FAQs

A: When a person, group, or organization ends investment in a certain company or industry, they are said to be “divesting.” Over 1,500 public institutions including universities, foundations, and municipal governments have already committed to selling their financial holdings in fossil fuel companies specifically - see Our Peers to see who’s stepping up. We demand that Princeton cancel all current and future investment in the fossil fuel industry. That means all direct holdings in fossil fuel companies and fossil fuel extraction (e.g., Chevron, Shell, ExxonMobil), all indirect holdings in fossil fuel-supportive funds (like those of JPMorgan Chase), and all major supporters and shareholders of the industry. One minute Elevator Pitch for Divestment Here is a short reading list to learn more about divestment.

A: The immediate goal of divestment is not to bankrupt companies of their money, but rather of their reputations. In this way, divestment is primarily a moral and social strategy. Taking a strong position against the industry and “putting our money where our mouth is” will amplify the message that fossil fuels are dangerous, and that investing in them is wrong. Put another way, cutting ties with fossil fuel companies strips them of their social license to operate. With over $40 trillion now divested, the size of the movement has now given it material significance. Divestment pushes up the cost of capital for fossil fuel companies.

A: During the 1970s and 80s, student groups like People’s Front for the Liberation of South Africa called on Princeton to divest from companies operating in South Africa during apartheid. In 2006, the Board of Trustees voted to “disassociat[e] from companies that directly or indirectly conduct operations in Darfur that support acts of genocide, and to prevent future investment in such companies.” At the time, the Council of the Princeton University Community noted “considerable, thoughtful and sustained” campus interest in the conflict and a “widespread consensus that action should be taken.” Between 2013 and 2015, Students United for a Responsible Global Environment (SURGE) worked to build new consensus around divestment from fossil fuels, but their motion to divest was ultimately denied. Divest Princeton was founded in the fall of 2019 to renew that effort. Read more about the history of divestment at Princeton here.

A. A proposal is put to the Resources Committee of the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC). The Committee was established in 1970 to “consider questions of general policy concerning the procurement and management of the University’s financial resources.” The Committee includes faculty, undergraduates, graduate students and staff (see current committee members here). The Resources Committee considers guidelines for divestment adopted by the Board of Trustees in 1997. The University policy states that the University must also stop receiving funding from fossil fuel companies if they divest. This is called dissociation. Research Funding Annual Reports show between 2000 and 2020, BP has poured over $43 million into the University while ExxonMobil has given $6.7 million. The Resources Committee may consult a number of different groups, including the Princeton University Investment Company (PRINCO) (see current board members here) and the Office of Sustainability. It then makes a recommendation to the Board of Trustees - which includes President Eisgruber - on whether or not to divest. The Board has the authority to make final divestment and dissociation decisions.

A: While day-to-day operations will likely go unchanged, divestment will show that Princeton takes seriously its mission to reduce its greenhouse gas footprint, that it believes in the work of its faculty and scientists, and that it cares about the corporate missions of companies in which it invests. Over the long-term, this will help produce healthier research relationships and reinforce Princeton’s reputation as a forward-thinking university.

A: Fossil fuels were extremely profitable in the past, but they’re increasingly becoming risky investments: Fossil fuels’ share of the global energy mix has been trending downward since 2010. Reports also show that clean energy investments are now competitive with fossil fuel, and that as a growing market, clean energy is the safer financial option. Backing renewable energy over fossil fuel means building a cleaner, fairer future, not profiteering from pollution. In 2021, substantial evidence has been published that divesting is the fidicuciary duty of endowments. Read more here about the financial case for divestment.

A: Princeton’s world-class scientific research is undermined by the companies that fund it. For example, Princeton’s energy research program, the Andlinger Center, has received $6.7 million in technology research funding from ExxonMobil, a company that pushes misinformation and lobbies the government to thwart the success of these same technologies. Princeton is less of a partner in these relationships than a tool for corporate greenwashing. Read more about fossil fuel funding of research here.

A: Princeton’s support for the fossil fuel industry is a political act in itself, given the industry’s rampant political lobbying and efforts to warp scientific consensus around the issue. Shell and ExxonMobil predicted the impacts of fossil fuels on climate change as far back as the 1980s, for instance, and in the years since have only extracted more. By investing in these companies, Princeton shields their harmful activities from scrutiny and lends legitimacy to an unsustainable status quo.

A: The false choice between divestment and a working light switch is a typical rebuttal made by divestment skeptics. We argue Princeton can divest while reducing personal dependence on fossil fuels, and that it can use its endowment to develop alternatives that, if not now, will someday be available in New Jersey. As Environmental Humanities Professor Robert Nixon argues, “we should be doing everything to accelerate decarbonization in advance of it being feasible, and the first step in this is removing funds from the industry.”

A: Secrecy is a common defense against divestment movements, and Princeton does not disclose the nature of its investments held by the endowment which was worth $37.7 billion in 2022. However, in March of 2022, for the first time, Princeton revealed that it has $1.7 billion invested in fossil fuels which represents 4.5% of the endowment. Princeton holds $6 million worth of oil, gas, and mineral rights. In the last 5 years, over 50 fossil fuel companies have recruited on campus. 11 fossil fuel companies have funded $26.2 million of research on campus. We know that, even after divesting $1 billion from publicly traded fossil fuel companies, Princeton still has $700 million in private equity fossil fuels.

A: Scientists say that in order to keep global warming below 2°C, we need to leave most of the world’s known fossil fuel reserves - including 90% of U.S. coal reserves - underground and unburned. This is an achievable goal, but it’s not the type of thing shareholders would vote for willingly. Make no mistake, Exxon would still be a profitable energy company if it transitioned to renewables, but it would only do so if forced by regulation or extreme social pressure. Princeton resists “position-taking” with its endowment funds, and is therefore unlikely to push these companies from within.

A: Princeton’s SAP doesn’t call for net zero carbon emissions until 2046 (the second-weakest target among all Ivy League universities), which is insufficient given the urgency of the climate crisis and the University’s unquestionable ability to do more. Moreover, Princeton’s “net zero carbon” goal doesn’t include important Scope 3 emissions. What modest improvements Princeton’s SAP does promise are likely offset by its support of the fossil fuel industry. Princeton can’t fund the problem as well as the solution. If it wants to be sustainable, divestment must be part of the strategy. Princeton's low ranking in the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (a self-reporting framework for colleges and universities to measure their sustainability performance) shows that there is a lot of work to be done in this area as well. ​ Princeton 2021 68.42 Princeton 2018 65.52 ​ previous reports

A: Yes, but it depends on what we mean by “work.” Divestment works as a catalyst for social change: thirty-nine of the world’s top banks, including Morgan Stanley and France’s Crédit Agricole have stated they will no longer do business in coal. Divestment works as a financial lever: Peabody Energy, the U.S.’s largest coal company, cited divestment as a cause of its 2016 bankruptcy. Divestment, and reinvestment in clean energy, works to generate profit: BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, recently announced plans to divest from coal, stating its “investment conviction is that sustainability-integrated portfolios can provide better risk-adjusted returns to investors.”