Daily Hampshire Gazette - Established 1786
Hi 39° | Lo 20°

Darcy DuMont: Amherst should join ranks on fossil fuel divestment  

Silhouette of factory at sunset

Silhouette of factory at sunset Purchase photo reprints »

To the editor:

There’s something about Amherst divesting from fossil fuel companies that makes me feel so good. I think it’s a combination of things.

For one, I like that it would make Amherst part of a monumental global movement within colleges, religious organizations and other cities and towns — and even the state of Massachusetts — to divest from fossil fuel companies. A movement full of hope and moral clarity. And a movement that is growing faster than any previous divestment campaign.

I like that it allows our investments to be consistent with a sustainable Amherst. But most importantly, I like that Amherst divestment would put pressure on the fossil fuel industry and on governments to act quickly to move toward an alternative energy/conservation economy, especially when added to recent dire warnings from the scientific community about what it will take to stay below the agreed upon 2 degree Celsius limit. Call me crazy, but I see a clean green world coming, and soon.

I’m optimistic. And aren’t we lucky to be given the opportunity to lead?

I strongly urge Town Meeting to vote in favor of Alice Swift’s resolution for Amherst to adopt a policy not to invest in fossil fuel companies.

Darcy DuMont



Amherst Town Meeting to consider fossil fuel divestment

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

AMHERST — Fall Town Meeting is expected to consider a resolution advocating divestment of the town’s holdings in oil and gas companies. The lone general petition article that will come before the sessions of the legislative body, which begin Nov. 4, calls on both the Hampshire County Retirement Board and the town treasurer to adopt policies to review investment portfolios …

Legacy Comments13

Obama approval hits all time low in Gallup in democratic implosion. Maybe the people are waking up to what a tyrant he is after seeing what he/pelosi/reid did when they shut down the government in order to save their signature legislative "accomplishment" which the majority of Americans don't want forced down our throats according to nearly every poll ever taken on obamacare. Does it matter to the left that people don't want obamacare? I guess not. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

Again, a complete disconnect between this pre-fab screed, the content of the article you post it on, and any reporting on what has actually happened in politics in the past week. To say nothing of how the republicans and teabaggers are polling. I just have a hard time that someone who is at least literate enough to type a complete sentence can be so deluded. Keep posting, it's just more evidence for my assumption that there is no content to anything Gary posts; or rather, rational communication about a political opinion has nothing to do with the psychology that motivates these posts and is somehow gratified by making them. I'm more and more convinced that this behavior is simply some kind of mental or linguistic self-stimulation or onanism that only looks superficially like the representation of a political viewpoint. It's definitely serving a function, but communication with anyone outside of Gary's self-stimulation has nothing to do with it.

You are the one who brought up political implosions first and I was just commenting on how the slowdown also imploded on your guy too in a major way with an all time low approval rating in Gallup. Now do you get the connection? For someobdy with this massive brain you often fail to make connections but I attribute that to being origianally from somewhere in the 3rd world (which is anywhere south or west of the Raritan River in central New Jersey in my book) and therefore not capable of understanding how real easterners think. And I quote from your previous thread 'Whew! You were so uncharacteristically quiet during this past week's republican implosion'

Here's a fun fact. Gallup tracked Obama's approval at an all-time low between the 13th and 17th of October...of 2011! He's actually at 43 now, which is not great but has been ticking up slowly over the last couple of days. I was going to point that out in my last post, but I thought I'd give you a chance to shoot out a "clever" retort and make an even bigger fool of yourself. Seriously, either you are too dumb to figure out how to read numbers on the Gallup site, or one of the teabagger blog shepherds that you bleat so dutifully for has been feeding you bad numbers. Knest is right, you are the gift that keeps on giving.

You're right it was a few points lower back then. The chart I was looking at didn't have data back that far but my point is that significant damage was inflicted on the dumocrats (obummer, reid, and "stretch" pelosi) as well. Even at this point nobody is saying the house is going to flip in 2014 and the repubs are still going to pick up senate seats (at least 3). And who would ever elect Hilary in 2016? Maybe then we can get rid of O-care if it doesn't collapse under its own weight before that.

Since you're trying to cover your knuckle-dragging tracks, now it's my turn to quote you. Ahem. Gary writes: "Obama approval hits all time low in Gallup in democratic implosion." You generously supplied the following site: http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx. I'm assuming that's "the chart you were looking at." Assuming that to be the case, for you to have even used the phrase "all-time low" I surmise you read the "all time low" figure on the left which refers to the same week in 2011. Obama hasn't had great polls overall, anyone can see that 42% is far from the lowest he's been. And, actually, Rasmussen, where he has historically polled worse than Gallup, actually had him in the positive for all of the last weeks' mess. Polls are funny that way, and you have to interpret the data. But you can't interpret the data if you don't have basic reading skills. And using blissful ignorance to misread polls doesn't change the fact that even conservative bastions like the Wall Street Journal have been lambasting the spectacular failure of republicans. Even conservatives far smarter than you are having a hard time spinning this. Jeez, even you just backtracked your "all time low" claim just now! Sadly, it doesn't change the fact that you keep making an idiot of yourself every you refer to numerical data that vindicate you. Need I mention a certain UN climate study?

I'm making a killing on my shale oil investment AMLP. I could have done even better investing directly in FRAK, a pure shale oil fracking play. Its up over 10% since I first recommended it here just a few weeks ago!!! AMLP (Alerian Master Limited Partnership), which invests in shale gas and pipeline distribution companies is paying its next dividend (6.5% yield) the first week in November. I can't wait to get my dividend!! There's still time for the city of Northampton and Town of Amherst to jump in on this investment and make some money for the taxpayers so they can reduce the tax rate for the hard working people of these towns! Its the moral thing to do.

Whew! You were so uncharacteristically quiet during this past week's republican implosion that I was worried you'd done something drastic in your grief. But it heartens me to know that your spirit remains unbroken, and your pathetic desire for attention unsated. I'm also, once again, in awe of how your compulsion to repeat the SAME DARNED THING, again and again, as if anyone hadn't heard it before, is uncompromised. But deep down, I knew you couldn't resist the sweet, sweet troll candy of a post about fossil fuel divestment. If you'd let this one go a whole week without talking about your imaginary stocks, I'd have gotten really worried.

Another good fracking stock is CXO (concho energy) which focuses in on the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico. Imagine if you were smart enough to buy it in 2007 at the IPO price of $11.50. You would have made 1000% return in 6 years. You have to love it! As for me I am loving my investment in AMLP. Can't wait for the big juicy quarterly dividend in a few weeks. "The Deutsche Bank target for the stock is $118, and the consensus is posted at $110." Concho was trading at $116 near the end of the day on October 16. Concho has its initial public offering in 2007, priced at $11.50 per share."

I try to imagine the thought process that leads you to keep posting these things, again and again. You, and the thousands of others who seem to engage in the same pattern of behavior, can't actually think that this sort of compulsive trolling is a political statement, at least not about the substance of the issue at hand. Maybe you are making some kind of commentary about the medium, and "opinion" in the abstract? I wonder if that's not attributing too much sophistication to you. Frankly, I don't have especially strong opinions about divestment, but I am sort of fascinated by your behavior and sort of troubled about what it implies about what are becoming some of the dominant channels for public discourse. My guess is that you post here and probably a dozen other online discussions on different sites and blogs. Maybe it's the closest you come to meaningful contact with other people. Or maybe you do have some sort of offline life, and the posting is some sort of necessary emotional release valve. Hmmmm.

Next week I'm buying FRAK. Also buying DVHI (listed at the bottom of this UBS notice). I've been watching this one for awhile. Can't wait for my AMLP dividend! (and i read rasmussen every day and real clear politics too - the gallup info came from another site that did not go back to 2011 - it only had 2 years of data). UBS Declares Coupon Payments on Eleven ETRACS Exchange-Traded Notes MLPI: linked to the Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index MLPL: linked to the Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index MLPG: linked to the Alerian Natural Gas MLP Index MLPW: linked to the Wells Fargo Master Limited Partnership Index BDCS: linked to the Wells Fargo Business Development Company Index BDCL: linked to the Wells Fargo Business Development Company Index RWXL: linked to the Dow Jones Global ex-U.S. Select Real Estate Securities Index DVYL: linked to the Dow Jones U.S. Select Dividend Index SDYL: linked to the S&P High Yield Dividend Aristocrats Index MORL: linked to the Market Vectors Global Mortgage REITs Index DVHI: linked to the NYSE Diversified High Income Index

Your "answer" only raises more questions. If you read some mystery site that only had 2 years of data, why did you post a link to Gallup's "presidential approval center" which lists data--on the very page you posted a link to--going to the beginning of the Obama presidency? You seem to claim that you did NOT mistake the "all time low" that is very clearly labelled on that same page as October 13 - 17 2011 as being data for this year. But then, why would you even mention an "all time low"? Is it because you decided all by yourself that this should be an all time low? Is that what facts are to you, things that you feel and really, really wish were true? And why go back to your real or imaginary stock purchases? Are your rants so limited that you have to cycle back to certain ones after a given number of posts? Is that how we should understand your posts, as a comforting repetition of predictable rants with no real connection to the "facts" you claim to cite? Gary, you claim that I need to educate myself in order to understand a "real northamptonite" or a "real easterner" like you. And I'm trying really hard. But it's like you're trying even harder to prove that you're not a smart person. By the way, based on where you draw the boundaries of the "first world," you're excluding the vast majority of your fellow teabaggers. Go figure.

Earlier this month Harvard University President Drew Gilpin Faust explained why her university would not be excising fossil fuel companies from its portfolio. She pointed out the "troubling inconsistency in the notion that, as an investor, [Harvard] should boycott a whole class of companies at the same time that, as individuals and as a community, we are extensively relying on those companies’ products and services for so much of what we do every day. Given our pervasive dependence on these companies for the energy to heat and light our buildings, to fuel our transportation, and to run our computers and appliances, it is hard for me to reconcile that reliance with a refusal to countenance any relationship with these companies through our investments." As one who heats her home with oil, I would rather acknowledge the necessity of a warm house than "feel good" about a symbolic--and hypocritical--vote. People of conscience should understand to act one way and vote another is, in President Faust's words, "troubling" indeed.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.