Re: “Demanding moral clarity from Stanford on fossil fuels” (Opinion section, Mercurynews.com, June 4):

Last month, Stanford’s Faculty Senate voted against divestment by a large margin, arguing that there are more effective ways to address climate change.

Targets of the divestment movement are some of the very companies investing billions of dollars in cutting-edge research and technology that are vital in achieving scientific breakthroughs and lowering emissions.

Despite what activists claim, divestment is also costly, ineffective and would expose endowments to significant potential downsides, even at the current less-than-favorable market conditions.

Stanford wisely rejected fossil fuel divestment in 2016. At the time, officials called it symbolic and discussed how divestment from an essential industry would not be a credible practical policy.

Both assertions remain true today. Advocates of divestment tend to ignore the fact that the science and innovation needed to fight climate change are progressing in direct partnership with the same companies they would like to see banned from Stanford’s investments.

Jeff Eshelman
Senior Vice President of Operations and Public Affairs, IPAA
Washington, DC

Submit your letter to the editor via this form
Read more Letters to the Editor