Yes and no.
Yes we need to divest ourselves on a reliance on fossil fuels, but particularly the fully imported variety.
And no, we shouldn't waste any more valuable time before transitioning to more than viable, endlessly sustainable alternatives.
These include solar thermal, which now compares very favorably with coal-fired power roll-outs, in both time, comparable cost and 24/7 supply!
The fuel costs considerably less, and has a guaranteed, longer supply time, and indeed, completely contained costs!
I mean, and pardon the levity, the supplier is not likely to jack up prices on mere caprice or whim, or just to ensure the profit graph is on an eternally rising line.
Then there is cheaper than coal thorium, and we are reportedly able to supply the world for around 700 years!
And guaranteed to half the cost of coal fired industrial power, if connected to very adjacent micro grids.
Moreover, they can be mass produced and trucked onsite, where they could be powering up this or that industrial application, and in just weeks.
Rather than the twenty year lead time, always put by the usual suspects, in their drive to prevent commercial development and jobs!?
Finally, we must investigate the production onsite, of endlessly sustainable, bladder stored biogas, which scrubbed, will power up ceramic fuel cells and provide the cheapest domestic energy in the world.
Every family home produces enough biological waste to more than fully power their homes, and indeed, with the aid of ceramic cell technology, create a very handsome salable surplus.
The by products include, completely sanitized high carbon fertilizer; rich in both expensive phosphate and nitrates; plus, recyclable nutrient loaded water, eminently suitable to completely and forever, underpin a highly profitable local, [save the Murray,] algae oil industry.
The waste from which suitable as, [three for the price of one,] also endlessly sustainable fodder, or the basis of an arable land free, endlessly sustainable ethanol industry!
Can't lose on energy projects Tony!
Time is money and time's a wasting!
Rhrosty.

Attitudes to the future of fossil fuels, and hence to proposals to replace them promptly, depend on beliefs on two core issues: do carbon emissions affect climate; and can renewables effectively (and I use that word in the properly loaded way) replace fossil fuels right now. I’m fairly sure Don will go along with me on one but not the other.

On climate, there is absolutely no doubt (unless something in climate science has changed recently) that the increasing atmospheric CO2 level is accompanied by increased radiant heat reaching the earth’s surface layers. The now infamous pause in surface temperatures does not negate that fact about increased arriving radiant energy. But it does raise a mystery about where the heat has recently been going. If we are lucky the answer may turn out to relieve us of our worries about climate change. We might be lucky – but I wouldn’t bet on it.

As for renewables replacing fossil fuels, that’s definitely a matter of opinion. There are different degrees of faith in unknown aspects of future technologies turning out favourably. Different faiths, different opinions.

So, if I were a vice-chancellor with absolute certainty about serious future climate change and absolute faith that cutting off supplies of coal, oil and gas tomorrow would leave my country (and maybe some others if my conscience worried me) no worse off, then I could safely feel justified in telling the fossil fuel industry to bugger off. Sadly, I would be a very ignorant vice-chancellor if I did that.

Quite apart from the huge risk that renewables could do the job properly, everyone in the renewables advocacy business talks only about electricity. Right now electricity generation accounts for only about 40% of primary energy usage. For most of the other 60% of fossil fuel usage there is usually silence, for good reason.

I reckon it’s a brave man who would hang around after successfully demanding an end to fossil fuels. He would be lynched when the punters realised they’d been had.

Tombee, I agree with both of your statements, at least in part. I agree that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will, all other thing being equal, raise the temperature of the atmosphere. But all other things are not equal, and it may well be that a warmer planet is a good thing. We really don't know, though the signs have been positive so far.

Rather than 'setting the story straight', VC Young's statements focusing on fossil fuels and alternative energy have only muddied the waters. As this piece touches on, ANU's divestment doesn't have that much to do with fossil fuels. Five of the seven companies divested don't produce any, while on the other hand Woodside, BHP and Rio Tinto all remain on the books.

Nor can ANU's actions be presented as 'moving towards alternative energy'. The five non-fossil fuel companies produce or target titanium dioxide, copper, gold, nickel, platinum, silver and zinc. All these are used (indeed, in most cases are critical components, and not in trace amounts) in the manufacture of wind turbines (copper and zinc), solar cells (titanium dioxide, silver and possibly gold), hydrogen fuel cells (platinum) and intermittent energy storage (nickel).

Given the above, why Young said what he did is beyond me, but Aitkin's hypothesis "gave something of what they wanted, but left him able to deflect a lot of the Green push" may go a long way to explaining it.

The ANU has the choice of maximizing its investment returns or accepting slightly lower returns and remaining ideologically pure. Personally I don't care.

Portfolio brokers without a moral overhead will as a result make more for their clients.

There are large future risks in retaining stocks linked to fossil fuels, particularly coal. The recent reduction in coal prices is only the beginning of a long future slide in prices. Prudent investors who have an eye on risk ,particularly long term risk, would be wise to divest now. I manage a portfolio of stocks for a family trust, and have recently completed divestment from fossil fuels - and this included selling all BHP and Origin shares (Santos was sold off some years ago). Interestingly the wind energy shares purchased (infigen) have gone up 28% over the last few months, so I would question the argument that divestment is not a good investment decision - the portfolio continues to rise in value and to provide good dividends.