The Morality of Divestment

Divestment from companies that produce or heavily utilize fossil fuels has become one of the biggest issues in the contemporary moral debate surrounding climate change. Universities and other institutions are being asked to divest themselves of their fossil fuel–related investments. In this article I argue that, while the case for divestment is morally strong, not all of the arguments used to support divestment are equally strong. Moreover, which of these arguments is employed matters a great deal for the strength of the conclusions regarding divestment. There are two major groups of arguments: what I call positive arguments for divestment, which stem from the claim that divestment is a response to general duties to take action to prevent dangerous climate change, and what I call negative arguments, which stem from a duty not to cause harm. In this article I will briefly characterize what divestment means and to whom it applies. I will then look at negative and positive duty accounts of the duty to divest before looking at the standard objections to both. Objections have tended to cohere around the claims that divesting is inconsistent, useless and/or harmful, or should be abandoned for better options to avoid dangerous climate change.     

A Contest for Legitimacy: The Divestment Movement and the Fossil Fuel Industry

The divestment movement has sought to influence attitudes to fossil fuels by framing producer companies as pariahs and as unnecessary and redundant. In response, the fossil fuel industry has engaged in a direct and aggressive attack on the divestment movement. This article considers the relationship between the movement and the industry as a contest for legitimacy for both the organizations and the norms they advocate. Through a case study of the coal discourse in Australia from 2013 to 2016, it explores how each party has attempted to undermine the other's legitimacy and to build or defend its own. It concludes that the contest for legitimacy is complex, being conducted at multiple levels (pragmatic, moral, legal, and cognitive) and before multiple audiences. For the movement to “win” the contest, it will require more than a simple rebalancing of the legitimacy scales.     

Litigation in the Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement

The fossil fuel divestment movement has been described as the fastest‐growing disinvestment movement in history, and in recent years it has continued to expand. Despite its growth, however, the movement has made little use of legal action, instead utilizing tactics of public pressure and persuasion, and the future role of litigation in the movement is unclear. To consider litigation's potential role in the movement and the challenges it may face, I examine the first and only case of litigation in the fossil fuel divestment movement thus far: Harvard Climate Justice Coalition et al. v President and Fellows of Harvard College et al. (2015), in which seven Harvard students (including the author) filed suit to compel the university to divest its endowment from fossil fuel companies. I examine motivations for filing the suit in the context of the broader fossil fuel divestment movement, the case's history, and the challenges faced by the suit, including arguments surrounding causation, particularization, representation of future generations, limiting principles, and framing. I then discuss potential opportunities for fossil fuel divestment litigation in the future. As the field of climate change law develops further, litigation over fossil fuel investments could grow in frequency and importance.     

Building Norms from the Grassroots Up: Divestment,Expressive Politics,and Climate Change

The fossil fuel divestment movement is at the forefront of civil society initiatives to raise public consciousness about the need for a “fossil‐free” future. Through the lens of the social movement literature, this article shows how the movement has harnessed grassroots activists, engaged in innovative and sometimes disruptive forms of protest, and used cognitive framing and symbolic politics to gain media interest and persuade the public of the importance and legitimacy of its claims as well as to promote a new social norm. The relative instrumental, structural, and discursive power of the movement and its adversaries is also examined, showing how, notwithstanding the fossil fuel industry's deeply embedded structural and instrumental power, the movement has managed to shift the contest onto a terrain where it holds a comparative advantage. Finally, the movement's role in nonstate climate governance is considered, taking account of its interactions with and impact on a range of other climate actors. This article's conclusion is that climate governance is not only an instrumental or pragmatic process of mandating changes in behavior but an expressive and symbolic one of nurturing a new norm and institutionalizing a new set of moral principles.     

The Trouble with Boycotts: Can Fossil Fuel Divest Campaigns Be Prohibited?

Organizations like 350.org, Insure Our Future, and DivestInvest are leading campaigns to urge boycott and divestment from fossil fuels as a means to address climate change. Increasingly, they are finding success, from individual consumers to massive pension and sovereign wealth funds. However, as organized group boycotts, divest campaigns may be vulnerable to prosecution under antitrust law. This article explores the likelihood of success in such a case, considering the history of the legal treatment of organized boycotts, the scope and purpose of antitrust law, and the possible application of the First Amendment to the divestment context. The article finds that fossil fuel boycotts straddle a number of contradictory characteristics, making application of existing theories inadequate. In particular, existing precedent protects political boycotts, but not those with primarily economic objectives, and fails to definitively address whether a noncompetitive actor may undertake concerted action under antitrust law. In the context of climate change, where the political is economic, and political goals may seek significant economic changes (such as undermining an entire industry), existing theories may lead to a result that threatens both free expression and the health of the planet. The essential flexibility of the Sherman Act, however, provides room for protection of political activity, even where the ultimate objective is economic in nature.     

Review Essay: Divestment,Nonstate Governance,and Climate Change

This review essay examines the divestment movement's evolution, aims, and strategies as well as why it is both distinctive and important. It then locates the movement within the broader literature on nonstate climate change governance, suggesting how studying the movement may contribute to this literature. Finally, seeking to take stock some five years on from its inception, it assesses the movement's impact and effectiveness over that period.     

Explaining energy disputes at the World Trade Organization

The international trade regime has seen an explosion of challenges to government support for renewable energy in recent years, yet fossil fuel subsidies, which dwarf renewable energy subsidies, have remained unchallenged. Existing explanations for this puzzling discrepancy have focused on four rationales: major fossil fuel exporters have not historically been members of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization (WTO); WTO subsidies rules are inadequate to deal with the specifics of the fossil fuel trade; nations have developed separate institutions to govern energy; and all states have fossil fuel subsidies, so a challenge to one country’s subsidies will prompt a reciprocal challenge. This article makes two contributions. First, it uses a survey of existing renewable energy trade disputes to critique the existing explanations. Most importantly, the article shows that the threat of reciprocal litigation exists in the renewable energy sector, and that WTO subsidies rules are rarely used to challenge renewable energy subsidies. Hence, neither the threat of reciprocal litigation nor the relative ease of applying WTO subsidies rules explains the discrepancy in the number of disputes. Second, the article hypothesizes that the economic diversification of energy-producing countries is correlated with and may drive whether energy-producing countries face WTO challenges to their energy support policies. Most major fossil fuel producers lack significant non-fossil fuel exports that could be restricted in order to induce them to reform their fossil fuel policies, the usual mechanism for enforcing a WTO judgment. States may also be more likely to challenge new, rather than long-standing, trade restrictions. This suggests that trade challenges will arise more frequently where innovation leads to competition and a demand for new trade restrictions (as in renewable energy), as opposed to in mature sectors of the economy (i.e., the fossil fuel industry). Economic diversification, in turn, is a good predictor of innovation.     

The Alchemists: How the Policies of Brazil and the United States Turned Base Commodities into Black Gold,but at What Cost?

As the world attempts to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, new energy alternatives are being explored to replace fossil fuels. One major fuel alternative that is subsidized and now comprises 10–15 percent of the fuel stock used for vehicles is biofuels. Despite lower GHG emissions from biofuels, there is still significant environmental degradation that can result from the production and refinement of biofuels, especially given the insufficiency of the water regulatory regime to manage water depletion and degradation that are occurring in the two largest producers of the feedstock for these fuels—the United States and Brazil.     

Seizing the opportunity: tackling fossil fuel subsidies under the UNFCCC

Analyses from international and nongovernmental organizations have pointed to the negative environmental, economic and social implications of the sizable subsidies handed out by governments for the production and consumption of fossil fuels. Given their relevance for achieving climate policy objectives, it is perhaps surprising that the climate regime established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) does not address fossil fuel subsidies. This article discusses the possible role of the UNFCCC in tackling fossil fuel subsidies. It suggests that the UNFCCC could enhance the transparency around fossil fuel subsidies and put in place incentives for countries to undertake subsidy reform. However, the possibilites under the UNFCCC will be limited by political barriers to subsidy reform at the national level and will need to be carried out in coordination with other international institutions active in the field.     

The role of the G20 in governing the climate change regime

A wide array of institutions governing climate change has proliferated over the past years, influencing the rule-makings of the regime. One of them is the G20. When G20 leaders around the world convened in London to restore global economies, they stressed the importance of a ‘resilient, sustainable, and green recovery’ and reaffirmed their commitments to address climate change. This was followed by their agreement on phasing out inefficient fossil fuel energy subsidies over the medium term in Pittsburgh. The ‘coexistence of narrow regimes in the same issue-area’ could be described as ‘regime complexes’, which enable countries to adapt more readily, particularly when adaptation requires complex changes in norms and behavior. Given that responses to climate change would require changes in the domestic politics of different countries at different levels, loosely integrated institutions of regime complexes could be more advantageous for countries to adapt and in engaging with developing countries. This paper demonstrates that the G20’s highly informal institutional setup as well as its flexible cooperation tools could enable its members to customize their policies and better engage with third-party countries. In addition, the G20 group could collectively influence other key countries to reach an agreement on some of the key climate change–related issues, thereby facilitating the United Nations process of climate change.     

政府干预与市场调节之间的重新平衡——金融危机责任费的经济法反思与启示

政府救助金融危机容易引发市场主体的道德风险,如何在政府与市场主体之间重新分配责任,以纠正因政府救助所致的政府干预与市场调节之间的失衡,是后金融危机时代法律关注的重点。对大型的金融机构征收金融危机责任费,让其最终承担起政府救助成本有助于恢复政府与市场之间的平衡。金融危机责任费对市场主体权利义务的重新调整与责任的重新分配,突破了传统的法律责任理论,具有明显的社会性和身份性;而金融风险的外部性、大型金融机构与中小金融机构之间的不平等风险地位是金融危机责任费的风险根源。此外,它对于完善我国金融法制建设也具有重要的启示意义。     

What drives national support for multilateral climate finance? International and domestic influences on Australia’s shifting stance

The fulfilment of wealthy countries’ commitment to mobilise $100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020 will hinge on maintaining domestic political support in contributor countries. Predictability in flows of climate finance is likely to enhance the overall stability of the climate finance system and the broader climate regime. However, at present it remains unclear how the 2020 target will be achieved and little is known about what drives fluctuations in support among contributor countries. This article explores domestic and international factors that may explain fluctuations in national support through a case study of Australia’s climate finance from 2007 to 2015. Drawing on documentary analysis and interviews with officials and stakeholders, the paper tracks two domestic factors that may influence support for climate finance—the government’s political orientation and public concern about climate change—and two international factors—commitment to multilateral agreements and international peer pressure. While some accounts view climate policy choices as being driven primarily by domestic factors, we find that the government’s political orientation on domestic climate policy and aid explains some but not all variations in Australia’s stance on climate finance. International peer group effects have moderated the positions of two governments that were otherwise reluctant to act on climate change. National policy reforms combined with improved multilateral oversight and more established replenishment cycles could bolster support in contributor countries and thereby strengthen the capacity of the climate finance system.     

论行政许可法对政府的诠释

2003年8月27日,十届全国人大常委会四次会议通过了《中华人民共和国行政许可法》。这部法律的颁布施行,是中国政府顺应市场经济体制发展,适应WTO规则,与世界接轨的客观要求。这部法律对我国政府职能的转变将产生巨大影响,它为我国政府作出了有限政府、服务政府、高效政府、透明政府、诚信政府、责任政府等的崭新诠释。     

The Movement to Criminalize Sex Work in the United States

Until recently, prostitution was not a prominent public issue in the United States. Law and public policy were relatively settled. The past decade, however, has witnessed a growing debate over the sex trade and the growth of an organized campaign committed to expanding criminalization. A powerful moral crusade has been successful in reshaping American government policy toward sex work – enhancing penalties for existing offences and creating new crimes. Crusade organizations have advocated a strict abolitionist orientation toward all forms of commercialized sex, which are increasingly conflated with sex trafficking. This paper examines the impact of this movement on legal norms and government policies. I argue that the moral crusade, and its government allies, are responding to the growth of the sex industry in recent years and to fears of its normalization in American society.     

The devil lies in the definition: competing approaches to fossil fuel subsidies at the IMF and the OECD

Fossil fuel subsidy reform has in recent years been addressed by international economic organizations including the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The two organizations have differed significantly in how they define fossil fuel subsidies. The IMF’s definition constitutes a radical break with previous definitions by including environmental externalities, while the OECD’s is more conventional. The article explores the factors that explain why these international economic organizations have approached fossil fuel subsidies so differently. The exact definition of fossil fuel subsidies is contested. Furthermore, fossil fuels subsidies can be framed in ways that emphasize, respectively, their macroeconomic, fiscal, environmental, and distributive consequences. The article finds that institutional interaction lifted OECD involvement in fossil fuel subsidies to a new level, whereas the impetus to address fossil fuel subsidies within the IMF came largely from the IMF staff. In both cases, the organization’s bureaucracy constituted the most important factor shaping how the organizations addressed such subsidies and hence the main reason why they differ in how they approach fossil fuel subsidies.     

Let's Talk about Climate Change: Disclosure Is Coming

In this article, I review the newly released draft ASTM International standard on climate change disclosure. Many parties, from investors to state agencies, are calling for a consistent, comprehensive approach to disclosure of material financial impacts attributed to climate change. Disclosures range from costs associated with compliance to new laws to more general risk management strategies adopted by corporations. This article summarizes some of the key features of the draft standard and encourages participation in the development process.     

Fraud,Free Speech and Fossil Fuel: Lessons from Big Tobacco for Big Oil

Recent journalistic investigations revealed that ExxonMobil carried out research beginning in the 1970s indicating fossil fuel's dangerous role in global warming. Rather than heed the warnings of its research, for the next few decades, ExxonMobil instead chose to become a leader in climate change denial; stressing uncertainty, propagating misinformation, funding denial, and politicizing and undermining the expert scientific consensus. Exxon's behavior invoked the tactics used by the tobacco industry years earlier, tactics which wound up the subject of a successful federal government lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The parallels with the tobacco industry prompted legislators and environmentalists to call on the Department of Justice to use RICO again to hold the fossil fuel industry to account. This article will consider the legal issues associated with bringing such an action, and whether useful lessons can be drawn from the tobacco litigation.     

Australian climate policy and the Asia Pacific partnership on clean development and climate (APP). From Howard to Rudd: continuity or change?

This article explains, first, why Australia’s government under John Howard, together with the United States Bush administration initiated the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP) and, second, why the succeeding Rudd government continued to support this initiative. Climate policy under the conservative Howard government (1995–2007) in Australia was largely dictated by fossil fuel and mineral sector interests, and reflected a close alliance with the Bush administration. The Howard government shunned the Kyoto Protocol, refused to set national binding greenhouse gas reduction targets and preferred voluntary cooperative measures with industry. The APP was part of the Howard government’s strategy to demonstrate some policy movement on climate change while postponing serious action. Climate change was a key issue in the election of the Rudd Labor government in Australia in December 2007. The Rudd government quickly ratified Kyoto, adopted emission reduction targets, and moved to introduce emissions trading. The Rudd government’s decision to continue involvement with the APP, albeit with diminished funding, was a pragmatic one. The APP was supported by industry and provided bridges to China and India—both key countries in the post-2012 UNFCCC negotiations. Finally, in order to assess the long-term outlook of the APP, the article provides a preliminary assessment as to whether the APP advances technology transfer.

Developing Codes of Conduct: Regulatory Conversations as Means for Detecting Institutional Change

The introduction of a new corporate governance code in Sweden, modeled after prevailing Anglo-Saxon norms of corporate governance, offers the opportunity to investigate global regulatory convergence. Using the metaphor of regulatory space, this article analyzes the positions of the parties who submitted formal responses to the introduction of "The Swedish Code of Corporate Governance—A Proposal from the Code Group." While the globalization of financial markets might forecast unconditional acceptance of the proposed code by business and financial interests, the analysis of who made comments, and what was said, reveals three categorically distinct groups: Swedish business "insiders" connected to the existing institutional framework who opposed changes that would erode traditional division of functions, including collective responsibility for the actions of company boards; "outsiders" (i.e., foreign investors and more marginal Swedish investors) aligned with Anglo-Saxon internationalization of the markets who would change the system of corporate accountability; and the professions (i.e., auditors), who advocated for their professional interests. Of the three groups, Swedish business insiders were most successful in gaining support for their positions. Although international financial and political interests were key to the introduction of the Code in the first place, the article demonstrates how the dynamics of national (local) culture and power structures influence the transfer of regulatory law across jurisdictions.