Fossil fuel divestment: Building a social movement for collective climate action by Fossil Free MIT

Very impressive!

Judge 1: The proposal outlines the plan of divesting from fossil fuel companies as institutions (universities, government pensions, churches, etc.) and as individuals as a way to shift the fossil fuel industry away from using all of the resources it plans to.The plan has the potential for major change in that it focuses on challenging a major source of power, investments in fossil fuels, as the center of organizing individuals and institutions. The plan has already made progress in some institutions. The method for organizing to divest is not as explicit in the proposal as it could be, but the focus and theory of change are very clear and persuasive. Judge 2: This proposal looks like what 350.org is doing. What will these proposers do that is any different? And how will they accomplish their goal of getting institutions to divest. I am missing something here. Fellows: How does your proposal differ from and complement other work in the divestment movement?

I wish you the best! Please, check my proposal in Waste Management Contest, named "REACC: Recycled Debris for Adaptation to Climate Change"; and I would apreciate your support as I supported your proposal.

Those who have the "fire lit beneath them" will have to work to communicate to the uninformed and disempowered citizens of the world about the reality of the future we're facing, and how to become capable in helping to change the course we're on. Divestment is the best initial way to build momentum in that educational process. Although divestment cannot render fossil-fuel companies unprofitable, they may well make themselves so, if they continue with current practices. These companies have four options as to how they may proceed. If they persist with business as usual, and the world community does not take steps to ensure that most of their holdings remain in the ground, then their facilitation of ruinous carbon emissions will have catastrophic consequences, with costs such that ultimately the value of their reserves will be the least of anyone's concerns. If they continue with practices unchanged, and regulatory steps are taken to ensure that a significant percentage of their assets remain "stranded," then stock values and profits will plunge. The public companies could continue to buy back stock at the current pace, become private, and wind themselves down as the world converts to renewables (the alternative to this being to become private and continuing with the same mode of operating, in which case descendants of owners and perhaps their consciences would suffer consequences, and/or governments would take action against them). Lastly, they could commit to conversion of business focus to renewable energies, partnering with the rest of humanity to ensure that we have a sustainable future - an unlikely outcome, the way things are going.

Alternative fuel/energy options that are affordable and convenient to world populace is in my opinion the real way out. Could we include it, push it propagate it, help subsidize it, give incentives for those who propagate it and also to those who use it and lastly, but not the least, make it genuinely cheaper and convenient for the end users! About the " Lastly, they could commit to conversion of business focus to renewable energies, partnering with the rest of humanity to ensure that we have a sustainable future - an unlikely outcome, the way things are going.";the "Swami Vivekananda Fruits-Trees Expansion Mission" will be able to help us by enhancing,strengthening the the attitudes necessary for this unlikely outcome to become a 'likely outcome'.

Hi Fossil free MIT and your friends, kindly consider voting for my proposal shown on this link. https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300206/planId/1002 Thanks.

Major obstacle in Divestment? of the ± 22 TRILLION in *known* fossil fuel deposits, fully 75% is NOT owned by publicly traded companies.... Divestment will never touch them. It's a start... There are a few more steps that could/should be taken: - no more State subsidies and or (tax) freebies for fossil fuels that will cost us dearly later on - a stop on ALL exploration for new fossil fuels; Yearly cost ± US$ 650 Billion! We have too much already! - a (worldwide) panel to evaluate/(dis-)approve any fossil fuel project and/or infrastructure; for instance now we're trying to make poor countries the newest addicts to outdated technology, claiming "energy poverty".. as if we cared!? Why invest huge sums in facilitating the use of the very dirtiest of fossil fuels?