Thanks for this thoughtful response to my article. In many respects, I agree with much of what you have to say. I, too, agree that, for the reasons you point out, the PC-USA divesting will not, by itself, effect any kind of meaningful change to carbon pricing, energy politics, or consumer behavior. I agree, too, that ultimately it is these kinds of macro-level policies and consumer trends that need altering to significantly impact the impending threat of climate change.

Where I think we disagree, however, is in regards to the power of symbolic action. I disagree, respectfully, that these sorts of symbolic gestures “will be, at best, irrelevant” to the transition away from fossil fuels. If the PC-USA chooses to divest my ardent hope is that this action will not take place in a vacuum, but will rather provide impetus to other organizations and institutions to act likewise. Already, several universities have voted to divest, or are in the process of divesting their portfolios. If more institutions—like the PC-USA—act likewise, it increases the likelihood that fossil fuel divestment will not amount to a few lone voices protesting in the wilderness, but rather a swelling chorus of voices that decry fossil fuel consumption.

And, if fossil fuel divestment does become such a movement, it can certainly make a profound economic impact on fossil fuel companies. If divestment was truly an ineffective tactic—one unlikely to make any real impact—why would it engender such strong, passionate resistance?