OPINIONS

Stanford’s own water depends on climate divestment

Stanford students and Stanford University both fully deserve the laurels they won last spring by enacting a climate divestment policy on coal investments, telling those companies they can take their coal and “shovel” it back where it belongs.

That’s the good news, but we will watch those laurels wither in the heat of climate change unless we accomplish much more. In my seat, as a Stanford alumnus and Vice Chair of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, I see this in every action we take. We became the first water district in the country to enact a climate divestment policy back in August 2013, a comprehensive policy towards complete divestment from fossil fuel companies. The Water District works to provide water supply, flood protection and environmental restoration in our local watersheds and on the Bay.

Simply put, everything we do at the Water District in service of Stanford and the entire county is made harder by climate change. Our water supply is less reliable while water demand increases with heat. Flooding is less predictable and made even worse by sea level rise along the Bay and also along flooding creeks that get backed up at the Bay and spill over their banks. Environmental restoration of tidal wetlands also becomes more difficult under sea level rise, and our local steelhead trout swimming up the creek along Stanford property have to face longer and more severe droughts.

The question I posed last year was this: “Everything we do to serve the public is made more difficult by climate change, so why on earth should our money finance the corporations that make climate change worse and hold us back from the political solutions we need to save ourselves?” In just six weeks, we had the answer: a unanimous decision by the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board that we shouldn’t finance them.

Our district doesn’t control pension funds that are often invested in stocks, but as a large organization with large forthcoming projects, we have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in preparation for the time to begin construction. We had $3 million in bond investments in one oil company, Chevron, and that investment will be phased out while no new fossil fuel investments will happen.

Our action followed and was followed by many other fantastic divestment decisions, including Stanford’s decision to divest from coal earlier this year.

While Stanford’s action was wonderful, it’s not enough. The fact remains that if the fossil fuel corporations had to pay for the costs they impose on the rest of the world, particularly on people in the poorest countries, they would be terrible investments. We invest in fossil fuel companies because they benefit by imposing costs on other and on future generations, and they give us a cut. If we don’t want to be part of that deal, then we have to make a change.

The stock and other complicated investments by Stanford are significantly harder to unwind than the bond investments the Santa Clara Valley Water District deals with. All the more reason to start now, if the action is going to take a longer time to complete.

We often focus on climate change by the year 2100 as if that’s the end point, but many people reading this will live past that date, as will most of your children, so the difficulties will get even worse. This is a long, challenging problem. Stanford has taken a great first step on the climate divestment path. Now is time for the next step, to show the Stanford community isn’t hostage to fossil fuel corporations and is ready, or will be ready, to solve the climate crisis.

Brian Schmidt J.D. ’99

Brian Schmidt is the Vice Chair of the Santa Clara Valley Water District; he can be contacted at Schmidtb98@yahoo.com.

  • Jim Corcoran

    With 60+ BILLION food animals on the planet our best chance to mitigate climate change is to severely reduce consumption of animal foods. More than 1/3 of human induced warming is attributable to animal agriculture. Methane is 24 times more potent than CO2 but takes only 7 years to cycle out of the atmosphere. CO2 takes around 100 years to come out. Human pursuit of animal protein is the leading cause of methane release and a primary cause of CO2 concentrating in the atmosphere. Check the facts and act!

    “As environmental science has advanced, it has become apparent that the human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future: deforestation, erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities, and the spread of disease.” Worldwatch Institute, “Is Meat Sustainable?”

    “If every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetables and grains… the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads.” Environmental Defense Fund

    “A 1% reduction in world-wide meat intake has the same benefit as a three trillion-dollar investment in solar energy.” ~ Chris Mentzel, CEO of Clean Energy

    There is one single industry destroying the planet more than any other. But no one wants to talk about it… http://cowspiracy.com

    Step by Step Guide: How to Transition to a Vegan Diet http://www.onegreenplanet.org/vegan-food/step-by-step-guide-how-to-transition-to-vegan-diet/

  • JoeCommentor

    Would John Muir support you’re drinking Hetch Hetchy water?
    Why don’t you tell SFPUC they can take their water and “bail” it back where it belongs?

    Because you’re ‘better’ than us? Smarter? Richer? Because ‘what’s done is done’?
    What? You 1% NIMBY “my daddy’s a lawyer” trustafarians aren’t being enviro-hypocrites, are you?

    But, you ‘deserve’ our vote, or is it we ‘deserve’ your self aggrandized ‘commitment to the environment’? Puh-lease…