As gas
prices were dropping during the fall of 2014 throughout the U.S., sales of SUVs
were picking up. That such drivers might find themselves with gas-guzzlers and
high prices was apparently out of sight, out of mind. Moreover, that the
increased carbon emissions might push the planet further from the habitable
zone for humans was a point entirely missing from the mainstream media as well
as office-holders. To the extent that some “socially responsible” investors
selling off their holdings in or related to fossil-fuel companies was generally
deemed to be a suitable approach to global warming, the overriding question may
be how a species could treat its own survival as if it were an after-thought
rather than a priority.
According
to The New York Times at the time, “180 institutions — including
philanthropies, religious organizations, pension funds and local governments —
as well as hundreds of wealthy individual investors . . . pledged to sell
assets tied to fossil fuel companies from their portfolios and to invest in
cleaner alternatives. In all, the groups . . . pledged to divest assets worth
more than $50 billion from portfolios, and the individuals more than $1 billion, according to
Arabella Advisors.”[1]
Although these figures are by no means “chicken feed,” the overall imprint of
such divestments pales in comparison to the assets in the American financial
system, not to mention the global system of capital. The prioritizing of
investors can perhaps be inferred here, with global warming coming up
short—given its potential harm.
The
divesting investors themselves were not convinced that their efforts would pay
off climatically. According to the Times, “(t)he people who are selling shares
of energy stocks are well aware that their actions are unlikely to have an
immediate impact on the companies, given their enormous market capitalizations
and cash flow. At the Rockefeller
Brothers Fund, there [was] no equivocation but there [was] caution, [according
to] Stephen Heintz, its president. The fund [had] already eliminated investments
involved in coal and tar sands entirely while increasing its investment in
alternate energy sources. Unwinding other investments in a complex portfolio
from the broader realm of fossil fuels [would] take longer. ‘We’re moving soberly,
but with real commitment,’ he said.”[2]
To the
extent that other investors would simply swap up the holdings for sale, the
“bad” companies would be “harmed” only marginally—certainly not enough to make
a dent in their role in the carbon-emitting process. Moreover, “moving soberly”
at a time when climatologists were warning that the global temperature would
rise more than the 2 degree C threshold (beyond which human habitation would be
uncomfortable at best) points to a major disconnect between even the diverters’
priority and the true significance of the problem.
Pointing to
the complexity involved in unwinding a portfolio is itself an indication of
misplaced priorities akin to a passenger in an airport risking his flight
merely because he wants to finish the meal he has purchased. That such a
passenger would likely be completely unaware of the foolishness of his decision
may suggest that we as a species may be utterly unconscious of our individual
and collective lack of perspective as concerning our own medium- and long-term
comfort and the survival of our descendants. Indeed, by 2014, the survival of
even the future children of teenagers could be hanging in the balance. Touting
divestment as a viable strategy, or even part of one, leaves me with the
impression that the human brain may be ill-equipped to grapple with its own
propensity to put the species itself at risk.
1. John Schwartz, “Rockefellers,
Heirs to an Oil Fortune, Will Divest Charity of Fossil Fuels,” The New York Times, September 21, 2014.
2. Ibid.
