It better not take 150 years to get off fossil fuels. At the rate we're burning them, we will exceed 2 degrees C in the next 10 years and once we pass 4 degrees C, life on earth will be wiped out. I don't see much movement away from fossil fuels. What are we waiting for?

There may be a more effective way of creating change. Divestment is a
tool BUT -- follow the money. Institutions/endowments should refuse to
buy bonds/debt from these companies AND shame the underwriters who issue
it. Push lenders to stop lending the way the Quaker Action Group did.
No matter how large the company, it always carries debt. (endowments
-- check your fixed income portfolio as well as your stocks. you may be
in for a big surprise). It's a smaller, far more targeted approach to
financially pushing companies towards responsibility as well as easier
and perhaps much faster.

When will your producers include in the climate and environmental discourse the incalculable emissions of methane , Co2 and other GHG's from farmed animal production, said to be 51% of all global emissions. Given the scientific and medical FACT that we'd be far healthier on the ideal diet for human beings, from plant based foods, isn't it literally insane to continue promoting, marketing and subsidizing animal agribusiness and livestock feed? See Dr. Richard Oppenlander discuss "Your Role in Global Depletion" https://www.youtube.com/wat... As long as we live the lie, that we need animals as vectors for nutrients far better absorbed through plant foods, we remain the only species that poisons its own environment and has little remorse about doing it to every other species we share it with.

One of the largest components of university carbon footprints is faculty travel. Universities can help combat greenhouse gas emissions by taking steps to decrease travel. For example rather than bringing in four or five candidates for a faculty or administrative position phone or televideo conferences can be used to narrow the field. Universities can press for changes to rules mandating how the national science foundation reviews proposals so that the panels meet by phone rather than onsite at the nsf. Rather than the American chemical society and the American geophysical Union holding two annual meetings they can hold one per year. Funding agencies can limit the amount of conference travel for many proposals.

Ethics question: What about the idea of investing in companies whose products and / or practices one finds harmful or objectionable, then diverting one's share of those profits to advance more worthy, beneficial projects and causes? What if one invests in Exxon, for example, which makes money right now, then cashing out one's share of the income and gains in order to invest the larger share in more healthful technology?