Have you noticed that the prime minister is on a seemingly endless tour of town halls? We’re told that PMJT wants to hear from the people so that he can best understand how to serve us. But my theory? Justin knows he is his best self when he has an audience to play to. He can toss his hair, flash a smile, and on a really good day, eke out a few sensitive bro tears.

Last week our white knight had an especially rough few days of town-halling. Between four-foot high banners proclaiming opposition to Kinder Morgan held up in Edmonton and, in Winnipeg, an uncomfortable encounter with Cree activist Clayton Thomas-Muller during which he chastised Thomas-Muller for failing to say “please,” tensions were high. In addition to this, the numerous individuals our PM had dragged out of his Vancouver consultation served as evidence that criticism for the government’s handling of climate change is intense and (this writer believes) spectacularly righteous.

This all amounts to a growing, fierce and transformative movement calling for climate justice. This rising tide of action is responsible for last year’s cancellation of the Energy East Pipeline, last month’s reveal that NYC would be divesting from fossil fuels and last week’s announcement that BC was placing new restrictions on transportation of tar sands oil on the West Coast. It is becoming increasingly clear that the fossil fuel industry is dying an agonizing death, and when Divest MTA presented to the Board of Regents on Friday morning, that was the message we brought with us.

The fight against climate change and the fossil fuel industry is one which has been fought for decades now – it’s a fight that we, as young people, were born into. On Friday, Jan.  after the presentation to the board, students gathered just outside Tweedie Hall to get “birthmark tattoos” of the atmospheric carbon dioxide in parts per million that existed the year of their birth. For example, I have “357” tattooed above my heel because I was born in 1993; students born in 1995 had their bodies permanently marked with the number “360,” those in 1997 got “363,” etc. In 2007, NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen released a paper stating that the safe limit for atmospheric CO2 was 350 ppm. This limit was passed in 1987, which means that most students at Mt. A have never lived in a world with safe levels of atmospheric CO2. That’s what those tattoos are meant to symbolize.

Whether or not the Board of Regents and President Campbell heard the call to action remains to be seen. Campbell appeared to be enraptured with his iPad for most of the presentation, and as of writing this, we’ve yet to hear back from the board on our specific requests.

All we can be sure of at this point is that we need to continue to speak this truth as loudly, as frequently and as creatively as we possibly can – and to do that we need your help. Whether you’re staff, faculty or a student; whether you want to gather petition signatures, help distribute zines, facilitate meetings or get a tattoo, your voice is critical in the call for climate justice, a choral sound that is already reaching cacophonous levels.

In a Jan. 10 press conference, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced the city’s intentions to divest pension funds from the fossil fuel industry. The city will also bring a lawsuit against five major fossil fuel corporations.

The fossil fuel divestment movement began in 2012, turning into an international campaign lead by climate change activist organization 350.org. Although fossil fuel divestment has primarily been a tool wielded by institutions like churches, unions, and universities, municipalities and entire countries (we see you, Ireland) have divested from the oil and gas industry. New York isn’t the first city to do so, but it’s arguably the highest profile case.

The divestment decision will affect approximately $5 billion of NYC’s $189 billion pension fund, pulling support from 190 fossil fuel corporations that the fund was previously invested in. New York City’s mayor and comptroller announced via press release that they would instruct fund trustees to divest from these 190 companies in “a way that is fully consistent with fiduciary obligations.” These words are important given how often “fiduciary obligations” are thrown around in defence of rejecting divestment. I speak as a biased and disgruntled DivestMTA organizer when I point out these same words have been spoken to me in discussions with Mount Allison President Robert Campbell and Vice-President Finance and Administration Robert Inglis. I say this because it’s a relief to have an increasing number of well-respected, well-informed, wealthy white men to validate issues we’ve been pointing out for several years. Maybe it’s just my liberal-artsy naiveté telling me this time will be different – but perhaps now that the argument is coming from the office of one of the world’s most powerful cities, it will finally be internalized.

Not to be overlooked is the mayor’s announcement of the lawsuit being lodged against the world’s top five investor-owned contributors to climate change: BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon-Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell. The lawsuit itself targets the billions of dollars in damages the city will have to pay to protect citizens from the effects of climate change. When discussing reasons for launching the lawsuit, city representatives talked about the culpability of these corporations and the actions they’d taken over decades to obscure devastating effects of climate change from the public – profiting while sea levels rose and lying about their contributions to it.

Some might consider it uncouth or hyperbolic to draw comparisons between those corporations and Mt. A, but I see a connection. BP and Exxon-Mobil know their role in climate change yet continue to profit from it. So, too, does a university whose administration has full understanding of the risks posed by global warming to its students, surrounding community, and the dollars of endowment contributors, yet still invests with the companies working hardest to put those futures at risk. Further, these are companies with precarious outlooks, given what we know of the possibility of their assets becoming stranded (Google “carbon bubble”).

De Blasio has seen the risk rising sea levels can pose to a coastal community and has acted accordingly to protect those citizens. I’m cautiously hopeful the leadership at Mt. A will do the same, given Sackville’s position on the marshes and its proximity to sea level. Then again, Centennial Hall is unlikely to flood given its position on top of that hill… so perhaps not.

Thousands of new jobs and national energy independence were promised to New Brunswickers and all Canadians when plans for the Energy East Pipeline first emerged in 2012. The pipeline proposed by TransCanada Corp was to carry 1.1 million barrels of bitumen (nearly solid, tar-like oil) daily from Alberta to terminals in St. John. The project would have been the largest capacity oil pipeline in North America.

Analysts speculate that the pipeline was cancelled for market-related reasons and the National Energy Board’s recent decision to factor upstream and downstream emissions into its project evaluation. Thanks to the years-long efforts of Indigenous peoples and front-line communities, Energy East would have been the first Canadian project of its kind to undergo this analysis. Previously, the only emissions calculated for a pipeline were those from transporting bitumen from point A to B. As a result, calculations were incredibly inadequate, failing to illustrate the entire horrific Hieronymus Bosch-like picture.

Should global temperatures increase beyond 1.5 to two degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels, it’s been accepted that the 7 billion people on this planet would face catastrophe (though maybe not by those five guys who hold half the world’s wealth). Considering we’ve already experienced an increase in temperatures by one degree, the last thing we need is a pipeline carrying 1.1 million more barrels of the world’s most energy-intensive oil to market every day. The catastrophic global warming that scientists have warned us about since the ‘90s is already here, with the last few months bringing devastation from hurricanes Harvey and Irma, forest fires in BC and California, and deadly heatwaves across the globe.

If this doesn’t scare you, and your concern rests with the economy, note that cited market-based reasons for the cancellation are entirely accurate. There isn’t the market for tar sands oil in 2017 that there was in 2012. The price of oil has dropped to critically low levels; compare today’s price of $50 per barrel with 2012 prices of $110, and it’s easy to understand why TransCanada is no longer super keen to invest $16 billion dollars in the project. With auto manufacturers like Volvo, Land Rover and GM announcing emissions-free fleets by mid-century, and nations like France, Germany and China banning fuel-combustion engines in the coming decades, there isn’t market demand for new infrastructure when typical lifespan for a pipeline stretches into decades.

Although concerns about job losses and energy independence seem legitimate, they fail to reflect the truth, as the majority of jobs created by Energy East were temporary, and 85-90 per cent of the bitumen reaching St. John was destined for foreign markets. Though the oil carried by the pipeline wouldn’t have contributed to the nation’s energy independence, increased support for renewables would. As of 2014, there are already more Canadian jobs in renewables than in the tar sands. In addition to sheer numbers of employment opportunities, professions in wind and solar energy are far less likely to result in labourer illness than those in the fossil fuel industry. With renewables forming the bedrock of the future economy, green sector careers can employ labourers for decades to come.

TransCanada pulling the plug on this project was good news, whether we’re considering social, economic or environmental factors. This pipeline was too costly, and its cancellation frees us to move into a future where renewable energy, safe jobs and the wellbeing of peoples on the front lines of climate change are prioritized.

As consumers and investors, we are consistently told that we vote with our dollars and its absolutely true. The decision to hand over money to a given company is condonation, whether implicit or explicit, of the actions of said corporation. As a result, spending and investment is always political and always has social implications no matter how we might like to tell ourselves otherwise. Faust also argues that Harvard and other institutions considering divestment are, as shareholders of these corporations, better situated to engage with fossil fuel corporations than they would be should they make the decision to divest.

After all, our corporations are not only designed, but are required to create value for their shareholders, a fact that resonates with each shareholder resolution filed against the fossil fuel giants.

These giants, the top 200 fossil fuel companies worldwide, have an estimated 740 gigatonnes of fossil fuel reserves. In a landmark study, Carbon Tracker Initiative indicates that, in order to prevent global temperature increases beyond the two degree threshold which scientists and world leaders have determined to be of relative safety, we must burn no more than 565 Gt of carbon between now and 2050. Keep in mind that the aforementioned 740 gigatonnes that those top companies have is just a small fraction of the total known reserves – about 2,795 Gt. A quick division will politely point out that, of these total reserves, we can only burn about 20 per cent; beyond this, global climate futures become grim.

The remaining 80 per cent of those reserves would bust us into a state which can be referred to as “stranded assets,” meaning that they are assets which remain unused and cannot be profited from. The only way that fossil fuel corporations are going to agree to refrain from exploiting some 80 per cent of their resources is if we strip them of their right to do so and to disengage with them absolutely.

Divest MTA wants Mount Allison University to withdraw any investments the endowment fund may have in the fossil fuel industry.    We don’t need to tell you the danger that climate change presents, to do so would insult your intelligence.  All we want you to know is that its up to us as members of the Mt. A community, to compel our University to take action.  Fossil fuel divestment is one of the most meaningful ways Mount Allison can act on climate change, but if we don’t make it happen, and soon, the opportunity will be lost, and we’ll be on the wrong side of history.

– See more at: http://argosy.ca/article/divest-mta-call-action-0#sthash.UGDgZO5P.dpuf