Harvard University made headlines when it announced that it had divested away from fossil fuels, but the move has come with a potential billion-dollar price tag
reaction time will be shortened much more dramatically. you re writing specifically about the investment in climate and energy from the bill signed into law, the inflation reduction times. you talked about how it doesn t go nearly as far as some democrats and activists had hoped for. you still think it signals some kind of a substantial change. explain that. the main thing i would say is the bill is piggybacking on a green transition already unfolding. there s massive, massive investments in renewable energy because it s cheaper in 90% of the world, according to some assessments. anyone making long-term plans today will be foolish to be focusing on fossil fuel investments. there are bumps in the road given the war in ukraine and the energy crisis, but making a 10 or 15-year plan, almost everyone is there to go all in in on
climate adaptation in the united states history. it s not a wash. you look at the package, you ll see that clean energy and clean tech out pace our fossil fuel investments by far that puts us on the path the president wants to see, which is net zero by 2050. this is a large shot in the arm. you know, the president campaigned on and pledged that the united states would emerge as a global leader combatting the climate pcrisis. what the inflation action does is that, sures up the energy and reduces the carbon footprint by far and provides thousands, if not millions of good paying jobs and the president did it by beating essential interest. he brought together unions, the environmental justice community and business communicate that went into this historic deal. one way a lot of americans will experience this is tax incentives to buy electric vehicles but there is language in here that requires carman
now, of course, iam not the same fatih birol. i am, i think, two years older. but i believe fighting against the climate crisis is still one of the top priorities for me and for my agency. but we are now going through a war time. there should be, there could be, some temporary measures to go out of this difficult, the danger zone. and when we look at the future, i see that the future is going to be dominated by clean energy technologies. and i want all the governments and the businesses around the world, they should not use the putin s invasion of ukraine in order tojustify their large scale fossilfuel investments. i think this would be factually wrong and morally wrong, because if you make today a large scale fossil fuel investments, for example, coal mine, opening, investing in a coal mine, the first coal will come to the markets in 5 6 years of time. and at that time, 5 6 years
of time, i am not sure there will be a need for more coal for the world. there is a business risk there and, as i always say, there is a major climate risk, as well. you can dress it up any way you want, but ultimately, your message is that you are backtracking on some i think this would be factually wrong and morally wrong, because if you make today a large scale fossil fuel investments, for example, coal mine, opening, investing in a coal mine, the first coal will come to the markets in 5 6 years of time. and at that time, 5 6 years of time, i am not sure there will be a need for more coal for the world. there is a business risk there and, as i always say, there is a major climate risk, as well. you can dress it up any way you want, but ultimately, your message is that you are backtracking on some of the things you ve said in the past about moving off coal.