学院化石燃料的撤资可能意义

两年前，化石燃料的公司在养老投资组合中包括被认为是合理和谨慎的立场。今天，来自化石燃料撤资 - 特别是煤 - 是更财政和道德上负责任的选择。

Swathmore学院是要求撤资第一院校之一。但作为一个很长一段时间的投资者，包括作为基金投资一个增加了5亿$的前任董事总经理，我提供，超出了学术界的观点。

The moral arguments for divestment are well articulated by Swarthmore students and faculty, reflecting the accelerating movement toward divestment by higher education institutions. It is clear that Swarthmore students are moral, responsible and engaged - and that these attributes are central to the institution’s excellence. The moral and responsibility dimensions of the divestment discussion is commonly viewed as more subjective than and somehow subordinate to financial prudence questions. In reality all these aspects of the divestment debate are inextricable.

相比于两年撤资今天的金融基本原理前包括一个更大的可能性，当前和未来的化石燃料储量将不被烧毁。这将推动化石燃料的企业的估值大减少。由于化石燃料公司目前代表了大多数养老分配的显著％，是化石燃料的股票价值大幅减少会导致大量的养老损失。

In terms of divestment timing and risk, late divesters will experience large losses in capital. From a financial returns perspective, this means that the return upside from fossil fuels is less today than it was two years ago, while the downside is far larger as well as likely to happen sooner. This changes the risk return equation for endowment allocations.

Let’s start with two points we can all agree on: first, climate change is real and has started to drive large changes in weather, drought, and storm frequency/severity. As a result, it is beginning to drive substantial changes in design of cities, emigration patterns, and asset allocation towards clean energy, backup power, utility energy mix, shifts in insurance, etc. Second, the reality of climate change on the ground and the greater scientific certainty and consensus on anthropogenic climate change trends strongly indicate that the severity of climate change is even worse than we had previously understood.

There are a several arguments against divestment which I will discuss before addressing the case for divestment. These arguments against divestment, which are increasingly made by organizations – including universities - funded by the fossil fuel industry, are largely wrong.

首先，有人认为，由于化石燃料储备的五十多年历史的历史回报一直很好，未来化石燃料的份额收益将因此好了，现在撤资，因此会降低未来收益。然而，在过去的半个世纪的时间框架是不相关的目前的气候变化撤资和股票价格风险。相关股票价格回报期是近几年左右的时间，在此期间，化石燃料的回报 - 特别是煤 - 普遍跑输大市。而未来的回报很可能会变得更糟。麦格理，已大量资助的化石燃料项目的全球性银行的研究部门，在2015年3月的报告描述了美国煤炭的将来“日益黯淡”和预期的波浪未来煤炭破产。

一个相关的说法是，从投资扩大规模的化石燃料储量和开采可能会减少，可能资助奖学金的财务回报和公司转移资金，因此可能伤害不如从前。这个论点，今天一个聪明的风险调整后的投资策略违反常识的煤炭和其他化石燃料资源股的持续投资是 - 和最近的实际股票收益数据。此外，即使环境健康影响的文献进行了回顾最少证明了不太富裕不成比例从燃烧化石燃料造成的空气和水的污染和气候变化的成本困扰。由于Economis牛逼的笔记在其2015年3月28日发行;“煤杀死每年大约80万人，其中大多数是穷人”。即使能源劳动强度文学的粗略审查表明，能源行业的化石燃料的部分是远远低于劳动比可再生能源和能源效率密集，所以创建一个比一个清洁能源投资战略的工作要少得多。一个现实的评估是不太富裕的应该强迫而不是从煤炭抑制转向远离这种担心。

三是有人认为，重新加权组合排除化石燃料既可以在切换到新的投资组合中，并在日常管理费用方面是昂贵的。然而，在一个典型的大学投资组合的规模，并假设有序退出在数年的时间，没有理由对费用或增加任何费用。对化石燃料的免费标准，与其他机构一起做特别是，投资的权重调整可能真正降低交易/管理费。这在下面更详细讨论。

Fourth it is asserted that divestment selling off of fossil fuel firms would involve dollar amounts too small to have any material impact and is therefore a pointless gesture. However, divestment decisions by Swarthmore and other leading academic institutions would have a public relations, moral and leadership impact vastly larger than the dollar amount involved, as powerfully demonstrated by the success of the South African divestment movement. The fossil fuel divestment movement increases pressure on energy companies to shift toward cleaner energy.

Oddly, an argument is made that university abstention from divestment does not imply complicity in supporting global warming. But universities spend a great deal of energy managing their investments and the decision to continue to invest in expanding coal and other fossil fuel reserves while a growing number of academic peers divest is - by definition - a deliberate allocation of critical university resources… active investment is the opposite of abstention.

最后，还有充足的资金应对气候变化旦论点 - 即撤资是不理性的，因为人为的气候变化尚未得到证实，气候变化可能是有益的高等教育等各个地方的教育应该站起来，对气候变化的科学事实，而不是与旦尼尔，他们的各种论点赞同。高等教育也必须要求对化石燃料工业资助的研究和文章全学年的透明度，而且必须包括政策，以消除利益冲突清晰。例如一些高等教育机构包括董事会成员的人谁是大学基金缺乏自由化石投资选择的专业的第三方支付管理人员 - 所以有利益冲突解除。

过去几年een the emergence of rigorous analysis around the argument that in a carbon constrained world unburnable fossil fuel reserves are stranded assets that will lose value. For example,最近福布斯件notes that a “2013 report commissioned by the Associated Press and performed by the research firm S&P Capital IQ found that a university endowment that pulled out of the 200 fossil fuel companies targeted by the divestment campaign would have avoided substantial losses.” An important threshold in the recognition of fossil fuel asset value risk was theDecember 2014 decision受英国央行“，同意审查，首次，该漏洞是化石燃料的资产可能对金融系统的碳约束稳定性设置对气候风险的所有中央银行和金融监管的新标准世界。”

In addition to the financial cost of being a late divester, the moral and brand damage to a higher education institution from being a late divester can also be expected to be large. Many of the best and most moral students applying to college today care deeply about the planet and about climate change. And parents generally welcome a sense of broader responsibility in their children. Higher education institutions that decide to continue to allocate their funds to companies whose business is to invest in and expand fossil fuel reserves and fossil fuel burning are rapidly becoming less desirable to the many students who care about climate change and the future of their planet. Given the passionate and fast growing engagement of students and faculty on campuses across the country on this issue, the university brand protection case for short term divestment is very strong.

一个2015年1月信by many of Stanford’s faculty to the Stanford President and Board of trustees puts the issue this way: “If a university seeks to educate extraordinary youth so they may achieve the brightest possible future, what does it mean for that university simultaneously to invest in the destruction of that future?” A Swarthmore student leader, Stephen O’Hanlon,主张说：“因为这个地方运动起来，学校，全世界都在关注我们。这是不合理的斯沃斯莫尔......投资和合法化被冲倒的气候，中毒的社区，并危及很未来，我们的教育是为了准备我们的化石燃料的公司。”

超过两打的院校已经承诺撤资，而这个运动越来越远快于南非种族隔离运动撤资，它否则​​非常相似。超过1000个美国城市已经承诺的碳减排目标，其中许多可预期转移到低或无碳的投资。现在有低碳投资会议，反映了基金经理的部分越来越大的兴趣来服务这个快速成长的新兴市场。

尽管言辞相反，转移到无碳或低碳投资策略的成本很低或为零。我担任顾问，以渗透投资管理，其推出的首个低碳交易所交易基金（ETF），于2010年在伦敦证券交易所上市的有，现在不征收或非常小的额外范围不断扩大的低碳投资选择成本。这通常是通过添加化石自由屏幕到现有的管理的基金，或者通过跟踪化石的分类指数做无论是。参数组合Associates的$ 135十亿资产管理公司，提供加入低碳屏幕的任何投资策略的选择。添加此化石免费的屏幕 - 一个被称为化石免费指数公司开发的 - 仅增加了0.05％（百分之一的二十分之一），以现有的基金费，0.4％的年度总成本。化石自由指数还提供了基于S＆P 500化石的分类指数是不包括26家企业与化石燃料的储备，也有0.4％的年费。这些都是比较低费方案，并很可能比多数基金认为高等教育机构目前投资成本较低，而且越来越多的高等教育机构在太阳能光伏发电，能源效率和对自己的校园等清洁能源项目的投资，通常是为实现长期的财务回报优于通过第三方基金经理做出捐赠的投资 - 在提高大学运营，并为学生提供宝贵的实践学习机会。

撤资是更有可能提高受什么伤，风险调整后的财务回报，以及早期撤资是一个聪明的品牌保护选择。撤资也是道德上负责任的选择，因为气候变化的成本已经成为巨大的，尤其会伤害不如从前。迅速增长的撤资运动，其道义上和逻辑上成立的要求体现了责任的品质，伟大的学术机构欢迎和学生的支持。在这个问题上 - 他们这一代和未来的许多世代的决定性问题来 - 学生显然是正确的。

Gregory H Kats is the President of大写字母E，主要投资于清洁技术公司，并与企业和公共机构合作，为过渡到可持续发展的经济。他以前在数十亿美元的清洁能源投资基金良好的能源董事总经理，并担任财务总监的能源效率和可再生能源在美国能源部门。他拥有斯坦福大学的MBA学位，并且是绿化我们的内置世界作者：成本，收益和策略。