In the wake of the coal divestment dispute, it is important to remember the history of coal. Coal, for all the destruction it brings, is what propelled the industrial revolution. In fact, without the aid of coal, many of us would not be here. Many of our families, peasant farmers and tradesmen for generations, were only allowed forward by the choking scent of burnt coal.
In exchange for economic fuel, coal destroyed landscapes across Britain and the United States. This is an old story, not a new one. And while many Americans are no longer forced to subsist among plumes of fly ash, the mainland Chinese are only now being brought into this narrative of industrialization. They too have made this deal and are emblematic of the dual nature of coal: From it many former peasants may derive employment and wealth, but they are also infected with lung problems, poisoned water and watery eyes.
It is in this context that I support the decision not to divest from coal. I believe it is imperative to look at the big picture. All industries have both benefits and harms. Coal mining and burning is not inherently more harmful than most other industries. Let one look at the technology industry, which tends to have a clean, cool image. Not only is most production of technological goods like mobile phones and tablet computers fueled by coal, but it also relies on the destructive extraction of rare earth metals. These goods, once produced, leave behind trails of “e-waste” in developing countries like the P.R. China, poisoning water, soil and air. Yet, no one seems to be calling for divestment from any companies that either produce or use these devices, nor does anyone call for the abandonment of the use of the devices themselves.
Coal is an easy, dirty target. One can argue the Corporation made its decision only because of the its members’ “interests” and “privileges.” But the fact of the matter is that no industry is free of harm. Whether it is intensive agriculture, coal mining, textile production or whatever else, there will always be harm. Unless the Corporation was to divest from all industry, divesting from coal would be hypocritical and pointless. Of course, if that were done, there would be no University of which to speak. Our world runs on industry, whether one wants it to or not. We can change industries, we can make them less harmful and we can nationalize them to ensure that they run for public gain rather than profit. However, we cannot eliminate them. Given this circumstance, the politicization of coal divestment makes very little sense. Let us save the power of divestment for meaningful moments, as was previously done with regard to South African interests during Apartheid.
Max Guerrera-Sapone ’14
I am so incredibly ashamed of the University’s decision this past weekend. The Corporation took on the responsibility of deciding about this deeply unethical investment after going directly over the heads of the Advisory Committee on Corporate Responsibility in Investment Policies, an organization that was established for the sole reason of assessing the ethicality of the investments of Brown’s endowment. ACCRIP even submitted a follow-up letter showing incredible support for divestment, something the University decided to ignore. With a majority of the student body in favor of divestment, it is equally apparent the University has absolutely no regard for the views of the student body of which it governs. It turns out that Brown might not be the progressive institution that cares deeply about its student body that I thought it was.
Samuel Sander Effron ’17
ADVERTISEMENT
