DIVESTING GEORGETOWN’S
ENDOWMENT FROM FOSSIL FUELS
A Proposal by GU Fossil Free
Washington, D.C.
August 2014
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
“Our Jesuit tradition leads us to deeply understand the
value of reducing negative effects on the environment and
to see environmental justice and sustainability issues from
a faith perspective.”
- University President Dr. John J. DeGioia
Launching the Georgetown Environment Initiative
01 Nov. 2012
“Money must serve, not rule! … the rich must help, respect, and
promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and to the
return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which
favors human beings.”
- His Holiness Pope Francis I
In Evangelii Gaudium, 2013
2
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
TABLE OF CONTENTS
04
Proposal
06
The Science and General Imperative to Act
06
Fossil Fuel Companies, Carbon Emissions, and Climate Change
07
Immediate and Long Term Fossil Fuel-Related Harms
3
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
10
The Georgetown Imperative to Divest
10
Georgetown’s Identity and Mission as a Call to Action
11
Divestment as an Appropriate Response
15
Financial Considerations Regarding Divestment
15
Potential Impacts of Divestment on Endowment Returns
16
Financial Risks of Carbon-Intensive Investments
17
Environmental and Resource Challenges
19
Shifting Social and Market Norms
20
Governmental and Legal Consequences
23
Conclusion
25
Bibliography
30
Appendix I: Top 200 Fossil Fuel Companies
30
Coal: Top 100 Companies
33
Oil and Gas: Top 100 Companies
I.
PROPOSAL
In the interests of the Georgetown community, the world we inhabit, and those with whom we
share it, we, the members of GU Fossil Free, propose that Georgetown University divest its
holdings from the 200 largest fossil fuel companies, as defined by carbon in proven oil, gas, and
coal reserves (See Appendix 1 for full list).
We see divestment as a central component of a strategy to initiate a reasoned dialogue that
4
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
mobilizes key economic and political players to take action on one of the most urgent concerns
facing our generation: the immediate and long-term consequences of global fossil fuel
dependence. In its on-campus sustainability efforts and climate-related research, Georgetown
has demonstrated its leadership in environmental advocacy. We believe divestment poses an
invaluable opportunity to build on these successes and to leverage Georgetown’s ample social,
political, and moral capital to make far-reaching and impactful progress on an issue deeply
important to the campus community.
Regarding divestment, Georgetown is faced not only with an opportunity but also with a moral
imperative. The injuries associated with fossil fuels are too great for us to forego such a
promising chance to speed the transition to a more sustainable and more equitable economic
system. Moreover, as a university, we participate in what President DeGioia has termed the
“construction of the common good.”1 As a Catholic institution, we draw from a legacy of social
justice and environmental stewardship. Both identities together contribute to Georgetown’s
responsibility to divest. Furthermore, it is morally inconsistent to profit from activities
exacerbating the environmental problems the University is working so hard to address
elsewhere. As such, divestment is an independently crucial component of Georgetown’s
institutional response to environmental concerns upon which rests the credibility of its
sustainability efforts.
An endowment the size of Georgetown’s requires careful management, such that any major
reallocation of funds necessitates caution and deliberation. Recognizing this fact, we endorse
full and immediate divestment, since the precedent recently set by several universities and
institutional investors has proven this approach to be compatible with prudent fiduciary
practices. However, if upon review the Investment Office deems full and immediate divestment
too sudden and great a burden, we will consider ‘tranched’ divestment as a way to facilitate the
process. In other words, after committing to full divestment over the course of three years,
Georgetown could break the process into stages as the Board of Directors, in conjunction with
GU Fossil Free, sees fit. (For example, divest from the top 20 companies the first year, the next
50 the second, etc.) This tranched approach, a product of our prolonged dialogue with the
1
DeGioia, 2013.
5
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
Committee on Investments and Social Responsibility (CISR) over the past year, would enable
Georgetown to reevaluate after each stage of the process, adjusting the next steps accordingly
as it moves towards full divestment.
Withdrawal may in itself have a negligible direct financial impact on these companies.
Nevertheless, divestment is not primarily about undermining the economic bottom-lines of
fossil fuel companies. We advocate divestment because we aspire to capture the potential of
institutional investors such as Georgetown to be a catalyst in transitioning our economy from
fossil fuel dependence to long-term sustainability. For this reason, although the CISR is not
mandated to recommend that the endowment be invested specifically to remedy social
injustices, GU Fossil Free is willing to discuss with the Investment Office and the Board of
Directors the possibility of reinvestment in the renewable energy sector upon divesting
Georgetown’s endowment from fossil fuel holdings.2
The rest of this proposal is organized as follows:
Section II
The Science and General Imperative to Act
What are the issues and why are they important for us to tackle?
Section III
The Georgetown Imperative to Divest
In which ways should Georgetown respond to these issues?
Why is divestment such a crucial piece of an effective response?
Section IV
Financial Considerations Regarding Divestment
What financial risks are associated with divestment?
How does carbon risk provide a sound financial rationale in favor of divestment?
Section V
Conclusion
II.
THE SCIENCE AND GENERAL IMPERATIVE TO ACT
At the heart of our call for divestment is the claim that fossil fuel companies are substantially to
Appendix II (forthcoming) provides an inexhaustive overview of reinvestment possibilities for Georgetown’s
Endowment Fund.
2
6
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
blame for myriad social and environmental injuries. Broadly put, these firms incur damages on
two counts: First, the ongoing and rapidly worsening effects of carbon emissions on human
subsistence and well-being through the mechanism of anthropogenic climate change, and second,
the immediate public health and other effects of fossil fuel extraction on nearby communities. In
this section we detail these harms after explaining the causal connection between the practices of
fossil fuel companies and climate change.
Fossil Fuel Companies, Carbon Emissions, and Climate Change
The fossil fuel industry’s direct implication in the increasingly serious plight of the global
climate urgently necessitates redress. Our concerns are informed by the worsening situation
depicted in climatologists’ recent reports: the average temperature of the planet has risen a
significant 0.8° C over the last century and continues to trend upward,3 summer sea ice in the
Arctic is at its lowest level on record,4 and the world’s oceans are 30% more acidic than they
were before humans began burning fossil fuels.5 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), the international scientific body charged by the United Nations to assess the
global risks of greenhouse gas emissions, concluded in a 2013 report that humans are
significantly impacting the climate through emission of greenhouse gases and aerosols.
According to the IPCC, these emissions are leading to warming which may also affect the
incidence and severity of extreme weather events.6
Fossil fuel consumption accounts for a large portion of greenhouse gas emissions. World
governments agreed on an upper limit of acceptable temperature change of 2° C above preindustrial levels in the 2010 Cancun Agreement. This is a level which modelling by the
International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Carbon Tracker initiative equates to the emission of
565–886 gigatons of CO2 (GtC) by 2050.7 According to the Carbon Tracker initiative, the world’s
NASA, 2013.
Viñas, 2012.
5 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009.
6 IPCC Working Group I, 2013.
3
4
7
Carbon Tracker and Grantham Research Institute, 2013.
7
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
current indicated fossil fuel reserves contain 2,860 GtC. This represents as much as five times
the limit beyond which warming effects would become catastrophic. Unfortunately, the
companies in control of these reserves base their business models on the unabated extraction
of these resources, a strategy fundamentally incompatible with the long-term stability of the
global ecosystem on which we rely. This fact strongly implicates the producers of fossil fuels in
the effects of climate change. This industry’s culpability is heightened by its consistent efforts
to maintain and even increase the dependence of consumers on unsustainable energy. In the
United States, for example, the oil and gas sector’s historical influence on politics and policy
through lobbying and ‘revolving door’ behavior is well-documented. Campaign spending for
candidates of the 111th Congress (2009 and 2010) in addition to various lobbying efforts by
the fossil fuel industry amounted to $347 million—an amount that has not decreased
significantly since then8—while subsidies distributed to the oil and gas sector neared $20.5
billion during that time.9 Thus, the fossil fuel industry's actions threaten both our democratic
process and our collective ability to transition towards a renewables-based economy.
Immediate and Long Term Fossil Fuel-Related Harms
Increasingly unpredictable and extreme weather patterns, including devastating droughts and
floods, currently threaten the food and water security of those populations already most
impacted by climate change. November 2013’s Typhoon Haiyan in southeast Asia, for example,
left thousands dead in its wake in addition to devastating the fishing industry on which 20,000
households depend and costing $110 million in crop losses, 94% of which were uninsured.10
The IPCC’s 2013 report concludes that we have likely already experienced a statistically
significant rise in the incidence of such heavy precipitation events,11 a trend which climate
models suggest will continue as the Earth warms.12 While wealthier nations will be able to bear
many of the costs of adaptation and thus mitigate the consequences they directly experience,
the global poor—already vulnerable in multiple dimensions, and often food insecure—face
Center for Responsive Politics, 2014.
Oil Change International, n.d.
10 Oxfam, 2014.
11 IPCC Working Group I, 2013.
12 Trenberth et al., 2003.
8
9
8
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
significantly greater peril of displacement, famine, disease, and conflict induced by changing
weather patterns. This could pose a significant setback to the international community’s goals
to alleviate extreme poverty and hunger. According to the IPCC’s Working Group II, median
yields of staple crops like maize, wheat, and rice are projected to decrease by up to 2% each
decade as a result of climate change. Grimly coupled with the expected 14% increase per
decade in global food demand and a population set to reach at least 9 billion by 2050,
humankind cannot afford this loss in agricultural capacity.13 Having recently labeled climate
change a major and growing international security threat, a 2014 report issued by the
government-funded military research organization CNA Corporation Military Advisory Board
highlights food scarcity’s role in exacerbating longstanding regional and ethnic rivalries and
creating new conflict, as well as displacing entire populations—effects which will hit the poor
hardest.14 The International Food Policy Research Institute finds climate change’s deleterious
effects on agriculture will translate to calorie availability levels in 2050 declining relative to
2000 levels, as well as 25 million more malnourished children under the age of five.15 In
addition, as temperatures reach greater extremes, those without the means to adapt are
projected to suffer more temperature-related deaths as well as higher rates of water-borne and
vector-borne infections.16
Poor and disenfranchised populations face a disproportionate burden from the localized
repercussions of fossil fuel extraction as well as from its global climate effects. To observe such
systemic disadvantage one need not look outside the United States, where minority and lowincome communities suffer from increased susceptibility to serious health problems due to
their proximity to polluting energy plants. The Clean Air Task Force links coal burning to
21,000 American deaths and another 300,000 cases of acute cardiac and respiratory illness
every year,17 and a recent NAACP report on 378 major U.S. coal plants finds that the six million
people living within three miles of those plants have an average per capita income of $18,400
per year.18 The towns in which oil refineries operate also struggle, and often consist mostly of
IPCC Working Group II, 2014.
CNA Military Advisory Board, 2014.
15 International Food Policy Research Institute, 2009.
16 McMichael et al., 2006.
17 Schneider and Banks, 2010.
18 Wilson, 2012.
13
14
9
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
working class and minority populations. The well-documented case of Richmond, CA, in which
17,000 majority low-income and minority people live within just three miles of a Chevron oil
refinery and in which 46% of adults and 17% of children are afflicted with asthma, stands as
just one of many examples of structural environmental injustice.19 We cannot condone—even
tacitly—an industry responsible for extraction and refinement operations so noxious that they
must be relegated almost exclusively to communities which lack the means to oppose them.
Undoubtedly, anthropogenic climate change already has a disproportionate effect on the
economically- and socially-underprivileged of today, and we can only expect its impact to
worsen in the coming decades. We have a duty to act on behalf of the voiceless future
generations who deserve a clean, hospitable environment in which they can flourish in good
health as much as we do. As members of a generation that is already feeling the adverse
consequences of the prodigal actions of those that came before us, we find ourselves compelled
to protest the trend of intergenerational buck-passing that continues to dominate the global
political and economic discourse surrounding climate issues. The major actors of the fossil fuel
industry have demonstrated consistent willingness to mortgage our future welfare in favor of
short-term growth, and we must meet their negligent practices with the widespread public
repudiation—expressed in part by divestment—they warrant.
19
Choy and Orozco, 2009.
10
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
III. THE GEORGETOWN IMPERATIVE TO DIVEST
Although all investors have a responsibility to reassess their investments in fossil fuels on the basis
of the information described in the previous section, Georgetown’s identity as a Jesuit university
endows it with a particularly strong obligation to act. Here we discuss Georgetown’s mission and
the steps already taken by the University to live out its professed values academically,
operationally, politically, and financially. Despite the University’s continued social justice and
sustainability efforts, the urgency and scale of the harms associated with fossil fuel investments
require us to do more. In particular, Georgetown must make full use of its academic and moral
cachet by divesting its endowment from fossil fuels. We make the case for divestment by
articulating the specific goals of this tactic and differentiating it from other, less efficacious
avenues for leveraging the University’s influence on the issues at hand, including shareholder
engagement.
Georgetown’s Identity and Mission as a Call to Action
As a Catholic and Jesuit institution, Georgetown is deeply rooted in the traditions of social
justice and the preferential option for the poor that thrive in student, ministry, and other
teaching and research initiatives. The Catholic call to environmental stewardship also
manifests itself in our institutional practices. In fact, our attempts to live up to these values by
committing to environmentally sustainable initiatives in recent years are exemplary and
should be applauded. President DeGioia has publicly expressed his desire that we “become a
global leader in this increasingly urgent area,” and we have made great strides towards this
goal with the founding of the Georgetown Environment Initiative in 2012, the establishment of
the Office of Sustainability in July 2013, and the university’s ongoing augmentation of its
11
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
academic and extracurricular environmental programs.20 In addition, the launch of the
Georgetown Energy Prize, which promises to reward an American community with $5 million
to support sustainable energy-saving innovations, on Earth Day this year is a testament to our
on-the-ground commitment to sustainability and a renewable energy transition even outside of
the Georgetown gates.21 Equally as important, our contribution to the common good locally,
nationally, and globally through these and other pursuits fully align with our identity as a
university, first and foremost.
While Georgetown’s core values inform our community’s continued efforts to actively serve the
needy and protect the environment, these values fundamentally obligate us not to cause harm.
The fossil fuel industry's myriad damaging practices on a local and global scale have both
immediate and far-reaching impacts, many of which we outlined in the previous section. If we,
as women and men for others, are to refrain from causing harm, we have a moral imperative as
a university to divest from companies engaged in willfully destructive activity.
Moreover, it is aspirationally inconsistent to profit from activities that perpetuate the very
problem these earnest efforts directly seek to address. Among other sustainability goals, the
University has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2020 from 2006
levels22—yet it plans to continue contributing to global emissions through its financial support
of the fossil fuel industry. Opponents of divestment at other institutions have argued that this
practice would be an undue politicization of investment practices. However, this contention
rests on the flawed assumption that investment without regard for social implications is an
apolitical act. Georgetown cannot profess an unreserved commitment to conscientious global
citizenship if it applies its ethics only where its pocketbook is not concerned. If we aim to
wholeheartedly embrace global justice and environmental responsibility as core institutional
principles we must rid ourselves of conflicting financial interests—we can hardly be expected
to uphold this moral position if its implementation might undermine the growth of our
endowment. We must pursue ideological consistency and divest immediately.
20
Georgetown University Office of Communications, 2013.
21
Yancey, 2014.
22
Georgetown University Office of Sustainability, n.d.
12
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
Divestment as an Appropriate Response
We contend that divestment presents the most viable means available to the University to
effect such a change. Our rationale is twofold, accounting first for the inadequacy of
Georgetown’s usual approach of shareholder engagement in the case of the fossil fuel industry;
and second for the potential impact of divestment on public discourse surrounding the global
future of energy.
In the past, Georgetown’s Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) strategy has primarily consisted
of shareholder engagement, with the notable exception of the university’s decision to pull its
holdings from American companies conducting business in apartheid-era South Africa in
1986.23 The University’s strategy accords with the investment guidelines issued by the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), upon which the CISR’s mandate is based. These
guidelines recommend shareholder engagement in what they call ‘mixed investments,’ or
holdings in a company which is only partially or tangentially involved in morally objectionable
activities.24 Active participation in corporate decision-making often provides a means to alter
injurious corporate behavior and, for that reason, is considered an effective SRI strategy in
many cases. Presumably, it is one Georgetown has exercised with regard to fossil fuel
companies in recent decades as the consequences of large-scale fossil fuel consumption have
come to light.
Some have argued against the efficacy of divestment since it entails abandoning the direct say
investors have on the governance of the companies in question. However, because the
economic bottom-line of these firms depends on continued, unabated extraction and
consumption of fossil fuels, we do not foresee any opportunities to constructively engage these
corporations in the near future. This is especially true given the urgency which the looming
threat of climate change demands and the slow manner in which shifts in corporate behavior
tend to occur. As such, the difficulty of overhauling an entire business model precludes the
The sum pulled amounted to $28.6 million, representing 16% of the endowment at the time (Cipollitti, 2012).
Cipollitti, 2012.
24 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2003.
23
23
13
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
success of any strategy weaker than divestment. Furthermore, Georgetown University stands
as but one of many shareholders making decisions during proxy voting sessions. Our
conversations with the CISR have indicated that when it comes to many of the most deleterious
practices of these companies, we find ourselves engaging from what is effectively a permanent
minority position among shareholders primarily focused on maximizing returns.25
If we cannot hope to effect meaningful changes upon the governance of fossil fuel corporations,
we must withdraw our holdings entirely or else acknowledge complicity in their destructive
behavior.
We understand that Georgetown’s divestment from so large an industry would have minimal
direct financial consequence. However, Georgetown’s market influence extends far beyond the
monetary value of its investments. Experience shows us that markets respond significantly to
shifts in public opinion and that divestment campaigns can play an integral role in effecting
such changes. A report on fossil fuel divestment published last year by the Stranded Assets
Programme at the University of Oxford’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment
speaks to the far-reaching consequences that stigmatization propelled by divestment could
have, before which “any direct impacts pale in comparison.”26 Their assessments, based on
models of firm valuations constructed using the behavior of market norms and the effects of
public perception (with particular attention to past divestment campaigns), suggest a number
of avenues by which a trend of institutional divestment might significantly affect the fossil fuel
industry. Corporate stigmatization obviously produces a direct impact on consumers’
purchasing choices, and furthermore it holds great bearing on the introduction of legislative
restrictions. The report notes that campaigns directed towards industries from adult services
to those involved in apartheid-era South Africa have a history of success in lobbying for
It is also worth noting the historical ineffectiveness of shareholder advocacy, even on the part of key
stakeholders, in changing the behavior of the fossil fuel industry. Nguyen and Rissman (2013) provide evidence: “In
May 2008, 73 of 78 descendants of Exxon Mobil founder John D. Rockefeller, Sr., filed a resolution suggesting Exxon
pursue cleaner energy alternatives. Their resolution failed 89.6 percent to 10.4 percent. In 2010, the California
Public Employees’ Retirement System—with an endowment almost nine times that of Yale (which stands at $20.8
billion)—filed a resolution only asking BP to draft reports on the risks of its oil sands projects. It failed 85 percent to
15 percent.” Considering the repeated appeals by shareholder advocates over the past few decades, oil companies
have not demonstrated any major changes to the way in which they conduct extraction- and combustion-based
business.
25
26
Ansar et al., 2013.
14
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
legislation that restricts the targeted industries.27 The wave of universities publicly divesting
from companies with business ties to South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s must be at least
partially credited with the passing of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act in Congress in
1986, for example. Calls for divestment of tobacco stocks, too, have served to rally actors to
lobby their political representatives and resort to legal action, costing tobacco companies
“taxes and settlements in the many billions.”28
It is worth noting that the Stranded Assets report frames divestment primarily as a means of
inflicting financial damage on the fossil fuel industry. While this is an important consideration,
we emphasize that this does not reflect the full scope of our aims in lobbying for divestment.
However objectionable the practices of oil, gas, and coal companies may be, simply driving
them out of business would be of little benefit to our society. At present we all rely on fossil
fuels in one manner or another in our daily lives, and many individuals subsist on salaries from
these companies. The survival of the fossil fuel industry in its current form is not compatible
with a just and sustainable global future, but its downfall cannot usher in such a future unless it
occurs as the consequence of usurpation by a more favorable alternative. Divestment presents
an optimal strategy for the realization of this goal. Because its direct financial consequences
would be minimal, any harm it ultimately inflicted on the fossil fuel industry would invariably
be the result of a broader discursive shift. By involving consumers, producers, and
policymakers alike, the dialogue bolstered by the divestment movement would simultaneously
foster growth of the clean energy sector to fill in the gaps. We envision the decline of fossil fuel
corporations not as desirable in and of itself, but as an integral piece of a broader evolution of
global markets toward a more sustainable paradigm—an economic maturation on which the
planet’s continued habitability for our species urgently depends.
Georgetown occupies a unique position of holding significant influence in academic, political,
and religious spheres. In addition to its long-standing intellectual prestige, the University’s
prominence among American Catholic institutions and its proximity to the federal government
lend a great deal of external importance to the precedents it sets. As of July 2014, thirteen
colleges in the U.S. have committed to pursue divestment from fossil fuels, but none of them
27
28
Ansar et al., 2013.
Statman, 2000.
15
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
commands as significant a potential market influence as Georgetown. If we were to divest now
from the top 200 companies we identify, we would become the first major research university
to do so, the first Jesuit institution, as well as the first university with an endowment over $1
billion.29 We would also be the first institution to divest closest to where national energy and
climate policy decisions are made. Moreover, the decisions recently issued by Stanford
University and Harvard University—the former restricting its divestment merely to the coal
industry, and the latter responding inadequately to a call for divestment by subscribing to two
sustainable investment initiatives while maintaining its fossil fuel stocks 30—have left
Georgetown as a peer institution with the power to tip the scales in the right direction by
becoming a leader in full divestment. If Georgetown seizes this opportunity, our divestment
would likely serve as a major turning point for the national movement and catalyze action by
other universities following Georgetown’s example.
IV. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING DIVESTMENT
Having put forth a series of compelling arguments for Georgetown’s divestment from the fossil
fuel industry, in this section we address the matter from a financial perspective. We argue that
divestment from fossil fuels adheres completely to the University’s primary investment objective
for the Endowment Fund: “to achieve the highest long-term total investment return on investment
assets that is compatible with the university’s risk tolerance and time horizons and consistent
with prudent investment practices.”31 First, we review the potential impacts divestment could
have on the endowment’s returns. Although it is impossible to predict financial performance with
a high level of accuracy, ample evidence supports the claim that the risk inherent in removing the
fossil fuel sector from our portfolio would be negligible. Then, in discussing increasingly serious
In May 2014, Stanford University announced its decision to divest its $18.7 billion endowment from the 100
publicly traded coal companies that make up half of GU Fossil Free’s list of companies (Stanford News, 2014).
However, the most prominent institution to have committed to full divestment from fossil fuels so far is Pitzer
College, with an endowment of $118.4 million (Pitzer College Office of Communications, 2014). An up-to-date list of
divestment commitments can be found at gofossilfree.org/commitments (Fossil Free, 2014).
29
Harvard’s President Drew Faust made public in April 2014 that Harvard University would become a signatory of
the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment and the Carbon Disclosure Project’s climate change program,
in addition to launching a $20 million Climate Change Solutions Fund (Faust, 2014).
30
31
Georgetown University, 2012.
16
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
risks associated with fossil fuel investments, we describe the most significant financial reasons for
divestment. We conclude that financial considerations weigh overwhelmingly in favor of divesting
Georgetown’s endowment from its fossil fuel holdings.
Potential Impacts of Divestment on Endowment Returns
As the nationwide fossil fuel divestment movement has gathered momentum in the last few
years, a number of studies have been conducted on the risk of screening investments on
criteria of social and environmental responsibility. These studies conclude that even full
divestment is very unlikely to incur major losses or introduce considerable risk to endowments
like ours.
A 2007 report by the Asset Management Working Group of the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) Finance Initiative and Mercer analyzed twenty academic research papers
investigating SRI strategies and their impact on portfolio performance. Of these, ten
demonstrated improved portfolio performance (compared to seven reporting a neutral effect
and only three indicating a negative impact).32 The two studies that focused specifically on
environmental factors both concluded that consideration of sustainability criteria in
investments yields a statistically significant improvement in performance. A more recent
analysis conducted in 2013 by the Aperio Group studied the particular case of fossil fuel
divestment. Using a statistical model to forecast tracking error, the study quantifies the
volatility of a portfolio based on the Russell 3000 Index but screened of the entire oil, gas, and
consumable fuels sector. In this manner, it projects a tracking error of 0.6% as compared to the
unmodified R3000 benchmark, which translates to an increase in absolute portfolio risk of
0.01% and a theoretical return penalty of only 0.003%33 (a figure so small that Aperio Group’s
Chief Investment Officer Patrick Geddes dismisses it as “basically noise”).34
In a follow-up study, IMPAX Asset Management corroborates and expands upon Aperio’s
32
UNEP Finance Initiative and Mercer, 2007.
33
Geddes, 2013.
Gardner, 2013.
34
17
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
results. Using the MSCI index as a benchmark during the years from 2008 to 2013, IMPAX
concludes that removing the fossil fuel sector from a portfolio and replacing it with alternative
fossil-free energy investments, either on a passively or actively managed basis, would see
improved returns with limited tracking error.35 A study commissioned by the Associated Press
from S&P Capital IQ last year calculated the total returns of the U.S. market as tracked by the
S&P 500 index with and without the 200 companies from which we propose divestment. The
AP results align with those of the IMPAX study. A $1 billion endowment that excluded this list
would have grown to $2.26 billion over the past 10 years, whereas an endowment that
included these companies would have only grown to $2.14 billion.36 The discrepancy is
significant—$119 million over 10 years.
Based on financial evidence from the past ten years, fossil-free portfolios clearly exhibit
minimal added risk as compared to analogous benchmarks and even show promise of
increased returns. At the very least, these studies serve to assuage fears that divestment would
inevitably precipitate significant losses.
Financial Risks of Carbon-Intensive Investments
Of course, past performance does not necessarily serve as a good predictor of future
performance, and the fact remains that eliminating an entire industry can leave a portfolio
subject to short-term returns and losses contingent on the external market performance of that
industry. But as hinted by the success of screened portfolios over the past decade, the longterm positive return of fossil fuel stocks is hardly assured. In fact, there are a series of current
and emerging risks that threaten to worsen the financial prospects of fossil fuel investments,
which we will briefly outline here. Because these risks are “poorly understood and are
regularly mispriced,” according to the 2013 Stranded Assets Programme report, failure to take
these risks seriously has led to an over-exposure to such assets in our financial and economic
systems.37
35
36
37
However, as they begin to take hold, investors who have not adapted their
IMPAX Asset Management, 2013.
Begos and Loviglio, 2013.
Ansar et al., 2013.
18
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
strategies to mirror changes in the market could be left with a series of ‘stranded assets’
suffering from “unanticipated or premature write-offs, downward revaluations, or [conversion
to] liabilities.”38
In this sense, divestment would help to make sure that Georgetown anticipates coming changes
in financial markets. We argue that far from exposing the endowment to increased risk,
divestment would function as a financially prudent and forward-looking option fully aligned
with the Board’s fiduciary duty to the University. Former Commissioner of the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission Bevis Longstreth, who in 2013 publicly came forth in favor of fossil
fuel divestment by endowment fiduciaries, neatly summarizes our position: “The financial
case…rests on the claim that fossil fuel companies will prove to be bad investments over the
long term and, therefore, with foresight that anticipates this result, should be removed from the
long-term holdings of an endowment before the strengthening likelihood of this result becomes
commonplace in the market.”39
Some of the risks associated with carbon-intensive assets, such as those represented by the
200 companies we identify as necessitating full divestment, are as follows:
Environmental and Resource Challenges
The companies from which we seek divestment boast carbon reserves that, if extracted and
burned, would release enough CO2 to put the world well beyond the rise of 2° C (from preindustrial levels) that scientists have deemed ‘safe’ (See Section 2 for details). Considering that
only 20% of the world’s proven fossil fuel reserves can be burned if we are to remain below
this threshold, and that the identified companies represent over 25% of these reserves, the
Carbon Tracker initiative calculates that a staggering 60-80% of these companies’ reserves are
rendered ‘unburnable.’40 As the global community begins to recognize the reality of carbon
constraints on the world markets and accelerates its shift to a low-carbon economy, such
reserves are projected to become ‘stranded assets’ for the firms whose business models
38
39
Ansar et al., 2013.
Longstreth, 2013.
40 Leaton,
2011.
19
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
revolve around the extraction, refinement, and combustion of these unburnable reserves.
Financially speaking, then, investments in the 200 companies in question are significantly
overvalued. The overvaluation of carbon-intensive ‘assets’ precipitates the infamous ‘carbon
bubble.’ In fact, the worth of these reserves has been conservatively estimated to range
anywhere from $20 trillion to $27 trillion41—a write-down of which, as one financial study
remarks, would dwarf the $2 trillion housing meltdown that exacerbated the global recession
of 2009.42 The permanent losses incurred by investors upon the ‘bursting’ of other bubbles in
recent financial history, including the housing and dot-com bubbles, should be borne in mind
by investors evaluating the riskiness of fossil fuel ‘assets.’
Though all carbon-intensive assets are vulnerable to stranding by virtue of their environmental
unsustainability, there exists a hierarchy of risk among assets. According to Generation
Foundation, “the projects with the highest break-even costs and emissions profile will be
stranded first.”43Already, the Dow Jones U.S. coal index tracks a steady 70% decrease in coal
industry prices over the course of the past 37 months (as of May 2014). This is indicative of a
general downward trend. Longstreth refers to the coal industry, which increasingly relies on
unconventional and controversial extraction methods such as mountaintop removal and is
subject to stricter and stricter regulation under the EPA’s renewed efforts to enforce the Clean
Air Act, as the “canary in the coal mine” for other risky extractive enterprises.44 Among the
costliest projects for companies—and investors—are also the Canadian tar sands, deepwater
and Arctic drilling, and hydraulic fracturing for shale gas and ‘tight oil.’ These are increasingly
common practices for many of the companies we identify.
In a 2013 report, credit rating agency Standard and Poor’s noted negative outlook revisions
and potential credit downgrades for the oil sector slated to begin in 2014-2017 for moderatelysized, unconventional45 oil producers that rely on high-cost projects.46 Soon after, beginning as
Fullerton, 2011.
Humphreys, 2013 .
43 Generation Foundation, 2013.
44 Longstreth, 2013.
41
42
The International Energy Agency distinguishes between conventional oil, a category that includes crude oil and
natural gas liquids, and unconventional oil. The latter consists of “a wider variety of liquid sources including oil
sands, extra heavy oil, gas to liquids and other liquids. In general, conventional oil is easier and cheaper to produce
than unconventional oil.” (International Energy Agency, 2013).
45
20
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
early as 2017, such revaluations are expected to reach the major integrated oil-and-gas
companies unless they adapt to address the changing market environment for fossil fuel
extractors.47 In today’s context, and tomorrow’s, the environmental and resource difficulties
faced by fossil fuel companies translate into financial risks to which, as S&P note, prudent
investors will not fail to respond.
Shifting Social and Market Norms
The widespread support garnered by the fossil fuel divestment movement over the past year
attests to the increased urgency with which climate change and extraction-related harms are
regarded. Consequently, it reflects the disdain fossil fuel companies are beginning to face by an
entire generation. Five years ago, the idea of fossil fuel divestment may have been less
welcome. But already, schools as prestigious as Stanford University and Pitzer College are
taking the lead to shift the norms and beliefs underlying such a reaction. Prominent private
investors who have divested or are on the verge of divesting their holdings from fossil fuel
companies are also helping to change the tide. Billionaire manager Tom Steyer has directed his
team to divest from coal investments,48 and Jeremy Grantham, another fund manager who
oversees $106 billion in assets, has come forth stating that his company is close to divesting
from coal and unconventional fossil fuels since “the probability of them running into trouble is
too high… to take that risk as an investor.”49 Even Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank
and former president of Dartmouth College, publicly encouraged investors to divest from oil,
gas, and coal companies at Davos earlier this year.50 Nationwide protests of the construction of
the Keystone XL pipeline—and perhaps more telling, President Obama’s reluctance to give the
project a green light as a result—further indicate how public norms are shifting away from
unsustainable energy projects.
Comparing today’s consumer preferences with those of the recent past serves to illustrate the
rapidly changing beliefs in favor of environmental sustainability and renewable energy of the
Redmond and Wilkins, 2013.
Redmond and Wilkins, 2013.
48 Longstreth, 2013.
49 Carrington, 2013.
50 Kim, 2014.
46
47
21
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
American and global public. The success of energy-use certification schemes in everything from
home appliances to new buildings is an example of evolving consumer behavior. The
Georgetown community has certainly participated in this evolution, considering its admirable
effort to ensure that Regents Hall received a Gold LEED-certification for its design,
construction, and operations upon its completion in 2012. Moreover, despite obstacles,
renewables are undoubtedly on the rise. Compounded with increased aversion to carbonintensive energy, rapidly falling clean technology costs are helping to shift consumer demand
away from non-renewables and toward newly affordable green energy options. Analyzing data
indicating rising demand and enhanced productive capacity, a December 2013 report released
by Credit Suisse estimates that in the U.S., about 85% of future demand growth for energy
through 2025 could be met by renewable sources with wind and solar market share more than
doubling from 2012 to 2025.51 Just last year, almost a third of new U.S. electricity generation
came from solar power, California alone responsible for half the solar systems installed during
that time.52 This upward-looking prospect for renewables is, importantly, met with a cut of
more than one-half in Credit Suisse’s projections for American natural gas demand growth.53
Indeed, Germany’s recent announcement that it had beat its own record by meeting 27% of its
energy demand with renewable sources in the first quarter of 2014 bodes well for low-carbon
economies.54
Clearly, social norms surrounding fossil fuel extraction and energy use are evolving—both
away from the unsustainable practices of the fossil fuel industry and towards renewable
alternatives. Naturally, the market is responding, slowly but surely, to accommodate such
changes. As this process continues to unfold and intensify looking toward the future, the costs
of investing in industries increasingly regarded as harmful and even unnecessary will increase.
Governmental and Legal Consequences
One of the principal goals of the divestment movement, and of GU Fossil Free’s campaign, is to
Eggers et al., 2013.
Green Tech Media Research and Solar Energy Industries Association, 2014.
53 Eggers et al., 2013.
54 Baker, 2014.
51
52
22
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
foster a dialogue that mobilizes key players to take effective action on the short- and long-term
consequences of environmental consequences of a fossil fuel-dependent economy. Such players
include political and government actors. Accompanied by the shift in social and market norms
we described previously, political mobilization is likely to take the shape of new legislation to
help foster sustainability in our economic system. Encouraged by the success of renewables so
far, this could include public support for government-sponsored initiatives to incentivize
renewable energy production and consumption, which would thereby reduce demand for fossil
fuel-based energy.
Reduction of fossil fuel demand translates to reduced profitability of carbon-intensive assets,
weakening the financial rationale of keeping such assets in a sound investment portfolio. This
rationale weakens even further when one considers the stigmatization of the fossil fuel sector,
this being a potential cause and consequence of legal mechanisms restricting or
disincentivizing carbon emissions. A regulated carbon market can be achieved through federal
carbon taxation, for example. Carbon taxes have been successfully enacted in countries around
the world (including Japan, India, and several Western European nations55), and International
Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde recently called upon governments worldwide to
institute such taxes in addition to cutting fossil fuel subsidies in a public address earlier this
year. Lagarde makes an empirical case for government action, since “both direct subsidies and
the loss of tax revenue from fossil fuels ate up almost $2 trillion in 2011. This is the same as the
total GDP of countries like Italy or Russia.”56 Compelling international appeals as well as
proposals put forth in state-level and even federal congressional bodies over the past few years
signals the potential for such initiatives in the U.S.
In addition to the public stigmatization of fossil fuel companies brought about by movements
like ours, a clearer scientific understanding of the carbon emissions-climate change
relationship and increasingly visible emissions- and extraction-related harms will empower
citizens to present fossil fuel producers with more frequent lawsuits. Prominent international
environmental law scholars David Hunter and James Salzman argue that this has been and will
continue to be the case especially as governments fail to take action in the face of climate
55
56
SBS, 2013.
Lagarde, 2014.
23
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
change.57 In the future, for instance, it is not difficult to imagine victims of climate-related
damage demanding restitution from corporations so heavily implicated in the increased
incidence of extreme weather events such as 2012’s Hurricane Sandy, which incurred an
estimated $65 billion in material costs.58 Increased litigation and shifting social and political
norms will surely be accompanied by changing statutory interpretations, decreasing the
likelihood of success for fossil fuel companies in the courtroom and thereby increasing the
operating costs of such firms. In turn, the financial prospects of fossil fuel investments appear
bleaker and bleaker.
* * *
Though far from comprehensive, the risks listed above suffice to sketch what the future may
hold for the fossil fuel industry and its investors. In particular, it points to the inadequacy of
financial projections based on the historical performance of carbon-intensive assets. In
response to arguments pointing to asset devaluation, studies commissioned by the American
Petroleum Institute and others have referenced the historical outperformance of the oil and
energy sector compared to broad stock market indices or to other asset classes in a diversified
investment portfolio.59 But looking back in time, the superior performance of fossil free
portfolios relative to corresponding benchmarks (as discussed previously in this section)
challenges such an analysis. Looking forward, the unprecedented ‘carbon bubble’ forming in
markets according to the systemic stranding risks delineated above serves to discourage the
use of historical trends as reliable indicators of future performance. We agree with the Carbon
Tracker initiative that the unlimited ability of current financial markets to treat fossil fuel
holdings as assets is a market failure that must be corrected for by institutional investors such
as Georgetown to ensure the long-term profitability of our endowment.60
In the short-term, it is plausible that we would not see the positive financial benefits of
divesting. Because the divested holdings would likely quickly fall into the hands of other
investors, thus limiting the direct impact of our divestment on the operations of the fossil fuel
companies in question, we may exempt ourselves from any windfalls experienced by the
57
58
59
60
Hunter and Salzman, 2007.
Rice, 2013.
Humphreys, 2013.
Leaton, 2011.
24
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
industry in the next few years. However, the management of Georgetown’s endowment is
explicitly mandated to consider long-term risk and profitability. The substantial costs
associated with investments in fossil fuel extraction, already visible in the declining valuation
of the riskiest carbon-intensive assets such as coal, show such investments to be fundamentally
incompatible with a financially prudent long-term investment strategy. Certainly, the most
straightforward and surefire way to mitigate carbon risk in an investment portfolio such as
ours is to eliminate carbon-intensive assets—to divest completely from fossil fuels.
V.
CONCLUSION
We urge the Georgetown University Board of Directors to lead other institutions by its example
in fully divesting the Endowment Fund from its holdings in the top 200 fossil fuel companies.
With the high-profile commitments of other universities nationwide, the fossil fuel divestment
movement is nearing a tipping point that will prime other institutional investors to follow suit.
This is the pattern set by the divestment of universities such as Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and
Columbia in the cases of tobacco and South African apartheid.61 If we act now, Georgetown
could become one of the principal moral leaders on one of the most pressing issues of our age.
Georgetown is uniquely positioned as a prominent institution in academic, religious, and
political circles, which grants us the opportunity and thus the responsibility to be leaders in the
movement against catastrophic global climate change and extraction-related destruction.
Precedent has shown divestment to be logistically feasible and politically impactful recourse
for universities in the face of injustice. Now more than ever, as the threat of climate change
begins to compound with every year of inadequate response, we must act to prevent future
harm. Georgetown must live up to its moral creed in the face of this crisis and take a stand on
behalf of its students and all other young people whose futures depend on a swift and decisive
transition to a new energy paradigm.
61
Ansar et al., 2013.
25
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
Divestment as such poses a minimal risk for the endowment, as we have shown, while
investments in carbon-intensive assets are increasingly associated with serious long-term
financial risk. This provides a sound financial rationale in favor of divestment. We believe that
if Georgetown’s Investment Office were to take a closer look at its holdings in fossil fuel
companies in light of this risk, it would find that the university’s best financial interests lie in
the full divestment plan we advocate in this proposal.
We hope you will seriously consider our proposal, and we look forward to working with you to
bring Georgetown to the forefront of this historical movement.
Sincerely,
GU Fossil Free
gufossilfree@gmail.com
Daniel Dylewsky (C ‘15)
Caroline James (C ‘16)
Patricia Elena Cipollitti (F ’15)
Christina Libre (C ‘17)
Chloe Lazarus (C ‘16)
Nina Sherburne (Staff)
Annie Wang (F ‘16)
Caitlin Meagher (F ‘17)
Makaiah Mohler (C ‘16)
Leslie Bergmann (C ‘16)
Norah Berk (F ‘15)
Michelle Stearn (F ‘15)
Elaine Colligan (F ‘15)
Katherine B. Mitchell (C ‘15)
*Sydney Browning (C ‘15)
*Troy Miller (F ‘13)
*Mark Waterman (F ‘13)
*Megan Griffin (F ‘14)
*Cole Stangler (F ‘13)
*Gavin Bade (F ‘14)
26
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
*Rachel Calvert (C ‘14)
* denotes former members of GU Fossil Free
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ansar, A., Caldecott, B., and Tilbury, J. (2013). Stranded Assets and the Fossil Fuel Divestment
Campaign: What Does Divestment Mean for the Valuation of Fossil Fuel Assets? Stranded
Assets Programme. Retrieved from http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research/strandedassets/SAP-divestment-report-final.pdf
Baker, B. (2014, May 14). Germany Generates Record-Setting 74 Percent of Energy from
Renewables. EcoWatch. Retrieved from http://ecowatch.com/
Begos, K. and Loviglio, J. (2013, May 22). College Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement Continues to
Grow on Campuses. Associated Press. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Carbon Tracker, & Grantham Research Institute, LSE. (2013). Unburnable Carbon 2013: Wasted
Capital and Stranded Assets. Retrieved from
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/PB-unburnablecarbon-2013-wasted-capital-stranded-assets.pdf
Carrington, D. (2013, Apr. 18). Carbon Bubble Will Plunge the World into Another Financial CrisisReport. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/
Center for Responsive Politics. (2014). Influence and Lobbying: Oil & Gas. OpenSecrets.org.
Retrieved from http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01
Choy, E. & Orozco, A. (2009). Chevron in Richmond. Race, Poverty, and the Environment, 16:2, 43-46.
27
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
Cipollitti, P. (2012, Sep. 20). Investing in Transparency: The Ethics of Georgetown’s Portfolio. The
Georgetown Voice. Retrieved from http://georgetownvoice.com/
CNA Military Advisory Board. (2014). National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate
Change. Retrieved from http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/MAB_2014.pdf
DeGioia, J. (2013, Nov. 20). Remarks at the Launch of ‘Designing the Future(s) of the University.’
Georgetown University. Transcript retrieved from
http://www.georgetown.edu/president/speeches/designing-the-futures-launch.html
Eggers, D., Cole, K., and Davis, M. (2013). The Transformational Impact of Renewables. Credit Suisse.
Retrieved from
http://www.wecc.biz/committees/BOD/TEPPC/SPSG/Lists/Events/Attachments/780/CS
%20Renewables%20Forecast%20Dec2013.pdf
Faust, Drew. (2014, Apr. 7). Confronting Climate Change. Harvard University Office of the President.
Retrieved from http://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2014/confronting-climatechange
Fossil Free. (2014). Commitments. Retrieved from http://gofossilfree.org/commitments/
Fossil Free Indexes. (2014, April). The Carbon Underground 200. Retrieved from
http://fossilfreeindexes.com/
Fullerton, J. (2011, Oct. 12). The Big Choice: Money or Planet? The Guardian. Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/
Gardner, L. (2013, Jan. 29). Divesting from Fossil Fuels is Unlikely to Harm Endowments. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/
Geddes, P. (2013). Do the Investment Math: Building a Carbon-Free Portfolio. Aperio Group, LLC.
Retrieved from
http://www.aperiogroup.com/system/files/documents/building_a_carbon_free_portfolio.p
df
Generation Foundation. (2013). Stranded Carbon Assets: Why and How Carbon Risks Should Be
Incorporated in Investment Analysis. Retrieved from http://genfound.org/media/pdfgeneration-foundation-stranded-carbon-assets-v1.pdf
Georgetown University Office of Communications. (2013, Nov. 1). University’s Environment
Initiative Receives $20 Million Gift. Retrieved from http://www.georgetown.edu/
28
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
Georgetown University Office of Sustainability. (n.d.). Our Commitments. Retrieved from
http://sustainability.georgetown.edu/commitments/
Georgetown University. (2012). Principles and Operating Guidelines for the Committee on
Investments and Social Responsibility (CISR). Retrieved from
http://publicaffairs.georgetown.edu/cisr/principles/document/1242781155658/Principle
s_CISR.pdf
Green Tech Media Research, & Solar Energy Industries Association. (2014). U.S. Solar Market
Insight Report: 2013 Year-in-Review, Executive Summary. Retrieved from
http://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/resources/5jBprenCY92013ye.pdf
Grob, G. (2011). Major Tobacco-related Events in the United States. Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/webassets/2011/04/major-tobacco-related-events-in-the-united-states
Humphreys , J. (2013). Institutional Pathways to Fossil-Free Investing: Endowment Management in
a Warming World. Tellus Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.tellus.org/publications/files/fossilfree.pdf
Hunter, D. and Salzman, J. (2007). Negligence in the Air: The Duty of Care in Climate Change
Litigation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 155:6, 1741-1794.
IMPAX Asset Management. (2013). Beyond Fossil Fuels: The Investment Case for Fossil Fuel
Divestment. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.350.org/images/Impax-20130704_white_paper_fossil_fuel_divestment_uk_final.pdf
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group I. (2013). Climate Change 2013:
The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report
of the IPCC. IPCC. Retrieved from
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/docs/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf
IPCC Working Group II. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. IPCC.
Retrieved from http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-TS_FGDall.pdf
International Energy Agency. (2014). FAQs: Oil. Retrieved from
http://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/oil/
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). (2009). Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture
and Costs of Adaptation. IFPRI. Retrieved from
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/pr21.pdf
29
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
Kim, J.Y. (2014, Jan. 23). Remarks at Davos Press Conference. World Bank. Transcript retrieved from
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/speech/2014/01/23/world-bank-group-presidentjim-yong-kim-remarks-at-davos-press-conference
Lagarde, C. (2014, Feb. 3). A New Multilateralism for the 21st Century: The Richard Dimbleby
Lecture. International Monetary Fund. Retrieved from
https://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2014/020314.htm
Leaton, J. (2011). Carbon: Are the World’s Financial Markets Carrying a Carbon Bubble? Carbon
Tracker. Retrieved from http://www.carbontracker.org/site/wpcontent/uploads/downloads/2011/07/Unburnable-Carbon-Full-rev2.pdf
Longstreth, Bevis. (2013, 2 November). The Financial Case for Divestment of Fossil Fuel Companies
by Endowment Fiduciaries. Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
McMichael, A.J., Woodruff, R.E., & Hales, S. (2006). Climate Change and Human Health: Present and
Future Risks. Lancet, 367, 859–69.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2013). Headquarters Release No. 13-021. NASA.
Retrieved from http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps_prt.htm
Nguyen, A. and Rissman, G. (2013, Apr. 19). Yale’s Commitment to Ethical Investing. Yale Daily
News. Retrieved from http://yaledailynews.com/
Oil Change International. (n.d.). Fossil Fuel Funding to Congress: Industry Influence in the U.S. Oil
Change International. Retrieved from http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-industry-influence-inthe-u-s/
Oxfam. (2014). Hot and Hungry- How to Stop Climate Change from Derailing the Fight Against
Hunger. Oxfam. Retrieved from http://www.oxfamamerica.org/static/media/files/Oxfamhot-hungry-food-climate-change-250314-en_REVMAR20.pdf
Pitzer College Office of Communications. (2014, Apr. 12). Pitzer College and Robert Redford
Announce Breakthrough Fossil Fuel Divestment-Climate Action Model. Retrieved from
http://www.pitzer.edu/offices/communications/press_releases/13-14/2014_04-12divestment-press-conference.asp
Pope Francis I. (2013). Evangelii Gaudium. Retrieved from http://www.vatican.va/evangeliigaudium/en/
30
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
Redmond, S. and Wilkins, M. (2013). What a Carbon-Constrained Future Could Mean for Oil
Companies’ Creditworthiness. Standard and Poor’s. Retrieved from
http://www.carbontracker.org/site/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/03/SnPCTreport-on-oil-sector-carbon-constraints_Mar0420133.pdf
Rice, D. (2013, Jan. 25). Hurricane Sandy, Drought Cost U.S. $100 Billion. USA Today. Retrieved from
http://www.usatoday.com/
SBS. (2013, Oct. 29). Factbox: Carbon Taxes Around the World. SBS Broadcasting Group. Retrieved
from http://www.sbs.com.au/
Schneider, C. and Banks, J. (2010). The Toll From Coal: An Updated Assessment of Death and
Disease from America’s Dirtiest Energy Source. Clean Air Task Force. Retrieved from
http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2009). Scientific Synthesis of the Impacts of
Ocean Acidification on Marine Biodiversity. Retrieved from
http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-46-en.pdf
Stanford News. (2014, May 6). Stanford to Divest from Coal Companies. Retrieved from
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/may/divest-coal-trustees-050714.html
Statman, M. (2000). Socially Responsible Mutual Funds. Financial Analysts Journal, 30-39.
Trenberth, K. E., Dai, A., Rasmussen, R.M., & Parsons, D.B. (2003). The Changing Character of
Precipitation. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,84, 1205–1217. Retrieved from
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-84-9-1205
UNEP Finance Initiative, & Mercer. (2007). Demystifying Responsible Investment Performance.
Retrieved from
http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/Demystifying_Responsible_Investment_Perf
ormance_01.pdf
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. (2003). Socially Responsible Investment Guidelines.
USCCB. Retrieved from http://www.usccb.org/about/financial-reporting/sociallyresponsible-investment-guidelines.cfm
Viñas, M. (2012, Sep. 19). Arctic Sea Ice Hits Smallest Extent in Satellite Era. NASA. Retrieved from
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-seaicemin.html
31
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
Wilson, A. (2012). Coal Blooded: Putting Profits Before People. National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People. Retrieved from
http://www.climateaccess.org/sites/default/files/Coal%20Blooded.pdf
Yancey, R. (2014, Apr. 23). $5 Million Energy Prize to Reward Community Sustainability.
Georgetown Environment Initiative. Retrieved from
https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/environmentinitiative/2014/04/23/5-milliongeorgetown-energy-prize-to-reward-community-sustainability/
APPENDIX I: TOP 200 FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES
COAL: Top 100 Companies
Rank
1
2
3
Company
Coal (GtC)
Coal India
Shenhua Group
Adani Enterprises
57.722
31.523
25.383
32
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Shanxi Coking Company
BHP Billiton
Anglo American
Inner Mongolia Yitai Coal
Datang Intl. Power
China National Coal
Peabody Energy
Glencore Xstrata
Datong Coal Industry
Yanzhou Coal Mining
Public Power Corp (DEH)
Exxaro Resources
Yangquan Coal Industry
Mechel
Arch Coal
Alpha Natural Resources
Mitsubishi
Vale
Rio Tinto
EVRAZ
Raspadskaya
Asian Resource Minerals
UC RUSAL
Neyveli Lignite
Pingdingshan Tianan Coal
Cloud Peak Energy
Sasol
Severstal
18.445
13.469
12.985
12.223
12.206
12.071
11.469
10.453
10.281
9.799
9.339
8.793
7.298
6.739
6.530
5.482
4.738
4.401
4.338
4.235
4.084
3.181
3.081
3.035
3.023
2.881
2.731
2.726
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
AGL Energy
Tata Steel
Teck Resources
Kuzbass Fuel
Polyus Gold
Energy Ventures
Whitehaven Coal
Banpu
RWE
2.704
2.679
2.603
2.504
2.294
2.184
2.055
2.040
1.943
33
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Consol Energy
W H Soul Pattison
Resource Generation
Bayan Resources
Churchill Mining
NTPC
Adaro Energy
Nacco Industries
Idemitsu Kosan
Alliance Resource Partners
Huolinhe Opencut Coal Ind
Coalspur Mines
Mitsui
Golden Energy Mines
Coal of Africa
Novolipetsk Steel
Wesfarmers
Tata Power
Magnitogorsk Iron & Steel
Sherritt International
Kazakhmys
New World Resources
Mongolian Mining
Itochu
Westmoreland
Cockatoo Coal
Shanxi Meijin Energy
Jizhong Energy Resources
Bandanna Energy
1.887
1.850
1.818
1.806
1.745
1.740
1.607
1.557
1.530
1.475
1.387
1.380
1.366
1.354
1.339
1.288
1.094
1.062
1.046
1.012
0.998
0.972
0.903
0.878
0.864
0.851
0.784
0.742
0.731
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
Polo Resources
Allete
CLP Holdings
Aspire Mining
Walter Energy
Aquila Resources
Coal Energy
China Resources Power
Indika Inti
0.726
0.723
0.696
0.670
0.641
0.627
0.614
0.567
0.485
34
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
ArcelorMittal
FirstEnergy
Black Hills Corp
Wescoal Holdings
Grupo Mexico
African Rainbow Minerals
Shanxi Coal Intl Energy
Capital Power
PTT Public
Lanhua
Fortune Minerals
Cardero Resources
Zhengzhou Coal Ind &
Elec
Steel Authority of India
Jindal Steel & Power
Shougang Fushan
Resources
Jingyuan CE
Stanmore Coal
Prophecy Coal
Marubeni
Cliffs Natural Resources
NSSMC
0.464
0.458
0.431
0.430
0.420
0.379
0.376
0.367
0.359
0.338
0.328
0.323
0.319
0.307
0.301
0.299
0.297
0.287
0.272
0.265
0.247
0.237
OIL AND GAS: Top 100 Companies
Rank Company
1
2
3
4
Gazprom
Rosneft
PetroChina
ExxonMobil
Oil
(GtC)
Gas
(GtC)
Total O&G
(GtC)
6.248
10.059
4.884
4.143
37.292
1.979
3.693
4.038
43.540
12.039
8.577
8.181
35
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
5.666
4.203
4.676
2.140
2.545
2.130
0.387
1.661
2.622
1.418
1.449
1.012
1.204
1.155
0.593
0.950
0.586
0.780
1.280
2.197
0.674
2.332
1.591
1.683
3.391
1.069
0.067
1.142
0.703
0.928
0.367
0.366
0.664
0.303
0.461
0.200
6.946
6.400
5.350
4.473
4.137
3.813
3.777
2.730
2.689
2.561
2.152
1.939
1.571
1.521
1.257
1.253
1.047
0.980
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Lukoil
BP
Petrobras
Royal Dutch Shell
Chevron
Total
Novatek
ConocoPhillips
Tatneft
ENI
ONGC
Statoil
Sinopec
CNOOC
BG
Occidental
Apache
Canadian Natural
Resources
Anadarko Petroleum
BHP Billiton
Devon Energy
Chesapeake Energy
Bashneft
Inpex
Ecopetrol
EOG Resources
Suncor Energy
Marathon Oil
Hess
0.450
0.345
0.379
0.293
0.876
0.393
0.580
0.392
0.596
0.473
0.485
0.454
0.552
0.515
0.596
0.000
0.369
0.157
0.258
0.041
0.151
0.125
0.904
0.897
0.894
0.889
0.876
0.762
0.737
0.650
0.636
0.624
0.610
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Imperial Oil
Encana
Energi Mega Persada
BASF
Repsol
OMV
Noble Energy
Woodside Petroleum
0.561
0.089
0.020
0.159
0.182
0.260
0.141
0.058
0.027
0.479
0.537
0.294
0.265
0.152
0.271
0.334
0.587
0.568
0.557
0.453
0.446
0.413
0.412
0.392
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
36
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
Pioneer Natural Resources
Linn Energy
Cenovus Energy
YPF
Range Resources
PTT
Husky Energy
EQT
Continental Resources
Talisman Energy
KazMunaiGas EP
JX Holdings
WPX Energy
Santos
SK Innovation
QEP Resources
Southwestern Energy
Consol Energy
Cabot Oil & Gas
SandRidge Energy
Newfield Exploration
Murphy Oil
Dragon Oil
Freeport-McMoRan
Maersk Group
Concho Resources
Ultra Petroleum
Denbury Resources
GDF SUEZ
MEG Energy
0.270
0.218
0.309
0.235
0.090
0.111
0.212
0.001
0.238
0.111
0.298
0.271
0.069
0.033
0.226
0.078
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.134
0.112
0.144
0.159
0.155
0.174
0.116
0.008
0.139
0.045
0.155
0.120
0.163
0.053
0.121
0.261
0.228
0.122
0.326
0.073
0.199
0.000
0.000
0.188
0.204
0.000
0.143
0.219
0.218
0.201
0.077
0.096
0.062
0.044
0.028
0.000
0.057
0.162
0.026
0.117
0.000
0.390
0.381
0.362
0.356
0.352
0.339
0.334
0.327
0.311
0.310
0.298
0.271
0.258
0.237
0.226
0.220
0.219
0.218
0.212
0.211
0.207
0.206
0.203
0.183
0.174
0.173
0.169
0.166
0.162
0.155
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
Whiting Petroleum
RWE
MOL
Crescent Point Energy
Polish Oil & Gas
Mitsui
Penn West Petroleum
Pacific Rubiales Energy
0.139
0.037
0.084
0.135
0.036
0.048
0.111
0.104
0.012
0.111
0.061
0.010
0.108
0.095
0.029
0.028
0.151
0.148
0.146
0.145
0.144
0.142
0.140
0.132
37
A Proposal to Divest Georgetown’s Endowment from Fossil Fuels
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Oil India
Cimarex Energy
Energen
TAQA
Oil Search
ARC Resources
Canadian Oil Sands
Genel Energy
SM Energy
Sasol
National Fuel Gas
Tullow Oil
Pengrowth Energy
Xcite Energy
Vermilion Energy
Peyto E&D
Quicksilver Resources
Petroceltic International
Forest Oil
Tourmaline Oil
Bonavista Energy
0.073
0.062
0.082
0.065
0.028
0.044
0.109
0.105
0.057
0.004
0.018
0.080
0.051
0.084
0.069
0.009
0.017
0.026
0.026
0.009
0.027
0.059
0.068
0.044
0.055
0.088
0.065
0.000
0.000
0.045
0.085
0.071
0.008
0.037
0.001
0.013
0.070
0.061
0.050
0.050
0.065
0.045
0.132
0.130
0.126
0.121
0.117
0.109
0.109
0.105
0.102
0.089
0.088
0.088
0.088
0.085
0.082
0.079
0.077
0.077
0.076
0.074
0.072
All companies in this list are investable as of March 31, 2014. The rankings are based on
calculated carbon emissions data using reserves reported as of November 28, 2013. The ranking
are adjusted for company mergers and acquisitions November 28, 2013 and March 31, 2014.
Source: Fossil Free Indexes, 2014.
38