Last week, a leaking pipeline caused two unrelated oil spills in Arkansas and Texas. In Arkansas, nearly 20,000 barrels of crude oil flowed from a burst Exxon Mobil pipeline into a residential area about 25 miles from Little Rock, Ark. In Texas, a Shell pipeline leaked anywhere between 60 and 700 barrels into a bayou that runs from Houston to the Gulf of Mexico.

In both cases, the oil giants responsible have been cagey: Exxon Mobil representatives promised to cover cleanup costs in Mayflower, Ark., yet they continue to report the amount of the spill at less than a quarter of the town authorities’ estimate. In Texas, Shell insisted that inspectors found no leak in the Texas pipeline until the Coast Guard revealed that a spill occurred.

While not on the scale of the BP oil spill catastrophe, these accidents reveal that there is a general trend of oil companies dodging regulations and dragging their feet on cleaning up their messes at the risk and expense of the people living in their communities.

Even more troublingly, these spills exemplify a broader issue: Even when every aspect of fossil fuel production and consumption goes exactly according to plan, burning coal, oil and natural gas pollutes the air and contributes to climate change.

And because Pitt invests in fossil fuel companies, our institution is part of the problem.

I don’t know exactly how much Pitt has invested in fossil fuels versus how much we invest in clean energy because Pitt is not very transparent with students about their investments, but I do know that Pitt has money invested in fossil-fuel companies.

For example, Chancellor Mark Nordenberg sits on the Board of the Energy Alliance of Greater Pittsburgh, which includes Shell Oil Company and an organization that calls itself 3 Rivers Clean Energy. Unfortunately, 3 Rivers Clean Energy promotes environmentally hazardous fuels, such as hydraulic fracturing, alongside safer alternatives, including wind.

Hydraulic fracturing, colloquially called “fracking,” because of the technique used to break up underground shale formations, is deeply problematic, especially as its health and environmental effects have been understudied.

Gas drilling in Pennsylvania has its own set of negative consequences. Widespread complaints from those living near gas drilling sites are subject to contaminated tap water and health problems like dizziness and shortness of breath. Moreover, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania who studied the health effects of fracking have encountered setbacks, as well. Researchers noted to The New York Times that alliances between gas drilling companies and the Pennsylvania state government have made state funding for fracking-related research difficult to access.

In Pennsylvania, the first comprehensive research project on the impact of fracking on Pennsylvania’s stream ecosystems resorted to utilizing Iamscientist.com, a scientific Kickstarter website, in attempts to crowd-fund their research. They’ve only made $3,570 so far, and they need $10,000 by May. I’m not pointing to the stream research just because my boyfriend is a student researcher on the project — although in the interest of full disclosure, I must say that he is — but because the lab’s struggle for funding, and the audacity of gas drilling companies advertising their methods as “safe” when the environmental effects have hardly been studied, illustrates how the ethos of natural gas and other fossil-fuel companies is antithetical to Pitt’s mission of academic integrity and excellence in research.

In contrast to Pitt, the website of the movement Fossil Free reports that more than 300 colleges and universities are running campaigns to divest from using fossil fuels. Our neighbor, Carnegie Mellon University, is one of these colleges. According to Pitt senior Justin Lozano, president and founder of Pitt Greenpeace and a leading advocate for divestment on campus, the fossil fuel divestment movement is “spreading like wildfire.”

“We really believe that Pitt has the potential to become a leader in the clean energy movement, just like CMU,” Lozano said. “Fossil fuels are not sustainable or clean and they perpetuate climate change, and divestment from that will help address threats that we pose to our air, water and land.”

However, Pitt hasn’t been entirely eco-unfriendly: In April 2012, Pitt was added to the Princeton Review’s Guide to 322 Green Colleges. Yet, as more of our neighbors who are also featured on that list take the leap to divest from fossil fuels, we fail to adequately assess the larger issue. While it’s simply unfeasible to immediately stop using fossil fuels, we need to begin gradually divesting immediately, not just for the environment and the health and welfare of our neighbors, but for our own future.

After all, “sustainable” isn’t just a catchy buzzword. It means that an environmental practice can continue. Fossil fuels are unsustainable, not only because they are huge polluters but because there is a finite supply of them. Investing in fossil fuels is an exercise in prioritizing short-term reward over long-term stability. We can do better.

Write Tracey at [email protected]. Check out her blog at [email protected].