While I think the OP might be on the extreme end of things, I find comments and attitudes like "I don't care about 40 years from now" to be distasteful. Many of us came to school to make a difference in the world. It's more than de-motivational to say, "Fuck the world 40 years from now... Who cares?"

That being said, I think there's some merit in having people become aware of how much of the school's funds are invested in oil, regardless of other technologies we are invested in. I don't doubt that Mac has a sizeable portfolio... I don't know/wont claim to know how significant its oil assets are though; especially in comparison to other tech.

Originally Posted by FossilFree

I cannot speak for other people's interests but I personally got involved after taking a few environmental classes. I see this movement about raising awareness and letting the University know that students care about how the University invests its money. The university has options to invest into more sustainable energy like nonrenewable energy that is not harming the environment.

The reason we say it is immoral because the University has options to invest in other areas. It is not immoral for a University student to take public transportation because they have no alternative means.

The reason oil & gas companies are investing money into R&D in nonrenewable areas is because of the pressure put on them by consumers and governments. Please do not personally attack people on forums by calling them names, it makes you look weak. We respect your opinion no matter what it is, we'd appreciate you do the same.

The whole idea that investing in fossil fuel companies is immoral is absurd.

You also said that it is not immoral for a University student to ride the gas guzzling bus because they don't have any alternatives... well why can't they walk? Why can't they ride a bike? Why not get some rollerblades, those things are pretty fun. I mean it should only take them maybe 5-10 times as long to get to class... no big deal. And maybe you're right, maybe Mac should go invest in renewable energy instead of fossil fuel... I mean they might lose a couple million but hey at least they can feel good about having your moral approval right?

You need to understand that how the university invests their funds is not even based on morality, it's based on smart business decisions that are meant to maximize ROI. These returns can then come back to fund the university and like qwerty91 said help the university continue work surrounding real sustainability.

Also I'm not really attacking you personally since you haven't stated who you are, or even what organization you're affiliated with. I'm assuming you're affiliated with 350.org though. I'm also guessing that you might not go to McMaster and know that you don't really care about the school.

So how about you stay out of the university's business and quit trying to take the moral high ground on an issue that it is almost impossible not to be hypocritical about.

Jason

It's great the university is partnering with environmental tech. They are also doing some of the leading science on climate change. To me it seems hypocritical that on one hand the university is studying climate change and on the other investing in the companies causing the problem. Why can't we be investing in solution? Let's invest in the clean energy economy or putting money into a revolving loan-fund to green the campus. Colleges and universities have an increasing number of options when it comes to investing their endowment in a socially responsible way.

MAC does have a sizeable portfolio. Its about $519Million. Together all the canadian universities are investing billions. Its time to green campus portfolios.

Isn't it enough our Government is tied at the hip with the oil industries, gives them 2.4 Billion in subsidies annual and kills any environmental legislation the industry asks for? (Fisheries ACt, Environmental Assessment Act the Navigable Water Act- to name a few). The Fossil Fuel industry is corrupting the political process! They spend millions of dollars to spread misinformation about climate change, and block clean energy solutions. Theyʼre greed for profit is threatening the entire planet. I don't want MAC supporting this.

el oh el guYzzzzz

fwdonclimate - it's obvious you're part of this 350.org group along with FossilFree, you're probably the same person. Now stop spamming the forum with your silly propaganda. I know you'll do anything to push your agenda. You've already gone to the top and threatened them. You'll demonize the university, probably go to the silhouette to start a smear campaign, clearly you're already doing that here. But listen up: WE DON'T SUPPORT YOU. SO GET OUT AND DO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE.

Cheers,

Jason

Unfortunately, most environmentalists look at the present and want an immediate change without looking at the implications of such actions. No matter how you get your energy, the environment will be affected.

Solar power is only efficient when the sun is shining, or so long as the stored power remains in the battery. In any northern latitude, this is very inefficient. Not to mention, there are many extremely hazardous and harmful components to solar panels which will "hurt our environment"
http://www.oregon.gov/odot/hwy/oipp/...c oncerns.pdf

Wind Power has a 'maximum' efficiency. Not only is it inefficient if the wind is too weak, but if the wind is too strong, the blades won't spin at their top revolution. Not to mention, countless birds are killed because they're not able to perceive the velocity of the blade and often get hit. Plus, the infrasound produced hasn't been researched enough and may affect wildlife even more than humans.
http://www.dw.de/is-infrasound-from-...ous/a-16570851
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/447126a.html

Hydro Dams are wonderful, except you need large bodies of water and the altering of the land could change local ecosystems (again, environmentalists start complaining)

Nuclear is a great power source, but we're still not sure what to do with the long-lived waste. Right now we just shield and bury it, but no long term solution is in place.
On a personal note, I think we need to invest in a space elevator. That way we can ship all the waste to space and just give it a little push into the sun. This will forever be science fiction though due to realistic budgetary constraints.

And finally fossil fuels. We expel carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases, but not nearly in the quantities we used to. The employment of various catalytic converters has allowed for the amount of harmful compounds, such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, to be converted into water and CO2. Without investing in fossil fuels, how would we ever have discovered a way to do this? Not to mention all the green acts are helping to change societies mentality to become more eco-friendly.
And if CO2 is the main greenhouse gas, then we're all polluters for just being alive and reproducing. The amount of CO2 we exhale is negligible... but multiply that by the worlds current 7 billion people population (and growing) and I think we got greenhouse contributions.
http://www.enviropedia.org.u k/Air_...nverters. php

Never mind limiting the funding in fossil fuels, the university should increase their current funding. With more research, we may be able to determine a means of employing a new type of catalytic converter to decrease the CO2 release. This is a much better alternative than cutting funding because it's hurting our planet because let's face it, everything does.

^ Basically, there's just too many people on the planet, that no matter what we're destroying it.

You tards, it's a zero sum game.

Originally Posted by kowalej

The whole idea that investing in fossil fuel companies is immoral is absurd.

You also said that it is not immoral for a University student to ride the gas guzzling bus because they don't have any alternatives... well why can't they walk? Why can't they ride a bike? Why not get some rollerblades, those things are pretty fun. I mean it should only take them maybe 5-10 times as long to get to class... no big deal. And maybe you're right, maybe Mac should go invest in renewable energy instead of fossil fuel... I mean they might lose a couple million but hey at least they can feel good about having your moral approval right?

You need to understand that how the university invests their funds is not even based on morality, it's based on smart business decisions that are meant to maximize ROI. These returns can then come back to fund the university and like qwerty91 said help the university continue work surrounding real sustainability.

Also I'm not really attacking you personally since you haven't stated who you are, or even what organization you're affiliated with. I'm assuming you're affiliated with 350.org though. I'm also guessing that you might not go to McMaster and know that you don't really care about the school.

So how about you stay out of the university's business and quit trying to take the moral high ground on an issue that it is almost impossible not to be hypocritical about.

Jason

Everyone that uses this account is a McMaster student. The point of us posting on this discussion forum was to get people to sign the petition and if you don't want to then that's cool. But there's no reason in bashing a student led environmental campaign. If you do not want to support this cause then no problem, move on.

By using public transportation when required we mean, when a student has to commute from another city to Hamilton or to far destinations within the city. Not everyone lives a 5 minute walk from campus.

Originally Posted by kowalej

The whole idea that investing in fossil fuel companies is immoral is absurd.

You also said that it is not immoral for a University student to ride the gas guzzling bus because they don't have any alternatives... well why can't they walk? Why can't they ride a bike? Why not get some rollerblades, those things are pretty fun. I mean it should only take them maybe 5-10 times as long to get to class... no big deal. And maybe you're right, maybe Mac should go invest in renewable energy instead of fossil fuel... I mean they might lose a couple million but hey at least they can feel good about having your moral approval right?

You need to understand that how the university invests their funds is not even based on morality, it's based on smart business decisions that are meant to maximize ROI. These returns can then come back to fund the university and like qwerty91 said help the university continue work surrounding real sustainability.

Also I'm not really attacking you personally since you haven't stated who you are, or even what organization you're affiliated with. I'm assuming you're affiliated with 350.org though. I'm also guessing that you might not go to McMaster and know that you don't really care about the school.

So how about you stay out of the university's business and quit trying to take the moral high ground on an issue that it is almost impossible not to be hypocritical about.

Jason

Also, universities invest in high risk high return portfolios/projects aka not 'smart business'. Where do you get your information from? You've been wrong about everything in that paragraph, do some research before you post. Why does the university need to be moral? Because it is somewhere people go to learn to become moral. McMaster University is founded as a Baptist Christian institution, the entire purpose of this place was to be moral and provide exemplary for the rest of society.

- Theo

Originally Posted by FossilFree

Also, universities invest in high risk high return portfolios/projects aka not 'smart business'. Where do you get your information from? You've been wrong about everything in that paragraph, do some research before you post. Why does the university need to be moral? Because it is somewhere people go to learn to become moral. McMaster University is founded as a Baptist Christian institution, the entire purpose of this place was to be moral and provide exemplary for the rest of society.

- Theo

I would highly advise against using this (the bolded part) as a selling point.
Without even getting started on the immorality of the Church as an institution, McMaster is currently a secular school, and the teachings of Baptist Christianity do not guide the decisions that university administrators make.

And no, university is actually not a place that people go to learn how to "be moral". That's called kindergarten, and it's something many people don't quite get. People go to university mostly to get the education/requirements they need to get a job.

That said, there's no point repeatedly attacking the group's "plan". I doubt it will lead to anything huge anyways (my own personal opinion is that it's too far-reaching) and if you don't support it, just let it go. There's no harm in letting other students participate if they want to, see what they can actually achieve, without trying to tear them down.

I think most people would agree that changes need to happen and the current way of making/using energy isn't sustainable long-term, but there is a lot of disagreement as to how to go about doing it.

Originally Posted by starfish

And no, university is actually not a place that people go to learn how to "be moral". That's called kindergarten, and it's something many people don't quite get. People go to university mostly to get the education/requirements they need to get a job.

I hate this.

Unfortunately, this is true in the sense that University is what people have come to make it... So many students have come to University to get job training, but that is not what University is meant for. I don't think anyone will deny that University was instituted for higher learning, and the development of better (some may say "moral") decisions was probably a primary objective of that higher learning.

And this argument is supported by the lack of jobs for many University grads, but the relatively decent employment opportunities for people who have jobs out of college, because they finished a more relevant course.

Mind you, this whole thread is becoming a cluster****. I just wanted to clarify this because it's a massive pet peeve of mine, for so many more reasons than I will get into here.

Originally Posted by FossilFree

Everyone that uses this account is a McMaster student. The point of us posting on this discussion forum was to get people to sign the petition and if you don't want to then that's cool. But there's no reason in bashing a student led environmental campaign. If you do not want to support this cause then no problem, move on.

By using public transportation when required we mean, when a student has to commute from another city to Hamilton or to far destinations within the city. Not everyone lives a 5 minute walk from campus.

You still haven't introduced what your organization is or who is running it? Are you not associated with 350.org? Also you haven't said anything about a petition yet and it shows just how naive you are to think that if I don't support your cause I will just "move on". I have the right to speak out against your cause as much as you have the right to get people to support it.

Originally Posted by FossilFree

Also, universities invest in high risk high return portfolios/projects aka not 'smart business'. Where do you get your information from? You've been wrong about everything in that paragraph, do some research before you post. Why does the university need to be moral? Because it is somewhere people go to learn to become moral. McMaster University is founded as a Baptist Christian institution, the entire purpose of this place was to be moral and provide exemplary for the rest of society.

- Theo

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here... McMaster's investments are highly diversified and go beyond equities all together. You say I'm wrong but provide no evidence...