can dream at 0%, what keeps the value of money up? How hard everybody else has to work for it.


#11

Divestment is a foolish idea anyway.
It supports a goal that is unrealistic. The idea that global warming changes coming in the future can be stopped.
Yes, global warming is horrific, will destroy the earth and billions of people will suffer horribly, but,who in their right mind thinks the whining of the worlds rich will persuade changes that will in the end, save us? What previous example do you cite?
As ugly as it sounds, mitigation is all we have, and the sooner we do mitigate the less mitigation will be needed and the more effective it will be.
Only the rich, in rich countries have the resources to protect/develop new farmland, develop new protein sources, migrate to locals where farming remains possible, and wall off those less fortunate who's choice is leave where they are or die.
The time for intervention has passed, time for dealing with life, as in the past, is here today.


#12

I just occurred t me that the DN/Mumia incident happened at Temple U. not Swarthmore.

Nevermind...


#13

So are these students going to let their own money talk by transferring to a school that has divested? Or are they all attending Swarthmore on scholarships from the same endowment they seek to diminish?


#14

There is a credible path to transition, but we need the political will to enforce the correct goals on the marketplace. I mean specifically a carbon fee and rebate. Imposition of ethics on the marketplace is needed, otherwise we'd have pure piracy, and that's kind of what we do have right now in the fossil fuel sector as they're being allowed to pollute the global commons for free.


#15

We need a carbon fee and rebate to hit the industry in the profit margin. Divestment will not reduce emissions. It's a nice way to generate awareness of the issues but it's not an end game in itself.


#16

Divestment will not reduce emissions. It's a nice way to generate awareness of the issues but it's not an end game in itself.

We need a carbon fee and rebate to hit the industry in the profit margin.

We need to confront the core issue directly.

I support divestment, but i wish that the divestment campaign would be more explicit about what really needs to happen to reduce emissions. Even if every university and church divested, it would not reduce fossil fuel emissions by a significant amount, if at all. Capital is fluid and there are too many unethical investors.