Divestment Research Paper

In his essay titled “Climate of Denial”, Al Gore, a well known environmental advocate and former vice president, verifies the reality of climate change and global warming. The piece is an attack on corrupt companies and news outlets that attempt to persuade the public that global warming is not a critical issue. Gore also earnestly conveys our environment’s current state and offers possible solutions that would increase awareness about global warming and begin to revert the planet back to a healthier, more sustainable state. The overarching purpose of Gore’s work is to call attention to the widespread climate change that is occurring. However, he also focuses on the corruption and bias within the media, and their attempts to conceal the truth about global warming. Writing to those who are conflicted about who to believe, he makes a valid argument that defends the beliefs of he and his fellow activists and encourages others to become more active in the climate change issue.

“Why Bother?” is directed towards everyday citizens who want to make an impact against climate change.

The Invest-Divest platform written by The Movement for Black Lives demands divestments from fossil fuels, criminalizing, caging, and the harm of black people, prisons, police, surveillance, and exploitative corporations. They are fighting for investments in education, health for black lives, and safety for black lives. One of the most important demands, in my opinion, is a investment in equitable health care for African Americans. Currently in our country, 53 percent of Blacks get insurance from their jobs compared to 72 percent of Whites (Invest-Divest: The Movement for Black Lives). That’s a 35.85 percent difference. In the U.S. African Americans are less likely to work in jobs that have health insurance, are less likely to get it offered

Gary Stix calls to Americans to halt global warming. The world is changing and not for the better, he writes “The Debate on Global Warming is Over” (Stix 46). CO2 levels are higher than they have been in 650,000 years and are projected to only increase at an exponential rate. No one knows exactly when and what will happen, but all scientist can agree that it won’t be good. Making a difference in the fight against global warming will require a massive alteration in the entire world’s energy economy. Fossil Fuels account for 80% of the world’s energy and if a “carbon budget” is put into place then they will be ineffective (Stix 47). We need to begin to make a shift towards more renewable sources of energy, and adopt a system to help regulate the total amount of emissions. These programs will give us a head start on lessening the effects of global warming, but the

The conversation of introducing environment sustainability actions on campus were solemnly expressed through individuals who had concern for the environment. In the book, “Greening the Ivory Tower” by Sarah Creighton, the author mentions ways students can take action to maintain a healthy environment. Creighton introduces the benefits of protecting the campus from harmful effects of abusing the environment around them. By doing so, she allows the readers to be aware of environmental issues in addition to providing solutions to these problems. Creighton claims, “Five ingredients are key to successful university action: . . . (2) university commitment and demonstrated support for

Lust for power is most commonly seen in businessmen or politicians and in today's world money is power. Recently, politician’s desire for power can be seen in the global climate change issue. Many U.S. officials, including our current President, do not believe in global climate change, or are ignoring this large issue because of the immense amount of money they receive from one of the main causes of climate change: fossil fuels. In 2014 oil, gas, and coal companies spent a total of $151,437,335 on Congress’ campaigns (“Funding Fossil Fuels”). The people involved in our government system are letting their lust for money and power cloud their judgement on the future of our planet.

Temperature rising isn’t just abnormal; it’s a serious matter that has caught the attention of many scientists. Scientists has issued that climate change is happening and with all the burning of fossil fuel we’ll be looking at devastating consequences. In the editorial “How Mankind Blew the Fight against Climate Change,” published in the Washington Post (June 5, 2014), American environmentalist Bill McKibben discusses the major consequences of oil industries, arguing that limitations can happen if shareholders would stop investing in these unjust companies. McKibben supports the claim by presenting strong evidence of how global warming has created disastrophe like the death tolls in India, providing statements made from Exxon’s executive mocking renewable energy, and finding ways to solve the issue such as divesting. McKibben’s purpose is to stop shareholders from investing in big oil companies like Exxon Mobile, by introducing them to divestment. McKibben adapts an urgent tone for an audience that consists of those who believe that the climate is changing and are caused by burning of fossil fuel. In this essay, I analyze Bill McKibben’s usage of strategic methods for strengthening his claims. Identifying his choices of rhetorical devices, I plan on voicing his approach by breaking down how he incorporates logos and pathos to persuade the audience of this urgent issue concerning our world. McKibben structure his article in a style that best explains his point, his urgency

Meanwhile, leading officials and shareholders have been attempting to push against Exxon’s misleading statements, and two Harvard researchers have recently proven that Exxon was deliberately attempting to deceive the public with the wording of their advertising and public statements. They say that while Exxon Mobil has attempted to frame itself in a positive light by contributing to climate change research, they are ultimately causing the worst kind of damage by continuing to publicly promote unscientific thinking which could negatively sway future policy making in the United States and other countries. The beliefs held by the people working against Exxon Mobil are essentially environmentalist, if more about wise use than deep ecology- they believe that the public, in particular shareholders, have a right to know about the ethics of what they might be investing in so they might choose more environmentally sound options when it’s logical and beneficial both for themselves and the

I was interested in this specific publication because I have always wondered why people aren’t more environmentally conscious and don’t strive to be as efficient as possible. I reasoned that inaction may be caused by a number of factors: perhaps people are ignorant, or perhaps people just don’t care that much because they’re not directly affected by climate change. Another possibility might be that people don’t believe they can make a significant difference in the situation, even if they change their ways, so they don’t bother putting in any effort because they think it wont really matter and no one likes to feel like they’re wasting time.

Years of deregulation and unchecked capitalism has left our political system under the control of multinational fossil fuel corporations who use money to exert influence over our legislative process. In her book This Changes Everything, Naomi Klein blames unchecked free market capitalism and neoliberal policies. “The three policy pillars of this new era are familiar to us all: privatization of the public sphere, deregulation of the corporate sector, and lower corporate taxation, paid for with cuts to public spending” (Klein pp. 19 2014) The corporate world exerts its stranglehold influence by controlling not only our political process through powerful lobbies but through the mainstream media as well. Our media outlets are reluctant to report the effects of climate change or any mass movements to stop it because they are financially at the mercy of the fossil fuel corporations. The corporate oligarchy of fossil fuel companies is so powerful that our leaders have become financially dependent puppets of these companies. In a sense, the United States is no longer a democracy but a form of oligarchy with an addiction to growth and profits trumping the wellbeing of the masses. Our country’s obsession with consumerism makes it difficult for people to sacrifice their comfortable lives for the sake of a more sustainable economic model.

Global warming, or– the more accurate term presently– climate change, is increasing wielded as an ill-suited weapon to discourage companies and everyday people from living in ways that are most convenient to them. It is no surprise, consequently, most Canadians do not conform to the notion of sustainability. Thinking of one’s carbon footprint may cross one’s mind for a moment or two, before the thought is chased away by more relevant concepts such as eliminating effort, saving time, having convenience and of course, gaining profit in a society that encourages consumerism. In other words, people in our modern society like to “live in the moment” as many of the older generation may say; we apparently give no thought to the future. But is the

ExxonMobil, one of the largest oil companies in the world and the United States, encourages the distrust of facts about climate change attempting to mitigate the role of fossil fuel consumption. Their denial shows they are aware of the effects they have on the environment. Exxon pushes this denial of climate change by funding organizations that do not believe in climate change. While their current public image shows they do not believe the facts of climate change, a recent release of internal documents show that they have known the truth from research they conducted in the late 1970’s. Exxon must stop promoting the denial of climate change because they need to progress their business practices to a more sustainable model, allowing them to better cope with inevitable future reductions of fossil fuel use.

To overcome these great obstacles set by the polluter-industrial complex, the environmental justice movement must grow and adapt to the changes. If the environmental justice movement expands its constituency to include broader human rights campaigns, the movement will be able to strengthen its numbers. It will become much more difficult to argue against human rights platforms for it applies to every social class and race. These campaigns could also compromise less by showing increased activism through grassroots campaigning. Without extreme measures, the environmental justice movement could place more pressure through a united front, compromising to none. Another way to combat the polluter-industrial complex is by forcing politicians to make their financial statements more transparent to the public. The American people have the right to know if certain politicians are paid by individuals linked to the polluter-industrial complex. This information should be publically displayed for immediate and easy access, helping many differentiate between real and false information. Most importantly, the American people and consumers need to become more conscious of reliable sources, for not every source tells the truth. Mindful consumers that restrict the purchase of certain

As evidence of climate change becomes more conspicuous and understandable, many suggestions were offered by scientists, politicians, and journalists fight for it. One of Klein’s ideal approaches to tackle climate change is that the government should tell the industry that “we will support you, but only if you support the communities from which you profit, by providing well-paying local jobs, and sourcing your products locally” (126). However, no matter how much money a person has, one barely invests all of it solely to one aspect of interest, as most of us have a lot to take care of in life—family, residence, properties, friendship—while we have limited time and money. This is the same for corporations which are all managed by humans, who choose what to invest on for maximum profit. They do not make non-profitable investment which involves a too broad range of business, including both renewable and non-renewable industries. Consequently, the non-renewable employment sector must decline in response to the cooperation between companies and the government to provide more renewable jobs. According to the official statistics of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the fossil fuel business—extraction, manufacturing and the supply of coal, gas and oil—employs more than 2 million

The Fossil Fuel Divestment campaign was first launched in 2012. The word divestment means taking out all the money that was being put into that investment for the fact that those investments were not morally right. Different types of divestments have been used previously and have been extremely successful. Some of those other divestment campaigns that were successful were the fight against violence in Darfur and tobacco advertising (Fossil Free, 2012). By November, 2012, over 300 universities and 100 different cities and states have joined this fossil fuel divestment campaign (Fossil Free, 2012). This movement is being called one of the fastest growing movements that has ever happened. Although this movement started in 2012, it is still rapidly growing now, in 2016.