H2Oya 05
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Let's go Hoyas!
Posts: 298
|
Post by H2Oya 05 on Jun 4, 2015 15:05:41 GMT -5
Georgetown decided today that it has enough money for its primary mission of educating students and decided to use donated dollars for the political purpose of taking a stand against coal. I’m not a huge fan of coal power, but it upsets me that Georgetown is using its limited dollars (66th largest endowment) for this purpose. I understand and appreciate some forms of divestment (against regimes that engage in apartheid for example) and where there is a near-universal consensus. But Georgetown’s move today can come across as an attack on conservative or blue collar donors. While I understand that global warming is a fear, from a political perspective, the United States can be a force for good while using coal -- coal is a cheap form of energy that helps millions of people worldwide escape poverty and enjoy the benefits of electricity. Over the years, the United States has been a leader in developing cleaner ways of mining and using coal. By advocating the abandonment of coal, Georgetown is not advancing an anti-global warming or pro-environmental agenda, it is merely helping to push coal production to places around the world that care less about the environment than America does and with owners who will care less about the environmental impact of specific companies than Georgetown would have. I’m not sure how being anti-coal fits in with Georgetown’s mission as a university. With an alumni donation rate below 40 percent and a mediocre endowment, this is a stupid stand for Georgetown to take. www.georgetown.edu/news/sustainability-policy-regarding-investments.html
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jun 4, 2015 15:32:43 GMT -5
I'm proud to see our university take a strong moral stance on something, even if it might trigger the persecution complex of "blue collar" donors.
We charge $67,420 for a freshman at Georgetown. What is the point of our university? To be seen as elite? To grow the endowment? To give out degrees?
Or are we supposed to strive for something more? There IS a near-universal consensus on global warming. We would have offended the same conservative donors by divesting from regimes that engage in apartheid back then. The fact that some people need to view the entire world through a political lens doesn't counter scientific consensus.
Since graduating in 2007, I've often wondered why I'm proud to be a Georgetown alumnus. The school has a great tradition, some areas of stellar academics, but so do many other schools. I don't want to be proud of Georgetown just because it's where I happened to go. I want to be proud of Georgetown because the institution is willing to ruffle some feathers in an effort to do the right thing.
Will this stop climate change? Of course not. But it's an effort made by the university that may admittedly create more complex financial issues. That's the point. It's about taking a stand on the right thing, not the easy thing. I don't think it's reasonable to charge $67,000+ and also say that we can't afford to make moral decisions as an institution.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 4, 2015 18:53:03 GMT -5
A feel-good decision.
If Georgetown wants to take a stand, how about investing in organizations/companies that foster Catholic values? Or organizations that substantially oppose those who today are murdering Christians in the Arab world? Or divesting from companies that do business with China with its one child policy or Mexico that imports masses of illegal drugs into this country? Or how about donating some of the money to those coal miners who would lose their livelihood were coal to go out of business?
Of course they won't do any of these, instead choosing a politically correct issue that makes us feel good and able to boast "we're so wonderful".
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 4, 2015 18:55:52 GMT -5
I'm proud to see our university take a strong moral stance on something, even if it might trigger the persecution complex of "blue collar" donors. We charge $67,420 for a freshman at Georgetown. What is the point of our university? To be seen as elite? To grow the endowment? To give out degrees? Or are we supposed to strive for something more? There IS a near-universal consensus on global warming. We would have offended the same conservative donors by divesting from regimes that engage in apartheid back then. The fact that some people need to view the entire world through a political lens doesn't counter scientific consensus. Since graduating in 2007, I've often wondered why I'm proud to be a Georgetown alumnus. The school has a great tradition, some areas of stellar academics, but so do many other schools. I don't want to be proud of Georgetown just because it's where I happened to go. I want to be proud of Georgetown because the institution is willing to ruffle some feathers in an effort to do the right thing. Will this stop climate change? Of course not. But it's an effort made by the university that may admittedly create more complex financial issues. That's the point. It's about taking a stand on the right thing, not the easy thing. I don't think it's reasonable to charge $67,000+ and also say that we can't afford to make moral decisions as an institution. Strong moral stance? Against coal? When I think of morals, I don't think of taking a stand against a sedimentary rock.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Jun 4, 2015 19:40:00 GMT -5
Or organizations that substantially oppose those who today are murdering Christians in the Arab world? I agree. Georgetown has for far too long invested in companies that were only moderately opposed to the murder of Christians. We must raise our standards - being 99% against genocide is not good enough - companies must instead be 110% opposed to genocide to get money from Georgetown...
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,455
|
Post by TC on Jun 4, 2015 20:29:10 GMT -5
Georgetown decided today that it has enough money for its primary mission of educating students and decided to use donated dollars for the political purpose of taking a stand against coal. I’m not a huge fan of coal power, but it upsets me that Georgetown is using its limited dollars (66th largest endowment) for this purpose. I understand and appreciate some forms of divestment (against regimes that engage in apartheid for example) and where there is a near-universal consensus. But Georgetown’s move today can come across as an attack on conservative or blue collar donors. While I understand that global warming is a fear, from a political perspective, the United States can be a force for good while using coal -- coal is a cheap form of energy that helps millions of people worldwide escape poverty and enjoy the benefits of electricity. The poor are going to suffer the effects of climate change the most. Coal is a dirty and expensive energy source considering all the externalized costs, and it's a health hazard on so many levels to the people around it. Arguing that coal is in any way a force of good is disingenuous. Georgetown isn't in the first wave of Universities taking this stance, but I think it is one of the first Catholic universities in the US to take this step. That will probably speed up quite a bit with the Pope's coming environmental encyclical.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,455
|
Post by TC on Jun 4, 2015 20:30:05 GMT -5
Or organizations that substantially oppose those who today are murdering Christians in the Arab world? I agree. Georgetown has for far too long invested in companies that were only moderately opposed to the murder of Christians. So, in other words, we should divest from the oil companies too? All for it.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 4, 2015 21:14:09 GMT -5
The truth is this will have no effect. Even if all U.S. Universities divested themselves of such investments, there would be no effect on the use of coal. This is purely feel good PR.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,455
|
Post by TC on Jun 5, 2015 9:30:54 GMT -5
The truth is this will have no effect. Even if all U.S. Universities divested themselves of such investments, there would be no effect on the use of coal. This is purely feel good PR. Even if so, that's not a real argument against divestment. I'm skeptical that divestment will put financial pressure on coal companies. I still think it's a good idea due to PR / being on the right side of an issue. If someone wants to make the argument that Georgetown is putting its endowment returns at risk compared to other schools by limiting its options, that's an actual argument. Given the number of risks related to coal companies these days (EPA regulations, the shale gas boom, rail problems, advancement of other energy sources like solar/wind/gas, legal liability) it's not a real good one though as coal as an industry is sort of beleaguered. I think the risks to coal and the state of the industry make divestment an easier cause to support. What Georgetown did was relatively moderate - other schools have put in language as part of their divestment that the endowment is required to proxy-vote for any sustainability measures that come up, which seems sort of extreme given the low bar for raising a vote on a measure. Other schools have divested completely from all fossil fuel companies (oil, gas, etc).
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jun 5, 2015 9:49:29 GMT -5
I'm proud to see our university take a strong moral stance on something, even if it might trigger the persecution complex of "blue collar" donors. We charge $67,420 for a freshman at Georgetown. What is the point of our university? To be seen as elite? To grow the endowment? To give out degrees? Or are we supposed to strive for something more? There IS a near-universal consensus on global warming. We would have offended the same conservative donors by divesting from regimes that engage in apartheid back then. The fact that some people need to view the entire world through a political lens doesn't counter scientific consensus. Since graduating in 2007, I've often wondered why I'm proud to be a Georgetown alumnus. The school has a great tradition, some areas of stellar academics, but so do many other schools. I don't want to be proud of Georgetown just because it's where I happened to go. I want to be proud of Georgetown because the institution is willing to ruffle some feathers in an effort to do the right thing. Will this stop climate change? Of course not. But it's an effort made by the university that may admittedly create more complex financial issues. That's the point. It's about taking a stand on the right thing, not the easy thing. I don't think it's reasonable to charge $67,000+ and also say that we can't afford to make moral decisions as an institution. Strong moral stance? Against coal? When I think of morals, I don't think of taking a stand against a sedimentary rock. Is it even worth responding to this, or will it just be another purposely obtuse response?
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jun 5, 2015 13:13:03 GMT -5
A feel-good decision. If Georgetown wants to take a stand, how about investing in organizations/companies that foster Catholic values? Or organizations that substantially oppose those who today are murdering Christians in the Arab world? Or divesting from companies that do business with China with its one child policy or Mexico that imports masses of illegal drugs into this country? Or how about donating some of the money to those coal miners who would lose their livelihood were coal to go out of business? Of course they won't do any of these, instead choosing a politically correct issue that makes us feel good and able to boast "we're so wonderful". I'm pretty sure if you had your way, Georgetown would divest from Georgetown.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 5, 2015 17:26:42 GMT -5
Strong moral stance? Against coal? When I think of morals, I don't think of taking a stand against a sedimentary rock. Is it even worth responding to this, or will it just be another purposely obtuse response? My posts may be described in many ways, but I don't think I'm ever obtuse.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 5, 2015 18:30:26 GMT -5
A feel-good decision. If Georgetown wants to take a stand, how about investing in organizations/companies that foster Catholic values? Or organizations that substantially oppose those who today are murdering Christians in the Arab world? Or divesting from companies that do business with China with its one child policy or Mexico that imports masses of illegal drugs into this country? Or how about donating some of the money to those coal miners who would lose their livelihood were coal to go out of business? Of course they won't do any of these, instead choosing a politically correct issue that makes us feel good and able to boast "we're so wonderful". I'm pretty sure if you had your way, Georgetown would divest from Georgetown. And you would have her divest from anything resembling Catholicism?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jun 6, 2015 8:47:17 GMT -5
"purposely obtuse"
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Jun 8, 2015 7:51:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Jun 8, 2015 12:12:09 GMT -5
Just wondering if anyone knows...are the solar panels on the ICC operational?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 8, 2015 12:18:28 GMT -5
My posts may be described in many ways, but I don't think I'm ever purposely obtuse.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jun 8, 2015 12:43:03 GMT -5
My posts may be described in many ways, but I don't think I'm ever purposely obtuse. Fair enough, then as far as you saying "Strong moral stance? Against coal? When I think of morals, I don't think of taking a stand against a sedimentary rock." goes, feel free to seek out a kindergarten teacher to explain it to you.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,206
|
Post by hoya9797 on Jun 8, 2015 16:22:46 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure if you had your way, Georgetown would divest from Georgetown. And you would have her divest from anything resembling Catholicism? Yes, that would be nice.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Jun 8, 2015 16:53:27 GMT -5
Just wondering if anyone knows...are the solar panels on the ICC operational? They're not. Is it just an urban myth that we can't have operational solar panels on the ICC because of the glare it produces on flights going towards DCA?
|
|