We are still waiting for an answer.
If I understand correctly, your active title is Chair of Committee Investments for the UC Regents. That is, you run the meetings several regents and advisors attend to discuss where to invest the UC’s money.
It is my understanding the UC’s money, specifically its endowment, is worth approximately 90 billion dollars. Of the 90 billion dollars, 10 percent (9 billion dollars) is invested in “energy companies.” To be fair, “energy companies” can mean a lot of different things: renewable energy, alternative energy or 5-hour ENERGY. That being said, it is estimated that of the said 9 billion dollars, roughly 3 billion is invested in big oil and gas companies, a rough estimate, of course, because the UC’s office has refused to disclose the exact amount. Feel free to confirm.
I want to note that in September 2015, after two years of pressure from UC students, the UC sold off roughly 200 million dollars worth of coal and tar sands investments, a remarkable achievement. And though I don’t want to take away from the significance of said divestiture, I’d argue it’s becoming a monotonous statistic, appearing in every UC school paper’s article about divestment.
We’re clinging onto it. We can no longer beat our chests, and the 200 million dollars can no longer be a “look what we did!” boast. If we want to talk numbers, it was 7 percent of the estimated 3 billion dollars. We still invest 2.8 billion dollars in fossil fuels.
I would also like to quickly note that following the 200-million-dollar divestment, the UC’s Chief Investment Officer Jagdeep Bacher was quoted saying, “institutions that ignore societal values in their investment strategy imperil their bottom line — today and for years to come.” It is time for us all to admit that investments in oil and gas companies fundamentally ignore our societal values. If you haven’t yet, I encourage you to read the article. Here’s the link: http://www.independent.com/news/2015/sep/17/beyond-divestment/. The irony is remarkable.
We’re a school system that takes great pride in our efforts to be green, efficient leaders in sustainability and renewable energy, from what we study in the classroom to the classroom itself. We also take immense pride in our diversity. We take pride in embracing all races, sexes, religions and ethnic and cultural backgrounds. We are taught to abhor discrimination, eliminate pollution and help build a brighter future.
Yet the university I received an email from on Nov. 9 attempting to comfort me and remind me of my on-campus safe space locations, to reassure me the UC cherishes its diversity and in no way condones racism, sexism, misogyny, etc. voluntarily supports an industry that actively discriminates against, takes advantage of, pollutes and destroys marginalized communities within our state, across our country and around the world. Investments in fossil fuels stand against everything the UC stands for.
I’m a fourth-year environmental studies student here at UCSB. I am and will forever be grateful to my parents and this university for the opportunities they have given me — to study, learn and grow as a person here. I take pride in my university, my home for the last four years. I take pride in my major, my involvement in Fossil Free UCSB and the knowledge I have gained from the amazing courses and thought-provoking, incredible professors here.
I want future generations of students to encounter what I have been so fortunate to experience. Regrettably, I would argue that because of our unsustainable investments in fossil fuels, this experience is in jeopardy.
It simply puzzles me that all of this pride and leadership finds itself invested in industries we as a university educate and stand against. Nearly 700 UC faculty members have signed a petition stating investments in fossil fuels are no longer acceptable. Three UC faculty senates and six associated student senates, representing hundreds of faculty and tens of thousands of students, have called upon the UC to divest.
Just last week UCSB’s own student senate has reaffirmed its commitment to fossil fuel divestment. I know it will not be easy, and I know it cannot happen overnight, but we must begin the process of full divestment from fossil fuels. If we want to take pride in something — if we want to be leaders in something — let it be that.
Mr. Sherman, Fossil Free UCSB has presented you with a choice. You can stand with students, our future and all the values of this great university and divest from fossil fuels. Or you can stand with oil and gas companies, who threaten not only my future and future generations but also communities up and down the state of California today. What you can’t do is both. So I will ask again: Whose side are you on?
I hope you will not only stand with us, but act. We must not do what is easy, but what is right.
The ball is in your court, Regent Sherman. All of us are watching.
While I admire your passion about the environment, the UC Regents have a fiduciary duty to maximize ROI on these funds. It would be foolish to divest from energy/oil at this point in time, with Trump picking Rex Tillerson as SOS, Rick Perry as Energy Secretary, and Scott Pruitt as the director of the EPA. I’m not endorsing these picks, but as any tree hugger knows (or should know), these picks are the absolute antithesis of, well, tree huggers. The keystone pipeline will be completed and oil drilling in the arctic will explode. Strike when the iron is hot. Smart… Read more »
From the above: ” Smart investors don’t buy/sell upon emotion”. Apparently, neither do they care about doing what is in the best interests of living entities. To hell with the environment that sustains life — so long as short-term self-interests are maximized. Great example being set (by you and the regents) of maximizing personal gain at the expense of moral integrity (i.e., doing what is in the best interests of the many rather than a “privileged minority”) for future generations. Pathetic. But this is why we now have a president who makes picks you claim not to endorse. BTW: You… Read more »
Good one on the “pricks” – so let me get this straight – you would rather pay higher tuition and have higher debt when you graduate (or have your parents pay higher tuition if you are lucky enough) and have less money available for aid to students in need, just in the name of divesting in oil?
Yes. Unless I was a selfish prick who put my own interests above those of all others (e.g., the right to breath).
Nice world you envision. If it is, in your view, reality, then we are all up the shiitter.
As for “doing their duty”, does the same apply to guards at concentration camps?
That is, is justification for their acts that they had a state-mandated legal obligation (duty) to torture and murder?
Extreme example (many in-betweeners possible), but hopefully you get the point.
Thank you for your input. I do not claim to know a lot about the economic-side of the argument, and am currently trying to educate myself more on the topic to be better informed. Judging from your comments, it appears that you have a better understanding than I do. You say, “Smart investors don’t buy/sell upon emotion.” An accurate statement, definitely. But is it possible? I believe it is. A lot of very successful, “smart” investment companies are divesting from fossil fuels- for example, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. In my article, I suggest “We must not do what is easy,… Read more »
I did not know that about the Rockefeller Brothers Fund – very interesting. It was a well-written opinion piece and I can tell you’re a smart young lady. Don’t take anything I say too seriously – I like to occasionally provoke the professor dude who is very quick to call people names.
Yes — you did provoke me. The attitudes you expressed cause great sadness whenever I see them expressed in a public venue (thus reminding me how screwed our species actually is (@ 99% of all once-extant species now are extinct — but there still is hurt in when reminded that our self-centered presumption of per-eminence is naught more than an illusion with no influence on nature) . Greed and an “all-for-me-now-the hell- with-long-term-considerations” myopic mind-set are large parts of the calculus that is going to doom the electoral process of our democratic republic (others include civic ignorance and over-developed reliance… Read more »
I don’t think we really have it all that bad. I was at SB in the late 90’s and I remember the CALPIRG wackos harassing me in front of the library (in the rare occasions that I studied). Does CALPIRG still exist? There are a lot of things beyond our control and I think it will be one of those that ultimately destroys the planet. Plus, don’t you think it’s kind of pointless for us to put all these “green” measures in place when other economic super powers around the world are not on board – e.g. China, Brazil, India,… Read more »
Sorry — I think (perhaps I am wrong?) the internal logic of your responses and queries (a) makes my points and (b) indicates further discussion would be pointless. I have yey to explain the big picture problem with your approach, then it is likely I am not up to the task.
BTW: I a not talking re the planet. I am talking about a particular group occupying the planet (and the possible spill-over effects of their damage on other planet-occupying species). Even nuclear was would not destroy (if that is meant as obliteration of the orb and not just its life-sustaining capabilities) the planet.)
Thanks — I have had my fill of this “fun”. (My own fault – as usual — for not having the maturity to leave when leaving clearly is indicated).
I assume that neither the author of this piece, nor the 700 faculty members (probably mostly enviro studies department people), nor the “tens of thousands of students” urging divestment from oil drive traditional gasoline fueled vehicles? That would clearly be hypocritical. I would bet all of the money in my savings account (which isn’t much) that at least one does. This is akin to a vegetarian chastising non-vegetarians (aka Paul McCartney) while they themselves wear leather shoes and belts.
Stupid analogy. Vegetarians have an abundance of choices. If they are inconsistent — that is their hypocritical choice. Choice vis a vis transportation is not analogous. One needs transportation in contemporary American life (living spaces do not accommodate bicycles, etc for many basic needs). Public transportation is available — but not for all venues, nor is it feasible for emergencies, etc. (And, where does one go to get a vehicle that runs on non-gasoline products at a price a faculty member can afford? Certainly not Tesla). The sheer number of dis-analogies in “your” (see below for explanation of quotes) silly… Read more »
Since I’m short on time, I’ll just say Total Bullshit.
You may very well be short on time — but the real issue is your shortness on intelligence. If you cannot understand a simple proposition — perhaps an example will suffice (I make no promises). Assume I to actively work (invest time and $$) toward ending poverty in the world, but it can be shown that I sometimes use act in a self-serving manner that places my good above those more in need (thus taking a page from the GOP play book). Should we devalue or ignore my actions (that have the effect of lessening poverty) because I am hypocritical… Read more »
OK then – so the letter should go something like this – “Dear Mr. Regents Man in charge of a $90B portfolio – including numerous multi-million dollar donations from individuals and businesses. Please divest from a lucrative sector of the market with potential high returns and do the opposite of diversify our investments (e.g. increase our risk of loss) because some hippy-ass environmental studies majors think oil is evil. Meanwhile, they will buy oil on a regular basis themselves for their vehicles. While electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles are available, besides Tesla, such as the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt,… Read more »
You are, I sincerely hope — joking about the meaning of orthogonal!!?? — but I sadly suspect not. OMG!! If I am a prof? And my motivation for lying is what? To impress you!? My income is none of your business. What a thing to ask. (and no –_ i do not care re your reasons. In fact, I assume “reason” is not part of your job description). I actually have a Prius (two — one for the wife –on lease). It runs on electricity and gas. Does that make me half a hypocrite? Do I get only half the… Read more »
Sticks and stones – so I take it you’re for divesting in oil? Explain this to me – humans around the world have been attempting to build alternative fueled vehicles since the internal combustion engine was invented. There was a cheesy Steven Seagal movie about oil in Alaska where he gave a speech at the end saying that the internal combustion engine has been obsolete for 50 years. Where are these vehicles? Why can’t smart people build a car engine that does not run on gasoline that has a range similar to a Camry or Accord on a full tank… Read more »
Exchange the word “slavery” for oil and then re-read your stupid comment. If you cannot see the problem so be it.
I have had my fill of discussing things with low intelligence (and morality) poster. (BTW: orthogonal is not octagonal! Are you a grad of Trump U perchance?)
Blather on. I out the door of this nitwit convention.
Dude – an orthogon is an 8-sided object, like a stop sign. I take it you’re not too good at geometry?
Wow. You are an idiot.
The word was orthogonal NOT orthogon. Look it up on google (if you are capable). The definition of the actual word used is pretty simple (= the characteristic of something being independent (relative to something else). It also can mean non-redundant, non-overlapping or irrelevant.) BTW: Is an orthodontist an eight sided doctor? Is thought a second language for you!
Embarrassing. You are a moron — I need no more convincing.
An orthodontist is someone who studies 8-sided objects. My friends dad is an orthodontist, so I know what I’m talking about. Similar to idiots and idiosyncrasy. The idea of divesting in oil is total idiosyncrasy.
I guess this is sarcasm. Given the abject stupidity around here it took a while to separate the wheat from the feces.
I think I may have gotten orthogonal confused with octagonal. They look very similar.
Yes. It is a peculiarity (idiosyncrasy) of morally and ethically (and logically) credible folk. You nailed it!
You remind me of my first boss – total fucking asshole.
How does a 7 year old get a job (apparently several)? Are there no child labor laws in your country?
Haha that was pretty good.
Investing is all about making money, or maximizing return on investment. Trump has made it clear he wants domestic energy resources developed to their maximum potential. That’s why DAPL ultimately will be completed in 2017. I expect Trump’s secretary of defense to tell the Army Corps of Engineers to grant the permit. It appears he doesn’t want American companies to do business with Middle Eastern oil nations any longer.
Is short-sighted better or worse than blind? In Trump’s (and his followers) case, perhaps blind is preferable (they “might” be capable of less long-term damage).
Some primate studies might be elucidating. .
There are a number of studies that show universities lose money when divesting from energy stocks. So, if you want the university to take a hit from divesting, be prepared to pay the extra tuition money. Oops, I forgot, the students are complaining about that too. I’m a UCSB student. I want free stuff and you, the taxpayer, must pay for it.
Another myopic “insight” from the morally bankrupt “me” generation.
If you indeed are a student at UCSB (LOL), that is a very sad statement about our admissions criteria. Apparently we do not take either the brightest or most ethically mature applicants.
Given your ambiguous grammatical construction (I take it to be a sorry attempt at irony), I doubt you are a student here — so perhaps there is still hope we will not turn out self-absorbed, brain-dead crap on graduation.
Pathetic.
Assuming this is a student, why do you as a faculty member feel the need to insult students who have a different opinion than you? So are you suggesting that anyone against divesting in oil is unethical? You really think that a few universities divesting in oil is going to “save the planet?”
A. I do not think it is a student.
B. I did not say I was a faculty member — but thanks for the compliment.
C. Unethical behavior is unethical by definition (unless you are a relativist).
D. Of course a few divesting acts will not save the planet. What is your point? Adopting your “logic” any first steps toward a better outcome never should be taken unless they serve as a complete and immediate cure.
Fair enough – your letter C response makes no sense though. You didn’t answer the question. It’s a shame we can’t have a simple discussion without resorting to childish insults. So who are you (from an anonymous standpoint). I’m a proud 39 year old alumni who graduated in ’99 with two little guys and a wife. Life has been good to me so I contribute some to UCSB and occasionally read and comment on the Nexus. Do you have any affiliation with the school?
I answered C several times in above posts. Short-term personal gain at the expense of long-term health for the environment (and the scientific evidence is simply clear on this no mater what the Exon-Mobile president, Brietbart and other scientifically incompetent bloviators espouse) is unethical because it puts the whole at serious risk for the benefit of the few. This is not an opinion — it is a scientifically established fact. While all facts are subject to revision (in varying degrees) our inference to the best explanation is mandated by acceptance of the best that scientific induction currently has to offer.… Read more »
Then why don’t they just ban oil if it is a scientific fact that it’s dangerous – just like asbestos or DDT? The sad thing is that I should know what a tautology is, being that I took a class in critical thinking, but I don’t. I think I should have gone to class more and smoked less weed and play Nintendo 64. Maybe you can write your congressman and voice your concerns. Of course, the congressmen in SB are hippie left wing fuckheads who probably already want to ban oil. Maybe you can invent an electric car with a… Read more »
“Then why don’t they just ban oil if it is a scientific fact that it’s dangerous” in conjunction with “I took a class in critical thinking”
My (final — for you) suggestion — sue the school to get your tuition money back.
This was meant to be part of the previous post.
Try this. In your query “Then why don’t they just ban oil if it is a scientific fact that it’s dangerous– just like asbestos or DDT?”, replace the word “oil” with the word “war’. Now consider the feasibility of your proposal.
You are suffering from “false equivalence” (among other things having to do with” critical thinking”).
Bad night. Left this out as well (any additional omissions will remain as such).
In response to the threat(s) posed by our continued consumption of oil the closing point in your proposed solution is “Think of the billions you’d make!”
That, conveyed in one sentence, is why you do not (and perhaps will not) “get it”.
Like I said, I took a critical thinking class, although I never went (but I managed to get a C minus)! My degree has served me well – at least when I went it didn’t cost an arm and a leg! You make a good point – they should ban war too – it’s very costly to taxpayers. I’ll suggest that to my congressman.