Bishop Hill Qui pacat?
Oct 9, 2014 Greens A little flurry of stories of divestment and public distancing has caught my eye in recent days.
Glasgow University has announced that it is to sell off all the parts of its £128 million endowment that are invested in fossil-fuel-related businesses. Other universities are expected to follow suit. Meanwhile Lego has announced that it is to end its association with Shell, following a campaign by Greenpeace.
I'm not sure whether this is anything more than a meaningless gesture, but the university campaign is nevertheless quite interesting. If the universities are shifting their investments away from fossil fuels into presumably lower-yielding green assets, what is the knock-on effect on their ability to deliver research and education? Presumably there will be less money to spend on facilities across the board and so future students and academics will bear the brunt of the impact. Unless of course the university lobbying machine persuades the government that they are underfunded, in which case you and I end up paying for academia's gesture. Either way, the current inhabitants of the ivory tower are probably largely unaffected.
One also wonders if Glasgow University's pension fund has excluded fossil fuel assets from its portfolio or whether that would bring the pain a little too close to home for the academics. Mind you, if they did, it would simply be raised as another reason for the taxpayer to open his wallet.
Reader Comments (91)
I wonder what the universities that offer courses in mining and petroleum engineering will do?
Why am I reminded of the Publican in the parable of the Widow's mite?
"One also wonders if Glasgow University's pension fund ..."
Bish, Glasgow, like most (all?) UK universities is part of the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS).
The top shareholdings are:
1 ROYAL DUTCH SHELL 384.6
2 HSBC HOLDINGS 294.2
3 BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO 197.1
4 NESTLE 194.3
5 GLAXOSMITHKLINE 187.7
6 BP 175.0
Glasgow University does of course have an Earth Sciences Dept. They offer this course :
http://www.gla.ac.uk/coursecatalogue/course/?code=EARTH4022
Petroleum Geology EARTH4022
Understanding petroleum systems, including the evolution of petroleum basins and the role of the petroleum geologist in industry.
You've got to laugh.....
As a Glasgow graduate I am appalled at this decision. Currently they have fund raisers phoning around seeking donations from graduates; one phoned me last night when I was going out so I suggested they phone back at a later date - I am looking forward to an interesting discussion! Also to the extent that the money is held under trust (which would be the case of the pension scheme at least) it is very doubtful indeed if such a decision would be lawful. Trustees must act in the best financial interests of beneficiaries and not use trusteeship as a platform for promoting political, religious or personal views in general. Ironically the court case which most succinctly sets out the responsibilities of trustees was between the National Union of Mineworkers (represented by Arthur Scargill) and the coal board.
I wonder if university teachers looking to retirement will try to persuade USS (their pension fund) to sell off Royal Dutch Shell - the largest investment they have. One hopes not for their sake.
The Parable of the Publican and the Widow's Mite? I'm not sure that's in my bible...(was she spending it on gin?)
One also wonders if Glasgow University's pension fund has excluded fossil fuel assets from its portfolio or whether that would bring the pain a little too close to home for the academics.
The pension scheme for academic staff will be the USS, whose administration is not under direct control of any university and which seems to be very well run.
http://www.uss.co.uk/Pages/default.aspx
I take it they are not going to stop driving cars, taking the train, heating the place, eating hot food or switching on the computers and lights.
Glasgow has its own pension scheme - it is not in the USS scheme. According to the web site there are two external investment managers, Newton and Black Rock.
If the Green Taliban truly are gaining this level of influence over the fabric of our society then we have good reason to be afraid – to be very, very afraid!
I expect the University will reinvest it in Big Lego.
So it's the end of the Yellow Brick Road? I guess they're off to see the wizard in the Emerald City...
Oct 9, 2014 at 10:59 AM | Radical Rodent
The Green Taliban comes in many guises.
Every little capitulation to demagoguery is a further step towards a coarser, less civilised, and less rational approach to decision-making. The university would have done better to have politely noted the concerns of the lobbyists, and along with that note, sent each one of them a copy of 'Save the World in Your Own Time'.
If I was a member of that pension scheme I would be onto the Trustees pronto. They cannnot write their own obligations. Their obligations are laid out in their Trust Deed and I would be willing to go out on a limb and say nowhere is it stated that the Trustees have to be mindful about any moral ethical or environmental issues - beyond their obligations under trust law to obey the law.
I would seriousy consider taking legal action against them.
Aren't these threats from the greens a form of terrorism?
Investment in Oil, gas etc has always been very profitable. I have some. The greens promise ~ 9% ROR on green energy. So, presumably, green investments are better because they are backed by government and the taxpayer.
Fire the cretins for violating their fiduciary responsibilities.
If not, then end all petroleum science, mining, geology and geophysics studies.
Also end financial management studies.
This brings back memories of a certain European country cleansing itself of all traces of a certain ethnic group that was determined to be too filthy and corrupting for the pure delicate Aryans.
Thanks for that link John. I have ordered the book.
Since Glasgow voted YES I suggest they invest in twee highland cattle figurines and whisky distilleries. Seriously, this is mere windowdressing, the winds of sheer reality as is witnessed in EU Commission appointments is beginning to make a mark. I have always thought that Green duplicity was the worst of all and as Glasgow University takes advantage of the highly unfair Barnett formula paid for by everyone else they wake up to the this outdated and irrelevant tokenism.
I'm glad Greenpeace have convinced Lego to break their link with Big Oil, the very thought of those little bricks having anything to do with dirty black oil horrifies me.
This has little to do with the average academic. It's quite a few years since academics had any power over such University decisions. It used to be that important decisions would be voted on an academic Senate. Not any more. The higher-ups are appointed by government, and by themselves, and they make all the decisions now. It's become like the BBC.
The Academia are in a very privileged position. They sit in their ivory towers belly-aching about lack of resources, pick up their pay checks and eventually get their gold-plated pensions. No matter what nonsense they say, how many anti-democratic groups they are asscoiated with or how incompetent they are, life goes on as usual. They call this academic freedom!
"Meanwhile Lego has announced that it is to end its association with Shell, following a campaign by Greenpeace."
Why does the theme tune to the Godfather enter my head when I read this?
The Green Taliban can threaten, break the law and carry out hate campaigns with impunity. But they are saving the planet! And also the BBC loves them, so they can't be all bad!
the very thought of those little bricks having anything to do with dirty black oil horrifies me.
Oct 9, 2014 at 11:54 AM | Unregistered Commenter IanH
IanH, you forgot the Plastic in front of the little bricks, so they are made from dirty black oil.
I thought that Shell sponsors the UEA climate bit, what are GP doing about that.
>and eventually get their gold-plated pensions.
Academic pensions are not state-funded in any direct way. Nor will the state step in to protect them.
Also, the University system higher-ups (all on huge salaries) are right this moment trying to destroy the academic pension scheme retrospectively (they've already changed it recently for new academics). The idea that academics will have a decent pension for much longer is fading fast.
If the funds are in a pension scheme, the Trustees have a duty to make all reasonable endeavours to obtain the best returns for the fund and can be held personally liable if they don't in the event of a shortfall. Which is why most use professional advisers.
I remember that this was explained in some detail by the trustees of my pension fund at a meeting with pensioners as one person wanted the trustees to disinvest from armaments. Apparently he trustees would need very good financial reasons to disinvest from a company in the FTSE100.
It would seem that Glasgow University is prepared to do what California rejected see http://climatescience.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/university-of-california-votes-not-to.htm (I could not get HTML to work)
Have Glasgow told The King of Scotland about their decision to ditch oil? Does that mean the rest of the UK can now have the oil?
@osseo
"The Parable of the Publican and the Widow's Mite? I'm not sure that's in my bible...(was she spending it on gin?)"
From memory, the Publican was a rich dude who made a big ostentatious show of tipping a big bag of cash into the box for temple funds. The poor widow came along and put in a mite, which I took to be a very low value coin. Mr. Jesus said that she was putting in more cash than the rich guy because her contribution was a bigger proportion of what little she had, whereas the rich guy wouldn't even miss the cash that he had put in. He didn't seem to have much to say about proffessional God botherers bilking poor people out of their cash though, maybe some self serving scribe edited that bit out.
Further to my earlier link, here - http://climatescience.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/latest-strategy-by-climate-alarmists.html is another on the same subject.
@ Stonyground
Actually he was very much having a go at professional God bothers, and scribes in particular. There is also an interpretation that he was pointing out the iniquity of a system whereby a poor widow, who would have been one of the poorest in society, believed that she ought to contribute all that she had, yet the richest contributed only what was to them their loose change. Google is your friend here, but I think the publican was in a different parable :-)
In the current example, we have the rich scribes of the university (and the "University Climate Action Society") giving away other peoples money by selling something of value and buying other things, presumably of less value.
BoFA
"IanH, you forgot the Plastic in front of the little bricks"
I don't think he did.. :-)
Personally, I'd rather Lego had severed their links with Greenpeace. If my grandchildren start to boycott them, they'll be sorry!
When the Co-Op started going deep green I advised a relative not to invest because 'I don't like their ethical judgement'. The relative thanked me when the scandal broke about Flowers and asked 'how did you know?'
@ Stonyground
Actually he was very much having a go at professional God bothers, and scribes in particular. There is also an interpretation that he was pointing out the iniquity of a system whereby a poor widow, who would have been one of the poorest in society, believed that she ought to contribute all that she had, yet the richest contributed only what was to them their loose change. Google is your friend here, but I think the publican was in a different parable :-)
In the current example, we have the rich scribes of the university (and the "University Climate Action Society") giving away other peoples money by selling something of value and buying other things, presumably of less value.
These sanctimonious so and so's get right up my nose, even if their decisions had some rationale. My local C-op for instance has a sign saying "We don't apologise for not selling super strength lager". I don't want to buy any but I don't want to be lectured by some self righteous prick either.
Could someone explain the head post's title for us Philistines? Is it some literary allusion?
"presumably lower-yielding green assets" . Wouldn't green assets provide a more lucrative.safe investment? Investment in nuclear power would be a very lucrative deal indeed, given the latest nuclear facility is guaranteed a massive subsidy for at least 30yrs.
"qui pacat?"= "Who pays?"
I confess I had to google LOL
So I am a Philistine too
From the university article:
It has the smell of a PR move. They'll find the cost unacceptable then call for greater renewable subsidies and higher fossil fuel taxes.
Breath of Fresh Air:
Thanks. I actually did once have the poor judgment to study Latin, but that was half a century ago. I know Caesar used the term "pacati" to mean "pacified" (or, probably more accurately, conquered), but that meaning's applicability here did not leap to mind. Even with the "pay" meaning, I'm afraid our host is being a little obscure. Personally, I favor English.
Is Lego going to start making its brightly coloured bricks out of renewable and sustainable wood?
Joe
I thought it was pacified (or something to do with pax) too, but full marks to Google for keeping up to date - I typed the title in and the first link was to this site!
Lego was once made out of wood and then cellulose acetate which is a plastic like substance made from wood pulp. but in 1963 it was replaced by the more stable acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS plastic), which is still used today. ABS is less prone to discolouration and warping, and is more resistant to heat, acids, salt, and other chemicals. Samsonite manufacturing in North America did not switch at the same time, and still used some degree of cellulose acetate in its Lego products.
Acetate does need lots of energy in its production.
"Acetate does need lots of energy in its production."
And releases it when it burns, which it does quite easily!
When they are divesting in companies involved in fossil fuel, shouldn't for consistency sake they also divest from companies that use fossil fuels?
There gesture would be more convincing if they stopped heating their buildings.
Every time in the past that I thought I'd seen all the stupidity there was to see, it turned out that I was mistaken.
I freely confess that I cannot imagine how academe will supersede this monumental example.
Lego has commented [my abstracts, but the comment is short]
I would say that is another open and shut case of Greenpeace bullying and intimidation of individual corporations.
And Lego proved less resistant than their product. They bent over like a green reed.
Lego have paid the ransom to Eco-terrorist group Greenpeace
- Stupid, as that will mean more future victims being intimidated by GP bullying
Individual consumer choosing to boycott biz is fine
..but Such orchestrated INTIMIDATION by the minority pressure groups, is wrong as it usurps democracy,
rather Biz should be policed by democratic law.
- (Isn't GP a subcontractor to Putin's KGB instructed to destroy western economies ?
seems the campaign was extension of GP protest against Shell's potential Arctic drilling.. maybe cos it competes with Putin GP's special friend)
.. I wrote that before I read the @MH statement from Lego which distances itself from Greenpeace
Seriously guys - Green stocks may well go up in the short term, if there is a large group of misguided orgs seeking to buy them as the divest of fossilfuels,
... but then they should bump down to reality as it becomes obvious that Greenbiz only makes a profit from selling to mugs or from subsidy farming.