Kyla Lang, Frank Fritz and Nick Watkins are Fossil Free GW organizers.

We’re writing in response to the editorial, “Vote no on fossil fuel divestment referendum,” by The Hatchet’s editorial board (p. 4, March 23).

The Hatchet’s editorial board has decided to buck the current trend of students overwhelmingly supporting fossil fuel divestment, including all six candidates for the Student Association’s executive posts.

This manufactured controversy is a beast of The Hatchet’s editorial board’s own creation. The editorial shows that the writers both misunderstand the purpose of the referendum and have done minimal research themselves on the issue. They cite The Hatchet’s own past reporting, as opposed to that of the organizers who have been researching the topic for more than two years.

An editorial board’s job is to editorialize, but in this case, there is too much misleading information to take what they say seriously.

The board seeks to ennoble itself by claiming support for the climate justice movement while seeming like the enlightened voice of reason, urging students to wait until more information is available. The organizers of Fossil Free GW intend to negotiate a timetable for divestment, but if students do not clearly affirm their support for divestment itself, then what incentive does the University have to act?

We are speaking as representatives of our entire generation. We have seen our peers deal with climate-augmented catastrophe already and will continue to do so unless we can convince older generations that more urgent action is needed on a grander scale.

At no point did Fossil Free expect an immediate fire sale of endowment investments. Our organization has engaged with dozens of fellow activists, professors and policy experts, and we are committed to helping the Board of Trustees formulate a real plan for sustainable investments that align with our values as an institution, meaning that the financial health of our University does not have come at the cost of the health of the planet. Yet this cannot begin unless students vote yes to show their support for divestment.

Finally, what’s curiously absent from the editorial is any discussion of the dangers of global climate change. We are threatened with extreme weather conditions, natural disasters, economic disruption and violent conflict over diminishing resources. The effects of climate change are already ravaging indigenous and impoverished communities across the globe who do not have the adequate resources to combat these calamities.

To stay below the globally accepted limit of two degree Celsius warming, 82 percent of existing coal reserves, 49 percent of natural gas reserves, and 33 percent of oil reserves must stay in the ground. But before we shift to cleaner, renewable forms of energy, we must ensure that these fossil fuels are not extracted. In order to do so, the industry must change. Divestment seeks to bring about this change by taking away the fossil fuel industry’s social license to operate.

Fossil fuel divestment and disclosure are inseparable as issues. The Hatchet’s editorial board must realize that without a clear showing of student support for the former, the latter is impossible. We do not believe in secretive back-door negotiations to strive for more transparency. Rather, we believe that the student body must stand united and call for their University to put its money where its mouth is on sustainable investments.

The climate justice movement requires mass mobilization, for divestment is just one portion of the campus-wide debate on climate change that we are trying to spark. This ballot question will force voters to consider how GW’s every action can have hidden impacts on the environment.

We are disheartened, but we ultimately believe that The Hatchet’s editorial board’s erratic argumentation in this election will be disregarded by the GW student body. We will continue to work tirelessly to counter misleading information and in its place build a campus-wide coalition to speak for our generation on climate change.

We cannot wait at this historic crossroad. Instead, we must move forward, demanding from ourselves and those who came before us a better, more just and sustainable future for ourselves and those who come after.