To the Editor: Divestment Still Holds

Tejas S. Billa’s recent op-ed argues that, in light of Harvard’s current, extensive investments in the energy-intensive cryptocurrency industry, its decision almost five years ago (after a years-long pressure campaign from students) to divest from the fossil fuel industry was “futile.” Billa points out that cryptocurrency mining uses an obscene amount of electricity. Yes, it does. So does AI. That is why environmentalists across the country are calling for an end to data center build-out on state and federal levels.

What bearing does that have on the success of the Harvard Divest movement? Little to none. Divestment was and remains a salient strategy.

Billa’s piece misunderstands both the context and the aims of the movement. Harvard Management Company’s direct public holdings expanded its position in crypto in 2025; these current investments are not proof of the years-long movement’s blind spot — they are outside of its framework. Rather than parsing the energy sources of each industry in Harvard’s portfolio, divestment advocates aimed straight at the source — the plants, pipelines, and refineries that deliver oil and gas to all other industries, including cryptocurrency.

Billa’s retroactive critique does not indict our 2021 win, and neither does his defeatist use of the classic “drop in the bucket” argument. Harvard’s choice to divest has been widely cited as a catalyst for the movement — Boston University, the University of Minnesota and the MacArthur Foundation followed suit shortly after Harvard’s announcement. The impact has compounded since. To date, the global divestment movement includes 1,731 institutions and comprises over 40 trillion dollars in funds.

If “political correctness is no way to decide the future of Harvard’s finances,” then a mere risk-assessment might be. Climate change damage is expected to cost up to roughly $3 trillion globally by 2050 and turn fossil fuels into stranded assets. Even under an amoral financial framework, it makes no sense to invest in our own destruction.

That being said, it is disappointing that we must continue to defend fighting for survival and justice on the grounds of pragmatism. Divestment is not futile. Pretending that money can be isolated from its political and environmental consequences is.

Extreme heat alone caused over half a million preventable deaths this year, and yet we’re being asked: “remember climate change?”

Helen H. Mancini ’29 lives in Thayer Hall. She is an organizer with Sunrise Harvard.

Letters to the Editor must respond directly and explicitly to either an opinion piece recently published on the Editorial page, or else to The Crimson’s manner of coverage within any section of the newspaper. Letters that respond to the subject matter of a non-opinion Crimson article, rather than The Crimson’s coverage of that matter, will not be accepted.

Letters to the Editor are evaluated at the discretion of the Editorial Chairs. They should be submitted to [email protected] and, with rare exception, should run between 150 and 350 words. We require Letters to the Editor to be signed, with the signatures appearing on the page or as a hyperlinked list at the discretion of the Editorial Chairs. We do not accept Letters to the Editor from organizations or anonymous writers.