Harvard Political Review: ‘Reviving Disvestment’ over a cup of Dunkin’ Donuts coffee.

Guest amusement by David Middleton

Reviving Disvestment

By Ilana Cohen | November 5, 2018

They had been camped outside University Hall since 5 a.m. Charged with cups of Dunkin Donuts coffee, the student activists of Divest Harvard managed to block the entrance to the building for a full day of classes on March 29, 2017. The rally they staged that afternoon represented the culmination of a five-year-campaign for the divestment of the University’s $37.1 billion endowment from the fossil fuel industry. With thousands of educational institutions worldwide already divesting—the number reached 8,700 in 2018—the student activists were certain that the time had come for Harvard to take action of its own.


Harvard Political Review

They had been camped outside University Hall since 5 a.m…

Firstly, “camped” usually means spending the night.  If I camped out in my office, it was because I had to pull an all-nighter… Getting to the office at 5 a.m. is just getting to work a little earlier than usual.

Charged with cups of Dunkin Donuts coffee…

Presumably, had these ambitious students not been charged with cups of Dunkin’ Donuts coffee, they wouldn’t have been able to arrive at University Hall at the ungodly hour of 0500.

If the 350.org misfits and these ambitious students achieve their goals, universal divestment from fossil fuels will occur… No more oil wells… No more oil production… No more oil refining… No more Exxon stations to rob… No more gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, bunker fuel etc.  It will be as if utopia and nirvana had a love child!  Except for one little detail…

From Tree to Cup: Highlights From My Recent Visit to A Coffee Farm in Brazil


On National Coffee Day we celebrate the important role coffee plays as a vital part of our daily lives. While many of us – myself included – cannot imagine a morning without a freshly brewed cup of Dunkin’ Donuts Coffee, have you ever wondered where coffee comes from? It’s a fascinating process with countless steps that is much like creating a fine wine. As part of my job, I have opportunities to travel with our coffee experts to coffee origin countries and see this process firsthand. To provide Dunkin’ Donuts fans with a behind the scenes look at the tree to cup process, here are highlights from my recent tour of a coffee farm and coffee mill in Brazil.

Dunkin’ Donuts sources its coffee from a number of countries in Central and South America. Though I can’t reveal exactly which countries, Dunkin’ Donuts works closely with the coffee farmers and professionals in those countries to select the highest quality, 100% Arabica beans available. We have a coffee excellence team that has implemented strict Dunkin’ Donuts Quality (DDQ) specifications, which is used throughout the entire tree to cup process.

While on the farm, I saw firsthand both examples of how coffee cherry is harvested – handpicking and mechanical harvesting.



In the Utopian Land of 350 Nirvana… How will the coffee get from Central and South America to their local Dunkin’ Donuts and into their recyclable coffee cups? Horseback? Sailboats?

Who wants a DUNKACCINO?

81 thoughts on “Harvard Political Review: ‘Reviving Disvestment’ over a cup of Dunkin’ Donuts coffee.

    • I think it most reasonable for Harvard to heat its campus by only using firewood. None of this natural gas stuff.

    • Just remove all gas stations within a 50 mile radius of the school. When they have to start using a quarter tank of gas just to get to the filling station they might realize the futility of their suggestions.

    • Maybe just me, but I can not tell what is “new” unless I hit one of the links.

      Need a quote protocol to tell what is poster and what is from an article or other source, huh?


      • It does appear that academia is crusading against capitalism, all the while thinking they will always have a steady stream of middle-class parented freshmen to line their pockets and pay their pensions.

        Life will be tougher for academics in their global socialist despot regime than they appear to believe. To toe the party line becomes your deliverance from career ruination.

    • 85% of global primary energy is fossil fuels, that is oil, coal and natural gas. Eliminate fossil fuels and most people in the developed world would be dead within several months.

    • It has been many years since that was true. Today the criteria are wokeness or gobs of money preferably both.

      And don’t go on about the education. You can get the same pablum at any public university in the country.

      The famous faculty? Consulting contracts, media deals, and federal grants. It is the rare one who ever meets an undergraduate not related to him/her/it by blood or marriage.

      • Unfortunately, these protesters were well taught by Naomi Oreskes, Harvard’s biggest faculty hiring mistake since Cornell West and Elizabeth Warren. At least Fauxcahontas Warren was a Harvard Law rather than Harvard College/U mistake.
        Then President Larry Sommers was forced out in part because he had forced out West (who is now defiling Princeton). My daughter experienced both the highs and lows of the College. Took a science course (high) from THE Stephen J. Gould, holder of simultaneous professorships in Geology, Paleontology, and Evolutionary biology and curator of the Peabody Museaum. And (low) intro Black studies with Cornell West, where a TA informed her that because she was not Black, she could never get better than a B. That maybe cost her a summa; she graduated high magna cum laude.

        • “And (low) intro Black studies with Cornell West, where a TA informed her that because she was not Black, she could never get better than a B. ” Cornell West must be a bigot. I wonder if he taught who was the first female million in the U.S.? Did he teach how a lawsuit turned servitude in to slavery? Did he teach not only there were black slave but also white slaves? Did he teach there is still slave market and slaves in Africa?

  1. Actually stopping the use of fossil fuels would be a slow motion version of S. M. Stirling’s “Dies the Fire”, in which 95% plus of the population dies.
    Which, given the predilections of some greens, would be what they actually desire (as long as they are not among the casualties).

      • Exactly.

        If some institutional investors disinvest in Exxon, someone else will buy it and probably make a killing.

        These economically illiterate youngsters aren’t going to cost Exxon a single red cent. It’s just virtue signalling and theatrics.

        • The more you are selling, the more it depresses the price you are selling at.
          So divestitures means you take a loss, and smart investors make more money.

        • cB, you just nailed it.
          Academia has degenerated in virtue signalling theatrics.
          That’s your Nov. bumper sticker folks! 🚗

        • Indeed let me know when you plan to divest $31B worth. Should be able to pick up a few million in a day

        • The divest movement doesn’t understand the nature of the oil industry today. Crude oil and condensate (the liquids we refine to make gasoline, diesel, nafta and kerosene) are being produced at about 82 million barrels of oil per day. OPEC plus Russia produce about 50 million. This includes production by state oil companies as well as private companies, some of which are quoted in “Western” stock markets, and of which are not. But all of them can be replaced and the personnel can be hired from western sources if needed.

          The other 32 million is produced in the US (about 10.5 million), Canada, Brazil, China, Norway, etc by a mix of state and publicly traded companies.

          So what happens if the divest mivement does gain momentum? As the stocks get sold they are bought. The stock price should be a bit lower than it would be if divestment didn’t happen. But the lower price increases the return on shareholder equity. And as far as I can see oil prices will be increasing gradually over time. I realize this is controversial, but lets remember today’s oil price is 3 to 4 times higher than it was 20 years ago in real terms. And it wouldn’t surprise me if it gets to be 3-4 times higher in 20 years in real terms.

          Thus the industry fundamentals are driven by the increasing costs we see over the long term (costs which increase more than inflation), the higher value of products, and the fact that we have a limited amount of growing room because exploration no longer replces what is being produced (it hasnt forr many years).

          The impact of divestment becomes negligible because in a no volume growth but higher price scenario companies will tend to buy back stock. They’ll have less stockholders, and they should emphasize return on equity rather than growth in oil production. We could take this to an extreme where company employees become filthy rich owning oil companies the rest of you have divested.

      • Divestment just means the owners are changing. Nothing happens to the company itself. These people really don’t know how the economy or the stock market really work.

    • “…stopping the use of fossil fuels…”

      That’s a good idea. Maybe they should just turn off the heat this winter. And the air conditioning next summer.

  2. Goodness gracious. Al Pacino is usually a pretty good actor. I have a hard time believing he made a commercial that stupid.

  3. Harvard should think less of “divest” and more of its role in normalizing “diversity”. Americans of Asian descent/heritage are suing Harvard for affirmative color judgments/discrimination.

    • Actually, IMHO this is exactly what ‘diversity’ has brought to the hard sciences…nothing good. Diverse opinions do not matter nor do your feelings about reality. There is no consensus in mathematics, you don’t get to vote on the correct answers.
      Imagine an elementary teacher asking the students to vote on the correct answers to the quiz.

    • N.n. Enough of ethnic diversity and affirmative action already. No discrimination based on colour is all that is needed. Enrollment should be based entirely on student performance (after increasing standards substantially from the freefall that all this diversity horror show has wrought). Bringing standards down to the lowest denominator doesnt create products that the higher education “plant” was designed for.
      Discrimination based on brains is legitimate!

      And what are we to make of a шнуте lefty establishment that created and manages the ‘diversity’ industry! This is neocolonial гасisм by definition.

  4. Harvard should tell these activists that they’ll divest when the students divest, but only a month later!

    That would give the students a month to figure out just how dependent they are on fossil fuel!

    Apparently the students aren’t smart enough to realize the implications of their demands without a “personal learning curve”!

    By the way, who were the idiots that granted admission to such idiots in the firstplace?

    Nevermind–I just answered my own question!

  5. So instead these divested institution will invest in companies that invest in companies dependent on fossil fuels.

    It is inferred regularly that Harvard and anyone graduating from there are “superior human beings,” smarter than the rest of the land. Yet they don’t comprehend the world outside the realms of Harvard. I wonder if anyone has bothered to explain why Harvard has such a huge endowment? Has anyone bothered to explain that Harvard spends little of that endowment but instead spends government money? Or that they pay little if any taxes on the endowment’s investments?

  6. As is always the case with such buffoonery, I say “You First”.

    As the commenter above says, it would be interesting to see the personal learning curve of the individuals in question if they totally gave up fossil fuels.

    Besides the coffee (diesel farm equipment at coffee plantation, to diesel truck to harbor, to coal powered electrical crane to load ship, to bunker fuel powered ship, back to coal / nat gas electrical crane to unload ship to diesel truck then train then truck again to move the coffee to the local store, to coal / nat gas electrical grinder and espresso machine or coffee maker) I suspect the whiners, er I mean protesters, don’t realize how dependent they are on fossil fuels.

  7. If these are our best and brightest, we are doomed. Do none of these students have any idea how stock in a company works? When a company issues a share of stock the “buyer” gives the company “capital” in return for a promise of future dividends. From that point on the share is traded among investors and the company does not receive more capital when the trades occur. If an investor “divests” themselves of a stock, they are simply selling it to someone else who will then receive the dividends. The public company is not affected whatsoever. You can’t even burn the stock certificate to disinvest because the company will keep sending dividends to the owner of record regardless.

    This is “virtue signaling” at its worst. You can’t even classify disinvestment as good or bad because it is neither.

    • Divestiture when practiced at a large enough political level does have an effect on a companies stock value, which in turn does effect future offerings and borrowing ability against assets.
      It is a weak form of boycott with questionable economic effectiveness, but it does allow the ‘ostriches’ to believe the situation has disappeared because they are no longer supporting the ‘abhorrent’ businesses. I suppose its akin to ‘washing your hands’ of involvement.

      • With rich oil contries everywhere, it matter not one whit whether any oil company has a sizable los of net value. The oil busines is not your typical capitalistic business.

      • And yet they still buy their fuel. Still wear clothes made from oil feedstock. Still warm their homes with natural gas. These people are nothing but poseurs.

      • Your response doesn’t add up. Only if really, really large sales of stock were sold could there be an effect on the company that issued the stock. Even then most companies would take advantage of it and buy it back. There is nothing boycotted because someone else will simply own the stock you just sold. The only way for stock to be disposed of is for the public company to buy it back. As to supporting the “abhorrent” businesses, once the stock is purchased the company has the “capital” and any future trades only change who gets the dividends. I think of the old saying “biting your nose off to spite your face”. Your better off keeping the dividends and using them to advance your cause.

      • Divestiture when practiced at a large enough political level does have an effect on a companies stock value, which in turn does effect future offerings and borrowing ability against assets.

        Not really, when one party sells another buys and someone else becomes owner of the stock. The if the trade is big enough it could cause a temporary blip in the stock price, at most. But that blip will quickly be corrected, as it wouldn’t be reflective the actual value of the companies assets relative to the stock price. The company isn’t harmed, the only harm comes (possibly) to the divesting institution in two ways:
        1) if the sold at a lower price then they otherwise would have (either through bad timing due to being politically driven sale rather than financially driven IE they sold low rather than waiting to sell high or because they sold such a large amount that it caused the buying price to blip downward)
        2) if they choose an alternative investment that doesn’t offer as good a ROI as the stock they divested themselves from would have.

    • Even if you could somehow destroy your issue of stock, all that would happen is that all the other shares of stock would become a little bit more valuable. Once again, the company isn’t hurt at all.

    • Is that an ipad the ‘student’ has in his hand? Didn’t they require fossil fuels to manufacture it and their mobile phones? Don’t they require fossil fuels to charge them up and provide power and heating and manufacture just about everything at Harvard? Even if they cycled or walked to get to their protest, didn’t they use fossil fuels to manufacture their cycles, shoes and clothes?

    • Hot: It’s just you. They appeared at the border a few days before, claimed to be 16 yrs old- and got waived in. Got admitted to Harvard because they claimed to be part Cherokee, on the fast “trail of happy tears” track.

  8. “The End is Nigh” alarmists would probably have ‘divested’ from the wheel if they’d been around when it was invented (which may be a possibility looking at the age of the ‘students’ above ;). Well you couldn’t have all those wheels causing wheel ruts all over could you? The damage to the environment would have meant the end of the world! You’ve only to look at the wheel ruts on the Oregon Trail, proof to 97% of alarmists then that the end was nigh!

  9. In Florida, we had a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would ban off-shore oil drilling AND vaping in public spaces. Talk about virtue signaling! I’m surprised the anti-dog racing amendment wasn’t bundled with it too. A Trifecta of Snow Flakery.

    • Every state that I have lived in requires that each amendment proposal deal with only one issue.

      Beyond that, off-shore oil drilling is already banned in Florida. Sounds like an effort to trick people into voting against vaping. A disgusting tactic, but the virtue signalers don’t care, so long as they win.

      • Offshore drilling is currently prohibited in the Federal waters of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Florida has no control over this… Although, objections from Tallahassee are the main reason Trump won’t force the issue. If Floridians elect the Marxist to be the next governor, that may change.

        Offshore drilling in Florida’s State waters is currently prohibited by State law. The ballot measure is to upgrade the stupidity to a State constitutional prohibition.

        • FYI Both Amendments 9 &13 passed. The first bans off-shore oil drilling and vaping in public spaces and the latter bans commercial dog racing. These are now part of the Florida Constitution. Jeez.
          But Golem … er …Giillum lost, so we dodged that bullet.

          • Apparently Golem…er…Gillum has “unconceded” (much like Al Gore did in Florida 18 years ago) Expect to see more Florida ballot-mind-reading exercises in the coming month.

  10. The solution is simple, if the studients don’t like the way Harverd Uni. is run, they can always go elsewhere.

    So why does Harvard put up with this behaviouur, why not call in the campus Police and simply remove this noisey minority, so allowing the rest of the studients to do what they want to do, attend classes.
    Uni”s are businesses, they have a product , education, to sell. If someone does not like that product then they should simply go elsewhere. Why do we give into malladjusted so called studients, just remove them.


  11. The solution is simple, if the studients don’t like the way Harverd Uni. is run, they can always go elsewhere.

    So why does Harvard put up with this behaviouur, why not call in the campus Police and simply remove this noisey minority, so allowing the rest of the studients to do what they want to do, attend classes. Uni”s are businesses, they have a product , education, to sell. If someone does not like that product then they should simply go elsewhere. Why do we give into malladjusted so called studients, just remove them.


  12. Just a tip, but a couple of Harvard blokes just issued a paper hinting that the interstellar interloper comet/asteroid may be of intelligent design given its acceleration away from the sun which no one can lucidly explain. Of course the theory of intelligent design is not at all proven either. Would like to see the posts you get if you put this theory up for discussion here. Haven’t read all of the above comments so sorry if this has already been brought up. Oumaumau or whatever.

    • Anything that can’t instantly be explained must be evidence of extra terrestrials.
      Kind of like any change in the weather from last year is proof that CO2 is going to kill us.

  13. “Firstly, “camped” usually means spending the night.”

    Colloquial usage of “camp” and “camped” has strayed a bit.
    Back in the days when Freaks, Hippies, Born again whatever and Hare Krishna were staking out sidewalks, building entrances and train/metro/airport terminals people referred to them as “camping out” to waylay passerbys for funds or to proselytize unwilling ears.

    During the same time frame, student protesters referred to blocking halls and buildings as camping. Which was their word for claiming ownership of where they sat/stood and refusing passage to others.

    In ‘First Person Shooter’ (FPS) online multiplayer games it refers to someone who stays in one spot to ambush others.

    • ATheoK –
      I played Modern Warfare with my kids. I was an awful player slow with even slower reaction times. I decided to sit in one spot and shoot. “Campers get killed.”

      I got killed a lot!

  14. I’ve never seen that dunkin doughnuts commercial before, and was that really Al Pacino in it?

    What was he thinking?

  15. I would like to see a coffee cup printed with the words: “ This coffee comes with a 50? gram CO2 emission footprint. – Drink at your peril.”

  16. I used to live in Connecticut th home of horrific Dunkin Donuts. Starbucks were few and far between but DD were on every corner. There wasn’t even a Starbucks in Hartford Airport. Just the swill from 2 DD’s! What a nightmare.

  17. I’m completely in favour of heartfelt boycotts and truly believe the doomsdayers have an obligation to boycott all fossil fuels so I can enjoy them more cheaply…and the poor of course.

  18. It’s too bad ACORN was disbanded. They would be good paid filler for rent-a-protest at this point.

  19. “How will the coffee get from Central and South America”?
    Easy! Just give it to the “immigrant” caravans to bring up.

    • When the US is living in a fossil fuel free stone age, why would the “immigrant” caravans even bother leaving their s-thole countries?

  20. Divestment just means that “someone else” (not Harvard endowment) makes the profits from fossil fuel companies. The Harvard Endowment owns that stock because it has a good earnings record.

    Let Harvard divest — there will always be others happy to but up the Harvard shares and take the profits — it will not matter to fossil fuel companies at all. Harvard will lose any “share holder” influence it might have now and the endowment will be that much poorer.

    This has always been to stupid idea.

Comments are closed.