eleven years ago, unity college, a small environmental college tucked into the woods of rural maine, became the first institute of higher education in the country to divest, scrubbing their finances clean from fossil fuels. with the help of climate activist bill mckibben and activist groups, unity college’s story started a movement. today, over 100 schools are divested or in the process of divesting from fossil fuels. from private, wealthy goliaths such as harvard and yale to the entire california public college system, fossil fuels are out the door. 

on this planet forward audio story, i talk to the former president of unity college about how divestment works and the story of how his school became the first to do it. also, he happens to be my dad.

this decision marks the culmination of seven years of organizing by gw students and aligns with the recommendations from the university’s environmental, social, and governance (esg) responsibility task force.

“for nearly a decade, gw students and students across the country have been demanding that our universities take moral leadership and end their support for the fossil fuel industry,” said jeremy liskar, member of the student organization sunrise gw and a student representative on the esg task force. “our victory (this week) clearly shows that student organizing has changed the consensus on this issue. gw’s commitment will help move the ball for other institutions to take similar action.”

the task force, established earlier in 2020, included students, faculty, trustees, and alumni. together they recommended seven commitments to be incorporated into gw’s existing sustainability plan. in addition to divesting from all public and private companies that focus on fossil fuel extraction, they also recommend that the university commits to halting any new direct or indirect investments to businesses that reap the majority of their revenue from fossil fuel, including coal, oil, and natural gas.

“the covid-19 crisis has served to highlight the enormous impact humans have on the environment and the need for equitable access to healthy natural resources,” the task force wrote in a statement released monday. “the reduced burning of fossil fuels over the last few months has, in a short time, had a dramatically positive impact on the quality of the air we breathe and our waterways. simultaneously, the pressures of the pandemic alongside existing environmental, health, and economic disparities have laid bare the need for more inclusive and equitable structures in our institutions and society as a whole.”

gw joins 37 other u.s. educational institutions that have committed to or achieved full divestment, according to fossil free, including planet forward 2022年世界杯亚洲预选赛结果 schools middlebury college, suny-esf and the university of hawaii. other d.c. area schools are also part of the movement, as georgetown university made a pledge to divest completely within 10 years in february and american university announced the completion of their full divestment in april. university of maryland, located just outside of d.c., agreed to a full divestment plan in 2016.

this announcement comes at the culmination of an academic year saturated with advocacy by gw students demanding the university divest its roughly $1.78 billion endowment from businesses that profit from fossil fuel. currently, less than 3% of the endowment — or around $50 million — comes from fossil fuel investment, according to estimates. however, meghan chapple, director of gw’s office of sustainability, says divestment is more significant than that number may suggest.

“it’s important because it’s part of a larger movement and it sends a message about climate change … there is significant consensus that climate change is the big, pressing issue of our time,” chapple said.

the “larger movement” to urge institutions of higher education to commit to fossil fuel divestment began when unity college became the first to do so in 2012. the same year, the fossil free campaign — a branch of 350.org — was founded on student-led action to demand divestment. fossil free gw was formed in 2013.

in november 2019, fossil free gw announced they were transitioning to sunrise gw, to become a campus hub for the sunrise movement. as a chapter of the national youth-led group, sunrise gw organized art builds, protests, and petitions on campus urging the university to divest over the course of the 2019-2020 academic year.

this april, a referendum to divest the university’s holding from fossil fuel was included in gw’s student association election. it received approval from 85.66% of voters.

“i would like to acknowledge our student leaders who have — as representatives of their generation, of the generation that will inhabit the planet over the next 50 to 100 years, the generation that is going to be the future of this planet — i’d like to acknowledge them for all the work they have done to raise awareness of the importance of climate change to the leadership of the university,” chapple said.

two current undergraduate students, liskar and jillian weber, who has been involved in gw sustainability initiatives, were members of the 14-person task force.

“i think the student community can be confident that they were well represented in the voices that jillian and jeremy brought to the table,” chapple said.

liskar said sunrise gw is “ecstatic” about the divestment announcement.

since releasing their recommendations for the university sustainability plan in late may, the esg task force held two digital town halls, allowing students, staff, faculty, and alumni to provide feedback, and additionally received more than 100 submissions of “overwhelmingly positive” feedback via the task force website.

divestment strategies have been used in the past to invoke societal change, perhaps most notably in opposition to south african apartheid. in the mid-1980s, campuses around the world divested from companies doing business in south africa, ultimately helping to weaken the apartheid government.

chapple also drew attention to the university’s pledge to become carbon neutral by offsetting two centuries worth of greenhouse gas emissions dating back to the university’s charter in 1821. while gw had previously aimed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040, the university this week committed to an accelerated plan, aiming to reach neutrality by 2030. gw also signed on to plans to go beyond carbon neutrality in honor of the university’s bicentennial next year, a pledge chapple finds equally significant to that of divestment.

other additions to the university’s updated sustainability plan include goals to eliminate single-use plastic on campus, increase the amount of greenspace for biodiversity, conserve stormwater, and convert campus transportation to zero-emissions vehicles.

they thank us and we slip back into the crowd of protestors chanting in the shadow of the madison gas and electric plant. that photo op won’t be the last time i overthink a seemingly easy decision on this hot afternoon, because today is the global climate strike and i’m not attending it — i’m covering it.

as i march with the crowd from mg&e to the steps of the state capitol, it’s hard not to get swept up in the rousing speeches and impassioned chants, but i try to remember the journalistic guidelines i have been taught. 

when i first started at the badger herald, one of the university of wisconsin’s student newspapers, i was quickly taught the basics of unbiased journalism — speak to a representative from both sides, report only verifiable facts and do not post anything political to your social media. many of these “journalism ethics” were then expanded upon and further instilled into me through my classes at uw. 

at the strike, i stood next to my friends who waved large crayola-lettered signs and chanted passionately. as i weaved through the sweaty crowd, i tried to establish my own journalistic guidelines on the fly — i could accept pamphlets but i couldn’t hold a sign, my friends could post pictures i was in but i couldn’t post one myself, i could clap but i couldn’t cheer. 

looking back, i was definitely overthinking things, but my self-imposed limitations do a raise a question many environmental journalists are constantly facing — what is our role in the fight against climate change?

it may seem obvious that as with other global debates, our job is to inform the public and report the facts. but with climate change, these “facts” are often more complicated than they appear. 

climate change first really came into the public sphere in 1988 when dr. james hansen of the national aeronautics and space administration testified in front of a congressional committee and said he was “99 percent certain” that the warming trend of the previous few years was not because of natural variation, but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. 

this story made the front page of the new york times under the headline, “global warming has begun, expert tells senate.” this article cited several scientists and mathematical models, all indicating that immediate action was needed. the piece included only one sentence acknowledging that some scientists believe the recent warmer temperatures are due to natural fluctuations. 

over 30 years later, the public’s perception of climate change has become increasingly divergent from the scientific discourse. 

ninety-seven percent of climate experts have concluded that human-caused climate change is a reality, according to the american association for the advancement of science. but as of 2019, 35% of americans think that global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 31% in 1997, according to a gallup poll.this same poll found that as of 2018, only 42% of americans would consider themselves an environmentalist, down from 76% in 1989.

i have seen how important this public perception of climate change can be in directing policy. one of my aforementioned crayola sign-toting roommates is marina minic, a uw junior studying chemistry and environmental studies and an executive board member for campus leaders for energy action now. 

clean is a student organization working through strikes and petitions to get uw to power the campus exclusively with renewable energy by 2050 and to derive all electrical power from renewable resources by 2030. i have covered several protests organized by clean and have joined them during their weekly petitioning around campus, their version of greta thunberg’s fridays for future. 

minic said that most students she interacts with support clean energy; they are just unaware that it is such a major issue at uw.  she said that whenever she tells students that only 1.61% of uw’s energy consumption comes from clean and renewable sources, they are disappointed and happy to sign clean’s petition. 

a major way clean informs students and gains visibility is through media coverage, minic told me. 

“if the chancellor wakes up the next morning and she sees every local paper has written about something, obviously you can’t ignore it at that point,” minic said. “it’s also a good way to raise awareness to other students to get involved in the movement because i think most people do care about this issue and maybe just didn’t know about it.”

this media attention has always been key for the environmental movement. however, in the years since hansen first testified before the senate, how the media covers climate change has shifted. 

a study published in 2003 by the global environmental change journal featured a content analysis of articles published by the wall street journal, the new york times, the washington post and the los angeles times from 1988 to 2002. the study found that the majority, 52.6%, of articles presented both the view that climate change is being caused by humans and the view that it is due to natural fluctuations, in a balanced way. the study also found that from 1988 to 2002, the articles’ focus on the need for immediate climate action decreased. 

this study is dated, but more recent studies show similar trends. the day after the intergovernmental panel on climate change released its report announcing that global warming is likely to reach 1.5°c between 2030 and 2052 if current trends continue, media matters for america analyzed the home pages of the top 50 newspapers in the country. they found that only 22 covered the report. 

this lack of coverage and the tendency to prioritize balance over accuracy may be connected to the politicization of climate change. a recent report published by the science communication journal conducted a content analysis of all climate change-related articles published by major newspapers in the u.s between 1985 and 2017. the report found that representations of climate change have become more politicized. 

the content analysis showed that political actors have been increasingly used as sources in recent years, while the use of scientists as sources has been decreasing. it also found that the mention of “democrats” and “republicans” in climate change-related articles have increased. 

the perceived politicization of climate change has influenced actions being taken to address it. when 350 madison, a climate action organization, petitioned the uw foundation to divest from fossil fuel industries, the foundation wrote a letter saying it did not want to do anything that would make the university be seen as a political actor, rather than an academic and research institution. 

this argument is not unique to uw. ari bortman, a university of pennsylvania junior and a campus organizer with fossil free penn, told me that when fossil free pushed for divestment at upenn, the administration said it did not want to make a political statement. that refusal, bortman said, is a political statement in itself. 

“at this point, their vehement resistance to make any kind of statement on the industry really belies their leanings,” bortman said. “we know that the fossil fuel industry destroys people’s lives, destroys people’s homes for profit… exxon admits to spending billions of dollars to spread false science to misinform people, that’s not debatable. to not say that these things are bad is a political statement.”

bortman’s reference to exxon mobile’s misinformation campaigns actually touches on part of why climate change has become so politicized. a recent report, “america misled,” analyzed internal corporate documents from the fossil fuel industry showing it knew about the reality of human-caused climate change for decades and actively funded denial and disinformation campaigns.  

one document from 1998 outlines the american petroleum institute’s global climate science communications plan. this plan includes a bullet point list titled, “victory will be achieved when.”

“media “understands” (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science,” one bullet point read.  “media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge conventional wisdom.”

corporations’ efforts to influence media messages about climate change have persisted throughout the years. one day in february, after covering clean’s divestment die-in where protestors chanted and laid down at the top of bascom hill as a part of the national fossil fuel divestment day, i came home to find marina fuming in the kitchen. 

i had been covering the protest for the badger herald, but the other school newspaper, the daily cardinal, had been given a pamphlet from the uw alumni foundation emphasizing that technically it is the foundation that is invested in fossil fuels, not the university. 

the resulting daily cardinal article said that students were protesting uw’s “alleged” investment in fossil fuels. 

the word “alleged” was eventually removed after the daily cardinal met with clean. in the meeting, clean’s executive board explained that because all $124,785,961 the foundation has invested in oil and gas is donated to uw, the university is still profiting off fossil fuel investments. 

seeing the importance media coverage plays in this issue, and the concerted effort those who profit from the fossil fuel industry have continued to put into influencing the media, makes me wonder — as a journalist, is it truly biased to take a stance on climate change? furthermore, as a student with a platform, do i have a responsibility to share that stance?

i think back to the global climate strike; standing on my tip toes with my arms outstretched trying to record the speakers, i remember how moved i was by what they said. 

one speaker, uw freshman crystal zhao, reflected on her experience moving from china to massachusetts at 14 and witnessing how climate change has affected different parts of the world. her speech moved me because she discussed the importance of everyone having a role in the climate movement. 

“i’m here today because i care about the future generation and selfishly, i am here today because i care about the reputation of our generation,” zhao said. “i don’t want us to be remembered as the generation that failed to act when we still had a chance to save our home.”

her speech brings me back to my original question: as a journalist, what is my role in the climate movement? this may be a question i continue to grapple with throughout my career. but i do know one thing — after zhao spoke, i cheered as loud as i could. 

the bold plan, announced in late january by college president laurie l. patton, was met with resounding student and faculty support. the plan, called energy2028, details the school’s sustainable energy vision that’s aimed at both reducing middlebury’s carbon footprint and its environmental impact.

energy2028 includes commitments for middlebury to use 100% renewable energy resources, reduce overall energy consumption by 25%, and cease 100% of all direct fossil fuel investments within the next 10 years.

“this plan is true to middlebury’s culture and values,” president patton said in a statement. “it is bold and aspirational while remaining realistic and highly practical. it acknowledges that we do not have all the solutions at our disposal at this moment to meet these goals, but it commits us to make every effort to do so.”

the backstory

the middlebury board of trustees unanimously voted to divest, and indicates the institution’s commitment to a better, more sustainable future. but energy2028 was not born overnight. this decision, a key component of the new four-part plan, was the result of a six-year effort led by student activists.

middlebury, which created the country’s first undergraduate environmental studies program in 1965, has long been heralded as a beacon for environmental studies and action. however, middlebury has not always shown its commitment to the environment.

in 2012, a small group of middlebury students developed a plan for the school to divest from all fossil fuel companies in its endowment portfolio. the students presented this plan to the middlebury administration where they were met with a resounding “no.” to divest from fossil fuel companies was a dangerous economic move, and simply too bold at the time.

students led the charge

while met with negativity, student involvement — and hope — in divestment never wavered. as the original students graduated, new ones had to take the helm and continue to promote divestment and pressure the administration to act against climate change.

student turnover created a slow moving campaign toward divestment from fossil fuels, but eager students accepted the challenge. after about three generations of students carried out the work of those before them, progress started to be made.

alice butler and leif taranta, two of the student organizers of the current divestment campaign, picked up where students left off a few years ago. “most of the members on the board did not see the vision we had,” butler said. “through most of the campaign process, we felt that a lot of the administration did not really take us seriously.”

a small group of students regularly held protests and sit-ins to demonstrate their displeasure with middlebury’s investment in fossil fuels, but never quite created enough noise to really push the administration. at times when momentum slowed, however, the campaign aimed to gain broader student support for divestment.

in a student government referendum last spring, more than 80% of the middlebury student body voted in support of divestment, transforming a casual student group into a movement with serious implications and support. an identical faculty referendum was held this fall, yielding similar results to the student positions.

the results were clear: the middlebury community was calling for divestment.

a smart change in tactics

over the course of about three semesters, the divestment campaign grew quickly. across campus, students pinned small orange patches to their coats and backpacks showing their support for the movement. group discussions, protests and sit-ins grew, increasing the pressure on the administration to divest. and student organizers began making ethics, justice, and economic arguments for divestment.

“so often we were told we didn’t know what we were talking about and to stay in our lane,” taranta said, as a smile grew on his face. “but then we started attending town hall discussions and asking questions that faculty and board members couldn’t answer.”

shifting from a protest-based approach to one focused on research and intellectual pressure was a critical turn in the divestment campaign.

“the administration felt the pressure,” butler said. “they saw how seriously students were taking the movement, and it would bad on their part to not listen to what the majority of students see as a brighter future.”

once the campaign combined evidence-based research with student support, change started to occur. as student arguments grew stronger, administrators began to change their minds.

caroline mcbride and ted truscott, two members of middlebury’s board of trustees, completely changed their position on the topic, while david provost, the executive vice president of finance, acted as a liaison between president patton and the students.

pressure builds

in an already vulnerable position, the administration then began to feel pressure from other student campaigns, including those calling for a carbon tax, dining hall meat reduction, and emissions reduction.

“the whole of our environmental arguments was better than the parts, and it became clear to the administration that students care for the environment,” butler said. the administration caught on, and before long, students and faculty began working together to find an appropriate climate action plan for the school. energy2028 was born.

the announcement of energy2028 is a win for the students, the school, and our planet. paired with middlebury’s carbon neutrality announcement in 2017, the school proves it is invested in the future of its students and the planet. middlebury is a beacon of hope today when scientific predictions are indicating a bleak future for the planet.

when asked what’s next for the divestment campaign, butler and taranta laughed.

“you should see how many schools have reached out to us about their own divestment strategies,” taranta said. “a lot of students are committed to holding their schools accountable for a better future.”