Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Harvard Board Member Wants School to ‘Stop Funding Climate Change’

Harvard Board Member Wants School to ‘Stop Funding Climate Change’

“this is too important for me to remain silent”

This is of course, just another left wing call for the school to divest from fossil fuels.

The College Fix reports:

Harvard board member: Time for Harvard to ‘stop funding climate change’

A departing member of the Harvard Board of Overseers has called for the university to “stop funding climate change,” arguing that “the riskiest thing is to do nothing” and claiming that the university’s addressing climate change “could give leadership insights into other pressing issues like mass incarceration, toxins into our environment, and the exploitation of labor.”

“I am not going public with this call to action lightly or to be impolite,” Kathryn Taylor writes in The Harvard Crimson, stating that she has “tried everything else—diplomatically in the background with other Overseers and outspokenly but behind closed doors in plenary.”

“But this is too important for me to remain silent,” she adds.

Taylor writes that the university needs to “adopt ethical investment principles.”

“At a minimum, Harvard should direct the Harvard Management Company to divest from fossils fuels to prevent the end of life as we know it through cascading climate-driven disasters. This single act would not only take steps to address the existential crisis of our time, but it would allow the University to lead its peers, as few, if any, American universities thus far have taken this important moral stance.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“the riskiest thing is to do nothing”

I’m beginning to think academics are the dumbest people on the planet. Maybe Marxism really does rot the brain.

Pro-tip Ivy League Seat Warmer – quite often doing nothing not only carries the least risk but is also the right solution.

But you are still caught in a contradiction. If you believe doing nothing is too risky, then how can you support Marxist climate science with its static solutions?

Do you want to spend 20 years sequestering carbon or do you want to invent the warp drive?