CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

" The university is putting “money before climate science” "

(55 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

    "

    The decision to continue investing around £9m of a £291m endowment in fossil fuel companies has provoked a strong backlash from student campaigners, who accused university leaders of a conflict of interests and ignoring “the most urgent threat the world is facing”.

    The university is putting “money before climate science”, according to Kirsty Haigh, an activist with environmental justice group Edinburgh People & Planet and vice-president of the National Union of Students (NUS) Scotland.

    "

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/education/anger-over-uni-s-fossil-fuel-funding-1-3771242

    Posted 8 years ago #
  2. jdanielp
    Member

    I've been donating to Edinburgh University on a monthly basis as an alumnus, following a call from one of their student team a few years ago. However, I'm now planning to cancel their Direct Debit and redirect that money to Friends of the Earth Scotland and People and Planet who made me aware of the University's disappointing decision yesterday on Twitter. I was also nearly taken out by an Edinburgh University van one morning the other week and was disappointed by their failure to reply on Twitter...

    Posted 8 years ago #
  3. Min
    Member

    I got an email about this yesterday from the Uni and it was about the most weasily worded thing ever. Very disappointed.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  4. Min
    Member

    Students occupy uni building

    haha!

    Posted 8 years ago #
  5. Beano
    Member

    Students still here (in the lobby of my building). They do smell a bit whiffy though after a night's hard protesting.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  6. chdot
    Admin

  7. crowriver
    Member

  8. Stickman
    Member

    Regardless of the worthiness or otherwise of the cause, I do find these "occupations" pretty tedious. It just inconveniences people who have absolutely no influence on decision making. Kind of like the Michael Moore/Mark Thomas/Rusell Brand technique of bullying reception staff at corporate HQs.

    The last student occupation in Scotland I recall was over the closure of the Hetherington Building/Research Club at Glasgow Uni. The occupiers were saying how much of a loss it would be, what an important resource it was etc etc. Unless things had changed since my day, I remember it as only being a slightly grubby place to buy cheap beer without being troubled by the undergraduate oiks at the QM/GUU.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  9. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Must admit, I find the Universities stance on animal testing much more distasteful that this.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  10. Min
    Member

    It just inconveniences people who have absolutely no influence on decision making.

    I expect the people who are making the decisions are at least embarrassed by the publicity and may get pressured into changing their minds.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  11. Stickman
    Member

    @Min:

    I would hope that those originally making the decision* had already factored in the possibly negative publicity and took that into account in the first place. Hadn't the protest group already been speaking to the University Court about the investment decision?

    *not making a judgement call on the rights/wrongs of it; just that a competent decision maker should consider all aspects.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  12. SRD
    Moderator

  13. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    Signed.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  14. jdanielp
    Member

    Also signed.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  15. i
    Member

    Signed

    Posted 8 years ago #
  16. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Jim Orr (@CllrJimOrr)
    06/05/2015 15:39
    Responsible Investment - Lessons from Denmark.18/5/15. In association with @Nordichorizons @LesleyRiddoch All welcome

    http://pic.twitter.com/sDc3wjAt6r

    "

    Posted 8 years ago #
  17. SRD
    Moderator

  18. Stickman
    Member

    There was one phrase in that blog post that I've seen often:

    "The fossil fuel industry has refused to switch to renewables"

    Genuine question, and asking out of ignorance here:

    Why should we look to the fossil fuel industry to develop renewables? Their specialism is extracting and burning fossil fuels. They have a long history of it and seem to be pretty good at it. What evidence is there that they are able to develop capability in a brand new field that isn't related to their experience? The end result (energy) is the same, but the methods of getting there are totally different.

    From my uninformed position, are start-ups/research firms not better placed to develop new technologies? Is the reliance on the fossil fuel companies just down to their deep pockets?

    Genuinely looking for some explanation here.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  19. chdot
    Admin

    "Genuinely looking for some explanation here"

    An answer is that 10, 20 years ago it was assumed that large multinationals had an interest in ensuring their survival.

    This might have been the reason for Beyond Petroleum - or it could have been one of the most cynical marketing (and sleight of hand) ploys ever.

    It would help if British and Scottish Governments were more honest about (or even understood) the scale of subsidies for oil, nuclear and renewables and came to a more rational conclusion about 'keeping the lights on'.

    Of course it could be that they have decided that renewables won't 'save the world' and they are delaying telling 'the public' as long as possible...

    Posted 8 years ago #
  20. SRD
    Moderator

    I presume that angle is in response to uni's claim that they will work with the fossil fuel industry to 'help' them invest in less polluting areas? That's pretty much the crux of their argument- ' if we divest we'll have no influence'. So needs rebuttal?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  21. chdot
    Admin

    ' if we divest we'll have no influence'

    Generally speaking, small shareholders have very little influence on very large companies.

    Is there any evidence that EU has tried?

    Part of the problem is that the 'campaigners' believe that while the University is 'known' for its 'low carbon' work, there are sections actively supportive of the oil industry and influential in the investment decisions.

    Of course the University has a long history of involvement in 'alternative energy'.

    "

    The Salter's duck was invented by Stephen Salter in response to the oil shortage in the 1970s and was one of the earliest generator designs proposed to the Wave Energy program in the United Kingdom. The funding for the project was cut off in the early 1980s after oil prices rebounded and the UK government moved away from alternative energy sources. As of 2008 no wave-power devices have ever gone into large-scale production.

    "

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salter%27s_duck

    Posted 8 years ago #
  22. Min
    Member

    More security guards than the mind can comfortably conceive out there this morning.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  23. PS
    Member

    Why should we look to the fossil fuel industry to develop renewables?

    Because if they rely on (we hope) outdated products, they will wither away. Their shareholders won't like that, so should be pushing for some of their pots of cash to be either returned to the shareholder (in which case the BP/Shell/whatever pretty much admits the game's a bogey and disappears up its own fundament) or invested in such a way that the company diversifies into technologies that have a future.

    These big companies tend to have big R&D arms, so can use those to expand in renewables. Most likely they will also buy the expertise they need through takeovers of start-ups or buying intellectual property from elsewhere, so it's a bit of both really.

    Plenty of companies have used money earned through one set of products to diversify into other areas. Not always successfully, but if your main product is becoming unpopular you need to do something.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  24. Baldcyclist
    Member

    "Why should we look to the fossil fuel industry to develop renewables?"

    They won't, lets face it less than half of a barrel of oil ends up as petrol / diesel. The rest of it goes into making plastics, clothes, toothpaste, tyres, well practically just about everything you touch every day. Their market isn't just the car/energy industry, it's every industry, that would be a lot of diversifying...

    Posted 8 years ago #
  25. SRD
    Moderator

    But look at vegware - amazingly successful university spinoff that replaces plastic takeaway packaging with vegetable based products.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  26. jdanielp
    Member

    A worrying update about security provision was posted to People & Planet Edinburgh's Facebook timeline today:

    "This occupation has been incredible. The support we’ve had from staff and members of the public, the hundreds and hundreds who have showed up to give us food and supplies, who’ve taken part in our demos, die-ins, pickets and even our music festival (!); all of this has shown the strength of feeling behind the campaign. The atmosphere has been one of enthusiastic solidarity and incredible friendliness and warmth, and it’s only been growing since we came in, and it’s only going to keep growing!

    That’s why we’re really disappointed to have to post this. Last night, the University brought in a new security company to further block access to the building. We were warned in advance that these new ones “weren’t like the others” and wouldn’t hesitate to “batter” us. When they came, their presence was marred by a string of horrific events – joking about raping a member of the occupation, saying “sleep with one eye open, and I've got no lube so I'm coming in dry”, making sexist jokes about tampons and “screwing people”, as well as stopping and harassing women walking past late at night.

    We have been surprised by the heavy-handedness with which the University has treated the occupation from the start, but these are new lengths altogether. This kind of behaviour can have no excuse whatsoever, and we have written to the University demanding that immediate action is taken by blacklisting that specific security firm. The obvious solution is to just allow open access to the occupation, instead of wasting thousands on bullies and thugs. Even better, they could just do the right thing and divest from fossil fuels."

    Posted 8 years ago #
  27. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Hmm, we seem to be the only people talking about this now. Not in the news any more, make up some stories about the bad security guards to stoke up some interest again.

    They'll get bored soon enough and people will be be to get back to work in the building, rather than having to work from home.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  28. neddie
    Member

    The rest of it goes into making plastics, clothes, toothpaste, tyres...

    and fertiliser.

    Many people do not realise how dependent modern farming is on oil based fertilisers. When the oil runs out / becomes scarce, food production will decline massively (and I don't believe that organic fertilisers will allow anywhere near the same kind of yields).

    Why should we look to the fossil fuel industry to develop renewables?

    Because the tech to put an oil rig in the North Sea and supply it with power is the same as the tech to put a windmill/tidal generator in the North Sea and extracting power from it (assuming that the windmills are bought off the shelf).

    Posted 8 years ago #
  29. acsimpson
    Member

    Surely a industry with this level of subsidy isn't at imminent risk of collapse:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

    Posted 8 years ago #
  30. Snowy
    Member

    Governments prefer their energy industries to be easily taxable. Also, taxes raised from the oil companies are dwarfed by the taxes raised from the sale of fuel and other oil-based products to the public.

    Renewables thus have the 'disadvantage' (from a gov viewpoint) that 'people' can to a greater or lesser extent (micro-generation) reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and thus escape the cycle.

    It's a global four-way lock-in of oil producers, oil-burning vehicles, complicit consumers, and governments who are seriously concerned about what's going to replace this lovely trough of revenue.

    Personal view; YMMV.

    Posted 8 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin