779 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(03/06/13 5:26pm)
The Campus' Leah Pickett '13 and Molly Talbert '13.5 will be liveblogging "Beyond Divestment: Money and Finance for Living Economy," a talk by president of the New Economics Institute Bob Massie and Scholar in Residence in Environmental Studies Bill McKibben. Beyond Divestment is a day-long summit aiming to explore economic alternatives in the areas of alternative currencies, time banking, impact investing, financial system regulation and reform, and "new economy" coalition building. The New Economics Institute is live streaming the events here.
1:33 (Leah) - The event has drawn to a close. Two representatives of Middlebury's Divestment For Our Future group closed out the program and invited participants to come to BiHall 219 at 3:30 today for the series' next event.
1:29 (Leah) - McKibben: The composition of the board of trustees is a major roadblock because these people are 1) very rich, 2) often connected to Wall Street, 3) not inclined to look the morality and utilitarianism of investments, and 4) mostly interested in the “bottom line.”
1:22 (Leah) - We’ve now entered the Q&A portion of the presentation. The first question is: What’s the same and what’s different in terms of divestment from South Africa and divestment from fossil fuels? The answer: in South Africa, people still thought the issue of apartheid was irrelevant; it was too big, too far away, and initially appeared to have too little to do with Americans’ own lives. It took a lot of time for people to draw parallels between what was going on in South Africa and our own experiences and history in the United States. This kind of awareness will grow. The “disgrace” of not talking about climate issues in politics extended to the “pathetic reporters” who refused to ask about it during the presidential campaign, but Hurricane Sandy brought the issues to people’s minds. Massie links Hurricane Sandy (McKibben later references Hurricane Irene as well) to major events in South Africa that raised people’s awareness of the issue and finally galvanized them to action. Significantly, Massie talks about the "political miscalculation" that those talking about divesting from South Africa weren't serious. They were in fact very serious, and only once people realized that this was a crisis that was not going to go away did policy really start to change. The implications for campaigns for divestment on college campuses are clear.
1:15 (Molly) - Massie says, "There is a mix of theory and practice unfolding around the country right now [regarding the new economy] and I don’t think anything is going to be the same … people are asking what is an economy, what is a business, what is the role of an investment?"
1:08 (Leah) - Massie says that not only are places and ideas changing, but places as well. Vermont is a prime example of one of these places; he says it is a “leadership community” in the country because, on the state and organizational level, it is experimenting with so many ideas for the new economic model at the same time.
1:06 (Leah) - Think about it: how neoliberal are your economics textbooks at Middlebury? (Probably very.) Massie cites a change in the ways we learn about economics in school as one of the ways we can experience a paradigm shift towards this “new economy.”
1:03 (Leah) - Massie: The idea of this “New Economy” is referred to by different names; sometimes the solidarity economy, sharing economy, resilient economy, sustaining economy, restorative economy, and collaborative economy. Though all these terms emphasize different aspects of the concept, they all posit that the economy should be an, “instrument to serve the needs of the people and the planet, rather than a machine that takes people in, crunches them up, and spits them out.”
12:58 (Molly) – Bob Massie refers to a YouTube video that has recently gone viral, illustrating wealth inequality in the U.S.
12:54 (Leah) - Massie: “You want people to see things in a way so that they can never ‘unsee’ them’… that’s a process of social transformation.” He delves into discussing the financial industry, saying that some of the major issues of our time are climate, growth, our broken economics and financial system, and the massive wealth inequalities in America. He asks what a "sane" democracy would do to solve these issues.
12:52 (Leah) - McKibben: divestment is “a wedge for making us understand how we can get off a system that quite literally is destroying the planet around us. Fifty years in the future, people aren’t going to care about… the fiscal cliff, the sequester; they’ll be asking ‘the Arctic melted, and then what did you do?’ And that’s really, at some level, the question we’re addressing with all this work.”
12:51 (Molly) – Bob Massie begins his talk. “For many of you, we’re going to be talking about this for the rest of our lives.”
12:49 (Molly) – Bill McKibben wrapping up his speech, saying, “The most important phrase that came out of the last five years with the financial crisis was probably, “too big to fail” … Really, when you think about it, anything that is “too big to fail” is too big.”
12:46 (Molly) – “The image to think about when we think about the new economy, … [is that] when we were growing up, when we got information we got three TV channels. Now, we live in a world with a multiplicity of information,” said Bill McKibben.
12:43 (Leah) - The Orchard is completely full. McKibben is in the midst of explaining why the most important “concrete reality” we have to deal with that will force our society to move in new directions is “the reality of what is happening ecologically on the planet.” A term he has brought up multiple times is "the new economy."
12:42 (Molly) – Bill McKibben speaking, saying, “We have to get off coal, oil, and gas and we have to do it fast.”
12:40 (Leah) - McKibben introduces Massie as a “hero in this really important work of trying to imagine what possible economic futures look like.”
(03/06/13 5:00am)
In the midst of a heavy snowfall on Monday, March 4, over 125 students marched from Proctor terrace to the College’s administrative center in Old Chapel, carrying signs, chanting and wearing orange squares, during what organizers called “a national day of action” for divestment.
The event was one of over 20 such demonstrations that took place on college campuses on the same day across the country according to student organizer Jenny Marks ’14. While national events differed in form, all student groups had a similar demand — the divestment of college and university endowment funds from fossil fuel manufacturing companies in the fight for climate justice.
At Middlebury, student organizers presented the same request as seven students voiced on Feb. 16 when they presented to the Board of Trustees. “By March 15,” organizer Laura Berry ’16 explained, “we want the Board of Trustees to make a public statement that by 2016 the College will divest fully from fossil fuel and arms manufacturing companies.”
Berry was just one of the many students responsible for generating enthusiasm for Monday’s event, a rally organized by a coalition of pro-divestment student groups, including Divest for Our Future and the Socially Responsible Investment Club.
During the march, the mass of students wound around snow-covered paths, chanting, “Money for students’ education, not for climate devastation. Money for homes and education, not for war and exploitation.”
Inside Old Chapel, Tim Spears, vice president for academic affairs, was one of the few senior-level administrators present at the time of the demonstration.
“I think it’s an admirable display of political spirit and commitment on a snowy March day,” he said from his office, as students marched around the front of the building.
Down below, students voiced a variety of perspectives on the event and on the divestment movement at large.
Steven Kasparek ’16, a student with no prior involvement with the divestment movement on campus, was visibly impressed.
“I’m really glad that I came,” he said. “I feel like this is a really powerful group that we have out here right now, and the fact that there are students who are passionate about this type of thing is something new to me, because normally students aren’t so concerned about the future and about preserving it for generations to come.”
Drew Vollmer ’13, a student who passed by the march but did not attend the demonstration, aired an alternative perspective.
“At Middlebury, environmental groups can mobilize lots of supporters and there are no opposition groups,” he said. “Student rallies like the divestment march are, to me, largely a product of one group’s passion about the issue and not necessarily a result of reasoned and well-considered arguments.”
Vollmer was critical of the movement, explaining that he believed divestment to be an “ineffective gesture” in the campaign against climate change. “Advocates seem to argue that oil money in politics is the sole factor stopping climate action and that divestment would remove oil’s legitimacy and pave the way for a carbon tax, but I think this is a horrible oversimplification. […] Climate action is necessary, but efforts are much more productive elsewhere.”
Yet student organizers disagreed, likely buoyed in part by the enthusiasm exhibited by other pro-divestment student groups on the national stage.
“Today’s events around the country were an incredible indicator of the potential for the American students’ movement of our generation,” said Marks. “The rhetoric is clear: divestment is a tactic, climate justice is the goal.”
In mid-February, Marks was joined by Molly Stuart ’15.5 and Teddy Smyth ’15, two other student organizers, at the Power Up! Divestment Convergence at Swarthmore College. The event, hosted by Swarthmore Mountain Justice, brought together student representatives from 75 colleges and universities to discuss divestment and other tactics associated with the climate justice movement.
At the convergence, students attended panels, participated in discussions and built upon the idea for the march fo(u)rth event, playing off of the syntactic momentum imbedded within the date.
During the week following the convergence, student organizers from schools across the nation collaborated over email and by conference call, coordinating photos and videos to be captured during the events, which organizers plan to use as they move forward.
Students from Harvard University, Mount Holyoke College and Locust Valley High School also created a Facebook page to promote the event, which by midnight on Monday night displayed photos of March Fo(u)rth demonstrations that had occurred at Smith College, Bowdoin College, Stanford University and Brown University, as well as at Middlebury College.
Following Monday’s demonstration, Marks described her motivation.
“These endowments belong to us and exist for us — colleges and universities must be educational institutions first and corporations second,” she wrote in an email.
“If the students demand divestment from destructive industries, it is ultimately our money, our school, our power that will ensure that this happens — it’s our future and the lives of folks around the world that we are fighting for.”
(02/28/13 5:00am)
Last Saturday night, Feb. 23, words flew in the McCullough Social Space as the American Sign Language (ASL) poetry troupe, the Flying Words Project, took the stage. The event was hosted by Middlebury’s ASL club and sponsored by a variety of campus organizations and departments.
Two poets performed at the event, Deaf Poet Peter Cook and his hearing coauthor Kenny Lerner. They create poems together in ASL and then add words to them so that their performances are accessible to both deaf and hearing communities. Susan Burch, director of CCSRE, taught at Gallaudet University and has strong ties to the deaf community; she described the Flying Words Project as “hands down the most important Deaf poetry artists in America.”
Middlebury’s ASL club first saw the Flying Words Project perform at Dartmouth College in 2010 and since then has been trying to get Cook and Lerner to perform here. Saturday’s event was free of charge and open to the greater community. While Middlebury students made up a majority of the audience, there were a number of town residents in attendance. A handful of members of the University of Vermont’s ASL club also made the journey from Burlington, and the performance was delayed briefly in order to give extra time to people making their way through the inclement weather.
As soon as the pair came on stage, Cook and Lerner captivated the audience, performing a series of poems that pulled from real life events ranging from the recent fire in a Bangladesh factory to their experiences performing in various countries. Many of the poems were quite funny and portrayed the versatility of the duo’s performance style. They also orchestrated a poem about climate change that the whole audience came together to perform.
ASL, as its own language entirely independent from English, does not translate directly into English but instead focuses on using visual signs and gestures to convey meaning. In Lerner’s words, it is “a picture language.” As a hearing person unfamiliar with ASL, seeing the Flying Words Project performance was an experience unlike any I’d had before. Words are very powerful, evocative and arguably taken for granted by most people. Then suddenly during the performance I found that the words Lerner was saying were not enough to truly capture what was happening before my eyes.
Instead, I had to take Lerner’s words and Cooks actions and create a new understanding of my own in order to appreciate the performance. While this was slightly disorienting at first, my brain soon adapted. Seeing Cook’s signs translated into words in real time slowed each poem down into a series of moments. “We play with language,” said Lerner of his work with Cook.
The performance was followed by a lengthy question and answer session in which the duo elaborated on their creative process and the intricacies of performing in other countries. Most nations in which the Flying Words Project has performed have their own official or unofficial sign language, and navigating the differences can be challenging, though Cook is able to pick up the new sign languages with relative ease. Cultural differences also often come into play; what entertains the audience of one nation will not necessarily entertain the audience of another. Cook and Lerner are constantly writing new poems and adjusting established ones.
“Their performance was very impressive,” Jiayi Zhu ’14 said. “It has made me more interested in ASL and Deaf culture. It’s something that should spread and can be shared with other cultures.”
Middlebury’s ASL club hopes to work with the college administration in the near future to create an ASL department that will offer a major and a minor and provide extended language tables.
“The success of the Flying Words Project event shows the obvious interest and need for the development of an American Sign Language academic department here at Middlebury,” said Ada Santiago ’13.5, president of the ASL club. “We [the ASL Club] hope that the administration and the Middlebury community at large will support us in this endeavor to help make Middlebury a more diverse and progressive institution.”
The club also hopes one day to have ASL offered at Middlebury’s Language Schools. So far a petition asking for this expansion of ASL has garnered over 200 signatures. With this growing support, events like Saturday’s are likely to become a more common occurrence on campus.
(02/28/13 1:30am)
On Tuesday, Feb. 26, Be Bright, the College’s energy literacy campaign, held a kick-off dinner event to launch its initiative. The dinner was held in Atwater Dining Hall and featured Professor of Environmental Studies and Schumann Distinguished Scholar Bill McKibben. The dinner was the first of a series of planned events this spring hosted by the campaign.
Be Bright was started by the Sustainability Integration Office at the Environmental Center at Hillcrest in an effort to educate students about energy usage at the College. Communications and Outreach Coordinator Avery McNiff ’12 began planning the campaign this past fall.
“At the end of the summer, I got a lot of questions about energy at Middlebury and our sources,” McNiff explained. “Students wanted to know more about [the 2016 carbon neutrality goal] and where we are in our path to carbon neutrality. Generally, people wanted to be more energy literate.”
To introduce the initiative, Be Bright hosted an Atwater social dinner event, which attracted over 150 students. The menu featured local food, including Misty Knoll Farm chicken, local mashed potatoes, roasted local root vegetables, local tortellini Alfredo with local pasta, milk and cream, mixed greens and an apple crisp dessert.
McNiff opened the event with an introduction to the campaign and sustainability at the College, before introducing McKibben.
“Energy cannot be visible, so we have to make it tangible,” she said.
McKibben discussed the need for a balance between large and small efforts to do anything about the environmental problems the world faces today.
“These problems are big. They’re the biggest we’ve run into,” he said, citing how the atmosphere is now five percent wetter than it was 40 years ago, causing record rainfalls and damaging hurricanes.
“[It's] Just remarkably big change. And much bigger change is yet to come,” McKibben warned. “This phenomenon and many others happen when you change the temperature of the planet one degree Celsius. Scientists tell us confidently that if we don’t get hold of it fast, then that one degree will be four, five, six degrees before you reach my age.”
Educating the student body and greater community has been one of central goals of the Be Bright campaign from the beginning, according to Jack Byrne, director of sustainability integration, and co-organizer of the Be Bright campaign.
“Energy literacy means a couple of things,” he explained, in an interview prior to the event. “It means understanding basic energy sources — where our energy comes from, how it is generated, what the environmental, economic, and social costs and benefits of those sources are how we use energy on campus, and how it is that we can use it more efficiently in our daily lives.”
In the spirit of informing the College community, McNiff and Byrne explained that the biggest portion of the College’s carbon footprint is the fuel used to heat, cool and cook. Graphical analysis shows that a large portion of the footprint has been reduced with the use of the biomass plant.
“We’re anticipating that another big chunk will be taken care of if and when the bio-methane project [which will use biomethane fuel from local dairy farms] comes online,” Byrne said. “At that point then, the small portion of the footprint that is left will be the more challenging portion to deal with.”
According to the pair, the last portion of the reduction of carbon emission will be achieved through the more efficient use of energy by the college community, what McNiff calls “a behavioral change.”
McKibben said the title of the Be Bright campaign exactly reflects what is required of the school community to initiate change — to be smarter in our day-to-day lives. But he reminded that it is not enough to just turn off the lights and take shorter showers.
Byrne echoed his thoughts, explaining, “one of the [chief] obstacles, is that [climate change is] relatively invisible to us,” Byrne said. “We turn the light switch on and the light goes on but we don’t really see the big dams in northern Quebec that are generating the electricity that sustains the state of Vermont and we don’t see the huge expanses of land that have flooded in order to generate that power.”
Byrne also expressed concern that students lack awareness of the cost of wasteful energy usage.
“Students do not pay the actual electrical and fuel bills — the College does that — so they’re not as aware of the value of that energy,” he said.
Yet at the event, Mckibben was optimistic. “It’s really exciting that Middlebury is taking the lead on all these scales,” he said. “And the possibility of a beautiful world is there but only if we work hard, if we work quickly, and I guess only if we’re really bright.”
Throughout the night, students were invited to take a picture in a photo booth with their energy pledge written out on a Be Bright dry erase board. The pictures will be featured on Be Bright’s Tumblr site.
Students who attended voiced their own excitement about the dinner and the campaign.
“I really liked the idea of committing your pledge to a photo and the food was delicious,” said President of Campus Sustainability Coordinators Seton Talty ’15.5, who is involved in the initiative to start sustainability tours and bringing compost bins to residential areas. “It was also a lucky and unique opportunity to get Bill McKibben at such a small forum.”
Students also explained that the dinner event has further inspired their aspirations to become more aware of and involved in sustainability efforts of the College.
“I think I talk about being very environmentally conscious but hearing Bill McKibben talk makes it more concrete and more real to me,” said Meena Fernald ’16, who heard about the campaign through an all-student email. “[The Be Bright campaign] is a really cool thing that we’re doing and now I know how to get involved.”
Other events for the Be Bright campaign this spring will include “pledge rides” with a horse drawn trolley during lunch on March 6, a display in the McCullough Student Center called “Imprints of Energy” by Alison Andrews ’12.5, an exhibit at Davis Family Library on March 11 and a number of sponsored community dinners at language and social houses throughout the semester.
For more information on the Be Bright campaign, visit go/bebright.
(02/27/13 10:03pm)
While I agree with Zach Drennen ’13.5 in his column “Divestment: No Excuse for Inaction” that divestment does not go far enough, his argument undersells the fight that the environmental movement will face in attempting to achieve his outlined solutions.
Divestment is not the single solution to climate change. Middlebury divesting will not have an impact on ExxonMobil’s finances. But divestment offers steps that are ambitious. It is a risk that will drive home the scale of the problem. While divestment itself won’t end climate change, the media attention of hundreds of campuses and cities across the country divesting will bring attention to the energy and the power of this movement — to the power, in particular, of the youth in the climate movement who will inherit this climate-changed world.
This energy and this media needs to be harnessed and transferred into a national movement calling for change, the exact change Drennen outlines. We need to break our addiction to fossil fuels. But breaking this addiction is not as easy as turning off the lights when you leave your dorm room or walking to Shaw’s instead of driving there. Our individual behavioral changes will not make a dent in our climate problems without a broad national movement. Consumer patterns won’t change without an overwhelming push.
We are the group that is already concerned about climate change. Many of us are far more conscious of our carbon footprints than the majority of this country. A change on the scale necessary to combat climate change requires large-scale action and widespread behavioral changes. This change requires education. We need to leave the bubble where climate change is salient and talk to folks who are complacent or uninformed. We need to offer steps that match the scale of the problem. Telling someone to turn off the lights when they leave a room, as Drennen suggests, when we’re talking about droughts and superstorms and sea level rise seems almost trivial.
One of the many problems with the public perception of climate change is a feeling of helplessness. Once we push people past apathy and into concern, they realize how big the scale of this problem is and how many things need to change. Empowering this population and mobilizing them into action will require work. It will require organizing people to tell their representatives that climate change is the most important issue we face today — that it encompasses all other issues, from the economy to national security to health care. We need to push our leaders into action, because only national legislation will reach the people and corporations whose behaviors will never change without incentive and without serious cause on the timeframe we’re working with. This leadership from the United States will inspire other countries to take action.
The people who have contributed the least to climate change are the people who are suffering the most. The frontline communities are not the communities who can change their behavior to truly impact our trajectory, though it would be a lot easier to confront if this were the case. This is our responsibility. We need to move beyond individual action, target certain changeable behaviors and have collective action like we saw last weekend in the streets of D.C. As those 40,000 voices become millions of voices, the noise will grow so loud that you can’t avoid it. Then we will see change in our governments and in our corporations.
Divestment is a start. Closing our windows is a start. Solar panels on our houses are a start. But we are looking at a narrow window of opportunity to slow the rise of the oceans before the damage is done and the process is too far in motion. Only ambitious action, from our campus to our state to our country to the world, can save us.
Written by HANNAH BRISTOL '14.5 of Falls Church, Va.
(02/27/13 9:51pm)
If anything can be said of President Obama’s recent State of the Union address, it may be that it left environmentally-minded individuals with more questions than answers. The president wasted little time out of the gates bringing up energy issues (Politico has his first mention of renewable energy and “carbon pollution” on the third of the speech’s 10 pages), giving mention to the environment before other, less important fringe issues like the housing market, international policy and gun control. The ordering of the President’s speech was hardly the only nod that environmentalism received that night; in the very next paragraph (now on page four) the President explicitly stated that “we must do more to combat climate change.” Not “we should.” Not “we can.” “We must.” What the President presented us with was an imperative, just in case anyone managed to miss it, as in something absolutely necessary or required. So now that we have a verbal commitment to stopping climate from our commander-in-chief, how sure can we be that he’ll follow through?
A look at the past four years may provide a little insight for shaping predictions. While President Obama received no lack of criticism for a first term that, quite frankly, left environmental interests underwhelmed, to say that nothing happened for the movement during his presidency couldn’t be farther from the truth. The International reports that since 2007, U.S. carbon emissions have dropped by about 13 percent. Executive Order 13514, signed in 2009, told federal agencies that they had to make greenhouse gas reductions a priority, as well as provided targets for fleet reductions in petroleum use, improvements in water efficiency, waste stream reform. New fuel economy standards will mandate an average efficiency of 35.5 miles-per-gallon in cars and trucks by 2016, which along with proposals to cut $46 billion in fuel industry subsidies from the 2012 fiscal budget, will help wean our country off of its addiction to fossil fuels. The Obama administration has outlined plans for expansion of solar and wind energy development, and the president has made a number of Cabinet-level appointments (most notably the recent naming of REI President/CEO Sally Jewell as his pick for Secretary of the Interior) that put people with commitments to the environment in positions of real influence. The list of small victories goes on.
Yet there are still elephants — and elephant carcasses — lingering in the Oval Office. Any prospects for a national cap-and-trade may have died in 2009. Passage of that darn Keystone XL pipeline is still on the table. We’re still subsidizing fossil fuel companies with tax dollars, and 350.org had an absolute field day with the discovery that Obama was reportedly seen in Florida golfing with oil executives while thousands gathered in the streets of Washington to protest tar sands development. If anything, the sighting serves as a reminder of the President’s humanity; to play the role of idealist leader of the free world, one needs to be a politician. It’s unfortunate that all the under-the-radar accomplishments seem overshadowed by grandiose showings of ball-dropping on headline issues, but if the President is anything at all, it’s a pragmatist. While some may argue that pragmatism isn’t really what we need right now if we’re to solve the climate crisis, anyone who has read this column in the past can probably figure out that I’m not of that camp.
The rest of the President’s State of the Union address offered pragmatic, collaborative proposals for securing America’s energy future. It also provided a commitment to rebuilding our country’s crumbling infrastructure, including the energy sector, which echoed the calls for synergistic development of economy and sustainability raised by Nature Conservancy CEO Mark Tercek in his talk at the College last Thursday evening. I believe the speech’s real home run, however, came at its end, as Obama provided his own interpretation of the American condition: “We are citizens … [That word] captures the enduring idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations; that our rights are wrapped up in the rights of others.” If our president is right, and that our future is contingent not only on our cooperation but our inherent interconnectedness, then we have no choice but to work to reestablish our nation’s connection to its ultimate shared resource. You’ve got me Mr. Obama — that’s change I can believe in. It’s the change I want to believe in.
(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.
