Connect with us


Fossil fuel divestment is simple yet compelling logic. It’s time Harvard understood



Chloe Maxmin, co-ordinator of the student-led Divest Harvard initiative, describes her fight to get the prestigious US university to ditch its fossil fuel investments.

Two things happened in the summer of 2012 that changed my life and the course of my career as a climate activist.

First, I was working on the Tar Sands Free North-east campaign, mobilising to prevent Alberta’s tar sands from coming through an existing pipeline in Canada, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine – my home state. I drove through dense woods and followed yellow poles that marked an underground pipeline, surreptitiously winding around homes and under rivers. Most people didn’t know that toxic sludge could soon be running under their feet. What’s more, Exxon Mobil owns 76% of the pipeline. I had no idea that such a huge corporation was juggling the future of Maine’s wellbeing.

Second, Bill McKibben published an article in Rolling Stone magazined titled Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math. At the end, he alluded to divestment becoming a tactic that could heighten the moral outrage around political inaction on climate change and stigmatise the fossil fuel industry, reducing its ability to influence the political system and communities.

These two pieces of the puzzle came together in my mind. I realised: divestment as a tactic could weaken Exxon’s ability to put my home, family, neighbours and state in danger. So, Divest Harvard (DH) was born.

At our first meeting, we had literally 10 people in a room. We were starting from scratch, and the state of activism on campus left something to be desired. But we crafted a campaign plan, we did research, we talked with students, faculty, alumni. We built coalitions with student groups. Within three months, we held a referendum on divestment and 72% of college students supported us. Then, 67% of law school students supported divestment. We were featured in the New York Times and other major media outlets.

We have continued to organise on campus, and we have made history at Harvard. Ask any student about Divest Harvard – they’ll know what you’re talking about.

Our president’s intransigence is infamous. Word of our rallies spread throughout the school. Everything came to a head on April 30, when we organised our first act of civil disobedience. I, along with five other DH members, risked arrest as we blockaded the front door to our president’s office building. We stood outside in the cold and rain for over 24 hours, educating students, building community, and calling for an open public meeting with our administration.

In the end, the Harvard University Police Department arrested one student. We saw that Harvard would rather arrest a student than engage in transparent dialogue about divestment and climate change. The next day, we delivered over 65,000 signatures to our president’s executive assistant. Despite the arrest, our movement is powerful and broad.

Fossil fuel divestment is not just a potent force at Harvard – it has revitalised the climate movement and spread across the world. There are 400 divestment campaigns on US college campuses alone, not to mention the religious institutions, pension funds, cities, states and individuals that are also divesting around the planet.

Recently, Stanford University divested it’s $18 billion endowment from coal. Eleven other higher education institutions, 26 cities, dozens of foundations, and more have fully divested as well.

From my life-changing summer in 2012 to today, I have seen the fossil fuel divestment movement grow from a few campuses to an international movement. I’ve seen students, faculty, alumni, friends and family get inspired by the simple yet compelling logic behind divestment. And I’ve watched Divest Harvard grow into a historic force, a call to action and a symbol of young people’s power.

Fossil fuel divestment is changing the climate of the climate movement – for the better.

Chloe Maxmin is a student at Harvard University. She is the founder of First Here, Then Everywhere and the co-ordinator of Divest Harvard. This article originally appeared on the Mondosri blog.

Further reading:

Harvard divestment group block hall entrance and call for a meeting on fossil fuels investment

Harvard to sign Principles for Responsible Investment and set up $20m climate fund

Yes, we too can profit by killing the planet because… we’re Harvard

Fossil fuel divestment is neither ‘warranted or wise’, says Harvard president

Harvard academics rally for ‘ethically responsible’ fossil fuels divestment


Will Self-Driving Cars Be Better for the Environment?



self-driving cars for green environment
Shutterstock Licensed Photo - By Zapp2Photo |

Technologists, engineers, lawmakers, and the general public have been excitedly debating about the merits of self-driving cars for the past several years, as companies like Waymo and Uber race to get the first fully autonomous vehicles on the market. Largely, the concerns have been about safety and ethics; is a self-driving car really capable of eliminating the human errors responsible for the majority of vehicular accidents? And if so, who’s responsible for programming life-or-death decisions, and who’s held liable in the event of an accident?

But while these questions continue being debated, protecting people on an individual level, it’s worth posing a different question: how will self-driving cars impact the environment?

The Big Picture

The Department of Energy attempted to answer this question in clear terms, using scientific research and existing data sets to project the short-term and long-term environmental impact that self-driving vehicles could have. Its findings? The emergence of self-driving vehicles could essentially go either way; it could reduce energy consumption in transportation by as much as 90 percent, or increase it by more than 200 percent.

That’s a margin of error so wide it might as well be a total guess, but there are too many unknown variables to form a solid conclusion. There are many ways autonomous vehicles could influence our energy consumption and environmental impact, and they could go well or poorly, depending on how they’re adopted.

Driver Reduction?

One of the big selling points of autonomous vehicles is their capacity to reduce the total number of vehicles—and human drivers—on the road. If you’re able to carpool to work in a self-driving vehicle, or rely on autonomous public transportation, you’ll spend far less time, money, and energy on your own car. The convenience and efficiency of autonomous vehicles would therefore reduce the total miles driven, and significantly reduce carbon emissions.

There’s a flip side to this argument, however. If autonomous vehicles are far more convenient and less expensive than previous means of travel, it could be an incentive for people to travel more frequently, or drive to more destinations they’d otherwise avoid. In this case, the total miles driven could actually increase with the rise of self-driving cars.

As an added consideration, the increase or decrease in drivers on the road could result in more or fewer vehicle collisions, respectively—especially in the early days of autonomous vehicle adoption, when so many human drivers are still on the road. Car accident injury cases, therefore, would become far more complicated, and the roads could be temporarily less safe.


Deadheading is a term used in trucking and ridesharing to refer to miles driven with an empty load. Assume for a moment that there’s a fleet of self-driving vehicles available to pick people up and carry them to their destinations. It’s a convenient service, but by necessity, these vehicles will spend at least some of their time driving without passengers, whether it’s spent waiting to pick someone up or en route to their location. The increase in miles from deadheading could nullify the potential benefits of people driving fewer total miles, or add to the damage done by their increased mileage.

Make and Model of Car

Much will also depend on the types of cars equipped to be self-driving. For example, Waymo recently launched a wave of self-driving hybrid minivans, capable of getting far better mileage than a gas-only vehicle. If the majority of self-driving cars are electric or hybrids, the environmental impact will be much lower than if they’re converted from existing vehicles. Good emissions ratings are also important here.

On the other hand, the increased demand for autonomous vehicles could put more pressure on factory production, and make older cars obsolete. In that case, the gas mileage savings could be counteracted by the increased environmental impact of factory production.

The Bottom Line

Right now, there are too many unanswered questions to make a confident determination whether self-driving vehicles will help or harm the environment. Will we start driving more, or less? How will they handle dead time? What kind of models are going to be on the road?

Engineers and the general public are in complete control of how this develops in the near future. Hopefully, we’ll be able to see all the safety benefits of having autonomous vehicles on the road, but without any of the extra environmental impact to deal with.

Continue Reading


New Zealand to Switch to Fully Renewable Energy by 2035



renewable energy policy
Shutterstock Licensed Photo - By Eviart /

New Zealand’s prime minister-elect Jacinda Ardern is already taking steps towards reducing the country’s carbon footprint. She signed a coalition deal with NZ First in October, aiming to generate 100% of the country’s energy from renewable sources by 2035.

New Zealand is already one of the greenest countries in the world, sourcing over 80% of its energy for its 4.7 million people from renewable resources like hydroelectric, geothermal and wind. The majority of its electricity comes from hydro-power, which generated 60% of the country’s energy in 2016. Last winter, renewable generation peaked at 93%.

Now, Ardern is taking on the challenge of eliminating New Zealand’s remaining use of fossil fuels. One of the biggest obstacles will be filling in the gap left by hydropower sources during dry conditions. When lake levels drop, the country relies on gas and coal to provide energy. Eliminating fossil fuels will require finding an alternative source to avoid spikes in energy costs during droughts.

Business NZ’s executive director John Carnegie told Bloomberg he believes Ardern needs to balance her goals with affordability, stating, “It’s completely appropriate to have a focus on reducing carbon emissions, but there needs to be an open and transparent public conversation about the policies and how they are delivered.”

The coalition deal outlined a few steps towards achieving this, including investing more in solar, which currently only provides 0.1% of the country’s energy. Ardern’s plans also include switching the electricity grid to renewable energy, investing more funds into rail transport, and switching all government vehicles to green fuel within a decade.

Zero net emissions by 2050

Beyond powering the country’s electricity grid with 100% green energy, Ardern also wants to reach zero net emissions by 2050. This ambitious goal is very much in line with her focus on climate change throughout the course of her campaign. Environmental issues were one of her top priorities from the start, which increased her appeal with young voters and helped her become one of the youngest world leaders at only 37.

Reaching zero net emissions would require overcoming challenging issues like eliminating fossil fuels in vehicles. Ardern hasn’t outlined a plan for reaching this goal, but has suggested creating an independent commission to aid in the transition to a lower carbon economy.

She also set a goal of doubling the number of trees the country plants per year to 100 million, a goal she says is “absolutely achievable” using land that is marginal for farming animals.

Greenpeace New Zealand climate and energy campaigner Amanda Larsson believes that phasing out fossil fuels should be a priority for the new prime minister. She says that in order to reach zero net emissions, Ardern “must prioritize closing down coal, putting a moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, building more wind infrastructure, and opening the playing field for household and community solar.”

A worldwide shift to renewable energy

Addressing climate change is becoming more of a priority around the world and many governments are assessing how they can reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and switch to environmentally-friendly energy sources. Sustainable energy is becoming an increasingly profitable industry, giving companies more of an incentive to invest.

Ardern isn’t alone in her climate concerns, as other prominent world leaders like Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron have made renewable energy a focus of their campaigns. She isn’t the first to set ambitious goals, either. Sweden and Norway share New Zealand’s goal of net zero emissions by 2045 and 2030, respectively.

Scotland already sources more than half of its electricity from renewable sources and aims to fully transition by 2020, while France announced plans in September to stop fossil fuel production by 2040. This would make it the first country to do so, and the first to end the sale of gasoline and diesel vehicles.

Many parts of the world still rely heavily on coal, but if these countries are successful in phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable resources, it could serve as a turning point. As other world leaders see that switching to sustainable energy is possible – and profitable – it could be the start of a worldwide shift towards environmentally-friendly energy.


Continue Reading