Fossil Fuel Decision Monday

[fluffy]

In 2014, university students voted 77 per cent in support of divestment of the universities investments in fossil fuel companies; a year later faculty voted 62 per cent in favour of selling off the school's fossil fuel holdings within five years.

Makes sense from a financial viewpoint. Fossil fuel stocks have plummeted from 2014 to present, why sell now and lock in losses. Give the market a little time and see if it comes back up. The students are happy to make a political statement with other people's money.

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-158524-3-.htm#158524

[jlysholm]

I agree. Why would you sell when the market is at t's worst?

[Veovis]

I agree. Why would you sell when the market is at t's worst?

It will take time, but prices will certainly come back up. They didn't drop because cold fusion got solved, but due to market issues that will come back over time.

The comment that they will look to sell sometime in the next 5 years seems to me like they are running for a win win. They get to tell the student activists "Our School is saying no to Fossil Fuels" everyone cheers while they whisper "eventually". I would imagine in 5 years there will have been some recovery to the sector to make disposal not a massive loss.

[logicalview]

In 2014, university students voted 77 per cent in support of divestment of the universities investments in fossil fuel companies;

This made me laugh. Letting students vote on what the university should do with its money. Like with all of the leftist brain-washing these kids endure every day about petroleum and the man-made climate change myth that they would have voted any other way. I am actually surprised it was as low as 77%. And why stop at letting them vote just on this stupid issue. Given my current exposure to the thought processes of university students these days, I would bet if it were up the socially-conscious constantly on their phone university-attending millenial, all campus serving and janitorial staff would all be paid $100K a year (to start anyway, then go up from there), all food that isn't halal, organic, "fair trade" or vegan would be banned from campus, and of course, tuition and books would be free. And that's just the start.

So to sum up - what is the point of letting university students vote on something like this? This isn't a democracy, it's a government-funded educational institution, supposedly run by adults. Supposedly.

BTW - totally agree with this comment:

The students are happy to make a political statement with other people's money.

Of course. Isn't that how it works???

[twobits]

"In 2014, university students voted 77 per cent in support of divestment of the universities investments in fossil fuel companies"
I have no doubt that this 77% is comprised of, and reflects, the number of students that are either liberal arts, non designated professional programs, and the Faculty of "crank out teachers" Education. There is after all only about 23% of university degrees that are actually beneficial on today's resumes.

[Rosemary1]

No end to silliness. For many reasons it's good to invest in developing additional energy sources that can be more environmentally friendly, renewable, and affordable with wide applications and can supplement or replace fossil fuels in future. This will take well planned, balanced long term strategies and not knee jerk reactions like we are seeing of late from various groups.

We do not yet have any perfect replacement. Every alternative source has its own drawbacks or is not yet far along in development.

For e.g.
Wind Turbines? Can affect temperature and precipitation in surrounding area. Not suitable for all locations. Noisy. Need back up, High maintenance
Solar Energy: still needs backup energy source. Not suitable everywhere Takes years to recover investment.
Nuclear Energy: cheaper, not renewable, radioactive waste, severe impact of any accident
Hydro power has its own advantages and disadvantages but has its own critics as well
Experiments with corn based fuel & with recyclable material are still up and coming

[rustled]

...
Nuclear Energy: cheaper, not renewable, radioactive waste, severe impact of any accident...

I'm always a little taken aback when this kind of blanket statement about nuclear comes from a thoughtful poster.

While the disaster narrative around nuclear is popular, it doesn't seem to reflect the reality of the old technology, and it doesn't seem to consider the realities of the emerging nuclear technologies.

If we're serious about moving away from fossil fuels, we need to be clear-headed and mature in our decision making. One wonders how these young folk will think about their choices here, twenty or thirty years down the road.

[Rosemary1]

You are right of course. Just trying to point out that there no perfect alternative sources yet - no matter how small or big the downside may be. In case of nuclear power plants for example, there will always be people uncomfortable with such plants anywhere near their community no matter how small the risk.

[maryjane48]

in early 70s a oil storage tank caught fire in nanaimo and burnt a fireman , so if the point being made is oil is safe , it is not a valid argument

[twobits]

in early 70s a oil storage tank caught fire in nanaimo and burnt a fireman , so if the point being made is oil is safe , it is not a valid argument

Three children suffocated in a grain bin last year too. My conclusion is that farming is not safe and we need to immediately research ways to find an alternative way of being fed.