Divestment announced at the U of T Governing Council

At yesterday’s meeting, President Gertler announced the new divestment policy. I transcribed the relevant parts of the meeting from the audio:

[16:58] President Meric Gertler: With the latest UN climate change conference, known as COP26, taking place in Glasgow beginning this Sunday, the world’s attention will be focused on the urgency of the climate crisis and measures to address it. In anticipation of this meeting I wrote to our community yesterday providing an update on the university’s approach to investment, operations, and engagement and announcing some new measures to help tackle the huge challenge of climate change. In particular I announced that UTAM will be divesting from its fossil fuel holdings in our endowment — a fund that in total is about $4 billion including some other long-term investments — and that divestment process will begin immediately.

UTAM undertakes to fully divest from direct investments in fossil fuels by the end of 2022, so roughly within the next 12 months. And moreover to divest from indirect investments in fossil fuels, that is in the form of pooled and co-mingled funds that are managed by third-party investment managers, as soon as possible and by no later than 2030. Also, to allocate at least 10% of the endowment, so roughly about $400 million, towards sustainable, low-carbon, and green investment strategies by 2025. And to achieve net-zero emissions in the endowment portfolio by 2050. Related to that last goal, UTAM has become the first university asset manager, and University of Toronto the first university in the world, to join a group called the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance: an alliance which requires us to set and meet five year targets, increasingly stringent, targets that lead us towards the net zero objective by 2050 at the latest.

[18:55] These new commitments build on the tremendous progress already achieved by UTAM to reduce the carbon footprint of its long-term investments by 37% as of this past June 30th. That’s against a 40% reduction goal that it had set for itself by 2030. And in this case the carbon footprint is measured as tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions per million dollars invested. Over the same period UTAM has also shrunk absolute carbon emissions in its portfolio by more than 21%. These reductions have resulted from UTAM’s use of an ESG framework to assess all of its long-term investments in the energy sector, but also across the rest of the economy. The sectors of manufacturing, retail, transportation, construction, and agriculture. Having made this much progress this quickly, and having reduced fossil fuel holdings to roughly 6% of our long-term investments.

The time was right to set new goals, to decarbonize our investments still further. We hope that these actions will inspire other institutional investors and governments at home and abroad to take similar actions, and to accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy as they tackle the challenge of climate change. These announcements will complement U of T’s other ambitious plans to fight climate change, including our new climate positive St. George campus plan, which Governors heard about back in the September workshop, a plan that will convert the campus into a net carbon sink by 2050. Our local, national, and global leadership organizations and initiatives like the Canadian Universities’ Climate Charter, the UC3 group of North American universities, and the U7+ global alliance of universities, each of which is working on climate-change-related initiatives.

[21:02] A lot of this work has been championed by our very own Committee on the Environment, Climate Change, and Sustainability, co-chaired by Professor John Robinson and Ron Saporta. For example, pioneering the development of sustainability pathways that students can pursue in any program of study, as well as making available opportunities for students to engage in campus-as-a-living-lab experiences where they can engage in climate-related experiential learning opportunities. And of course this also is complemented by the tremendous amount of research being done across our three campuses, supporting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, for example we have a new institutional strategic initiative focused on climate-positive technologies, the development and application of energy-saving technologies and practices.

[21:57] So this is, I think you will agree, a comprehensive effort on our part, kind of a watershed moment in the history of the university, and I think contributing to a very important moment in the history of the world. I will say that since the announcement was made yesterday, the response thus far has been overwhelmingly positive. Let me shift to a couple of other items… [ends at 22:20]

[54:00] Meric Gertler: Shashi Kant, I see you have your hand up so we’ll go to you next.

[54:04] Shashi Kant: Thank you Chair, and thank you so much Meric and Trevor for updating us on everything. So first of all, I just want to express Meric on behalf of all my students, and myself, and the staff your leadership in climate change and for the investment and the carbon sink announced, and I think we and our students proudly can say the university walk the talk in terms of sustainability, it’s not that we are talking about sustainability. Also there is the carbon sink only for the St. George campus, I guess the other two campuses will also join on that point soon.

[54:50] I am moved, I am happy with our policy and our commitment for climate change. I am also disturbed, very disturbed on approach to sexual harassment… [ends at 55:05]

[1:03:00] Meric Gertler: Susan, I think you are up next.

Susan Froom: Thank you, and thank you as well to yourself and President Gertler for your reports. I do echo Shashi’s concerns around harassment, I’ll speak to that next item , but now I do want to say thank you to President Gertler for your wonderful announcement yesterday around divestment from fossil fuel investments. It’s a fantastic step forward, I’m glad the university is doing that, and I am very much hoping that U of T will continue to be a leader in this regard and particularly with President Gertler’s latest appointment that may be even easier to do, let’s hope so.

[1:04:10] I also wanted to acknowledge that in the announcement President Gertler did pause to thank the students that pushed the administration to do the right thing, and I just wanted to recall before this body that it was back in March of 2014 that it was the U of T chapter of 350.org that first put this issue on the table formally. There has been a lot of back and forth since then. In some ways President Gertler and the administration went beyond what was asked, which is admirable. In some ways, not as far, which is one reason the challenge kept coming. So it’s something that I think we as a body need to feel good about. This is part of what Governing Council does, it’s a place where these ideas can come forward, can be brought to fruition. Where it allows student activists to bring forward their ideas and the administration to carefully ponder them and implement them. So kudos all around and let’s keep this fight going. [end at 1:05:28]

[1:59:22] Speakers unknown: Thank you Mister Chair. The board received a comprehensive presentation on the [fundraising / development] campaign’s academic priorities and its goals. As part of the ensuing discussions, Mr. Palmer addressed a member’s concern about investment of endowment funds in the fossil fuel industry. Mr. Palmer stated that the campaign would pursue funding for a wide range of academic priorities related to climate change and sustainability, including those referenced earlier in the meeting such as clean tech, climate policy, climate science, etc. He also noted that students were the primary beneficiaries of campaign funding priorities and donations. In response to another member’s question about whether the university’s endowment policies related to fossil fuel divestment would have an impact on fundraising results, Mr. Palmer stated that to date they have not diminished the university’s ability to raise funds and he expected that track record of success would continue into the public phase of the new campaign. That concludes my report. [ends at 2:00:27]

University of Toronto divesting from fossil fuels

Checking through my routine administrative emails today, I was completely surprised to see a message from president Meric Gertler announcing that U of T will divest from fossil fuels:

The evidence of a climate crisis is now incontrovertible. The most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change adds further urgency to the need for individuals, businesses, institutions and governments to act swiftly to respond to this global threat, using every tool available to them. World leaders will begin gathering in Glasgow at the end of this month for the COP26 meeting, where progress in the fight against climate change will be assessed and new strategies to avert a climate catastrophe will be considered.

As owners of financial assets such as endowments and pension funds, universities have both an economic imperative and a moral obligation to manage these assets in ways that encourage carbon emission-reducing behaviour in the wider economy. With the increasing financial risks associated with fossil fuel production – as well as those downstream economic activities that rely heavily on fossil fuels as their energy source – there is a strong motivation for universities to shift their financial capital away from carbon-intensive sectors and firms, and towards those businesses that are leveraging the shift to green energy and carbon-conserving technologies.

First, UTAM will divest from investments in fossil fuel companies in the endowment fund beginning immediately. Within the next 12 months, it will divest from all direct investments in fossil fuel companies. For those investments made indirectly, typically through pooled and commingled vehicles managed by third-party fund managers, UTAM will divest from its investments in fossil fuel companies by no later than 2030, and sooner if possible.

Second, UTAM will commit to achieving net zero carbon emissions associated with the endowment portfolio by no later than 2050. Moreover, UTAM has recently joined the UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance, making the University of Toronto the first university in the world to join this group of institutional investors. Membership in the Alliance compels signatories to achieve progressively demanding targets every five years en route to net zero, ensuring achievement of this ambitious objective in a transparent and accountable way.

Third, UTAM will allocate 10 percent of the endowment portfolio to sustainable and low-carbon investments by 2025. Based on the current size of the endowment, this represents an initial commitment of $400 million to such investments.

[I]n the last few years I have heard from many members of the U of T community who have urged me to deploy every means available to address the existential crisis we now face. None have been more eloquent or impassioned than our students, who have the most at stake. I want to thank them – and other members of our community – for their activism and commitment to this important cause. I would also like to acknowledge the important work of the President’s Advisory Committee on Divestment from Fossil Fuels, whose report marked a key milestone in the journey towards today’s announcement.

It will be fascinating to learn more about what prompted the decision. It certainly hasn’t been the result of a highly visible and escalated recent activist campaign. While the Toronto350.org campaign was ongoing, we would often remark that the most helpful thing for us would be if Harvard divested

The campaign began on April 16th, 2013 when I went to the president’s office for information and ended up meeting with Tony Gray.

Hayhoe on zombie climate denier arguments

Every day I’m bombarded with objections to the evidence for human-caused climate change. Most of them sound respectably scientific, like “climate changes all the time; humans have nothing to do with it.” It’s “the Sun,” or “volcanoes,” or “cosmic rays” that are making it happen, or “it’s not even warming,” some argue.

Scientists call these “zombie arguments.” They just won’t die, no matter how often or how thoroughly they’re debunked. And because they won’t die, it’s clear that, when it comes to climate change, you do have to be able to talk about some of the science. But what you don’t have to do is follow it down the rabbit hole. And you don’t have to become a climate scientist, either. The basics are extremely simple, the objections are very common and easily answered, and it makes sense to have a short response at hand.

Not only that, but as I mentioned before, most scientific-sounding objections are really just a thin smoke screen for the real problems. Climate denial originates in political polarization and identity, fueled by the mistaken belief that its impacts don’t matter to us and there’s nothing constructive or even tolerable we can do to fix it. Again, this isn’t only a U.S. problem: an analysis of people across fifty-six countries found that political affiliation and ideology was a much stronger indicator of their opinions on climate change than their education, their life experiences, or even their values.

For hundreds of years, we’ve been living as if there’s no tomorrow, running through our resources, putting our entire civilization at risk. And climate scientists are like physicians who have identified a disease that is affecting every member of the human race, including themselves, and no one wants to listen to them.

Hayhoe, Katharine. Saving Us: A Climate Scientists’s Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World. Simon & Schuster. 2021. p. 38–9, 64

Open thread: climate change relocation

Every community and all the infrastructure on Earth has been built with the expectation that past weather conditions will be broadly similar to future and present ones. Rapid climate change of the kind we are creating thus sets up a situation where what we have built in every place is less and less suited to the conditions that will exist there. In the most extreme cases, places where people have long inhabited will cease to be able to support a human population. An increased flow of individuals out of a territory as conditions worsen could give way to the need to relocate entire populations.

This is the starkest and most immediate concern for low-lying island states, such as the Marshall Islands:

The depressing long-term solution, as in Mr Tong’s last resort, may be to move. The Marshall Islands hopes to renegotiate its post-colonial ‘Compact of Free Association’ with America, which expires in 2023, to ensure a permanent right of residence in the United States for all Marshallese. Tuvalu has no such option. Maina Talia, a climate activist, thinks that the government should take Fiji up on its offer of a home where Tuvaluans could practise the same culture rather than ‘be dumped somewhere in Sydney.’

Vexingly, the same conservative political forces that champion fossil fuels and refuse to accept the dangerousness of climate change are perhaps most defined by a closed sense of nationalism and opposition to immigration. Among other motivations, they are going to need to learn that if you want the global human population to stay more or less where they are, you need to keep the climate within the bounds that have supported those societies.

Related:

Biden and the Democrats on climate

Facing total obstruction from Republicans, Democrats themselves are notably divided on whether and how to act on climate change:

However, these measures will have to garner the vote of every Democrat in the Senate to pass, with Joe Manchin, a centrist from West Virginia, skeptical of the size and scope of the $3.5tn spending proposal. Manchin, a major recipient of donations from the coal industry, has said it “makes no sense” to pay utilities to phase in solar and wind power.

Manchin is reportedly set to block the clean electricity program, which forms the main muscle of the climate package. This could prove a hugely consequential blow to the effort to constrain dangerous global heating. “This is high on the list of most consequential actions ever taken by an individual senator,” tweeted the climate campaigner Bill McKibben. “You’ll be able to see the impact of this vain man in the geologic record.”

This internecine fight is just one manifestation of the persistent divide about how climate change might be tackled politically, with progressives taking it as a demonstration of how seeking the political middle ground is pointless and centrists drawing the opposite lesson that only climate policies with broad support will succeed.

Hayhoe on climate change and differing morals

How do I talk about this … to my mother, brother-in-law, friend, colleague, elected official?” I’m asked this question nearly everywhere I go.

Usually, they’ve already given conversation a try. They’ve boned up on a few alarming scientific facts. They’ve tried to explain how fast the Arctic is melting, or how bees are disappearing, or how carbon dioxide levels are rising. But their attempts have fallen flat. Why? Because the biggest challenge we face isn’t science denial. It’s a combination of tribalism, complacency, and fear. Most don’t think climate change is going to affect them personally, or that we can do anything reasonable to fix it; and why would they, if we never talk about it?

It’s important to understand what’s happening to our world and how it affects us. But bombarding someone with more data, facts, and science only engages their defenses, pushes them into self-justification, and leaves us more divided than when we began. On climate change and other issues with moral implications, we tend to believe that everyone should care for the same self-evident reasons we do. If they don’t, we all too often assume they lack morals. But most people do have morals and are acting according to them; they’re just different from ours. And if we are aware of these differences, we can speak to them.

Hayhoe, Katharine. Saving Us: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World. 2021. p. xi-ii

Related:

Climate anxiety is widespread among young people

Back in 2008, I wrote about the Future Leaders Survey and the gloomy views it uncovered among young people about the future of the planet.

Recently, The Lancet published a study based on a survey of 10,000 people aged 16–25 in 10 countries. It demonstrates that apocalyptic psychology is a broad-based phenomenon, not exclusively concentrated among climate change or environmental activists.

83% of those surveyed said people have failed to care for the planet; 75% that the future is frightening; 65% that governments are failing young people; and that just 31% think governments can be trusted.

See also:

Canada’s election 2021 climate change platforms

UBC professor Kathryn Harrison was interviewed by the CBC’s Front Burner: Where the major parties stand on climate change

See also: