Perhaps worthy of support?

labp04

http://!!!!!!.uk/campaigns/divest/

Hi, came across this "new" campaign which pressed some buttons for me. I had wondered about posting it in other places here on MSE but decided to at least make this area the first stop. Cheers :A

Martyn1981

Initially I was in favour of this campaign, but can I play devil's advocate, as an alternative argument has been put forward.

I was watching a presentation (can't remember which one now) by Steven Chu. He's a Nobel winning physicist and used to be US Energy Secretary. He's a clean energy and energy efficiency campaigner.

His talks are very informative and worth a watch.

In one of them, and it may have been a Q&A part, not main lecture (sorry for poor memory) but he was against this campaign for the simple reason that the problem is huge and the energy companies are huge. To solve the problem without them is near impossible now so will require their cooperation. So going to war with them might be counter-productive if they are forced into a defensive posture.

I appreciate that this campaign is aimed to persuade them to change their position/direction. It's a tough situation/problem and I'm not against the campaign, just saying ....

Mart.

Martyn1981

I was reading an article yesterday in New Scientist on this subject. It's nice and short, and simply sets out a for and an against argument. I thought it interesting, and pushes me towards the divestment argument ..... I think?

Should we all get out of fossil fuels now?

Mart.

theboylard

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I was reading an article yesterday in New Scientist on this subject. It's nice and short, and simply sets out a for and an against argument. I thought it interesting, and pushes me towards the divestment argument ..... I think?

Should we all get out of fossil fuels now?

Mart.

Thanks Mart, very interesting read.

Martyn1981

Divestment from fossil fuels is gathering a little momentum in the US.

Leading Stanford professors call for end to fossil fuel investment

A collection of the sharpest minds at one of the world’s leading research universities have called for an about-turn on fossil fuel investment.

Professors at California's Stanford University, including latest Fields medal winner Maryam Mirzakhani and a number of Nobel Laureates, have urged the university’s president, John Hennessy, and its board of trustees to divest away from all investment in oil, coal and gas companies and fully recognize the urgency of climate change.

Stanford already made moves to end its investment in coalmining companies last year when it cut all ties to that industry. However, in the summer of 2014 the university steered part of its $21 billion endowment into oil and gas companies.

However, in a letter signed by 300 faculty members dated January 11, 2015, the university is urged to take action now in order to play its part in the fight against climate change. The letter – seen by pv magazine – reiterates calls from the wider scientific community to keep the global warming rise to below 2 degrees between now and 2050.

In the summer of 2014, leading private equity bank UBS issued a briefing to its clients advising that "large-scale, centralized power stations" are some 10-20 years from extinction and called on investors to back solar energy as the future. "By 2025 everybody will be able to produce and store power," said the report. "And it will be green and cost competitive, ie, not more expensive or even cheaper than buying power from utilities."

A month later the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBS) – the heirs to the Rockefeller fortune – joined a coalition of philanthropists pledging to rid themselves of more than $50 billion in fossil fuel assets. The move was welcomed by environmentalists and businessmen alike, with RBF President Stephen Heintz stating: "If John D. Rockefeller were alive today, as an astute businessman looking out to the future, he would be moving out of fossil fuels and investing in clean, renewable energy."

Mart.

Martyn1981

It looks (to me) like the ethical argument is being supported, even overtaken by an economic argument that's gaining momentum:

World's biggest sovereign wealth fund dumps dozens of coal companies

Norway’s giant fund removes investments made risky by climate change and other environmental concerns, including coal, oil sands, cement and gold mining.

The world’s richest sovereign wealth fund removed 32 coal mining companies from its portfolio in 2014, citing the risk they face from regulatory action on climate change.

Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG), worth $850bn (£556bn) and founded on the nation’s oil and gas wealth, revealed a total of 114 companies had been dumped on environmental and climate grounds in its first report on responsible investing, released on Thursday. The companies divested also include tar sands producers, cement makers and gold miners.

As part of a fast-growing campaign, over $50bn in fossil fuel company stocks have been divested by 180 organisations on the basis that their business models are incompatible with the pledge by the world’s governments to tackle global warming. But the GPFG is the highest profile institution to divest to date.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Fossil fuel lobby goes on the attack against divestment movement

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you,” said Mahatma Gandhi. The climate change campaign to divest from fossil fuels seems to be moving through those stages at express speed, with a sudden barrage of attacks from the coal and oil lobbies ahead of its global divestment day on Valentine’s day.

The justification is that there is already three times more fossil fuels ready to be extracted than can be burned, if the pledge by the world’s governments to keep global warming under 2C is to be kept. Yet the fossil fuel industry spent $670bn in 2013 exploring for more coal, oil and gas reserves that will be worthless if climate change is tackled.

With their opponents now taking the threat of divestment seriously, the campaigners will be hoping to they are another step closer to the final stage of Ghandi’s analysis: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

I'm certainly coming round to this argument. Just the thought of that wasted $670bn in exploring for unusable reserves being redirected into actual renewable energy generation makes you think.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Norway's pension fund to divest $8bn from coal, a new analysis shows

Largest fossil fuel divestment yet will affect 122 companies across the world, including SSE and Drax in the UK

The world’s biggest sovereign wealth fund is set to sell over $8bn (£5bn) of coal-related investments, according to a new analysis.

The move by Norway’s trillion dollar fund is set to be confirmed by the country’s parliament on Friday. It is the largest fossil fuel divestment yet, affecting 122 companies across the world, and marking a new success for the fast-growing and UN-backed climate change campaign.

The biggest single sell-off from Norway’s fund will be the UK utility SSE, in which the fund holds $956m of shares. The fund is also set to sell its $49m stake in Drax, which runs the UK’s biggest coal-fired power station.

Mart.

Ectophile

I suspect that the real reason why a lot of investment funds are getting out of coal is that it's not a good investment any more.

The World still has huge supplies of coal, but countries around the World are imposing such tough conditions on power stations that new coal-fired power stations aren't viable. Pretty soon, there's going to be a big surplus of coal that nobody wants.

Oil, on the other hand, is a different matter.

Martyn1981

Ectophile wrote: »

I suspect that the real reason why a lot of investment funds are getting out of coal is that it's not a good investment any more.

Suspect no longer:

EU utilities caught in 'coal death spiral'

E.On, RWE, GDF Suez, EDF and Enel, which provide 60 per cent of Europe's electricity, lost 37 per cent of their stock market value partly because of a continued reliance on coal-fired generation, the paper from the Carbon Tracker Initiative says.

These big five firms increased their reliance on coal by nine per cent during the period against the prevailing trends – Europe's coal use fell by 4.7 per cent from 2008 to 2013 despite GDP growing by more than four per cent.

All five have since been downgraded by Moody's credit rating agency and significantly underperformed Germany's stock market, which grew by 18 per cent in the same period.

Across Europe, more than 100 new coal plants have been announced since 2008 and never built. With the addition of closures, from 2000 to 2013 there has been a net coal plant closure of 19GW, while 203GW of renewables has been over the same period.

Institutional investors are starting to ditch coal assets, which are increasingly seen as risky from both a financial and reputation point of view. Norway's $900bn sovereign wealth fund, the world's biggest, is set to sell over $8bn of coal investments following a unanimous parliamentary committee recommendation. Meanwhile, insurance giant AXA is to drop €500m of coal asset by the end of this year.

"What has happened in Europe over the past five years should send a stark warning to investors," said Matthew Gray, advisor to Carbon Tracker and lead author of the report.

"Coal has got caught in the path of the utility death spiral, which is likely to continue wiping out value for shareholders if they keep betting on new coal plants."

Mart.

Martyn1981

Citigroup Predicts $100 Trillion In Stranded Assets If Paris Summit Succeeds

If you hear a lot of noise about climate policies and climate action over the next few months in the lead up to the Paris climate conference, it is because there is a lot at stake. According to Citigroup analysts: $US100 trillion of potential stranded assets in the fossil fuel industry.

A new Citigroup report values the fossil fuel reserves that need to be left in the ground if the world is to meet its targets of trying to limit global warming to 2°C – a target that, according to a new Climate Council report, is actually a lot less “safe” for humankind than the science thought it was just 10 years ago.

Nevertheless, that is the stated target of all governments – including Australia’s – and Paris will endeavour to put in place a mechanism that will allow the world to meet that goal.

But if the world is serious about meeting this target, it needs to respect its “carbon budget” – and that calls for one-third of global oil reserves, one half of global gas reserves, and 80 per cent of global coal reserves to remain in the ground.

Mart.