CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Air Quality stanford campus

Published on May 16th, 2014 | by Jake Richardson

5

Stanford Says No To Investing In Coal

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

May 16th, 2014 by
 
Stanford University recently announced it will no longer directly invest in publicly traded companies that mine for coal for energy generation. There are about 100 such companies and Stanford will no longer invest any of its $18.7 billion endowment in any of them. The university will also divest any funds currently invested in them.

stanford campus

Stanford Campus

“Stanford has a responsibility as a global citizen to promote sustainability for our planet, and we work intensively to do so through our research, our educational programs and our campus operations. The university’s review has concluded that coal is one of the most carbon-intensive methods of energy generation and that other sources can be readily substituted for it. Moving away from coal in the investment context is a small, but constructive, step while work continues, at Stanford and elsewhere, to develop broadly viable sustainable energy solutions for the future,” said Stanford President John Hennessy.

While burning coal for power generation contributes to climate change, it also generates a steady flow of harmful air pollution. A Harvard Medical School study found that the impact on human health in terms of lung disease, heart disease, and water pollution costs the US about $500 billion each year.

Though it may seem shocking that a top-ranked university would publicly announce such a rejection of a very common fossil fuel, Stanford was not the first to do so. It was preceded by the following schools:

  • College of the Atlantic
  • Foothill-De Anza Community College
  • Green Mountain College
  • Hampshire College
  • Naropa University
  • Peralta Community College District
  • Pitzer College, Prescott College
  • San Francisco State University
  • Sterling College
  • Unity College

Foothill-De Anza, SF State, and Peralta are all located in the Bay Area. Stanford is the most prominent of them all, but there is another potential divestor that some consider to be the most reputable in America: Harvard University. Student activists played a role in the Stanford divestiture and they may do so again at America’s best university. A student leader there explained, “I think it’s an extremely exciting first step. And I think they’re divesting from coal because there are alternative investments in renewable energy that Stanford can be looking at. This is a really important message for Harvard because it says that our investments do  have an impact. And if we’re investing in coal companies, then we are having a negative impact on people’s health and our environment. So we can align our values without sacrificing anything financially.”

If Harvard also divests, other Ivy League institutions may follow. Some might argue that such gestures are of little to no impact in the larger energy scheme, but they do seem to matter in terms of exercising whatever social influence universities do have.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Print Friendly

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , ,


About the Author

Hello, I have been writing online for some time, and enjoy the outdoors. If you like, you can follow me on Google Plus.



  • Matt

    I glad they took the step but wonder what
    “companies that mine for coal for energy generation”
    means. Coal mined for export is ok? Also they didn’t that the next logical step, companies the burn coal for electric.

    • Michael

      “Energy generation” means production of electricity so actually they divested from any coal companies that extract coal to burn for electricity, including any that might be exported for burning in other countries. The only things they didn’t divest from were coal that is used to make steel or companies that actually burn the coal (only divested from the mining companies)

  • JamesWimberley

    I beat you to it. My blog post here (link) garnered some interesting blowback from commenters who argued that divestment has no practical impact (as opposed to the simple moral stand). I stand by my argument, but its a far from straightforward case.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Thanks for sharing! I also stand by your argument(s). :D

  • Offgridmanpolktn

    It must have someone scared of more than just the social consequences. Heard on the radio at the first of the week that one of the big eastern universities was arresting students protesting for this same type of divestiture.

Back to Top ↑