It is growingly unsustainable and in opposition to Hamilton College’s financial interest to remain invested in fossil fuel companies. At Monday night’s Town Hall meeting, divestment was one topic of conversation wherein it was noted by President Wippman that, when divestment was considered in 2014, it was determined not to be in the best interests of the College to do so at that time. Also at that time, Hamilton students were participating in environmental advocacy and demonstrating awareness for the climate crisis, just as we are today. In fact, based on some of the responses given at Monday’s Town Hall meeting, you might have thought members of the administration were addressing a group of students from 2014. But this is a new generation of students, and 2014 was almost 6 years ago. A number of significant developments in the scientific community and in the global economy have occurred since, and, after Monday’s discussion, it appears that some administrators are not up to date.
In the last five years, one climate report after the other has emerged highlighting pressing deadlines needed to be met in order to reverse and/or hamper environmental degradation. On Tuesday, 11,000 scientists signed a research statement declaring a “global climate emergency.” This occurred exactly one day after the Town Hall meeting, at which Karen Leach, Hamilton’s Vice President for Administration and Finance, stated that “declaring a climate emergency would actually substantially change what we would or when we would do it.” Why must our actions be exclusively reactive? Why must we wait until damage is done to modify our behavior? Is that not the attitude that contributed to, and continues to contribute to, proliferation of the climate crisis? The point being that until Hamilton College begins to actively divest in fossil fuel companies, it will continue to be one step behind, catching up to the rapidly changing exigency. This irresponsible behavior is not limited to fossil fuels and climate change and now also applies to Hamilton’s endowment financial returns.
Five years ago when the College considered divestment there was not the financial case for divestment which there is now. In recent years, fossil fuel companies have been lagging in the economy and in world stock markets. This is therefore a call for financial prudence and responsibility as much as a call for environmental consideration. As the fossil fuel sector shrinks, predictions are based on growing evidence that the fossil fuel sector will not replicate the same returns as has in the past. Over the past five years, holdings have outperformed identical indexes without fossil fuel companies. These companies are lagging, falling out of favorable opinion among investors and the general public. This is why (another development within the last five years) the University and California system in its entirety fully divested its endowment and its pension fund this semester.
As for the “utility” of divestment for countering climate change — which was also mentioned, called into question, and downplayed on Monday night — new developments in the last five years have also proven that divestment’s utility, when undertaken collectively, is not good for fossil fuel companies.
If President Wippman and the Board of Trustees intend to stand behind the decision to dismiss divestment made in 2014 by Hamilton Trustee Investment Committee Chair Henry Bedford, as they did at Monday night’s meeting, they should better provide the College at large with an explanation for the financial rational, which appears to the rest of us (and to colleges and universities around the country) to be growingly illegitimate.
Sincerely,
Melanie Snyder ’20
Senior Editor
