Calls for the University to divest have come from, amongst others, former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan WilliamsSandia Labs

By now I hope that we’ve all got used to doing our own recycling and switching off the light. Yet unfortunately that’s not enough to keep earth’s temperature below a two degrees Celsius rise compared with pre-industrial levels, which is the established limit for mitigating the most severe environmental consequences. So, what is the main contributor to increased greenhouse gases? Burning fossil fuels. And what are we currently still doing? Burning fossil fuels: oil, natural gas and coal.

Companies such as BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil, Chevron are together planning to extract and burn five times the amount of fossil fuels required to keep us below a two degrees Celsius rise. Scientists tell us that 80 per cent of known fossil fuel reserves must stay underground to limit our CO2 emissions, and that we (i.e. the government, industry, consumers and the aforementioned companies) need to find other ways of getting the energy we need. Just last month the COP21 Paris Agreement was signed by governments worldwide. But the battle against climate change needs businesses and the global financial market to take action for climate and their own sustainability too.

So what has this got to do with us, and the University of Cambridge? The fact is that the University and Colleges hold a £5 billion endowment (split about 50:50), which is currently invested in a variety of companies, including fossil-fuel corporations. Globally we can see the beginnings of a movement for public institutions like universities, museums, governmental bodies as well as businesses to divest (take investment out of the fossil-fuel industry). A recent total of $3.7 trillion has been divested through the commitment of 57 institutions. So will the University of Cambridge join the Universities of Glasgow and Warwick and Cambridge City Council to make the same commitment to divest – or maybe even to 'positively invest' (see ‘The Jargon’ below)?

Two societies in Cambridge are both pushing for the University to change its investment strategy. Cambridge Zero Carbon Society (ZC) is calling for divestment and recently held a demonstration and released an open letter as well as a detailed 74-page report supporting this case. Positive Investment Cambridge (PIC) is a group of students and University staff that further calls for the University and Colleges to engage in responsible and accountable investments. There is also a ‘working group’ within the university to explore potential changes that can be made to its investment strategy, which they are due to report in the coming month.

Are the two student led societies are at odds? They are working along different strategies, but they both see the merits of the other. While ZC is working for the commitment to divestment, which is more political as it will affect the 'fossil-fuelled' companies themselves, PIC largely considers divestment as only one of the tools that should be used. More collaboration is needed between ZC and PIC, and given the success of both societies; this should hopefully be in evidence in the near future.

A brilliant example of PIC’s recent work is their Exxon Chevron campaign. The campaign aims to coordinate an effort between shareholders to influence the outcome of voting on eight climate change-related resolutions at the Exxon Mobil and Chevron Annual General Meetings (AGMs) on 25th May. Members of the society have drafted open letters to Chief Investment officers, which have been signed by academics. They have also launched a global organisation called Positive Invest, and a campaign in the process. A variety of projects like this, as well as their continuous support to help constituent colleges in the University carry out their own Positive Investment campaigns, is the primary focus of PIC.

Essentially, Zero Carbon has approached the details through their comprehensive report, but state that divestment is the only tool, whereas PIC sees many tools that can and should be used. Many academics, students and both societies eagerly await the report from the internal working group; in the meantime there is much work to be done. For example, I am currently working on a campaign within Emmanuel College, and hope to see its impact being felt at the Exxon Mobil and Chevron AGMs.

 

The jargon

Divestment (from fossil fuels) is the opposite of an investment and means getting rid of stocks, bonds, or investment funds. Divestment is not a primarily economic strategy, more a moral and political one that raises awareness, as the fossil fuel companies are still getting funded, just by other investors.
Positive investment can be achieved in a variety of ways: 1) the issuance of green bonds (energy efficiency and/or renewable energy financing), 2) collaborative shareholder engagement, 3) divestment from certain industries, 4) (re)-investment into renewable energy, and 5) the creation of ethical pooled funds and green venture capital.