773 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/27/13 4:38pm)
Over the past few years, the Snow Bowl has gone through some dramatic renovations, both in facilities and policy. Though the unpredictable weather during this current ski season has required skiers and boarders to adapt to a variety of snow conditions, the weather now is providing excellent conditions for Snow Bowl goers.
“We’ve had ups and downs in terms of weather but are experiencing the best conditions of the season right now!” said Snow Bowl Manager Peter Mackey this past weekend.
Beyond the revamping of Worth Mountain chair in 2010, there has also been the recent addition of a magic carpet for beginner skiers — thanks to a generous gift from two families who have been long-time supporters of the Snow Bowl. Officially called the “SunKid Wonder Carpet,” this contraption consists of a conveyor belt with 10 speeds that transports skiers and boarders to the top of a “bunny slope.”
According to Snow School Director Susan Davis, the carpet is “a huge asset in promoting more practice time on true beginner terrain.” While in the past all beginner trails required a chairlift to access, now young beginner skiers can ride the Wonder Carpet within clear view of parents. General consensus is that the terrain serviced by the Wonder Carpet is more manageable than that of other “beginner” trails at the Snow Bowl.
Some say that the terrain at the Snow Bowl is one step more challenging than that of other popular ski resorts in the area like Okemo and Killington.
According to Susan Davis, “our beginner ‘Green Circle’ trails accessed off our two front side chairlifts are often described as having more of a ‘Blue Square’ intermediate character.”
Though there are no double black diamond trails at the Snow Bowl, the single-diamond and tree trails provide enough of a challenge for even expert skiers.
Tree skiing at the Snow Bowl, when sufficient powder allows it, is “some of the best in Vermont, especially with the new boundary-to-boundary policy,” said Ski School Instructor Grace Donovan ’13.5 of Enterprise, Ore.
The new “boundary-to-boundary” policy, adopted last year, permits skiing and boarding anywhere through the woods as long as skiers and riders proceed at their own risk. Just this past year a complementary safety policy was implemented that mandates wearing a helmet for all Snow Bowl staff and patrons.
Due to the erratic weather this season, including rapid changes from 50-degree weather and rain to below-freezing temperatures, conditions at the bowl have at times become dangerous.
The first week of winter term, after a snowstorm that had produced ideal powder skiing conditions, Avery Shawler ’13 took on the terrain at the Snow Bowl without fear. The weather had resulted in hidden patches of ice, however, and Showler experienced a fall that left her with a minor concussion.
“I don’t remember the accident or evacuation at all since the concussion caused some short-term memory loss, but I do remember the doctor showing me the dent in the front of my helmet when I was in the emergency room. He told me that if I not been wearing a helmet I might have suffered permanent brain damage.”
While changes to the Snow Bowl’s physical and social climate have indeed taken place, certain annual events rooted in tradition live on. The torch light parade over February break remains a highlight of the ski season, and “Fun Day,” on Saturday March 30, when everyone dresses up in vintage ski clothing, is a day not to miss. Winter term student lessons, at five for just $50, and a student season’s pass for $160 are prices unrivaled by other Vermont ski areas.
(02/20/13 6:26pm)
On Sunday Feb. 17, over 50 students and Schumann Distinguished Scholar Bill McKibben attended the “Forward On Climate” rally in Washington, D.C. The rally, sponsored by 350.org, the Sierra Club and the Hip-Hop Caucus, was the largest climate rally in American history, with approximately 40,000 participants.
“It was really cool to be a part of [the rally] and to just look back and see [thousands of] people behind you, all there for climate change,” explained Hannah Bristol ’14.5 who attended the rally. “It felt like we were really making ourselves heard.”
The goal of the rally was primarily to protest the Keystone XL pipeline project, which seeks to build a pipeline to transport crude oil from Canada to various locations in the western United States. President of the United States Barack Obama is currently faced with the decision of whether or not to approve the project.
During the rally and their march around the White House, the students held a collection of signs which, when viewed together from above, created the image of a pipeline and when flipped, looked like solar panels.
McKibben, who gave a speech at the rally praising the group gathered and urging them to continue their fight for climate change, views Obama’s decision about the Keystone pipeline project as pivotal to environmental activism.
“If Obama rejects it, he’ll be the first leader to turn down a project on climate grounds — that’s a legacy and also a way to convince other countries to do the right thing,” said McKibben.
“We hope that the rally showed President Obama that he does have a huge amount of support from his constituents for him to take executive action on environmental issues, starting with the official denial of the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline,” added Laura Berry ’16, who was the student organizer for the trip to the rally.
Bristol emphasized that this rally was not an attempt to “bash” Obama, but merely to hold him to promises he previously made.
“For Obama, climate change is an issue he always says he is going to put as a priority, but we have yet to see action,” said Bristol. “In the State of the Union, he said that if Congress does not take action on climate change, he would, and we need to hold him to that promise.”
Prior to the rally, the group attended the Youth Convergence on Sunday morning, organized by the Sierra Student Coalition. Students had the opportunity to meet with other college students to discuss steps they are taking to address environmental issues, as well as hear from speakers from 350.org and the Sierra Club.
“[There are] a lot of good lessons to learn about things you can do on your college campus,” said Bristol.
Additionally, students working on the College’s divestment campaign had the chance to meet with other student leaders from schools in the Investure consortium — Dickinson, Smith and Barnard — to plan future efforts.
Divestment is the issue area where McKibben suggests that Middlebury students concerned about climate change should “work like crazy.”
“Midd students have a lot of leverage right now to help with this crisis, if we can persuade our leaders on campus to do the right thing,” he said.
Bristol believes students should work on promoting more nationwide movements like the “Forward On Climate” rally to generate political pressure for environmental issues.
“It will only be salient for our representatives if it’s salient for the people,” urged Bristol. “I think the best thing Middlebury College students can do is build that kind of movement, build that kind of pressure and do whatever they can do to stop what’s happening.”
Laura Berry '16 challenges the student body to pay attention.
“There is no longer an excuse for individuals to remain silent and complacent when it comes to environmental issues," wrote Berry in an email. "Take just a moment to think about your own plans for the future, and realize that if we as individuals continue to do nothing, there very well may not be a habitable planet to live on by the time we are our parents’ age. Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better.”
(02/20/13 5:23pm)
Last Saturday morning, the seven of us gave a 45-minute presentation in front of the full Board of Trustees advocating for divestment of Middlebury’s endowment from the fossil fuels and weapons manufacturing industries. We spoke for the hundreds of students across campus who have expressed their support of divestment. In this column, we seek to sum up our argument, using direct quotes from our transcript.
Jeannie Bartlett: We’re here today to talk about divesting Middlebury’s endowment holdings from fossil fuels and weapons manufacturing industries. Divestment will include making a public commitment early this spring, freezing investments in those industries and being completely out by 2016, the same time we fulfill carbon neutrality.
Laura Berry: One of our major concerns is the presence of weapons-related violence in this world. From the stagnant rate of firearm murders in the U.S. and the mass tragedies such as the Sandy Hook Massacre and the Aurora theatre shooting, the horrifying presence of firearm related violence in the U.S. is more evident than ever.
Teddy Smyth: In the Copenhagen Accord, the world agreed: the highest “safe” temperature rise is two degrees Celsius. If we burn through all of our reserves, as currently projected, we will exceed the amount of carbon we can “safely” burn five times over. So we’re left with a choice: either we continue burning through our reserves and blow past the two-degree target, or we lock up a large portion of the carbon reserves worldwide.
Craig Thompson: According to Investure’s December 2012 review of our endowment, 3.6 percent of our portfolio is invested in fossil fuels and 0.6 percent is invested in weapons manufacturers. This is the part of our portfolio we believe that Middlebury should divest. Research by HSBC, the United Nations, Mercer, Aperio Group and McKinsey among others support the notion that the predicted “cost” of divestment is likely insignificant. In the Divestment Panel in McCullough last month, Mark Kritzman, professor at MIT Sloan School of Management, presented a largely theoretical paper he wrote titled “The Cost of Divestment.” Mr. Kritzman’s analysis does not mention risk or risk-adjusted returns and uses investment assumptions that are not applicable to our portfolio or, we believe, the Board’s decision.
Divestment also circumvents the significant political and environmental risks that these industries face in the upcoming years. Middlebury invests its endowment with an infinite horizon with respect to returns, and as a result the question of when anti-carbon emission legislation will occur, either in one year or in 10, does not change the fact that there could be significant impact on intermediate- and long-term profitability not currently priced into the market. Restrictions on using this carbon are almost inevitable if the planet as we know it is to survive.
Nathan Arnosti: Divestment from South Africa provides a clear legal precedent. A legal comment at the time noted that ‘the courts give wide discretion to trustee investment decisions.’ ... The UNEP Finance Initiative reports in 2005 and 2009 confirms the legality of integrating non-financial considerations into investment decisions.
The College’s investment objectives explains that the endowment’s ‘earnings support the diverse programs and initiatives of the Middlebury College community in perpetuity.’ Isn’t it fair to consider that our earnings from investments in fossil fuels and weapons do not support the college’s initiatives?
Laura Berry: Middlebury has already placed social and environmental concerns at the forefront of its academics and campus operations. We ask that the Board vote to divest from fossil fuels and weapons manufacturers because the missions of these companies run directly counter to the Middlebury education.
Middlebury now has the opportunity to take its role as a social and environmental leader to the next level. Middlebury would be at the forefront of a national movement with over 256 active divestment campaigns on college campuses. We would be the first of our peer institutions to divest and would undoubtedly inspire other institutions in the United States to once again follow in our footsteps and consider divestment.
Kristina Johansson: Divestment from fossil fuels and weapons manufacturers will have a powerful impact, as it did in South Africa 25 years ago. Middlebury’s divestment, in conjunction with divestment at other institutions, can spark a shift in the public discourse on climate change and gun violence. We mean to reduce the political power of these industries in Washington, which has prevented meaningful legislation on climate change and gun violence over the past few decades. Widespread divestment will also signal to the government that academic institutions desire an economic and political environment that no longer coddles fossil fuel producers, but rather nurtures the development of clean, renewable energy.
Fernando Sandoval Jimenez: We are not an isolated community. We are not immune to the effects of climate change and weapons manufacturing. We are a global community, and we are proud of it. It only makes sense that we honor our responsibility to the members of this community.
We have shown that we care about the environment by putting our money forth to green this campus. It is now time to fully embrace our values, to put our ethics forth and to show that we care about ALL members of our global community. And we can do this by taking ownership over where our money goes, and what our money does in the world.
Jeannie Bartlett: The first step we propose is to choose a strategy. Middlebury is in a somewhat unique situation because our endowment is managed by Investure, together with the endowments of 12 other institutions. The first option, then, is for Investure to divest all the funds it manages … A second option is for only certain Investure clients to divest … A third option, of course, is for Middlebury to divest independently of Investure, and manage the endowment using an in-house manager or by forming a new consortium with like-minded institutions.
The second step is to make a public commitment to divestment. On March 4, students are “marching forth” to support divestment, and we hope that you can join us then with a positive announcement … We ask for a commitment by March 15. We realize the logistics of any of the strategies we’ve outlined will probably take time to implement. The commitment should identify a strategy for divestment, set a timeline for implementation and dedicate paid time and energy into implementation.
By 2016, at the same time that we fulfill carbon neutrality, we hope Middlebury can announce that our portfolio is free of fossil fuel companies and arms manufacturers.
Finally, investing to advance Middlebury’s mission is an ongoing process. We should continually reflect on and improve the alignment of our investments with our values.
JEANNIE BARTLETT ’15 is from Leyden, Mass.
LAURA BERRY ’16 is from Nashville, Tenn.
TEDDY SMYTH ’15 is from Augusta, Ga.
CRAIG THOMPSON ’13.5 is from New York, N.Y.
NATHAN ARNOSTI ’13 is from Saint Paul, Minn.
KRISTINA JOHANSSON ’14 is from Stockholm, Sweden
FERNANDO SANDOVAL JIMENEZ ’15 is from Nochistlán de Mejía, Mexico
(02/20/13 5:06pm)
It became clear in just a few days here over J-term that the issue of divestment has captured the imagination of the Middlebury population. In a school full of aspiring investors, targeting the endowment is a clever approach, and divestment is not a bad idea. It is the height of hypocrisy to rail against climate change while using the enormous value of the companies that enable it as the source of our funding, akin to a police officer driving drunk or a minister with a mistress. When we profit from the success of oil and coal companies, any carbon reductions that we achieve as a community are essentially greenwashing, a gesture devoid of meaning. The students who pitched the concept to the trustees last weekend have worked hard to make their case to the broader community and to ensure that the change wouldn’t hurt the College’s bottom line. If all goes well, the trustees will respond favorably in the coming weeks and we can jump into new issues with equal enthusiasm. What we cannot do is to declare victory and then return to complacency.
It is important to ensure that we do not become so caught up in this one issue that we lose focus on the things that we can change within our own lives and as a community to reduce the impact of global climate change. If successful, divestment will earn Middlebury headlines from this paper and many more national outlets. It will bring years of positive publicity to this institution and bring our funding in line with our goals. But at the same time, buying a share of ExxonMobile, or AEP or Chesapeake does not bring those companies a dime. Their funding comes not from the stock market but from the fuel that we purchase.
Divestment has important symbolic value but will neither fix climate change nor bankrupt the dealers that exist purely to respond to our addiction to cheap and dirty energy. We cannot turn to divestment simply because changing our own habits is too difficult or because it provides the enormous battle against global climate catastrophe with an easily defined villain. To sit back and attack them while we use their product every day is an even worse form of hypocrisy than to take their money while trying to break the addiction — the moral equivalent of a heroin addict taking pot shots at his dealer while mainlining his product.
Divestment may have helped to end apartheid in South Africa, according to Desmond Tutu, but in that case, companies targeted by disgruntled investors could simply shift their operations in order to avoid patronizing a racist regime. Enterprises that exist exclusively to produce oil have no such flexibility; even BP no longer pretends to be “beyond petroleum.” The only product they produce is one that we must soon finish consuming.
Divestment may have helped to remove the social license for tobacco companies to operate, reducing them to second-class corporate citizens with little public support or lobbying pull. But without public antismoking campaigns, it would have accomplished nothing other than to make their stock a cheaper purchase for less scrupulous investors. And still, even here in the Middlebury bubble, far too many students who know about the dangers of tobacco can’t resist the occasional cigarette, or two, or five. Unfortunately, the same goes for gasoline.
Let’s not pretend that climate change will be defeated by lurching between sexy sideshows that require little from the average person beyond vague outrage. The only way to truly cut into the obscene profits of oil companies is to cease buying their product. We need to turn off the lights and the unused electronics in our dorm rooms, and close our windows when the heat is on. We must choose to walk or ride bikes instead of driving, to put solar panels on our roofs and to install wind turbines in our fields and backyards. We need to ensure that Middlebury actually accomplishes the goal of becoming carbon neutral. Some of these steps are challenging and may require expensive upfront investments. But all are entirely possible with today’s technology if we remain focused and committed, recognizing that measures like divestment are just small stepping stones along the way and that corporations are not solely to blame. They would have no influence without eager customers for their product.
(02/13/13 2:38pm)
With super storms like Hurricane Sandy and winter storm Nemo, it is easy to overlook some of the smallest creatures that are affected by more subtle differences that climate change brings. The Bicknell’s thrush, a medium-sized bird virtually identical to the grey-cheeked thrush, is one such victim, according to the Center for Biological Diversity, which has petitioned the federal government to list the bird as endangered. The Bicknell’s thrush is already listed as endangered at the Vermont state level and is listed as a red watch list bird for the Audubon Society.
“The Bicknell’s thrush is a species that is only found in the Northeast United States and up into eastern Canada,” said Mollie Matteson, a conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity. “It is considered to be one of the most imperiled neo-tropical birds in the world.”
A neo-tropical bird is a bird that breeds in the United States and Canada during the summer and migrates south to Mexico, Central America, South America or the Caribbean to spend the winter in warmer climes. According to the Migratory Bird Center at the Smithsonian National Zoological Park, there are about 200 species of neo-tropical birds, many of which are songbirds, such as the Bicknell’s thrush. Birds such as the Bicknell’s thrush, which don’t look incredibly special at first glance, travel thousands of miles each year during their migrations.
One reason the Bicknell’s thrush is so endangered is because it has such a specific breeding habitat in North America.
“Its breeding habitat is very limited up here in the Northeast; it occurs near the tops of mountains,” said Matteson. “It is a vulnerable habitat in a number of ways … as overall temps warm, natural communities across a range of elevations will start to shift … studies [] have shown that northern hardwood communities have been moving up mountains.”
The Bicknell’s thrush lives near the tops of mountains in spruce and fir. But, with climate change, its habitat will continue up the mountains until it can’t go any farther.
Another threat to the Bicknell’s thrush is higher levels of mercury, which have been detected through blood samples, and can be linked to coal power plants in the Midwest. According to Matteson, using the Clean Air Act to help this aspect of the Bicknell’s thrush’s health could be useful.
According to Jim Shallow, conservation and policy director at Audubon Vermont, many coal plants are at the end of their lifecycle and using threatened birds such as the Bicknell’s thrush could be effective reasons for closing them down.
But, why spend all this time saving a bird, especially one that is only distinguishable between the grey-cheeked thrush through genetic testing?
“It is important because birds are indicators of the broader ecosystem health,” said Shallows. “They are, in many cases, the canary in the coal mine.”
Plus, added Shallows, bird health reflects on human’s health: “Mercury deposition is not a good thing for human health – when the bird shows signs of mercury accumulation in blood it isn’t good for us.”
Matteson had another perspective on the importance of saving the Bicknell’s thrush.
“[Protecting them is] important simply because it is a rare species and in danger of being obliterated,” said Matteson.
The current status of the Bicknell’s thrush is up in the air. In 2010, Matteson said, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned under the Endangered Species Act to have the thrush added to the Endangered Species list.
“This past summer the fish and wildlife service issue a 90 day positive finding – initial review of petition – their initial decision was that yes, they warranted further examination,” said Matteson.
This put the thrush in a 12-month status review that should be occurring now but has been stopped – usually funding shortages are the cause. The Center for Biological Diversity will be sending a notice of intent to sue because, according to the Endangered Species Act, they are required to proceed.
Even if the Bicknell’s thrush is added to the Endangered Species List, not too much will change for the bird. According to Matteson, the George W. Bush administration exempted the federal government from acknowledging activities related to climate change.
It is still an important step, however, because it would improve on the ground activities for the bird, such as building wind farms on the ridges important for its breeding. Although it may take some big changes to save the Bicknell’s thrush as a species in the long term, little actions can give the dwindling species the leg up that it needs.
(02/13/13 2:29pm)
On Tuesday, Jan. 15, during the second week of the 2013 legislative session, state senators Robert Hartwell (D) and Joseph Benning (R) introduced a bill calling for a three-year moratorium on all large-scale wind projects in the state of Vermont to allow for further research and consideration. The bill came after months of increasingly intense debate over the role of wind power in Vermont’s energy future, and the debate is far from over.
Vermont activists, citizens and legislators alike are caught on either side of a debate that will likely decide the future of the state’s energy portfolio as well as its landscape. The state legislature voted in 2005 to set a goal of 20 percent renewable energy by 2017 and Governor Peter Shumlin supported a 90 percent renewable by 2050 goal in his 2011 Comprehensive Energy Plan.
Thus, the state has demonstrated its commitment to incorporating renewable energy into its portfolio and moving away from fossil fuels; the question now is whether or not industrial wind projects will be a part of the coming push towards green technologies.
For some opponents of the moratorium, like Schumann Distinguished Scholar Bill McKibben, any stall on green technology construction while heat waves, droughts and disastrous storms continue to ravage our warming world is not acceptable.
On Jan. 30, McKibben spoke before the Vermont state legislature on the urgency of addressing its contribution to global climate change. After detailing many of the global repercussions of climate change, McKibben spoke of Vermont’s future in the context of continued fossil fuel use.
“The computer modeling shows a dramatically warming world won’t support the birch, beech and maple forests that we love in Vermont, and that the hemlock will be driven north of the Canadian border,” said McKibben. “The future of our mountains depends on our ability to get ahead of the global warming crisis.
“Renewable electricity is the only chance we have moving forward, and increasingly, it’s a good chance,” said McKibben after noting the fact that Germany was able to produce 50 percent of its electricity from renewable sources one day this past summer.
Setting aside his global perspective, McKibben then addressed Vermont’s proposed wind moratorium.
“ I … read the science carefully, and am thoroughly convinced that by far the greatest threat to their integrity, their biology, and their beauty is the onset of rapid climate change,” McKibben said to those concerned about the integrity of Vermont’s pristine ridgelines that are the primary sites for new wind projects.
“Let me say that if anything in my description of that crisis so far leaves you thinking that we have three years to spare for a timeout,” said McKibben, “then I’ve done a poor job indeed. We need to be doing all we can on every front.”
Just two days prior to McKibben’s address, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I) also spoke in opposition to the proposed wind moratorium.
“If Vermont ceases new wind development the message will go out all across the country, spread by the well-funded coal and oil companies, that even in Vermont — progressive Vermont — there is not a serious commitment to combating global warming,” Sanders said.
While Sanders received a great deal of criticism for this position, he spoke in solidarity with a number of Vermont’s leading environmental groups including, Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG), 350 Vermont, the Vermont Natural Resources Council, the Vermont chapter of the Sierra Club and many others.
“I think it’s part of the long-term energy picture for Vermont,” said Alex DePillis, senior agricultural development coordinator for Vermont’s Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets. DePillis has worked for many years on small- and medium-sized wind projects in the Midwest and Vermont. At the Agency, he focuses on energy policy and on helping farmers implement energy-related improvements.
“The idea of a three-year moratorium on wind power in Vermont ignores the reality that there’s tens of thousands of utility-scale wind turbines placed in forested areas, on ridge line and prominent areas, in densely populated areas [throughout] Europe, particularly in Germany and Austria. If there’s an issue, it’s already been identified. Just go look at what’s been done and you’ll have your answers.
“In the short term, it’s important to do something now in Vermont,” said DePillis. Those other projects that people are pointing to out west, or maybe efficient natural gas plants, are all fine and good solutions, but they take time. It’s really quick to build PV arrays, and actually, it’s relatively quick to put up wind turbines if there’s not a three-year moratorium.”
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Vermont produced 33 thousand MWh of electricity from wind energy in 2011, nearly three times the output in 2009. Based on household averages from Vermont's Comprehensive Energy Plan, this provides enough electricity to power around 5,500 homes. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimated in a 2010 nationwide survey, however, that Vermont could produce 5,395 GWh, or more than five million MWh, if the state chose to develop all its highly productive wind areas, excluding unlikely sites like urban areas, parks, wilderness areas and water features. This would be enough to power over 800,000 homes, around three times the number of homes in the state.
The research indicates that while Vermont certainly does not have the greatest potential for wind in the country, it is pursuing some production and has the potential for a great deal more.
Yet those who support the moratorium, like the nearly 200 Vermonters who rallied at the state house last fall, argue that this headlong rush into wind energy projects will result in significant impacts to the environment and human health based on their experience with existing Vermont projects.
On Monday Jan. 28, the same day as Sanders’s address, a non-profit group called Ridgeprotectors issued a press release to express their exasperation with Vermont’s continued push for industrial wind.
“As Vermonters who support an effective climate change adaptation strategy, we are baffled by the insistence of environmentalists who champion an ineffective, expensive and unreliable approach to emissions reduction: industrial wind turbines on Vermont’s ridgelines,” reads the press release. “The moratorium on new utility scale wind energy is intended as a thoughtful, bi-partisan period of inquiry and planning.”
The press release goes on to say that electricity represents less than 10 percent of Vermont’s energy budget and encourages the legislature to support the moratorium and any initiatives that “[reduce] emissions at the source.”
Additionally, a number of Vermonters testified before the state senate’s Energy and Natural Resource Committee, expressing their concerns over a wide range of issues relating to wind energy in Vermont.
Sandy Reider, a doctor who has practiced in the state for the last 17 years, spoke of patients who experience what has become known as “Wind Turbine Syndrome.”
“At this point,” said Reider, “I have seen six persons in my office with symptoms that seem to stem from these turbines.”
Reider testified that these symptoms include insomnia, dizziness, inability to focus, headaches and ringing in the ears. In the case of one patient, these symptoms were linked to his house’s proximity to a wind turbine. Though the patient could not hear anything, Reider hypothesized that inaudible frequencies produced by the motion of the turbine were related to these health effects.
“We certainly need better science and more study is needed,” said Reider, concluding with his support for the moratorium.
Stephen Ambrose, an industrial noise control specialist, also testified in favor of the moratorium.
“Wind turbines sound awful,” said Ambrose. “Blade rotations cause the noise levels to fluctuate loudly with an unnatural sound character. Pedersen & Waye research shows that wind turbine sounds are more objectionable than noise produced by traffic, trains and planes.”
Assistant Professor of Geology Will Amidon similarly expressed his concerns about the impacts of wind turbines on ridgeline areas.
“The magnitude of environmental impact scales directly with the size and scale of wind development in Vermont,” said Amidon. “Will a single turbine with underground transmission have bad ecological impacts — no. Will 40 wind turbines, roads and a huge transmission clear-cut have real impacts — yes.
“The key point is that wind will disturb the core of our fragile sub-alpine habitats and migration corridors,” added Amidon, “whereas solar, hydro and nuclear will occupy more human-influenced parts of the landscape.”
For many who oppose wind production in Vermont, the irony of developing Vermont’s green, rolling hills to protect them from climate change is hard to miss. So far, the transition toward large-scale, renewable energy has been rocky and will likely continue to present challenges.
Whether it is job creation, renewable standards, human health effects or environmental impacts, the costs and benefits of wind run the gamut; the question now is whether Vermont will harness the potential of its ridgelines or leave them untouched for coming generations.
(01/24/13 2:47am)
Over the course of two evenings, the College community saw its leaders “do the math” on divestment in two radically different ways.
On Sunday evening, Schumann Distinguished Scholar Bill McKibben and others spoke to over 150 college and local community members at Mead Chapel in the last stop on McKibben’s “Do the Math” nation-wide tour — their main objective: to illustrate the direct link between divestment and the prevention of climate change. During the event, McKibben and others called on the College to “lead the way” on divestment, encouraging the administration to evaluate its decision based on alternative metrics to those normally considered: the currencies of “movements, passion, experience and creativity.”
Two days later, at the College-sponsored panel on divestment that filled most of the 400 seats in the McCullough Social Space, the tone was decidedly different.
During the two-hour event, the heated discussion centered largely upon the price of divestment for the College — how would it affect the strength of the endowment for the future? How much would it cost to restructure the College’s current co-mingled investment structure? And what other possible options might be open to the College in seeking to curb climate change?
At Sunday’s event McKibben, leading environmental activist and co-founder of 350.org was joined onstage by strong proponents of divestment, Professor of Economics and Chair of the Environmental Science Department Jon Isham, and Professor Emeritus John Elder. The event also included pre-recorded video messages from Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Canadian indigenous activist Clayton Thomas-Muller, environmental advocate Van Jones and renowned author and activist Naomi Klein.
In her remarks, Klein challenged the college community to take action: “We need you to provide a strong, coherent message,” she said, “There is no doubt in my mind that others will follow.”
Tuesday’s panel, in contrast, was composed of speakers whose professional experience lay primarily in the fields of economics and investment.
On the panel, McKibben was joined by Ralphe Earle III, a renewables-focused venture investor; Alice Handy, founder and president of Investure, LLC — the firm that manages the College’s endowment; Mark Kritzman, adjunct professor of finance at MIT; and Patrick Norton, vice president for finance and treasurer. Student Government Association (SGA) President, Charlie Arnowitz ’13 was a last-minute addition to the panel’s roster, and provided the lone student voice on the panel.
The moderator for the panel was David Salem ’78, managing partner of the investment advisory firm Windhorse Capital Management, and former founding president of The Investment Fund for Foundations (TIFF).
Each of the six panelists was accorded approximately seven minutes to speak, responding to a series of questions provided by Salem.
Norton spoke first, explaining the College’s fiduciary duty to manage the endowment both for current and future students by observing the principal of “generational equity.”
Investure Founder Handy then spoke of her desire to continue to work “as a part of the Middlebury team,” citing her firm’s mission statement to “[remain] open to change, [embrace] continuous improvement and [serve] with integrity and transparency.”
Handy remarked that she would “absolutely” work with students to better understand the endowment, but explained that Investure would require a buy-in by “100 percent” of the firm’s 13 clients in order to embrace a divestment policy — a requirement necessitated by the firm’s co-mingled investment strategy.
Following Handy’s remarks, MIT professor Kritzman summarized the results of his recent study on the potential costs of divestment for the College. He explained that at best, the decision to divest from fossil fuels and arms manufacturing companies would result in a loss for the College of $17 million over five years — at worst, he explained, the study found that divestment would cost the College $420 million over 20 years.
During the question and answer segment McKibben flatly disputed this hypothesis, providing counterfactual data that suggests divestment would elicit a neutral, or slightly positive return.
The exchange between the two became heated at times, illustrating two of the central conflicting views in the room.
“I apologize for trying to interject some science and rationality into the conversation,” Kritzman quipped at one point, in response to a student question.
During his opportunity to speak, Arnowitz thanked the administration for including a student on the panel, before summarizing the preliminary results of a recent SGA survey.
According to the responses of over 1,000 students, Arnowitz explained, 63 percent believe the College should apply the principles of socially responsible investing to its endowment, 14 percent of students were opposed and 23 percent had no opinion.
“[While] for many students this issue takes a backseat,” he said, “the plurality of students support some kind of action on divestment.”
Later in the discussion, Earle, a lifelong environmental advocate and investor, spoke of his significant concerns about the effects of climate change in his opening statement, but suggested that he did not believe divestment was the correct strategy.
“I think climate change is the most critical issue we face as a society today,” Earle began. “However … I don’t think that divestiture from fossil fuel stocks will be effective in reducing climate change,” he continued.
In supporting his argument, he provided the examples of the “unsuccessful” divestment campaigns from both tobacco manufacturers in the ’80s and from companies supporting the genocide in Darfur during the last decade.
Earle suggested that in lieu of divestment, the College should retain its proxy voting privilege to affect the choices of major fossil fuel companies. He also called on students to live out their vision of a greener future by purchasing eco-friendly cars, and switching from coal to gas as an energy source.
McKibben rejected these suggestions. As at Sunday’s “Do The Math” event McKibben explained that such initiatives were not enough, recognizing that fossil fuel companies now hold reserves that if burned, will release five times the “safe” amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, if not prevented by a dramatic change.
Responding to the criticism of audience members and other panelists, McKibben suggested that the goal of divestment was not to “bankrupt Exxon” but rather to use colleges, universities, religious organizations and others to “peel away” the sense of legitimacy of the largest fossil fuel companies — something politicians have “failed to do” over the past 30 years in Washington.
McKibben cited Norton’s reference to “inter-generational equity” from the early moments of the panel, explaining his view that it is “morally wrong” to invest in companies whose missions “ensure that students will not have a planet” to inherit. He asked that the College commit to invest no new money in fossil fuel companies during the spring, and to taper their investments in fossil fuel and arms manufacturing companies to zero over the next five years.
McKibben’s remarks were met by a standing ovation from many audience members.
Following the panel, President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz provided his initial reaction to the event.
“I think there was a tension in the room and on the panel that reflected how difficult an issue [divestment] is — that [the issue] still [involves] a lot more emotion than delving into facts,” he said. “But that doesn’t take away from the evening. I thought it was a very good start. I think it’s a longer process than one panel.”
One of the many students in attendance, Socially Responsible Investment club member Laura Berry ’16 explained that she was “frustrated” that the audience did not have more time to pose questions to the panelists, but explained that she felt as though individuals “learned a lot from the panelists.”
“I think we gained a great deal of knowledge about the specific details of the endowment and how it relates to other colleges in the consortium,” she said. “I expect we can move from here pretty well.”
In closing the panel, Salem directed community members toward the College’s website to continue the divestment discussion, reiterating that future panels will be held in order to further analyze critical issues.
(01/24/13 12:44am)
From Jan. 24 - 26, the Middlebury Center for Social Entrepreneurship (MCSE) will host its second annual Symposium on Social Entrepreneurship and Social Justice. The event will feature student presentations on social issues in Addison County, Vt., workshops led by six champions of social entrepreneurship — two of whom are alumni — and keynote speeches from Billy Parish and Majora Carter.
Both Parish and Carter are recent recipients of the MCSE Vision Award, a recognition given by the Center to standout social entrepreneurs.
Parish helped found Energy Action Coalition, the largest student group focusing on climate change in the world, after dropping out of Yale University in 2003. He is currently the president of Mosaic, Inc., a solar power investment company.
Carter’s project, “Greening the Ghetto,” is based in the South Bronx, and works to spur social change, promote health and tackle environmental degradation through the creation of parks and green space.
“[Parish and Carter] are exemplary in that they combine how they live their daily lives with their moral principles,” said Lauren Kelly ’13, an intern at the MCSE.
On Jan. 26 at 10 a.m., Parish and Carter will sit on a panel with Schumann Distinguished Scholar Bill McKibben, leading environmentalist and founder of 350.org, a global grassroots movement to stop climate change.
McKibben started 350.org along with seven students in 2005, and since then has grown to become one of the largest grassroots climate organizations in the world. With roots in 191 countries (every country except North Korea), 350.org has organized approximately 20,000 demonstrations in attempt to spur environmental action.
McKibben believes the growing tradition of environmental activism at the College will continue to grow with the symposium’s help. The focus of the forum, however, is not exclusively environmental.
We all have these hopes and dreams for the world,” said McKibben. “I think we need some real practical advice about how to make these things real.” McKibben believes Parish and Carter are perfect advocates of this idea.
“They’re both profound examples of what idealism mixed with a certain kind of shrewdness can accomplish,” he said.
With this overarching message, organizers hope that the symposium will catalyze reflection and change in a variety of fields.
“I hope that everyone who attends, from high school students to grandparents, will use the symposium as an opportunity to reflect on their own agency, to connect with others, to analyze the world around them and to prepare to engage the world in new ways,” said Jonathan Isham, professor of economics and director of the Middlebury Center for Social Entrepreneurship.
According to Isham, the symposium is in the spirit of much of the work being done by students, staff and faculty at the MCSE.
“We invite cutting-edge practitioners to campus, offer students the opportunity to lead projects over the summer and convene classes and informal gatherings designed to help students to reflect, connect, analyze and engage,” he said of activities at the MCSE.
McKibben echoed this sentiment in voicing his goals for the symposium.
“I hope [students] get fired up to realize that the array of choices of what people can do with their lives is way greater than sometimes we think,” he said.
Encompassing creativity and passion in the fight for social justice is part of the MSCE’s central ambition. Organizers hope that the symposium will serve a similar purpose, providing a creative spark for all participants.
“The ultimate objective lies in the hope that students will see that they don’t have to pick between doing well and doing good,” said Kelly.
(01/22/13 11:59pm)
Following Sunday evening's discussion on divestment by Schumann Distinguished Scholar Bill McKibben, the Campus Current is back with another liveblog from McCullough Social Space, starting at 7:30 p.m. Tonight will feature a "wide-ranging panel [discussing] the ongoing debate over whether environmental and social concerns should influence investment policies of college and university endowments." The panel will include Charlie Arnowitz ’13, Ralph Earle, Alice Handy, Mark Kritzman, Vice President for Finance Patrick Norton, and McKibben. The event will be moderated by David Salem '78. Additional information on the panelists is available on a website devoted to the discussion.
According to the press release, "It will focus on two questions: what factors should the college’s board of trustees consider in determining whether to place restrictions on how Middlebury’s endowment is invested, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of using divestment as a means of addressing climate-related concerns?"
The Campus Current will provide a liveblog below, but a live stream is also available online. Additionally, the Campus will be providing detailed analysis of the panel in Thursday's issue.
With Additional Reporting and Photography by KATHRYN DESUTTER and CHARLOTTE GARDINER
-----
9:33 - Salem thanks the audience, and smooth jazz begins playing as the audience continue the discussion amongst one another. Signing off from the McCullough Social Space. Thanks for reading!
9:32 - Salem concludes the panel, reminding the audience that he has done his best to maintain neutrality. Salem admits that he has heard things that “don’t ring true to me.” He encourages audience members to use the website to continue to investigate the facts.
9:30 - As McKibben speaks, there is snapping in agreement from the audience. Salem gives Earle the final word, who confirms McKibben’s assertion the investment field “is an exercise in masochism.” He continues, “The missing piece — not just in the US, but globally — is government [action] against climate change.” McKibben then jumps in and confirms the need for action at the governmental level.
9:28 - McKibben continues, “There is no $420 million cost at stake here. We’ve found out tonight that less than 1% of our endowment is invested in the top 200 companies we’re targeting here.” Handy interrupts and asks McKibben to remember that due to the commingled investment, more than just Middlebury’s 1%, or $9 million dollars, is at stake. After a brief interjection from Kritzman to support Handy’s argument, McKibben again takes the mic to quote the “Middlebury Divestment Reader” that was distributed by student volunteers at the start of the forum, and available for download below.
9:24 - A student asks what solutions would be more effective than divestment, and if it’s feasible for Middlebury to spend the amount currently invested in fossil fuels and arms manufacturers “directly on its values.” Kritzman fields the question: “I apologize for trying to interject some of the science and rationality into the conversation.” He continues by elaborating based on the historical example of tobacco.
9:20 - This is followed by a request for Handy and McKibben to address the differentiation between divesting from fossil fuel companies and arms manufacturers. McKibben begins by thanking Liebowitz for providing numbers on the College’s endowment and highlighting that less than 1% of our endowment is invested in arms manufacturers, and in combination with investment in fossil fuels, the amount in question remains less than 5%. Handy emphasizes that investment is in commingled managers, which presents broader implications of the issue before McKibben injects that there are other places to find $900 million. "That's the beautiful thing about Capitalism."
9:17 - Another student then asks Norton about the potential effect of divestment on need-blind admissions. Norton echoes Kritzman’s findings that the loss that would come as a result of SRI would have a “devastating” impact on the College from a long-term perspective.
9:15 - Teddy Smith '15 askes Handy if she would be willing to work with students to better understand the endowment. Handy’s reply is short: “Absolutely.”
9:14 - "That was about three and a half minutes," Salem says before moving onto the next question.
9:13 - Jay Saper ’13 asks the panelists and the audience to recognize that those most affected by climate change and violence are not present. Saper walks along the first row of chairs, naming parties and individuals not present — ranging from the Palestinian people to a student from Sandy Hook elementary — and highlights their absence at the forum. "There is a cost to death. The cost is unimaginable."
9:11 - Fernando Sandoval Jimenez '15 asks how many clients need to support a move to SRI in order to enact the policy completely? Handy responds by saying it would take an agreement by all clients.
9:07 - Earle responds first and confirms Kagan’s assertion of the risk of opportunity cost. According to Earle, if divestment turns out to be an ineffective strategy, then there is an enormous opportunity cost of the money and energy expended on divestment campaigns. McKibben follows Earle, stating: "It's by no means a silver bullet, it's one thing we need to do!" McKibben, citing Professor of Economics Jon Isham’s research, laments the lack of a price on carbon to motivate investors.
9:00 - Max Kagan ’14 directs a question toward McKibben and Earle, asking about potential downsides to divestment, primarily within the framework of opportunity costs and the historical record of divestment in the tobacco industry, Sudan and South Africa. He released an op-ed in the Campus with similar points in November.
8:59 - Salem then solicits questions from the audience and requests that the questions be limited to approximately one minute. He also encourages audience members to consult online College materials for answers, and also to share remaining questions on the forum’s website.
8:57 - Kritzman then presses McKibben for the “scientific outcomes” of divestment. McKibben again uses the historical anecdote of South Africa to draw a parallel.
8:54 - Salem quiets the audience before moving the panel onto questions, which will be posed among one another before being posed by the audience. For the first question, Arnowitz presses Handy to elaborate on the aforementioned “creative solutions” that Investure could employ in a divestment strategy. When Handy answers in somewhat vague terms about Investure’s model, Arnowitz presses for specific solutions. Handy’s response: “I don’t have an answer for that.”
8:52 -"It's hard to imagine how we could live with ourselves otherwise," he concludes. McKibben receives a standing ovation by approximately one-third of the audience. A letter from Steyer is distributed to members of the audience.
8:51 - McKibben, in citing personal friend Tom Steyer, manager of a hedge fund of over $20 billion, argues that “this [divestment] can be done, is a good investment strategy, and that divestment is a way to make yourselves heard."
8:47 - McKibben emphasizes that “endowment return is not the only financial indicator to worry about” when considering the funding source of the College. McKibben cites donations as one of several other sources of revenue. He continues in discussing his pride in the College’s pledge to carbon neutrality, but argues that “it makes no sense to green the campus without also greening the portfolio.”
8:44 - "My car gets more than 50 mpg, and the Arctic melted last summer.”
8:42 - “Our hope is not that we can bankrupt Exxon … but we do believe that history shows that divestment can change the course!” McKibben cites the liberation of South Africa, which fell victim to a strong divestment movement in the 1980s, and eventually repealed apartheid.
8:41 - McKibben reiterates many of his points from Sunday evening: “These industries are different — the flaw is the business plan.” A few students snap throughout the many of McKibben's remarks.
8:40 - McKibben proposes that the College pledge, in the course of the spring semester, not to invest new money in fossil fuel companies, and over the next five years, taper the investment to zero. He proposes that the same policy be adopted for arms manufacturers. McKibben acknowledges Norton’s reference to “inter-generational equity” and explains his view that it is “morally wrong” to invest in companies whose missions “ensure that students will not have a planet” to inherit.
8:37 - McKibben begins by explaining that he is nervous. When he remarks about his own “low net worth,” several members of the audience chuckle and snap. McKibben then thanks Arnowitz, to more applause, before requesting that the audience not applaud or interrupt so he can remain within his time limit.
8:35 - Salem now introduces McKibben, the sixth and final panelist. He challenges McKibben to propose a process that the board of trustees could employ if the board chose to embrace divestment.
8:34 - Earle concludes by urging critical thinking. “This is a multi-generational problem that will not be solved overnight,” says Earle.
8:33 - Earle then proposes steps that colleges and universities might take: 1) Encourage proxy voting that would require environmental expertise on the board of energy companies. Earle warns, “you [currently] can’t vote if you’re not a shareholder.” 2) Encourage collaborative research and use of resources to develop sustainable technologies. 3) “What can students do?” He suggests a pledge to never buy a vehicle that consumes less than 50 mpg. He then suggests that students shift their own consumption from coal to renewables. “Find out how your utility generates electricity. If it’s from coal — fire them!”
8:30 - 'It’s my view that the entire fossil fuel industry is too large a target, and I advocate a more specific strategy directed primarily at the greatest [firms] that impact climate change, namely coal.'
8:29 - Earle advocates for the use of funds toward purchasing “vast supplies of inexpensive natural gas,” which has half the warming potential of coal.
8:27 - Earle announces that he is “in complete agreement with 350.org’s goals.” However, he immediately clarifies that “I don’t think that divestiture from fossil fuel stocks will be effective in reducing climate change.” Earle cities divestment from the tobacco industry and the Sudan as not having a large impact. He further argues that the world's largest fossil fuel companies aren’t publically traded.
8:25 - Salem then introduces Ralph Earle, asking for his reactions to what he has heard thus far; in particular, he highlighting Arnowitz’s opinions of the importance of student input.
8:23 - Kritzman closes with the advice that “well-intentioned investors should measure these two approaches and decide which they believe to be most effective."
8:21 - Kritzman then shows a slide that assumes a $1 billion portfolio invested in the S&P 500, EAFE, the Developed World and the entire world over a period of 5, 10 and 20 years. A table of these factors demonstrates the cost of socially responsible investing, culminating in a $420 million loss if the $1 billion was invested worldwide over 20 years.
8:18 - "I hope you're following. I know it's hard to concentrate when it's so exciting."
8:15 - "An inarguable mathematical truth that socially responsible investment is costly." Kritzman follows his statement that “it’s pretty simple to estimate the costs,” and introduces a (very) text-heavy slide which utilizes a “Monte Carlo simulation."
8:14 - Kritzman explains the channels through which socially responsible investing has an economic impact. Socially responsible investing can raise a bad company’s cost of capital, draw attention to a "bad" company’s "bad" behavior, and in drawing attention to this company, may persuade it to reform.
8:11 - “At the outset, let me just say that I do not have a view as to whether you should restrict your investment universe or not, but I have a view that you should at least understand the consequences of these two choices when you make that decision."
8:10 - Salem then introduces Mark Kritzman, who loads a visual PowerPoint presentation to accompany his response. Kritzman explains that he will outline the cost of socially responsible investing.
8:09 - Arnowitz urges students to remember that "every student's voice is legitimate" and "not [to] demonize other community members." Rather, student must focus on "the most effective way to steer this debate." Arnowitz concludes to an enthusiastic applause.
8:07 - Arnowitz cites the SGA student survey, which has surveyed almost 50% of the student body. According to collected data, 40% of respondents thought divestment was a “very or extremely important issue.” Arnowitz cites several other stats that demonstrate student commitment to the issue of divestment. Here is the full breakdown of numbers provided by Arnowitz following the panel:
Based on the SGA’s recent survey, which as of 3:00 this afternoon had 1,031 respondents, around 45% of the student body: 63% of respondents think the College should apply the principles of socially responsible investing to its endowment. 14% are opposed and 23% have no opinion. In terms of prioritizing SRI, 28% think it’s not particularly important, 32% think it’s somewhat important, 40% think it’s very or extremely important. In terms of divestment, students favor a diversity of approaches. 38% support divestment from arms and the top 200 fossil fuel manufacturers. 10% prioritize fossil fuels. 12% prioritize arms manufacturers. So total of 60% support some kind of divestment, 15% don’t support divestment, 25% have no opinion.
8:05 - Salem introduces Arnowitz. He thanks the organizers for including a student on the panel and acknowledges that many parties affected by these decisions are not present at the forum, to which a few audience members snap in agreement. Arnowitz continues, “We insist that student views be at the table and that students’ views be taken into account.”
8:03 - Handy discusses constraints, such as the required 8 percent return (5 percent to cover spending and 3 percent to cover inflation). She then acknowledges the added pressure of Middlebury’s duty to its students, faculty and staff, as well as its desire to be “a perpetual institution.” Handy concludes, “our number one priority is to support all of our clients to work together to make the world a better place.”
7:58 - Handy states that Middlebury has about $6 million invested in explicitly sustainable companies, and another $20 million in a manager that uses ESG criteria.
7:58 - “Divestment would require a buy-in by all of our group.”
7:57 - Handy explains that Investure strives “to provide a service level comparable to that of any individually-managed investment office.” She tells the audience that “we [Investure], like everyone here, want to leave the world a better place, and believe that we can provide our clients with the resources to continue their missions.”
7:55 - Handy will speak next, discussing why Investure relies on commingled funds to meet clients’ needs, what constraints govern the management of Middlebury’s endowments, and Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) criteria that Investure employs.
7:54 - Norton adds that his financial role is to provide for the education opportunity of both current and future Middlebury students. He concludes by asking the trustees to consider the implications of divesting from fossil fuels, as the energy companies occupy a “large portion of the investment space.”
7:51 - Norton continues in explaining that since 2005, Middlebury has contracted with Investure to manage the College’s portfolio. He states that the College decided to contract with Investure for the promise of “access to investment opportunity comparable to large endowments.”
7:50 - Norton explains that the role of the College endowment is two-fold: 1) It is used to support the education of current Middlebury students, which was $50 million for FY 2013. 2) It is used to support the education of future Middlebury students. This is done by creating future generational equity, which aims to maximize returns, with a return objective of at least 5% plus inflation to ensure preservation if not positive gain.
7:47 - Salem begins the panel by asking Norton four questions: “Why does the Colelge have an endowment? Who decides how much is spent and on what basis? Why does the College delegate to Investure? What are the key elements of Investure’s mandate to the College?”
7:45 - Salem announces that the forum will last for approximately 100 minutes. The first half will be a series of questions posed by the moderator to each panelist in turn. Each panelist will answer in approximately 5-7 minutes. The panelists are then encouraged to “cross-examine” each other.
7:44 - Salem acknowledges that the “tools of my trade [are] tedious at best and maddening at worst — including many of us that manage money for a living.” He urges the audience to “base your views on primary sources, search aggressively and endlessly for facts contrary to your evolving thesis and defend at all costs ‘the illimitable freedom of the human mind.’”
7:41 - Salem takes the podium and thanks Liebowitz, the panelists and the audience. He jokes that the recording of the forum should contain the warning, “viewer discretion advised.” Salem requests that the panelists and the audience “leave for another day the scientific challenges that lie at the heart of the global debate about climate change … to important to be taken up — yet alone resolved — by tonight’s panel.”
7:38 - Liebowitz discusses decorum, and asks that “no one does anything to interfere with anyone’s ability to see or hear this discussion.” He then welcomes the moderator, David Salem ’78.
7:36 - Liebowitz welcomes and thanks the audience for attending. He explains that this is the first of a series of discussions about divestment, an issue of “great interest and importance,” and he expresses his pleasure that “the College is taking a leadership role.” Liebowtiz cites other examples of student involvement in the creation of institutional policy, such as the establishment of study abroad sites and the retention of winter term. He mentions that “several student groups raised questions regarding Middlebury’s endowment” throughout the fall.
7:33 - McCullough has continued to fill, but there are still many open seats throughout the auditorium. All panelists are on stage, conversing. Various seats throughout the auditorium are reserved for displaced peoples, a silent protest of sorts. The crowd quiets as the panelists sit down and President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz takes the podium.
7:18 - McCullough Social Space is slowly filling up. Ushers are checking IDs at the door if you're planning on coming. Some individuals are wearing "DIVEST MIDD" shirts. Upon entering, many attendees were given a pamphlet entitled "The Middlebury Divestment Reader," compiled by 350.org.
[A Note About Liveblogs: Although we do our best to accurately present events and quotes, the instant nature of liveblogging sometimes leads to errors in our reporting. If you feel like you have been misrepresented or misquoted in our coverage above, please do not hesitate to contact the Campus.]
(01/21/13 12:15am)
The Campus Current will be liveblogging "Midd Does the Math" beginning at 7:30 p.m. from Mead Memorial Chapel. The event, which is sponsored by Divest for Our Future, will feature Schumann Distinguished Scholar Bill McKibben. Middlebury is the latest of many stops for McKibben, who traveled around the country on his Do the Math tour throughout the fall of 2012.
"Come join us for a night of education AND fun (in the true spirit of J-term)," Divest for Our Future writes. "We can promise that there will be a LOT of energy!"
The event comes only two days before Tuesday's panel on the College's endowment; the Campus will provide a subsequent liveblog at that event, beginning on Tuesday, Jan. 22 at 7:30 p.m.
With Additional Reporting and Photography by KATHRYN DESUTTER and CHARLOTTE GARDINER
-----
11:40 - For additional coverage and photographs from "Midd Does the Math", MiddBlog's Luke Whelan just posted about the event.
9:48 - Signing off from the Mead Memorial Chapel, but we'll be back on Tuesday evening for what will certainly be an interesting discussion. Additional coverage and analysis will be available in this Thursday's issue. Thanks for reading!
9:46 - After discussing the nature he has witnessed in each state on his Do The Math tour, McKibben stresses that community will be essential in winning this fight at Middlebury. "We will do what needs to happen ... Middlebury will show the rest of the country and the rest of the world a path forward from a very difficult place." This conclusion prompts a standing ovation from a majority of the audience.
9:41 - He continues, "When you come to get arrested, will you wear a necktie or dress?" McKibben wants to make a strong point, and remove the "radical" nature that is associated with the divestment movement. “There is nothing — and I mean nothing — radical in what we’re talking about here."
9:38 - McKibben speaks about the tools of influencing people to change through the political message sent by divestment. “Our goal is to find the other currencies — the currencies of movements, passions, experience, creativity.”
9:36 - McKibben asks students to complete the post cards, which were placed in the pews throughout Mead Chapel prior to the event. The postcards are pre-addressed to the board of trustees, and simply say "DIVEST MIDDLEBURY" on the front.
9:35 - He introduces a final video message from Jason Scores, economics professor at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. “We’re very proud that students have taken the lead to demand this change, and we’re very proud that many faculty are standing with them, too,” says Scores.
9:32 - McKibben asks for a freeze on new fossil fuel investments and to wind down existing fossil fuel investments in five years. "I think Middlebury will provide leadership." He continues, "If you’re going to green your campus you’ve got to green your portfolio."
9:30 - McKibben introduces a video from Desmond Tutu, who speaks about divestment's impact in ending South African apartheid. Tutu mentions the suffering of the African people due to climate change “even though they’ve done nothing to cause the situation.” He says, "Once again we can join together as a world and put on pressure" in solving climate change.
9:28 - "I think it would be a big mistake not to do this," Steyer concludes.
9:27 - McKibben introduces Tom Steyer, a friend and professional investo, to the stage. He speaks about his belief in climate change, and emphasizes its urgency. "We’re going to hit a nonlinear progression where things are going to get much worse, much faster," Steyer states. Steyer admits that he quit his job at the end of 2012 to become a "pain in the ass." He stresses urgency and openness: “It’s about dealing with the issue openly and confronting it. We’re actually going to have to accept the problem. I have been an investor for 30 years – I know that this will be very difficult for the institutions ... and [I know] that they can do it."
9:19 - Elder expresses gratitude to President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz for organizing Tuesday’s panel on the College’s endowment. Audience members snap in agreement. As the program approaches the 1.5 hour mark, some students begin to leave.
9:17 - Elder reflects on flipping through the physical archives of the Campus in the special collections of the Davis Family Library. “In 1978, the College faculty voted to divest from all companies involved in South Africa. And then for 8 years, nothing happened,” says Elder. He speaks about the history of the divestment campaign during the 1980s at the College. Elder describes how members of the group “Students Against Apartheid” met with the Board of Trustees, and finally, they voted to divest from South Africa in July of 1986. (Three months prior, in the Campus' annual April Fools' issue, the headline quipped that the college had divested from the South Africa; perhaps, we'll revisit the idea in this year's April Fools' issue.)
9:12 - McKibben introduces Professor Emeritus John Elder, who states that “nothing could be more important” than the ongoing discussion. McKibben drinks one of the Otter Creek beers used in the analogy described below.
9:10 - We're moving onto what the audience can do: dinvestment. McKibben explains that 'we can't avoid using a certain amount of carbon in the way our society is set up, but it is wrong to profit from it.' He makes a similar statement about assault rifles.
9:07 - McKibben sets up an active analogy between the 2 degrees Celsius limit and the 0.08 limit on Blood Alcohol Content. As students pass bottles of Otter Creek Brewery ale onto the stage, McKibben describes how he could probably drink three or four and still remain below the legal limit. “The problem is that the fossil fuel industry are absolute party animals,” says McKibben. "Even with all this beer ... the fossil fuel industry continues looking for more." Three cases of Keystone Light, with 30 cans in each, are loaded onto the stage. McKibben explains that the fossil fuel industry is analogous to the copious amount of Keystone.
9:04 - McKibben speaks in between words from a video of Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson. The crowd laughs as McKibben pokes fun at Tillerson’s claim that the effects of climate change can be softened if we “move around crop production areas.”
9:01 - "They’ve stifled every rational effort … to put a price on carbon.” McKibben describes BP’s development of the slogan “Beyond Petroleum” and their subsequent decision to sell off the sustainable divisions of the company.
8:59 - McKibben explains that major progress in renewable energy is inhibited by “the basic fact that the fossil fuel industry cheats.” While Middlebury cannot dump its trash in the middle of Rt. 125, the fossil fuel industry can "pour their waste out for free."
8:55 - The good news: "There's plenty we can do ... and it's by no means impossible." McKibben discusses recent improvements in Germany and China as great examples (i.e. solar panels and hot water heaters on top of buildings in Chinese cities). "They have exerted more political will."
8:53 - “I want you to get a sense of who your brothers and sisters are in this fight,” says McKibben. He shows pictures submitted to 350.org from citizens around the globe who have been affected by climate change. One picture shows citizens of Haiti affected by a flood holding a sign stating, “Your actions affect me." Additional photos are available on 350.org's Flickr.
8:49 - Following Klein's film, McKibben introduces another special video from Canadian indigenous activist Clayton Thomas-Muller. He praises Middlebury's efforts, but the video cuts out about midway through.
8:45 - McKibben pays tribute to author and activist Naomi Klein, who is currently working on her movement titled “Idle No More” in Canada. McKibben introduces a video recorded by Klein, a board member of 350.org, filmed specifically for "Midd Does the Math". Klein challenges students to take action: "We need you to provide a strong, coherent message. There is no doubt in my mind that others will follow."
8:40 - McKibben introduces three numbers: 2°C, 565 gigatons of carbon and 2795 gigatons of coal, oil and gas. Do the Math provides explanation: "We can burn less than 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide and stay below 2°C of warming — anything more than that risks catastrophe for life on earth. The only problem? Fossil fuel corporations now have 2,795 gigatons in their reserves, five times the safe amount. And they’re planning to burn it all — unless we rise up to stop them." McKibben continues in saying, "These companies are a road force. They're outlaws against the laws of physics. If they carry out their business plan, the planet tanks."
8:37 - “What we have to talk about tonight is how to keep things from getting totally out of control. All we’re talking about tonight is avoiding calamity — complete calamity.”
8:35 - "You guys are on the front lines ... so let's get to work." McKibben mentions his popular article from Rolling Stone, which gained ten times more likes on Facebook than an article about "hot, ready and legal" Justin Bieber from the same issue. He jokes that it may have been due to his own "soulful stare."
8:33 - McKibben continues by showing photos of community members arrested during the aforementioned protests in Washington D.C. In an adjoining cell block was 72-year-old Gus Speth; McKibben recalls him stating, "I've been in a lot of important positions in this town, but none of them seem as important as the one that I'm in now."
8:28 - “I’m way more nervous than I’ve been … here I am with my neighbors and friends. I’m in a place where I am so deeply hopeful we can maange to get the right thing done, because it’s our community.” He continues, “None of us should have to be here tonight — not on a rational planet.”
8:26 - McKibben takes the stage to large applause.
8:25 - Isham introduces a video from environmental activist Van Jones. He speaks about the history of 350.org, its impact around the world, and the actions taken by the organization to promote awareness of climate change, including the 2011 protests regarding the Keystone Pipeline.
8:21 - Professor of Economics and Chair of the Environmental Science Department Jon Isham comes onto the stage. "How are you Middlebury? Are you ready to do the math?" Isham, who is currently teaching a winter term course titled “Social Entreprenuership in the Liberal Arts,” speaks to the crowd about the complexities of building a world of social justice. “It’s time to carve out our own piece of history,” declares Isham.
8:20 - Neubauer introduces Ellie, a student from the University of Vermont. She speaks to the crowd about the divestment movement at UVM: “We feel responsible to keep the culture at UVM as pure as we can.” After Ellie concludes, Stuart leads the audience in a 'mic-check,' earning loud applause and snaps from the crowd.
8:18 - Greta Neubauer ’14.5 of Divest for Our Future and Molly Stuart ’15.5 of the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee take the stage. After a moment of silence for the Abenaki people, each student discusses her reason for divestment: Neubauer would like to divest in order to prevent climate change, while Stuart were like to divest in order to stop violence. “Now is the time to take this powerful step,” Neubauer says.
8:13 - May Boeve ’06.5, executive director and co-founder of 350.org, and Phil Aroneanu ’07, U.S. campaign manager and co-founder of 350.org, introduce the event; they tell the story of starting 350.org at the College. “We left a couple things undone — one of them was divesting,” says Aroneau. "Middlebury needs to divest.” Boeve reminds the audience that tonight is the eighth anniversary of the founding of the Sunday Night Group.
8:07 - Musician Max Godfrey '14 has joined Alpenglow on stage. Together, they sing an original song entitled “Susquehana Drill Town,” based on their collective experiences in Cooperstown, N.Y. Cooperstown is located on the Marcellus Shale, a region rich in methane deposits and ripe for hydraulic fracking.
8:00 - Alpenglow thanks the audience and improves their usually lackluster audience banter with a joke from violinist Elori Kramer ’13.5: “We were told if we played here, Bill McKibben would tweet about us.” Will you be tweeting about Alpenglow, @billmckibben?
7:54 - Community members have begun to file into Mead. While the center pews are largely full, plenty of space remains available on the sides and upstairs at the Chapel. Alpenglow’s stripped-down performance has set a calm, reverent mood.
7:47 - As promised, Alpenglow has taken the stage to warm up the crowd for McKibben. This is there second time the band is on stage in as many nights, having performed on Saturday evening as well. The stream of students has slowed; most listen quietly to Alpenglow.
7:36 - Doors have opened and Mead Chapel is slowly filling up. The Chapel is dimly lit with a large sign behind the stage reading 'DIVEST MIDD.' So far only students have been allowed in; community members will be permitted beginning at 7:45.
(01/17/13 1:08am)
In the wake of high-profile student protests and amid a growing university movement to combat climate change, President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz announced that that the College will host a panel of experts to discuss the feasibility of divesting its endowment from the fossil fuel industry on Tuesday, Jan. 22 at 7:30 p.m. in the McCullough Social Space.
Two days in advance of the panel, Schumann Distinguished Scholar Bill McKibben and other special guests will speak at “Midd Does the Math,” an event hosted by various student groups in conjunction with the environmentalist-activist organization 350.org. The event will occur at Mead Chapel on Sunday, Jan. 20 at 8 p.m.
Tuesday’s panel will feature McKibben, renowned climate activist and founder of 350.org; Ralphe Earle, a renewables-focused venture investor; Alice Handy, founder and president of Investure, the firm that manages the College’s endowment; Mark Kritzman, adjunct professor of finance at MIT; and John Tormondsen ’82, a trustee of the College’s Board of Directors, and a member of the Finance Committee.
As the divestment movement has gained traction on campus this fall, many students have raised questions about the benefits and consequences of withdrawing the College’s investments in fossil fuels manufacturing companies and arms manufacturing companies. In December, Liebowitz announced in an email to all staff, students and faculty that the College has roughly 3.6 percent of its endowment invested in fossil fuel industries and approximately 0.6 percent in defense and arms manufacturing companies.
Questions have also been raised regarding the College’s investment structure, a model which sees the management of the institution’s approximately $900 million endowment outsourced to Investure LLC., which pools the College’s funds with the endowments of 12 other institutions or foundations.
“We’re going to learn and we’re going to see what our options are,” said Liebowitz. “Is divestment the only option? Is divestment the best option? What are the consequences?”
“Nothing is off the table,” he continued. “We have an open mind to hear as much as we can, and for the board to engage this as well.”
For many, this has represented a significantly positive first step, especially when considering the tepid reaction that divestment movements have been met with at other institutions. While Maine-based Unity College became the first to divest its endowment in December, Harvard University representatives have stated that their institution will not consider divestment.
“I’m really excited that Middlebury is initiating a dialogue about the ethics of our endowment,” said Assi Askala ’15, a member of Divest for Our Future Middlebury.
Though pleased with the opportunity to engage in dialogue, some student divestment organizational leaders on campus have questioned the College’s choice of panelists.
“The panelists may be experts, but they still have biases,” said Molly Stuart ’15.5,one of the five students unofficially disciplined by the College for the dissemination of a fake press release announcing that the endowment had been divested from fossil fuels in November.
“The panel should include a member of a community significantly affected by climate change, or a student, in order to represent facts and opinions primarily concerned with a livable planet, rather than maximum returns on our investments,” added Stuart.
Student were also critical of proposed format for the question and answer period, in which panelists will only respond to questions submitted and screened ahead of time by the administration and the Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing (ACSRI).
In response to such criticism, Liebowitz explained that the College would use student submissions as a way to incorporate their voices into the discussion.
“We want professionals to talk about the effectiveness of these approaches, and of divestment generally speaking. The goal is to have a fact-based, in-depth discussion, rather than [a discussion based upon] emotion,” said Liebowitz. “Student opinions are important, but for this first panel we wanted opinions based on the deep experience that the panelists will bring to the discussion.”
Liebowitz explained that many of the panelists have devoted their entire careers to understanding and engaging with investment, making them well suited to help educate community members on the benefits and consequences of divestment.
In a telephone interview, McKibben lamented the lack of a student panelist, but was supportive of the College’s decision to host the panel and stated that he was pleased to participate. In addition to his role on Tuesday, McKibben will also speak at Sunday’s Midd Does the Math event.
The event will loosely follow the model used by McKibben’s highly successful Do the Math tour, a month-long cross-country campaign that saw the renowned climate change activist and others speak before thousands at sold out venues in 24 cities.
At the Middlebury event, McKibben will be joined by faculty, alumni and student speakers. Community members will also have an opportunity to watch taped messages from prominent social change activists Naomi Klein, Van Jones, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Clayton Thomas Muller.
Years ago, facing political roadblocks and recognizing what he described as the “extreme political power of the fossil fuel industry,” McKibben consulted with many experts, including Archbishop Tutu, on a plan to decrease the power of the wealthiest industry ever in human history.
According to McKibben, “One of the only really successful examples in American history [of diminishing such entrenched power] was the student-led divestment movement that helped to, from a distance, liberate South Africa in the 1980s.”
“I hope people come out of the event with a greater understanding,” said McKibben. “At this point everybody understands that global warming is an overwhelming problem, but I hope that everyone will come out feeling that there is something really powerful that they can do close to home that is on a scale that makes some kind of real difference.”
“I also hope that the college understands just how logical it is — since they’ve done a good job greening the campus — that the logical next step would be to green our portfolio. It’s another part of our shared campus life.”
(01/17/13 1:07am)
JusTalks, a student-led forum to engage identity and promote campus-wide discussion on personal and social issues, will launch its pilot event Friday, Jan. 18. The event will begin on at 7 p.m. with an address from keynote speaker Professor of Africana Studies, Dr. Tricia Rose of Brown University. Her talk, open to the general school community, will touch on topics that will highlight conversation for the following day. Saturday will be dedicated to the forum. The first half of the day will address identity — what it is and how each student identifies — and the second will cover Middlebury specific issues.
JusTalks, which emerged as an independent initiative undertaken by Rhiya Trivedi ’12 and Matt Johnson ’12 in the fall of 2011, stemmed from weekly Social Justice Coalition meetings when a group of students raised the idea of hosting a continuation of first-year orientation during winter term in the form of a series of events focusing on issues of identity and diversity. These discussions will include race, gender, sexual orientation, class, ability and religion, among others.
“I was really drawn to this idea from different experiences I had on campus and just feeling like there were certain people I could talk to about these things and then certain people I couldn’t,” said Carllee James ’13, one of the co-leaders of JusTalks. “I wanted it to be a more comfortable, campus-wide discussion.”
Alex Jackman ’14, another JusTalks co-leader, added, “I was frustrated. I felt that there were a lot of different people who were having these discussions in smaller groups separately but not doing any work together ... and we were hoping to help bring those conversations together.”
Other JusTalks members felt as though these conversations were largely absent in the College community altogether. Group co-leader Alice Oshima ’15 explained: “I was coming from a high school that had more of an inclusive community than I felt Middlebury had ... and that these issues were being talked about a bit more in my high school.”
The initial plan for the JusTalks event proposed a mandatory two-day event that would take place during a student’s first winter term on campus and would include large group activities like a repeat of the MiddUncensored activity first-year students complete during their orientation, and smaller group discussions led by student facilitator.
The timing of JusTalks was intentionally chosen for a variety of reasons. “Because of winter term’s more relaxed schedule, students have more time to reflect on what’s happened in their fall semester,” said co-leader Elma Burnham ’13.
Additionally, as Jackman explained, “These discussions and conversations are important to have towards the beginning of one’s Middlebury career and hopefully they’ll take away tools to use during the rest of their time here.”
Last winter and spring, student leaders conducted a campus outreach project in which they visited different organizations, teams, and residence halls at the College, seeking feedback on and endorsement of their idea. After receiving positive feedback from many student groups, the JusTalks team contacted the administration to officially pitch the JusTalks project.
“I was immediately impressed with the very thoughtful way these students were engaging this issue,” Dean of the College Shirley Collado said of the initiative. “They were looking for deeper communication among students and were really asking hard questions about our campus culture, how students interact and how students can be more accountable to each other.”
“The [JusTalks] curriculum provides an opportunity for students to celebrate diversity and to grapple with tough issues that are specific to our community in a safe space,” added Associate Dean of Students J.J. Boggs in an email. “We can’t help but benefit from the increased awareness, diverse perspective, and honest dialogue.”
With the help and support of administrators and faculty such as Collado and Boggs, as well as Associate Dean of Students Katy Smith Abbott, Associate Professor of Education Studies and Wonnacott Commons Head Jonathan Miller-Lane, Visiting Assistant Professor of Education Studies Tara Affolter, and Wonnacott Commons Dean Matt Longman, JusTalks student leaders have brought their idea to life this school year. The project organizers hope that the the upcoming pilot program will help them to fully test and further gather feedback on the initiative.
Students were invited to sign-up for participation in the kick-off event this past fall, the first 180 of which will be able to attend the forum. Twenty additional students were chosen through an application process to lead small group discussions as student facilitators. Throughout the fall these students were trained by three faculty members, as well as by an outside facilitator and curriculum developer, Professor Marta Esquilin from Columbia University.
Though the JusTalks initiative received much endorsement in its campaign last year, the JusTalks team original proposal to make the program mandatory for all students was met with some hesitation.
“People felt like they shouldn’t be forced to go to an event,” said James. “It’s difficult to ask 180 people who might not know each other well to stand in a circle and open up to peers,” acknowledged James. “So we’re kind of asking people to take that leap with us. [But] at the end of the day, I believe that having it be mandatory is what would make it the most successful.”
“It’ll be one of the few things in our Middlebury careers where we’ll all have the same shared experience,” Jackman added.
Collado also expressed concern that requiring first-years to attend the event would be a point of tension surrounding the initiative.
“The students organizing this want to make sure that other students don’t see this as some program about being politically correct or some diversity training,” Collado said. “That is not what this is.”
Although JusTalks student leaders do not expect an immediate change, they hope the initiative will create a more inclusive and comfortable campus climate in the future.
We’re hoping [JusTalks] will give students experience in having these conversations,” said Burnham.
“JusTalks is an opportunity to judge less and listen more—to look up and out, and into the faces and eyes of others that are here,” Associate Professor of Education Studies Jonathan Miller-Lane explained in an email. “Given how much time and energy we all spend trying to get to this campus in the Champlain Valley of Vermont, seems like a good thing to pay attention to the kind community we are actually constructing once we are here.”
For more information on the JusTalks initiative, visit go/justalks.
(01/16/13 10:29pm)
On Dec. 29, the Burlington Free Press named Bill McKibben, Schumann distinguished scholar at the College and Ripton resident, Vermonter of the Year for 2012.
“This was the year of growing recognition that a string of weather events, from violent storms to record-breaking droughts, was having a profound impact on the lives of people in this country and around the world,” said the announcement. “Bill McKibben’s message is finally sinking in.”
The Burlington Free Press also said that McKibben, who has traversed the country for his “Do the Math Tour” to build the movement to end fossil fuel use, “has been for years among the most effective voices raising the alarm about the threats of climate change.”
Ultimately, the announcement said, McKibben was given the award “for his tireless and prolific advocacy for the planet on behalf of future generations.”
For McKibben, this award held high importance.
“It was a very, very, very high honor,” said McKibben during a phone interview. “I get more than my fair share of awards and this one meant more than any other because I like Vermont and Vermonters so much.”
“I think that it is also, in a sense, an award to Middlebury College,” said McKibben. “Middlebury has been exceptionally good about being a good neighbor in Vermont and to letting me do all kinds of work here and around the world.”
During his latest campaign, the “Do the Math Tour,” McKibben visited 210 college and university campuses across the country to increase awareness about climate change and gaining followers of his movement to end the use of fossil fuels.
“[The tour] went better than we had any right to expect,” said McKibben. “We managed to sell out every night for 24 nights.”
Although the tour was a success for McKibben, he is hesitantly optimistic about the new year.
“I know one is supposed to be entirely hopeful in the new year,” he said. “I hope that we’re finally building a movement.”
With Hurricane Sandy barreling through the eastern United States last fall, last year being the hottest on record and with Australia currently experiencing a record breaking summer with extreme heat, McKibben isn’t “100 percent hopeful all the time because the science gets darker all the time.”
But, of course, he won’t let go or stop working for a movement he has spent so much time and energy on, especially because the movement seems to be gaining momentum.
“I don’t know if we got started in time but we’re going to do our best,” he said.
The Do the Math Tour will arrive in Mead Chapel Sunday, Jan. 20 at 7:30 p.m.
(01/16/13 10:23pm)
Last Wednesday, Jan. 9 the 2013 Vermont legislation session began in Montpelier.
The Speaker of the House, Shap Smith (D), opened the session with an address outlining several challenges that he would like to tackle in 2013. These include: education reform, universal health care, coping with climate change, drug addiction, infrastructure improvement and budget constraints.
Governor Peter Shumlin (D) chose to focus on one issue, education, rather than give a broad outline about his legislative goals for 2013.
“My goal-and the single objective of my administration-remains to grow jobs and incomes for working Vermonters. Our education system, from pre-kindergarten to higher education, is the state’s greatest economic development tool,” said Shumlin during his speech. “Our kids routinely test above the national average, and excel in a wide range of disciplines. We have a great system that we must make even greater.”
Several Middlebury College students were able to attend the event when the class Organizing for Social Change took a fieldtrip to Montpelier.
Barrett Smith ’13, a member of the class, and Anna Shireman-Grabowski ’15.5, who is auditing, highlighted a few of the issues that stood out to them while observing the proceedings.
Put People First, an initiative by the Vermont Workers’ Center, is working with Migrant Justice to allow migrants to obtain drivers’ license.
“Migrant Justice has been working diligently on this issue for over a year, framing the issue as ... the human right to movement, and telling important stories about the realities of migrant farmworkers in Vermont who have faced the negative consequences of not being able to go to the hospital or the grocery store when they needed to, due to lack of transportation,” Hanna Mahon ’13.5, who interned for Migrant Justice last summer, wrote in an email.
Since Vermont is a rural state without very much public transportation, people without driver’s licenses aren’t able to drive to hospitals for health care or to the grocery store for everyday food items.
The “People’s Budget” is another issue that Put People First is working on in 2013. Shireman-Grabowski highlighted the “People’s Budget,” citing it as a “paradigm shift.”
The “People’s Budget’s” goal is to allow citizen’s to give their input to legislators before the annual budget is made. Rather than deciding on a budget and then allotting the money, citizens would decide what the important issues, what they think can be cut and what shouldn’t be cut, and then the budget would be decided. It is a restructuring that would allow people to “hold up each other’s issues,” said Shireman-Grabowski, because the community would be deciding what is important. It would be a way to identify what a community’s needs are and then appropriate money rather than cut back on important programs.
(01/16/13 8:42pm)
Superstorm Sandy may be a bit of an afterthought now that both J-Term and winter in Vermont are well under way, but remnants of the catastrophic storm are still very much visible back home in New Jersey. Thankfully, my home and neighborhood managed to remain reasonably unscathed in the wake of the storm surge, as did much of northern New Jersey. However, coastal areas of the Jersey Shore and Long Island (Brooklyn and Queens included) along with Manhattan are still far from back to normal, and as NPR’s Pam Fessler reports, the relief aid flowing into the region teeters along the line between comprehensive and overwhelming. Donations of clothing and financial resources abound, but the reality brought before our eyes concerning the prospect of storms the magnitude of Sandy potentially becoming the norm begs the question of how long we can afford to continue putting bandages on the situation.
Though the lauded efforts brought forward provide welcome reminder that people are capable of being decent human beings every once in a while — see Governor Chris Christie’s uncharacteristic civility immediately following the storm — maybe the costs and damages faced by those affected by Sandy along with help of all who came to their aid may not have been necessary. While many argue that it was only a matter of time before Manhattan faced a disaster of this variety, evidence repetitively quoted by groups like 350.org points to the fact that in earlier decades storms like Sandy would have been an utter impossibility. Paired with our continued neglect to address issues of climate change, the present levels of long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are only going to increase the likelihood of more storms like Sandy and Irene before it, as well as necessitating Irene- and Sandy-scale relief efforts — more costs.
Economics refers to an externality as a cost or benefit not transmitted through price — in other terms, a failure of the market to accurately represent the cost of an action or choice. An externality, represented as marginal external cost, is the difference between the private and social prices associated with something; working within our Sandy example, let’s call it storm relief. Slate reports that the federal government is currently working out a proposal to bring roughly $50 billion in aid to New York and New Jersey. The New York Times last November estimated the cumulative damages faced by New York and New Jersey to be somewhere around $70 billion. So while Washington has thankfully committed to help mitigate some of the costs of storm relief, it still goes to show that, working on the assumption that Sandy’s magnitude was something affected by our own choices and behaviors — say, the consumption of fossil fuels — that $70 billion is a cost of that action that wasn’t included in the price of the choice that led to it. It was a price that occurred outside of the market.
Now I can’t say for sure that if people 20 years ago knew that disasters like Sandy would be the consequences of them filling up their tank of gas to get to work, they’d stop using gasoline. People will always need to get to work, but maybe someone who would eventually lose their house to a freak storm would rethink the cost of a gallon of gasoline; whether they’d still knowingly purchase it is another story. The crux of the matter is that the way we approach economic questions like these brings in the matter of how we value things — not just in the present, but in the future. If the cost of an action in the present won’t be returned or payed off in the future in terms of benefits, then the action won’t be carried out. Put another way, if the benefits of pollution abatement don’t exceed the cost of abatement in the present, then we’ll just keep polluting. The fact that it’s simple human tendency to value things in the present more highly than things in the future makes the situation exponentially more complicated.
How long can we ethically continue to neglect these issues of value? I can’t say. What I can say is that a disturbingly high number of families’ lives will probably never be the same, and that in itself may suggest that it’s time we consider just how many more storms we can realistically deal with. Sandy was an externality. Sandy was a market failure. Luckily, economics also tells us that we can fix externalities, and we still have the opportunity to reconsider where our ethics and values lie.
(12/22/12 3:55pm)
In the wake of a high-profile student protest and amid a growing university movement to combat climate change, Middlebury College announced in early December that it would initiate steps to address the feasibility of divesting its endowment from the fossil fuel industry.
In a campus-wide email, College President Ronald Liebowitz expressed his willingness to “engage the community on an issue of great interest and import to the College and its many constituents”—a commitment to expand dialogue on concerns previously only discussed seriously in activist forums. He explained that Middlebury would host a series of panels on divestment with representatives from the College’s endowment management firm, Scholar-in-Residence Bill McKibben, and veteran investors. “A look at divestment,” he continued, “must include the consequences, both pro and con, of such a direction, including how likely it will be to achieve the hoped-for results and what the implications might be for the College, for faculty, staff, and individual students.”
In an unusual and impressive demonstration of transparency regarding the College’s finances, Liebowitz also disclosed the percentage of the institution’s $900 million endowment currently invested in fossil fuel companies: roughly 3.6% or $32 million. The statement provided a degree of openness that many say has been missing since 2005 when the College began outsourcing the investment of its endowment to Investure, LLC, an investment management company with an aggregate portfolio of approximately $9.1 billion.
Liebowitz’s announcement was met with enthusiasm from McKibben, the founder of grassroots sustainability organization 350.org and chief spokesman for the organization’s Do The Math tour, a national campaign encouraging colleges, churches and pension funds to divest their endowments from the world’s top 200 fossil fuel companies.
“President Liebowitz used just the right tone and took precisely the right step,” said McKibben in statement released by 350.org. “It won't be easy to divest, but I have no doubt that Middlebury—home of the first environmental studies department in the nation—will do the right thing in the right way.”
On the rural Vermont campus, some students were more tempered in their reaction to the statement. Why wasn’t the College considering more definitive steps, committing to fossil fuel divestment like Unity College in Maine, or pledging to invest in sustainable and socially responsible companies, like Hampshire College in Massachusetts?
“We want to see change happen faster,” said Sam Koplinka-Loehr, a senior environmental justice major. “Panels and discussions are not new,” he explained, “they have been happening since before I arrived on campus.” Koplinka-Loehr was one of five students disciplined by the college for the dissemination of a fake press release in November—a prank designed to raise awareness about divestment and encourage the college to take action.
Other students wondered how the College’s practice of outsourcing its endowment management to Investure—which pools Middlebury’s funds with the endowments of twelve other institutions or foundations—might impact the viability of divestment. The President’s email included a disclaimer noting that the financial information provided was not based on a comprehensive review of Middlebury’s holdings, but rather “the underlying long positions of the Investure Funds of which Investure has actual knowledge from third-party managers.” While this model permits greater efficiency and economies of scale, the many steps of remove limit transparency and could complicate the divestment process.
Members of the student group Divest for Our Future, however, argue that Investure’s co-mingled endowment structure opens up potential for collaboration. They have been in contact with similar student groups at Investure-managed schools such as Smith College, Barnard College and Trinity College in an effort to coordinate initiatives, hoping that acting in unison might encourage Investure to alter its investment policies across the board.
This type of joint effort has a history of success. In 2010, Middlebury students teamed up with representatives from Dickinson College and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund—both of which have endowments managed by Investure—to establish the Sustainable Investments Initiative, an Investure-managed portfolio dedicated to environmentally responsible investment. With $4 million from Middlebury, $1 million from Dickinson, and $70 million from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the portfolio has yielded high returns, says Ben Chute, co-leader of the Socially Responsible Investment Club at Middlebury.
Outside of the logistical debate on feasibility, divestment as an effective strategy to strike a blow at the fossil fuel industry has faced criticism. Nation contributing editor Christian Parenti has questioned the effectiveness of using coordinated divestment as a tool to affect the bottom line of fossil fuel companies, suggesting that if universities were to sell their shares, someone else would likely scoop them up.
Jon Isham, an economics professor and director of Middlebury’s environmental studies program, thinks that while the direct effects of divestment on fossil fuel stock prices may be negligible, the move—if widely adopted—could significantly damage the industry and encourage investment in sustainable energy. “It’s wrong to say that divestment in and of itself is going to effect change solely based on the implications for stock prices,” said Isham. “But it might still make fossil fuel companies worry—it could mean that stock is viewed as something nobody should hold, which happened in tobacco. Divestment is an attempt to give the industry a black eye.”
The divestment movement “is something college students can latch on to,” explains Isham. “They understand their campus, they’re on their campus, and they are very keen on making a difference in the world, not only around climate change, but also around poverty and human rights. This is a way they can make change on campus.”
Indeed, Middlebury students have pushed for the upcoming panel discussions to incorporate representatives from student organizations such as Divest for Our Future and the Socially Responsible Investment Club. “If there is true intent to listen to student voices, the administration should provide avenues for students to engage in these issues,” said Koplinka-Loehr. “We need the opportunity to engage in critical dialogue on equal footing with the administration if we are to be successful.”
KELSEY COLLINS contributed to this report. The article was originally posted to the Extra Credit blog in the Nation.
(12/08/12 5:47pm)
Visiting Assistant Professor of Education Studies Tara Affolter addressed the entangled issues of race and education in her lecture on Thursday, Dec. 6 entitled “Tell Them You Saw Me: Invisibility, Race and Racism in the Liberal Arts Classroom.” Affolter is applying for a tenure-track position in Education Studies at the College, and this lecture was part of her evaluation as a candidate.
Affolter has a Ph.D. in education studies and taught secondary school for fifteen years before becoming a professor at the College. She became interested in the links between race and education after working with the Head Start program and teaching children from low-income families.
Recently, she conducted a study regarding race and education in which she interviewed forty students of color who attended American “elite liberal arts colleges” on their experiences in the classroom. This study is not yet published.
Affolter concluded that there is an unhealthy atmosphere for students of color at predominantly white colleges.
“Students of color experience patterns of exclusion [and] alienation,” explained Affolter.
Affolter attributed this campus climate to problems with campus discourse and curriculum.
Survey data collected from 2,042 students at 141 liberal arts colleges revealed that non-white students felt scared to talk in the classroom at double the rate of white students.
Students of color often feel like they need to watch their tone or that what they say is interpreted by white students as speaking for their entire race, said Affolter. Students in her study revealed that they often feel like “a nobody or a nation” when they speak; they are either invisible or hyper-visible to their classmates.
“Part of white privilege is what we say will be heard [and understood],” said Affolter.
Another flaw to campus discourse, Affolter discussed, is that white students may unintentionally make racist comments which go unacknowledged by students and professors.
“Comments like that take students out of the classroom, silences them, marginalizes them,” explained Affolter. Additionally, if racist comments go unchallenged, she added, they may be accepted as fact.
Students of color in Affolter’s study reported that professors often lead very controlled and cautious discussions in regards to race that only serve to skim the surface of the issues at hand. Race issues are frequently discussed only as historical fact and not as problems wracking today’s society.
By not tackling issues of race in the classroom effectively, students are missing educational opportunities, suggested Affolter. She believes that the curriculum is the area the College most needs to address in order to produce a healthy and diverse campus climate.
On the whole, Affolter challenged all the College’s professors to lead in their classrooms conversations in which race is discussed productively.
“I really do believe that the classroom is the place where we need to make the change,” said Affolter.
Maya Doig-Acuna ’16, whose poem about "the influence of black poets and writers on her own growth" was read by Affolter during her lecture, has been moved by Affolter’s message on campus.
“As a student of color, there were things that she said […] that resonated with me from other students’ experiences that I didn’t really realize were even there, kind of tensions that I had felt in classrooms before that I didn’t know how to identify or how to explain,” said Doig-Acuna about Affolter’s lecture. “[Her lecture] made me feel better about this school because I realized so many people cared.”
Doig-Acuna also shares Affolter’s belief that much could be done to improve the state of racial diversity at the College.
“I didn’t expect to feel such a segregated community,” reflected Doig-Acuna. “I wish that everybody had more of an interest in going beyond what’s familiar, and talking to new people, and engaging in the dialogue about diversity.”
Doig-Acuna and Affolter share the belief that “issues of race and identity are issues that belong to everyone and everyone should care about.”
Jay Saper ’13, who recently wrote a satirical editorial for the Campus entitled “Fire Tara,” believes that Affolter plays an extremely important role in the College community.
“Who she is and what she has to say really resonate with many people on campus who feel that in her work she challenges a lot of what is marginalizing various identities at this place,” said Saper, who has taken a class with Affolter every semester that she has taught at the College. In 2011, he ran a campaign called “Keep Affolter” advocating that Affolter remain as a professor on campus.
“She […] is not just someone who participates in fifty minute lectures and publishes so as to lengthen her CV. [She] is someone who is really a member of our community and a support for so many students,” Saper added.
Affolter wishes to remain at the College because of the flexibility in course design and offering in her department, and because she feels she makes an impact at the College.
She will learn if she received the tenure-track position in the Education Studies department in the coming weeks.
(12/06/12 1:24pm)
In a posting on The Eighth Man, "a quiddicth media site designed to bring together elements of strategy and sports analysis," Benny Nadeau discusses the implications of Middlebury's recent losses and failure in qualifying for the World Cup:
On November 17th, 2012 at the Northeast Regional Championship, the world stood absolutely still. While teams like Boston University and Hofstra University dominated and announced their legitimacy to the IQA community, there were also a few other pleasant surprises from pool play. The Boston Riot had put themselves in a good position to sneak into the World Cup and NYU came out of nowhere with an impressive set of first games. However, there was one team that everyone was talking about.
Middlebury didn’t survive the first day.
In April, for the first time in IQA history, there will be a new World Cup champion.
Middlebury, of course, created this game. Without them, this community that we’ve all come to love and obsess over might not even exist. To them, we owe everything. And yet, the world couldn’t help but act a little overjoyed that, for once, there would be no Middlebury at this year’s World Cup. However, they’re the one team that changed everything.
There have been five world cups and at the end of the tournament each year, it has been Middlebury hoisting our makeshift trophy while the rest of the world was forced to look on. Eyes fixated on their celebrations, the IQA community has made it their number one goal to dethrone the kings of our sport. At World Cup 4, I was a freshman on the Emerson College Quidditch team. I played only fifteen seconds at that weekend and I was still dreading the moment they took the title. What stuck with me to this day was what my coach, Michael Gray, used to tell us.
“Do you think Middlebury is practicing in the rain right now? No, they aren’t! We are the only team in the world that can beat Middlebury, but we have to want it.”
You see, the entire world wasn’t playing Quidditch to win a championship; they were playing to beat Middlebury. Beating Middlebury was the only way to be considered the winner. For better or for worse, the road to glory ran right through Middlebury. Emerson lost that year in the quarterfinals to Tufts and our team sobbed in our tents for over an hour. We weren’t entirely sad that we lost on a scoring miscalculation, we were sad that we didn’t get another shot at Middlebury.
Of course, that was a different Middlebury. The next year, they came in as underdogs and many people believe that they had absolutely no shot of winning a fifth straight title. With new elite powerhouses like Texas A&M, Kansas and Florida, there was no way the little liberal arts school could pull it off once more.
They lost, but not in the finals. In fact, their unfortunate snitch snatch loss against Michigan in pool play was impossibly bad timing. A quaffle goal mere milliseconds before UM pulled the snitch sent waves across Randall’s Island: they were beatable. Word of their loss, no matter how unlucky, spread like wildfire and teams were giddy with excitement. This was the year!
Then there was Marquette. In an event that will live in infamy, bracket creators stopped the game between Middlebury and Marquette in the round of sixteen after it had already started. As the story goes, Marquette was well on their way to a dominating performance and earning their title as the first team to ever eliminate Middlebury from a tournament. The bracket was re-made and instead of losing, Middlebury slipped by Boston University and pulled their snitches on the way to another improbable finals appearance once more.
“I hated that they got a second chance,” said Curtis Taylor, current Marquette University captain.
They made they the most of a second chance and won their unprecedented fifth title in a row. The community was fuming, how could they do it again? They didn’t even create an all-star team from tryouts like most other teams. Infamously, Middlebury always created their tournament team a week before the World Cup based on the winner of their house league. That only made the losses worse.
Vowing revenge, the IQA looked towards spring semester. Champions Series came in April and Middlebury decided to attend. Excitement began cropping up that Middlebury was actually going to compete in a tournament outside of the World Cup. Until now, it was mostly unheard of and teams were euphoric at the opportunity to see them face off once more against Emerson, BU, Villanova and Minnesota. Then, they hardly even sent a team at all. Middlebury’s team consisted of one senior and the rest of their single digit roster were freshman.
The Mattapan Muppets, the original Boston Riot team, eliminated them and became the first team ever to knock them out of a tournament, but it seemed hollow. That wasn’t the Middlebury that the world had come to fear. It wasn’t anything close. Most of IQA became irrationally upset, speaking upon notions of disrespect and hatred for Middlebury’s skeleton team—harboring even more loathing for the team that dominated the sport.
Everyone hated them for winning, but we still hated them when they lost.
Finally, this story culminated in an anti-climatic ending on November 17th, 2012. Throughout the fall season, Middlebury underwhelmed to the impossibly high standards set for them. They lost to UVM and McGill’s B team in October, most considered them done. Some believed that it was a classic Middlebury trick and that a superstar team would show up to regionals to dominate and show the haters they there were still the undisputed champions.
The last dominoes fell after losses to Emerson, Vassar College and Stony Brook University and then it was official: Middlebury would not be going to the World Cup. There would be no second chance. There would be no redemption for every team that had ever lost to Middlebury. Middlebury changed everything for a final team in November.
Of course, reactions were mixed.
“All of a sudden really, they’re not only out of the conversation, they’re out of the competition.” Jackson Maher, an Emerson College junior remarked, “Now, it’s just Emerson and a bunch of gigantic schools. It’s just kind of sad to me. I hope that they can make a comeback.”
For every person who jumped up and down upon Middlebury’s elimination, there were just as many who realized what the sport really lost. The sport lost a champion, at least for this year. Their elimination means that there will undoubtedly be a new winner come April. But are they really a champion if they didn’t go through Middlebury?
“It’s sad that people won’t have the opportunity to close the book on an old era.” Curtis Taylor said.
Other theorists say that Middlebury never wanted to continue playing Quidditch at such high level. Rumors swirled that Middlebury wanted to go out on top and say that they never lost in a tournament setting such as the World Cup. Once the game grew so much, so fast, they wanted out. Middlebury always claims that this wasn’t the sport that they created.
Perhaps, there is something to talk about there. We’ve revolutionized a sport from a fictional book and in a matter of years made it a worldwide phenomenon, but at what cost? Most of the teams that played for the fun, whimsical nature of it all are nearly gone. It was survival of the fittest, and once the big universities caught wind, many smaller colleges had no chance. We’ve all heard the stories, that it was just a fun game to play to pass the time.
Look at us now. Look at us and see how far we’ve come from nothing. Quidditch is an international hit, and it is undeniably Middlebury’s doing. Yet, all these years, teams have put targets on their backs. Beat them and you win. Well, we finally did, but did we win anything?
On Novemeber 17th, 2012, the fall of Middlebury was complete. Everything has changed in one fell swoop and Middlebury will not be competing at the next World Cup. From here on out, the culture of Quidditch will be forever different, even if Middlebury qualifies next year. If this is what we’ve wanted for six years, why aren’t we happier?
(12/05/12 11:22pm)
Last Wednesday, Anne Knowles, professor of geography, received the Award for American Ingenuity from the Smithsonian. Currently the chair of the geography department at the College, Knowles teaches courses in historical geography, cultural geography and the history of cartography.
Knowles and eight others received the Ingenuity Awards for innovations in the fields of climate science, social change and music, among others. This is the inaugural year of the award.
“I had never felt truly humbled until I met the other awardees that evening,” said Knowles, of receiving the award for her work in historical Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
“GIS is a technology that allows you to map anything with location,” explains Knowles in the video clip on the Smithsonian website.
Knowles has used GIS to visualize the Battle of Gettysburg, the Holocaust and the development of the iron industry in the United States. GIS software allows a historian to affix information from the past — troop movements, census data, environmental data, etc. — to specific locations on a map. This process allows historical geographers to “reveal patterns and relationships that would otherwise be invisible,” according to Knowles.
Despite her work in a wide range of topics, the Smithsonian chose to focus on Knowles’ visualization of the Battle of Gettysburg.
“I imagine that is what’s most relevant to an American audience,” said Knowles.
Knowles’ work with the Battle of Gettysburg revealed that General Robert E. Lee could see far more of the battle than historians had previously thought he had witnessed. By combining sketches of the battle, information about troop placement and topographic data, Knowles shed new light on General Lee’s decision to order Picket’s Charge.
In her remarks at the ceremony, Knowles explained that sometimes her work had felt like swimming upstream, as many colleges and universities have closed their geography programs in recent years.
However, Knowles has continued to make notable headway in the field of historical geography. In recent years, she has edited two books on the use of GIS for studying history, and has an upcoming book on the development of the American iron industry.
Indeed, pursuing her passion for a truly grounded and spatial sense of history was not always easy. Knowles searched for years for a faculty position before Bob Churchill, former chair of the Geography department, offered her a position at the College.
Since then, she has collaborated with undergraduates to map the Holocaust (she is teaching a seminar in the spring, “Geographies of the Holocaust”) as well as a host of independent projects.
“The nature of the work would have been very different, had I not been hired at Middlebury. The energy of the undergraduates is astounding,” she said.
Yet this enthusiasm seems to work in both directions, as students in Knowles’ classes regularly commented on the creativity that their professor elicits.
“Knowles encourages a sort of non-linear thinking,” said Molly Rose-Williams ’13.5, a student who first took Knowles’s “Place and Society” course in her first year at Middlebury, and now studies with the geography professor in her “History of Cartography” course. “She’s always looking for connections, and her passion is infectious,” Rose-Williams said.
Through her classes Knowles has provided students with a new to way to look at history, through the process of visualization. Such a creative approach has been recognized by the Smithsonian through the presentation of an award that recognizes historical geography as a relevant and innovative way to study the past.
(12/05/12 6:42pm)
On Tuesday, Dec. 5 President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz sent the following email to students, faculty and staff with a subject heading, "On the College's Endowment":
This fall, several student groups on campus have raised questions surrounding the College’s endowment, specifically with regard to holdings related to fossil fuels. One group, the Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing (ACSRI), has been meeting regularly with Patrick Norton, the College’s Vice President for Finance and Treasurer, and one of its members attends Investment Committee meetings of the Board of Trustees. Other groups, some part of a national movement on college campuses, have also engaged the College administration and community, hoping to learn more about the College’s endowment, how it is invested, and whether we should divest of our investments in fossil fuel companies.
As an academic institution, the College administration and the Board of Trustees are interested in engaging our students’ interest in the endowment. Such engagement, however, must be serious and be based in responsible inquiry and research. It must also be respectful and inclusive of all opinions. A look at divestment must include the consequences, both pro and con, of such a direction, including how likely it will be to achieve the hoped-for results and what the implications might be for the College, for faculty, staff, and individual students.
With input from several groups on campus, including ACSRI, we will set up and host panel discussions with experts in endowment management and divestment. It will include, for example, representatives from the firm that manages our endowment (Investure), veteran investment managers, and our own Scholar-in-Residence, Bill McKibben.
The management of Middlebury’s endowment is complex and has evolved over time. We are part of a consortium with other colleges and foundations whose pooled resources are invested in a number of “fund-of-funds” and therefore the College is very limited in either selecting or deleting any particular investment within its overall portfolio. Despite such limitations, the Investment Committee, the Administration, and Investure have been working with ACSRI to ensure that socially responsible investing is discussed and reviewed as a regular and ongoing part of the investment process. We have instructed Investure and the managers they engage to follow the environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) principles that align investors with broader objectives of one’s mission and society at-large.
At the same time, the primary fiduciary responsibility of our investment committee is to maximize its investment returns to support vital programs including financial aid and staff and faculty compensation, while managing risk. Currently, the endowment finances approximately 20 percent of the College’s annual operating cost —approximately $50 million this past year. It is vitally important to understand both the risks and rewards of one’s investment decisions as we are the stewards not only of the endowment for the current generation of Middlebury students, faculty, and staff, but for future generations as well.
At present, approximately 3.6 percent of the College’s $900 million endowment is directly invested in companies related to fossil fuels. For those interested in the amount directly invested in defense and arms manufacturing, the share of our endowment in those companies is less than 1 percent—approximately 0.6 percent. I have included an explanatory note at the end of this communication to provide information on the methodology used to determine these percentages. I encourage you to contact Patrick Norton if you have any questions about this methodology or about the College’s endowment.
As President Liebowitz indicated, the email ended with a note on the utilized methodology:
Investure Managed Funds
Data on investments in fossil fuel and arms for Investure-managed funds (the “Investure Funds’) were provided by Investure, LLC (“Investure”) to Middlebury College upon request and only covers the underlying long holdings of the Investure Funds in those circumstances when information was available as described below. This information is presented on a lagged-basis, and does not include any underlying holdings in a client’s legacy fund portfolio. Moreover, this information is not based on a comprehensive review but rather is based solely on available information on the underlying long positions of the Investure Funds of which Investure has actual knowledge from third-party managers and/or reporting on the exposure of those underlying positions.
As a result, underlying positions may be missing from this analysis that, if included, could be material to an understanding of the College’s portfolio’s underlying positions in fossil fuels and arms. In those cases where Investure had actual knowledge of underlying holdings from managers and/or reporting on an Investure Fund’s exposure, Investure utilized a combination of third-party classifications, at its discretion, including but not limited to certain Standard Industrial Codes and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, to help identify investments in fossil fuel and arms companies. This information is solely for informational purposes, is not complete, and does not contain material information about the Investure Funds and a client’s portfolio. This information should not be relied upon in any way in making an investment decision. Investure reserves the right to make changes in a client’s portfolio at any time and Investure is under no obligation to update the estimated information included herein. With the aforementioned in mind, of the Investure Funds approximately 3.75% is invested in fossil fuels and 0.8% is invested in arms.
Non-Investure Funds (“Legacy Funds”)
For its Legacy Funds the College used the exact methodology to determine percentages invested in fossil fuels and arms as is described above for the Investure Managed Funds. With the aforementioned in mind, of the Legacy Funds approximately 3.2% is invested in fossil fuels and 0.1% is invested in arms.
Students received a forwarded version of the original email after "the all students address fell off." In what one can only assume to be a quip about the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee's (DLWC) hoax email, Liebowitz continued, "I guess I needed to get permission."
Media outlets quickly picked up the story, with Seven Days posting:
While the announcement isn't, by any means, a firm commitment to divest, the email sparked encouragement among students on campus campaigning for divestment. The divestment movement is spreading to college campuses across the country as climate activist and Vermont resident Bill McKibben headlines a bus tour to encourage schools, churches and foundations to strip their endowment funds of investments in the 200 top fossil fuel companies. McKibben told Seven Days last month that while divestment won't financially cripple the powerful industry, it could represent an "inherently moral call, saying if it’s wrong to wreck the climate, it’s wrong to profit from that wreckage."
McKibben, who also serves as a scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College, responded to Liebowitz's email on Tuesday with a statement through his environmental group 350.org. "President Liebowitz used just the right tone and took precisely the right step," McKibben's statement read. "It won't be easy to divest, but I have no doubt that Middlebury — home of the first environmental studies dept in the nation — will do the right thing in the right way. It makes me proud to be a Panther."
The article continued with student reactions:
It's a step in the right direction, says Greta Neubauer, a junior history major at the college from Wisconsin. Neubauer is part of a new campus group called "Divest For Our Future" that has been pushing for divestment this fall. The group is asking the board of trustees to release a statement that they recognize divestment as a priority, and are working toward that goal.
"We think that this is really an unprecedented opportunity for Middlebury to lead in this movement," says Neubauer, citing the college's early creation of an environmental studies program and its pledge for carbon neutrality as previous examples of leadership. "We really hope that they continue in that leadership role, and recognize that this is a chance to do something exciting ... and be seen as a leader in a movement that could potentially create real change."
Sophomore Teddy Smyth of Georgia, an environmental studies major, applauded the college for unveiling some concrete endowment numbers. While he and Neubauer both admitted that actual divestment would likely be a slow process, he says the fact that the administration is talking about this "is a huge first step."
VT Digger featured another quote by Neubauer '14.5:
“We are excited to see the college commit to continuing the conversation about divestment begun this fall,” said Greta Neubauer, one of the organizers of Divest for Our Future, a student group on campus. “We are also appreciative of the work they have done to provide greater transparency and believe that this is a positive step. “We look forward to continuing this community-wide dialogue and working to make fossil fuel divestment a reality at Middlebury.”
The Montpelier-based online publication also discussed the larger impact of President Liebowitz's statement:
The Middlebury announcement could have ramifications beyond the college because the college’s endowment is managed by Investure, a firm that also helps manage the endowments of a number of other colleges, including Trinity College, Smith College, Barnard College, and major foundations, such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Carnegie Endowment. Students at Middlebury have already connected with students at other Investure managed schools to discuss how to work together to push the firm in a more sustainable direction.
“Every college in the country should be, at least as transparent as Middlebury about how much money they have wrapped up in the fossil fuel industry,” said Dan Apfel, Executive Director of the Responsible Endowments Coalition. “Students deserve to know how much of their education is being paid for by companies that are wrecking the planet.”
The announcement will also help build momentum for other fossil fuel divestment campaigns across the state of Vermont. This November, students at the University of Vermont asked their board of trustees to divest its $346 million endowment from the oil industry. The Vermont Public Interest Research group is currently analyzing what percentage of Vermont’s pension fund is invested in fossil fuel companies. Two state legislators, Rep. Kesha Ram (D-Burlington) and state Sen.-elect Chris Bray (D-Addison) — who both serve on the UVM board of trustees — are currently discussing divestment policies with the State Treasurer’s office.
The Burlington Free Press and Middblog commented on the announcement. On Wednesday, Middblog continued their coverage through interviewing Student Liaison to the Investment Committee of the Board of Trustees Ben Chute '13.5 and Nathan Arnosti '13 of ACSRI. Chute and Arnosti provided some explanation for the more complicated aspects of the announcement:
MiddBlog: 3% of our endowment invested in fossil fuels, and less than 1% in weapons industries doesn’t sound like a lot to me. Is it less than you guys expected too? On the other hand, does that mean it will be more feasible to divest such a small part of our endowment? Or is it actually not that small?
Arnosti: I was also pleased to see that, according to Investure’s estimates, only 3.6% of Middlebury’s endowment is directly invested in fossil fuels, and .6% is directly invested in defense and arms manufacturing. These figures, certainly at the low end of SRI’s estimates, suggest that Middlebury’s endowment is not solely reliant on the fossil fuel industry for financial returns. Though our investments are spread across many vehicles – thus complicating the picture significantly – divestment from fossil fuels is more feasible when it comprises 3.6% of our portfolio than it would be with a larger percentage of these investments. That said, 3.6% is not trivial: with a $900 million endowment, that equates to around $32 million of investments in fossil fuels.
MiddBlog: Can you translate all the jargon at the end of his email into plain English? Where exactly do these statistics come from and what do they reflect? Are they showing the whole picture in your opinion?
Arnosti: To clarify the specifics of Investure’s reporting, Investure states that they have used “available information” from their many investments, meaning that these figures are approximated. It would be helpful to know what percentage of Investure’s investments were included in this approximation, as that would better indicate the potential margin of error. Also, it is important to note that these figures refer only to direct investments in fossil fuels and defense manufacturing. Thus, while Exxon Mobile might count as part of the 3.6%, a company that manufactures machinery for offshore oil rigs might not. Where we, as a community, draw the line with these industries is a crucial topic of discussion.
The New York Times also published an article about both divestment and McKibben, but made no mention of Middlebury or President Liebowitz's announcement.
Advocacy groups and activists similarly discussed the announcement. "Go Fossil Free," a project coordinated by a coalition of groups including 350.0rg, Energy Action Coalition, Responsible Endowments Coalition, the Sierra Student Coalition and As You Sow, reblogged VT Digger's summary. In the meantime, the DLWC also released a statement on their blog:
Liebowitz confirmed that Middlebury currently has at least $6 million and $32 million invested in industries of violence and environmental degradation respectively. Members of the College are working to reduce those numbers to zero, which would put Middlebury at the front of the pack in the growing national student movement calling for ethically invested endowments.
“One dollar invested in death, is one dollar too many,” says Tim Schornak of the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee (DLWC), an organization of Middlebury students, faculty, parents and alumni working to align Middlebury’s endowment practices with its professed values.
Last October, the DLWC made national headlines for releasing a satirical press release claiming the College had chosen to divest from war in honor of the Dalai Lama’s visit to campus. Their action led the Middlebury College community to embrace the idea that investing in violence and environmental destruction is no joke. Alumni are weighing in with their agreement, pledging not to give a dollar more to the College until it does not go to war. Liebowitz’s remarks indicate that such a day may not be so far off.
