HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-23-2015 C5 HoulgateCOUNCIL MEETING: cY-.,--2-3—Z0OS
ITEM NO,:__.-
Christian, Kevin
To: Mejia, Anthony
Subject: RE: Fossil Fuel Divestment
JUN 23 211h
From: Laurence Houlgate [ma i Ito: houlgate- west(absbcgloba1.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 8 :12 AM
To: E -mail Council Website
Cc: Heidi Harmon
Subject: Fossil Fuel Divestment
Dear city council:
I am no longer registered to vote in SLO, but as a long -time resident of the city I would like to comment on the
proposal to divest from fossil fuel providers. The general question is moral: It is whether a public entity ought
to invest funds in an enterprise creating and selling products that provide benefits, but are also known to cause
considerable harm to the public. It is now becoming obvious that the fossil fuel products industry as a whole
has contributed and continues to contribute to a great deal of environmental harm. Many believe that the harm
outweighs the benefits. If the benefits can be acquired in another way, then the argument for inhibiting the
production of fossil fuels becomes even stronger.
I remember a similar discussion at Cal Poly in the 1980s about whether the university should pull out of
investments they had made in South African companies during the time of apartheid. The benefit (presumably)
was that the university was getting a good return on their investments. But it was obvious to most that the harm
of investments being used to shore up a regime that practiced apartheid far outweighed any financial benefits.
Cal Poly eventually divested after a lengthy debate.
I am not saying that the analogy is exact, but it does give us a way a model for thinking about the moral
question of a public entity investing in (and encouraging) an enterprise whose products are known to cause
great public harm.
Laurence Houlgate
Laurence D. Houlgate Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Philosophy
California Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo, California