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)
A few decades ago, our provincial Progressive Conservative government (yes, we have a party that tries to be both) here in Ontario, Canada evidently had a progressive moment and bought 25% of Suncor. Of course, to do this, they raised our gas tax (which, even after selling its stake, is somehow still collected...).
The reasoning was that, despite having all the power of a government behind it, the province somehow needed to actually have monetary "skin in the game" in order to deal with issues in the oil industry.
This is the same reason activist shareholders, and Michael Moore use.
But I guess that excuse is out now for academia.
All about optics now, for the Twitter generation of 5 second attention spans.
What's LEGO made of again?
GP is a green mafia shakedown organization.
I look forward to the first company to stand up and publicly repudiate GP and their business model of lucrative intimidation, lawlessness, obstruction of commerce and practically nothing at all to actually help the environment.
Reading between the lines, it would appear that Lego actually came close.
Hysterical : Lego announce new alliance with Greenpeace and launch new Greenpeace range of action figures
1. The ones who hold your electricity supply to ransom by occupying your local power station
2. Greenpeace celebrity b*llsh*tter friends
3. The Greenpeace boat that storms into Russian the path of a Russian oil workers boat causing them to open fire in fear
4. The Greenpeace that is allowed to voice opinion on the BBC whereas you are not
BTW arch eco-lunatic Chris Rapley is getting stick in the Guardian comments for his His article
- BTW see how GP target Lego as a proxy for Shell..that is secondary picketing and is correcly banned in the UKWill Lego stop using plastic for their toys?
Lego's statement says "We want to clarify that as things currently stand we will not renew the co-promotion contract with Shell when the present contract ends."
All they are saying is that they aren't renewing the contract, but when does the contract actually end? If the contract still has years to go (it started in 2011) then Greenpeace have just been fobed off with a few words of platitude and they've taken it and run a mile with it twisting it to mean a total victory on GP's part. But then GP and falsehoods, lying & twisting of facts is standard operating practise for them.
Unless lego start carving little bricks out of wood..i suggest we boycot them. /Fe
it's like me turning up at the school gates and intimidating your kids when I have a dispute with you .. It's wrong Greenpeace !
- If you have a dispute with some one you shouldn't be allowed to get at them by taking SECONDARY action against a weaker 3rd party.
Our little darlings are contributing to massive climate catastrophe with their irresponsible use of hydrocarbon based toys as a source of entertainment. For the sake of future generations of little wood carvers and clay modellers they must cease this unthinking and destructive enjoyment immediately.
SadButMadLad, that also occurred to me. Perhaps the contract might be quietly renewed in due course if the expiry date is never made public.
But it still sets a bad precedent, again, that Greenpeace can turn up on a company's door-step and demand, with menaces, that the company comply with their instructions for no good reason, yet receive something other than direct marching orders in reply.
I would say that the Lego statement implied that someone else important to them has partially caved and exerted pressure on them. Who is it? Not Shell. But the statement refers to "stakeholders".
Then again, perhaps they are just afraid of bad publicity that can quickly destroy a company or a person when the MSM decides to run with a story. Even when it is a non-story. Greenpeace will certainly carry on doing it while it still gets results. That is how they operate. Ethics and morals are apparently for others while there is a planet to be saved.
This is my alma mater and, I as a practical chartered engineer, am fed up with such meaningless gesture politics pandering to the zealots who follow the new religion of the greenies.
Will the staff and students be told next that they are forbidden to use petrol fossil fuel to power their cars or the chemicals extracted from coal and oil. The whole meaningless twaddle makes one want to throw up?
Glasgow Uni will undoubtably use fossil fuels to heat its buildings. The NUS probably does too.
Unless they've turned off their heating this morning, they're bunches of hypocrites.
Have written to the Senate of Glasgow University enclosing this article, and the comments from readers, with the request that it is brought to the attention of the Senate
I really can't see the fossil-fuels industry, or the stock markets shedding a tear about this announcement. It's probably one of the best investments around at the moment. I predict a good queue waiting to grab these shares, when they get off-loaded.
All divestment achieves is to sell your shares at a knockdown price to somebody else who wants them, who subsequently makes a nice little profit.
Tiny CO2 says:'
'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?'
Its a good rule that the more publicly sanctimonious a person or body becomes, the less likely they are to keep to the standards they want everybody else to abide by. In their eyes their special position as exalted prophets gives them dispensation from the concerns of the common herd.
So, for example, Al Gore jets around the world complaining about other people's carbon footprint.
We technical people call them 'F*****g Hypocrites'
[manners, please]
Lego - That's a Danish company. That's Denmark, where most of their energy is produced by coal-powered power stations and is the 32nd biggest exporter of crude oil - talk about p***-taking hypocrites.
So will Glasgow uni stop taking students from Arab OPEC countries then.So giving an advantage to overseas universities
The powers that be at Glasgow University are obviously in the pay of Big Stupid.
We have a kerfuffle going on at the moment regarding a similar move by the Australian National University. The ANU Council caved in to a campaign to divest from companies deemed to be "unethical" across a range of issues such as environmental awareness and promoting Aboriginal welfare.Trouble is, the report on which they based their divestment decisions was kept secret, and the companies themselves were never approached to tell their side of the story.
At least one of those companies is contemplating legal action. On the face of it, they have picked on some companies which actually have excellent records in the areas they nominated. Furthermore, one of the Council members is a big shot in an investment bank which is recommending to its clients that they buy some of those stocks.
The international divestment push has been remarkably successful so far, but as others have flagged, I suspect that the blackmailed or delusional institutions that comply are shooting themselves in the foot. Apart from potential legal issues, if their decisions reduce their returns, a lot of potential donors and governments are going to conclude that they are awash with spare money, and don't need any extra help in future.
Many are going to make a lot of money out of this (and at the expense of these universities).
johanna,
In what defintioin of the word has the disinvestment campaign been "successful"?
IMHO these latest divestments are what we would expect in a world where global government is starting to rear its head. Getting control of energy (as it's now our most basic need in developed countries) is a key part of the agenda. Fossil fuels are abundant and cheap and can be used by local communities to become energy independent. Renewables need massive investment and infrastructure. So if I was planning to rule the world I would not want local Joe's with their cheap, available energy (e.g. Fracking). Controlling energy is the key and maybe these folks divesting know what's coming and doing the right thing protecting their investment.
I can't think of better reason for the insane politics we currently experience (e.g. Opposing fracking and oil pipelines whilst wasting billions on wind and solar)
Since according to Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore, the NGO has facilitated the deaths of more than a million children through campaigns to block the availability of Vitamin A enriched Golden Rice, they have been sabotaging a potential Lego market for the last decade.
http://www.allowgoldenricenow.org/
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/conservation-and-development/the-human-toll-of-anti-gmo-hysteria
Fair point, hunter. :)
I read somewhere (wish I'd saved the link) that the disinvestment campaign is organised and orchestrated - it didn't just spring up spontaneously all over the world. I know that they have been successful at several US universities already, and as we know they are also active in the UK and Australia.
The general public is not up in arms about this issue - it's a small but well-organised minority who seem to have bluffed these august institutions into handing over their investment policies to radical environmental activists.
Scary stuff.
Along with subsidy engendered false markets, " Herd Behaviour" produces financial opportunities. The herd movement almost always coincides with the start of the decline, thus providing those who have profited with ample opportunities to feed the herd :-
As history and the present ably illustrate, "Herd Behaviour" is not confined to financial markets.
Dunedin City Council in NZ are also trying to divest themselves of their fossil fuel portfolio, on the grounds that it is unethical
At the same time, they are courting oil exploration companies such as Anadarko who are drilling for oil and gas in deep water prospects
Glasgow University will, of course, refuse all public money that was derived from taxation and royalty payments from North Sea oil. They will also publicly campaign and lobby the Scottish government to shut down all oil production in the North Sea.
TAG,
Got the message.
I think a few pleasant wintry days for Glasgow without fossil fuels will help the Glaswegians feel very committed to the climate cause.
C'mon everyone, let's sign up for Glasgow University's Living Without Energy 101.
And start looking for upcoming bargains in fossil fuel shares.
Seems the Science Museum is standing up to Greenpeace and saying "eff off" - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/09/science-museum-former-head-gives-greenpeaces-lego-campaign-0-out-of-10
18000 undergraduates and 7000 post grads at Glasgow and 1300 or so "green" student activists persuade the management to take this action. Did they consult - or indeed consider- the rest of them who might not agree?
I'm getting my next few tanks of diesel from Shell stations (I normally go to Tesco).
Sod the greenies.
"Meanwhile Lego has announced that it is to end its association with Shell, following a campaign by Greenpeace"
One does rather wonder where they're planning to get the feedstocks to make their products now.
From sunbeams extracted from cucumbers, perhaps?
johanna
"in the pay of Big Stupid"
:-)
@Michael Hart says "That is how they operate. Ethics and morals are apparently for others while there is a planet to be saved."
Yep, the ends justify the means for Greenpeace & FoE. Commiting criminal acts is par for the course for GP.
...and what will the "new Lego blocks" be made from now that they have turned away from the petrochemical industry?
Glasgow is a city of of holier than thou chancers like Frankie Bile. Kevin Bridges, on the other hand, is a treasure.
That was inspired by Glaswegians crowing about voting 'yes' after the referendum.
I graduated in 1977 and 1985 (post grad MSc). I can recommend the pies to anyone.
Perhaps a boycott of Lego would balance things out now.
Lego is made from plastic, and plastic is made from the by products of oil refining. So are LEGO about to withdraw their most famous product and sell... wicker baskets?
Professor Paul L Younger FREngg, Rankine Chair of Engineering and Professor of Energy Engineering, University of Glasgow. wrote an excellent article in the summer 2014 edition of the RSGS's magazine, The Geographer.
In his article Prof. Younger deals with the question, " Could England make up a shortfall in electricity generation in Scotland during calm weather if Scotland was relying too heavily on wind turbines ? " He replies, " The current connector capacity is nominally 4.4 GW, though in practice this is limited to 3.3 GW due to thermal stability problems. A new 2.2 GW connector from Hunterston to North Wales is currently under construction.
We can therefore rely on an England-Scotland connector capacity of around 5.5 GW: this amounts to just 40% of Scottish peak demand, and closely approximates the amount of power output currently coming from Scotland’s nuclear and fossil-fired power stations (5.4 GW). There is no room for manoeuvre, and no guarantee that England (which has similar problems of its own) will have the spare capacity to feed power north when Scotland stands in need."
He also says:
Due to natural variability of wind speeds, onshore wind in mainland Scotland struggles to exceed a capacity factor of around 30% (ie, the proportion of the time it is actually producing significant amounts of electricity). This means that, even with 100% equivalent renewable capacity installed, some other source of electricity will always be required for more than two-thirds of the time. Thus, ensuring a 24/7 power supply will always need a combination of baseload (ie, constantly-available) and dispatchable (ie, available on demand) electricity sources. (Electricity storage also has a role to play, but it is sufficiently costly that it is difficult to see this expanding beyond the niche application of marginal load balancing). The problem is that most baseload and dispatchable sources of power cannot be switched on or off within the timescales over which wind output fluctuates.
Much of Scotland’s baseload is provided by its two remaining nuclear power stations, Hunterston B and Torness, which between them produced 34.5% of Scotland’s electrical output in 2012. Some baseload, and virtually all of the dispatchable output, was provided by just two power stations: Longannet (coal-fired, 25%) and Peterhead (gas-fired, 8%). Although the outputs of these fossil-fired power stations can be tweaked over a timescale of hours, they cannot be adjusted instantaneously as wind speeds wax and wane. Thus when we say Scotland produced 46% of all its electricity renewably in 2013, we need to be clear that much of this had to be exported to England. Indeed, Scotland’s 100% renewable electricity target is absolutely dependent on it continuing to export to England.
The net export in 2012 was 26.1%; yet there are early signs of changing fortunes for Scotland’s electricity export business. The four remaining non-renewable power stations in Scotland were until recently five: Cockenzie (coal-fired) closed in 2013 and will shortly be demolished. Since Cockenzie was taken off-line, Scotland has begun to experience periods in which it is reliant on electricity transfers from England. This happened on about ten days in 2013.
The Scotland-England interconnectors have hitherto always flowed N-S. This change in polarity represents the increasingly tight margins of baseload and dispatchable capacity in Scotland. At present, no new power stations with such capability are under construction in Scotland. Moreover, under current plans Scotland will lose its two nuclear power stations in 2023 – and with them a third of its electricity output, and the core of its baseload. Meanwhile, Longannet is ageing (it was originally commissioned in 1973), and notwithstanding recent upgrades, it is not currently expected to remain in service beyond 2025. Scottish Government policy precludes any replacement nuclear or coal-fired power stations, so in little more than a decade almost all of Scotland’s baseload and dispatchable generation capacity will have gone. That already leaves us barely enough time to design, obtain consent for, and construct alternatives. The only alternative of sufficient scale deployable to such a deadline is gas-fired generation.
Unless unconventional gas developments are permitted and succeed, Scotland will continue to be poorly endowed with natural gas resources. The majority of the North Sea gas fields are offshore England. Gas separated from Scotland’s oil fields is currently burned for power generation at only one site. Yet Peterhead has seen steady decline in capacity, from 2.2 GW in the early 2000s, to 1.1 GW in 2010; by April 2014 it was just 0.4 GW. These reductions have been ascribed to uncertainty over future prices for fossil-fired generation, coupled with transmission cost penalties for power stations in remote locations. Neither of these factors auger well for construction of replacement, non-coal, non-nuclear, baseload or dispatchable capacity in Scotland within the next decade.
http://royalscottishgeographicalsociety.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/scotlands-renewable-energy-transition.html