Press Release
Divest East Sussex [1]
26 July 2022
More info: 07596 483 272
PHOTOS: https://tinyurl.com/hollidgeprotest2 [CAPTION: Fossil fuel divestment campaigners with a message for Councillor Ian Hollidge (Bexhill South) outside the De La Warr Pavilion on 11 June 2022. PHOTO: Divest East Sussex]; https://tinyurl.com/redstonepetition2 [CAPTION: Robertsbridge residents with divestment petition and message for Councillor Paul Redstone (Northern Rother), 5 July 2022. PHOTO: Divest East Sussex]
CLIMATE CAMPAIGNERS CONDEMN COUNCILLORS’ ATTEMPTS TO OBSCURE ROLE OF FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES
Rebranding fossil fuel companies as ‘energy companies’ would only hide reality that fossil fuel companies are driving the climate crisis
26 July: Climate campaigners have condemned suggestions by two County Councillors on the East Sussex Pension Committee that the East Sussex Pension Fund should stop talking about ‘fossil fuel companies’, and instead rebrand them as ‘energy companies’. The remarks were made by two Councillors on the East Sussex Pension Committee, the five-person decision-making body for the Fund, at the Committee’s meeting last Wednesday (20 July). At the same meeting, the Committee voted 3 – 2 against a proposal that it fully divest from fossil fuels ‘subject to advice from the Fund’s professional advisers at the next meeting’ [2].
Councillor Hollidge (Cons, Bexhill South) suggested that the Fund should ‘stop trying to say that a fossil fuel company is bad. They’re not a fossil fuel company – they are an energy company and they are in the midst of a transition’ [3]. He later returned to this suggestion, stating that ‘I go back to my point about it being an energy company and not using this word fossil fuel’ [4]. His remarks were echoed by Cllr Paul Redstone (Cons, Northern Rother) who said: ‘I think the label of a fossil fuel company as Councillor Hollidge implied is a bit crude … some are good some are bad’ [5]. Hundreds of residents in Bexhill and Robertsbridge recently signed petitions and held demonstrations calling on Councillors Hollidge and Redstone to vote in favour of fossil fuel divestment on 20 July [6].
Councillor Hollidge cited Shell as an example of a fossil fuel company that was ‘already making that transition’ away from fossil fuels [7]. In reality, Shell is projected to spend over $46bn on new oil and gas fields by 2030, none of which is compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C [8], and even the Fund’s own documents clearly state that ‘Shell does not have a 1.5°C plan’ [9]. The Fund’s ‘independent financial adviser’, William Bourne, appeared to humour the two Councillors, at one point saying: ‘[O]ne possible route for cabon capture is actually to use the empty gas reserves under the sea. Who owns those? It tends to be these big fossil fuel – sorry, these big energy companies …’ [10].
The East Sussex Pension Fund – which covers East Sussex, Brighton and Hove, and is administered by East Sussex County Council – currently has tens of millions of pounds of local people’s pension monies invested in the giant oil and gas companies, like Shell and BP, that are driving the climate crisis [11].
Burning fossil fuels (oil, coal & gas) is the main driver of climate change [12]. Massive reductions in carbon emissions will be necessary before 2030 if the world’s governments are to follow through on their stated commitment (‘the Paris agreement’) to hold global warming to ‘well below’ 2ºC, ‘pursuing’ 1.5ºC [13].
A spokesperson for Divest East Sussex said: ‘According to the International Energy Agency, avoiding catastrophic climate change requires an immediate end to all investments in new oil & gas projects [14]. Yet the world’s twenty largest fossil fuel companies alone are planning to spend over $930 billion on such projects between now and 2030 [8]. Moreover, fossil fuel companies have spent decades trying to block and obstruct effective action on the climate crisis – efforts which continue to this day [15]. The fact that some of these companies are now also investing token amounts in renewables is basically irrelevant. In 2019 East Sussex County Council declared a ‘climate emergency’. But in 2022 it’s still investing local people’s pensions in the giant oil companies – like Shell and BP – that are driving the climate crisis. For Councillors Redstone and Hollidge to suggest that the way to address this issue is to obscure reality by rebranding fossil fuel companies as mere ‘energy companies’ is as outrageous as it is bizarre. It’s time for the County Council to stop making excuses and make a public commitment to fully divest from fossil fuels.’
NOTES
[1] https://divesteastsussex.wordpress.com
[2] https://divesteastsussex.wordpress.com/2022/07/20/press-release-climate-campaigners-condemn-tory-councillors-vote-on-fossil-fuels/#more-2231
. Cllr Redstone has since tried to make out that the Pension Committee did *not* vote against fossil fuel divestment at its 20 July meeting, emailing one correspondent: ‘we did not vote against divestment’. This is untrue, as can be seen by viewing the webcast of the meeting from the point 4 hours, 4 minutes and 22 seconds in: https://democracy.eastsussex.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=373&MId=5162&Ver=4 (click on ‘View the webcast’ and then navigate to the relevant point in the webcast). On the video you will see Cllr Tutt state his divestment proposal, which was then defeated, with the three Tories (Fox, Redstone and Hollidge) voting against and the Green and the Lib Dem councillors (Taylor and Tutt respectively) voting in favour. The public were barred from attending this meeting, and Cllr Fox doesn’t actually state the result of the vote on the webcast, but Divest East Sussex spoke to the local democracy reporter Huw Oxburgh (who was present during the vote) shortly after the meeting. He confirmed that Cllr Tutt’s divestment motion was defeated with the voting as above.
[3] See 03:21:50 of the webcast: https://democracy.eastsussex.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=373&MId=5162&Ver=4
[4] See 03:49:26 of the webcast: https://democracy.eastsussex.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=373&MId=5162&Ver=4
[5] See 03:23:46 of the webcast: https://democracy.eastsussex.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=373&MId=5162&Ver=4
[6] Hollidge: https://divesteastsussex.wordpress.com/2022/06/13/press-release-230-bexhill-residents-sign-petition-to-local-councillor-on-fossil-fuel-investments/; Redstone: https://divesteastsussex.wordpress.com/2022/07/06/press-release-100-robertsbridge-residents-sign-petition-to-local-councillor-on-fossil-fuel-investments/.
[7] 03:23:06 of the webcast: https://democracy.eastsussex.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=373&MId=5162&Ver=4
[8] https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/fossil-gas/ipcc-clarion-call-puts-spotlight-on-fossil-fuel-industrys-hypocrisy/
[9] See page 131 of https://democracy.eastsussex.gov.uk/documents/g5162/Public%20reports%20pack%2020th-Jul-2022%2010.00%20Pension%20Committee.pdf?T=10
[10] See 03:50:45 of the webcast: https://democracy.eastsussex.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=373&MId=5162&Ver=4
[11] The Fund’s reported ‘fossil fuel exposure’ as at 31 March 2021 was £82.2m (see https://tinyurl.com/ffexposure, page 25). However, this figure has fallen since then, following recent decisions by the Committee. According to a recent document circulated by the Fund, its actual exposure to fossil fuel producers may now be as low as 0.5%: https://divesteastsussex.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/response-email-to-new-councillors-june-21.pdf. As at 31 December 2021 the Fund was valued at £4.741bn (see page 156 of https://democracy.eastsussex.gov.uk/documents/g4902/Public%20reports%20pack%2024th-Feb-2022%2010.00%20Pension%20Committee.pdf?T=10). 0.5% of £4.741bn is £23.705m.
[12] Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers, section SPM 1.2 ‘Causes of climate change’, https://tinyurl.com/IPCCsynth
[13] The IPCC’s 2018 report ‘Global Warming of 1.5 ºC’ (https://tinyurl.com/ipcconepointfive) included four illustrative 1.5°C pathways. The most precautionary (P1) avoids reliance on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, a technology that is untested at scale and faces significant feasibility constraints. According to an analysis by CarbonBrief to cut emissions in line with the IPCC’s P1 illustrative pathway: (a) CO2 emissions from oil must fall by 44 percent by 2030; and (b) CO2 emissions from gas must fall by 39 percent by 2030 (both relative to 2019 levels). The oil and gas decline would need to be even faster if the extremely rapid coal phase-out assumed (nearly 80 percent by 2030) does not prove feasible. See ‘Big Oil Reality Check’, Oil Change Intenational, Sept 2020, https://tinyurl.com/bigoilrealitycheck, p.7 and ‘Analysis: Why coal use must plummet this decade to keep global warming below 1.5C’, CarbonBrief, 6 February 2020, https://tinyurl.com/coalplummet).
[14] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/18/no-new-investment-in-fossil-fuels-demands-top-energy-economist
[15] See, for example: ‘How vested interests tried to turn the world against climate science’, Guardian, 10 October 2019, https://tinyurl.com/fossilfuellobby; ‘Big Oil’s Real Agenda on Climate Change: How the oil majors have spent $1Bn since Paris on narrative capture and lobbying on climate’, InfluenceMap, March 2019, https://influencemap.org/report/How-Big-Oil-Continues-to-Oppose-the-Paris-Agreement-38212275958aa21196dae3b76220bddc; and ‘Corporate Climate Policy Footprint: The 50 Most Influential Companies and Industry Associations Blocking Climate Policy Action Globally’, InfluenceMap, November, 2021, https://influencemap.org/report/The-Carbon-Policy-Footprint-Report-2021-670f36863e7859e1ad7848ec601dda97
divesteastsussex.wordpress.com 