Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on December 2, 2015
Over 500 institutions pledge to end fossil fuel investment
More than 500 institutions worldwide, with assets totalling more than €3 trillion, have made some form of commitment to divest from fossil fuels, according to campaign groups 350.org and Divest-Invest.
They said the latest commitments, some of which are “partial”, represent another coup for the divestment campaign, “showing that investors are reading the writing on the wall and dramatically shifting capital away from fossil fuels and towards clean, renewable energy”.
Billionaire philanthropist and Microsoft founder Bill Gates joined with a group of well-heeled investors on Monday to announce the launch of a multi-billion dollar private sector coalition to accelerate clean energy innovation.
“Other voices, including many of the world’s most vulnerable countries, are demanding that the Paris agreement send a clear signal that the age of fossil fuels has come to an end and the dawn of renewables is irreversible,” the campaigners said.
The institutions joining the divestment movement hope that their actions can push governments to follow suit by shifting public finance from fossil fuels to climate solutions as well as phasing out billions of dollars in subsidies for coal, oil and gas.
Ahead of COP21, commitments to divest from fossil fuels were made by 19 French cities, including Paris, Lille, Bordeaux, Dijon and Rennes.
On November 25th, the French National Assembly adopted a resolution encouraging public investors not to invest in this sector.
The French Ensemble Foundation, which has given more than €26 million to environmental causes around the world since 2004, also announced that it will join European Divest-Invest and withdraw its remaining shareholding in fossil fuel companies.
Uppsala in Sweden has also joined the movement, while Münster became the first city in Germany to divest completely from fossil fuels.
Melbourne, Australia’s second largest city, also committed to go fossil free in advance of the Paris climate summit.
Oslo in Norway, announced that it will divest its €8 billion pension fund from coal, oil and gas companies, becoming the first capital city in the world to ban investments in fossil fuels, while Dutch pension fund PFZW said it will divest from coal companies.
Allianz, Europe’s largest insurance company, divested €630 million of its capital investment portfolio from coal, and is reinvesting over €4 billion in wind energy over the next sex months, making the moral and economic case for investing in cleaner technologies
The London School of Economics dropped all its direct and indirect holdings in coal and tar sands, and all direct holdings of fossil fuel companies. It has been followed by Oxford Brookes University, Sheffield University, Wolfson College Oxford and others.
CCLA, which manages investments for Birmingham City University, Cranfiled University, Heriot-Watt University, University of Hertfordshire, University of Portsmouth, University of Westminster also excluded coal and tar sands from its investment portfolios.
APRA AMCOS, the biggest music industry group in the southern hemisphere announced that it is starting to divest from all fossil fuels. Last year, the organisation distributed nearly €236 million in royalties to its 87,000 songwriter and composer members.
In a joint-letter two weeks ago, renowned economists Thomas Piketty, author of the best-selling book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, and Tim Jackson, author of Prosperity Without Growth, said the financial community had “a vital role to play” in reducing dependency on fossil fuels.
32 Comments on "Over 500 institutions pledge to end fossil fuel investment"
In the middle on Wed, 2nd Dec 2015 8:01 pm
Ahh. Now we know what’s really on your mind. Some may think it’s a mere typo of “sex” instead of “six” but you inadvertently told us the truth. This is all about screwing people.
dave thompson on Wed, 2nd Dec 2015 8:07 pm
Divesting yourself of FF would require going back to living in the the stone age.
Plantagenet on Wed, 2nd Dec 2015 8:23 pm
So they are divesting from coal and tar sands, but keeping the oil majors and the smaller shale oil companies?
Hmmmmmmmmm. Don’t they know EVERY kind of oil releases CO2?
Davy on Wed, 2nd Dec 2015 8:31 pm
This is nothing more than a marketing ploy without real meaning. People that play this game do not understand what keeps the status quo ticking or they do and just want to look good. Either way it will not amount to much. Fossil Fuels are a foundational energy source that cannot be replaced. Any effort to reduce fossil fuels will meet failure. Nature will reduce fossil fuel use by modern man eventually through depletion but modern man will not succeed in any significant reductions because he can’t and still remain modern.
makati1 on Wed, 2nd Dec 2015 8:43 pm
The coming financial crash will end most oil recovery around the world and plunge the world into the 1800s or maybe much earlier, when the dust settles. There will be no “start up capital” to start up with. Survival will be the main goal of everyone, not investments and hydrocarbons.
bug on Wed, 2nd Dec 2015 8:54 pm
Why the stone age dave?
Wouldn’t it be similar to before it (oil) was really put into use in the 1850’s or so?
Say like the early 1700’s?
Kenz300 on Wed, 2nd Dec 2015 9:09 pm
This Is The Beginning Of The End Of The Fossil Fuel Industry
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/end-of-fossil-fuels_564f7457e4b0258edb316faf
Kenz300 on Wed, 2nd Dec 2015 9:10 pm
China’s Investment in Renewable Energy Surpasses Europe, U.S. Combined
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/11/china-s-investment-in-renewable-energy-surpasses-europe-u-s-combined.html?cmpid=renewable1222015&eid=319635636&bid=1246307
Go Speed Racer on Wed, 2nd Dec 2015 9:12 pm
Invest with Bernie Madoff. He gets a good return on investment.
Davy on Wed, 2nd Dec 2015 9:16 pm
Bug, unfortunately we will likely fall much further than 1700’s civilization which had relatively advanced pre-modern agricultural and transport technology. We have discarded most of this knowledge as active knowledge among our populations for the most part globally. Those areas that practice subsistence farming still have many times mega urban areas nearby. Asia and increasingly Africa fall into this category.
The develop world will be very poorly positioned by a loss of complexity. Life in these places is too energy intensive and dispersed. Crops will rot in the fields and populations will die of exposure without energy for their homes. Relearning skills to produce food locally will be way down the road of collapse for these areas.
We will be left naked without skills or tools to negotiate survival without our fossil fuel civilization. The key question is how quick and how deep will the decent be? This will dictate how bad it gets and how much we can relearn. Given enough time me may mange a transition of sorts. In any case there will likely be an order of magnitude reduction in population and corresponding consumption. There is no way to know if these reductions span a generation or happen within a few years. Either scenario is possible
keith on Wed, 2nd Dec 2015 10:12 pm
Also, the remaining resources can not be got by hand, as was possible in the past. The greedy Dwarves delved to deep and released Durin’s Bane.
energy investor on Wed, 2nd Dec 2015 10:45 pm
We probably need to accept that the higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere will help our farmers, vis a vis the levels in 1700AD.
CO2 helps plant growth so our plants will likely be better off than they were then.
What I don’t get is that 400ppm of CO2 is unusually low when one looks at the geological record.
My assessment is that we will have a tragedy, followed by some sort of renewal of human civilisation. But its state may not be recognisable to us first quarter 21st century humans.
Unfortunately models appear to have replaced science in the IPCC rhetoric. So I have no idea where we are with climate science. And that seems to be what is driving the crusade against fossil fuels, everywhere but in the emerging countries, where survival is more important than academic opinions.
I want a car, can I get one? or… I am choking to death on pollution, who will fix it?
I am not even sure that the climate change fad is relevant. We will struggle in a deeper and deeper deficit of fungible energy storage.
Peaking oil and other resources trumps IPCC rhetoric, if you will.
This is why China “runs with the hare and hunts with the hounds”. They have spent the last ten years using superfluous US dollars to buy future access to energy and resources. At the same time developing renewables at a faster clip.
They know that if they run out of energy, there will be revolution.
dave thompson on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 12:36 am
“I am not even sure that the climate change fad is relevant.” Energy Investor, we will all be sure of the climate catastrophe “fad” when the habitat for growing food is gone. In short order, I might add.
makati1 on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 1:52 am
keith, right on! And nice analogy. LOL
makati1 on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 2:03 am
Dave, hard to deny CC when you are starving as a result of it. Energy Investor seems to think that if some CO2 is good, a lot is better.
Maybe he should think about a treatment for heart disease and some cancers, that includes Arsenic. In that case, a little works miracles, a little bit more kills you. And what kind of plants can benefit from CO2 if the temps are above it’s growing range? Or too much rain. Or too little? Or it doesn’t get the freeze in winter that allows the seeds to sprout?
Generalization can be dangerous.
rockman on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 6:21 am
I would hope at this point I wouldn’t have to explain what impact there will be on oil patch operations by some folks divesting their fossil fuel stocks: none. Actually some companies might reap some rewards. We are only talking about changing the ownership of what will amount to a relatively small % of any company’s stock…especially Big Oil. This is not the case of the oil patch losing and capex or the ability to borrow capex. Now if all the big bankers were to have a moratorium on loan to the oil patch that would be a different matter. And we’ll see that happen right after the first flight of airborne pigs circle downtown Houston. LOL.
And the gain by some fossil fuel extractors? Let assume some companies actually see stock value drop (further then the oil price decrease has hit them) as a result of this “dumping”: what are the dynamics involved. First, it represents and even better buying opportunity for those wishing to i9nvest in the ff industry: essentially buy low…sell high. Second, lower stock process mean companies have to deliver less monies to the shareholders via dividends which means they retain more capex for MORE FOSSIL FUEL EXTRACTION. It also means it will be less expensive for those companies to buy back their own stock: a very popular move by most pubcos especially when they’ve seen their portfolio of viable drilling/development projects decline as a result of those lower oil prices: its often a better investment to buy their own lowered priced stock then drill new wells. And then when prices eventually rebound, as they always will, their sell their stock at higher price and have addition apex to spend.
So the bottom line for the fossil fuel industry by such “mass divestitures: neutral to somewhat beneficial. Or as Br’er Rabbit would say: “Oh please don’t sell my stock…hmm…I meant please don’t throw me into that briar patch! LOL. I’m sure some companies are happy all those folks divesting their stock haven’t figured out that if instead of selling to could try to buy even more stock in hopes of having a direct impact on those boards of directors. Which is exactly what they healthier oil patch companies are in the process of doing with the crippled companies: for some companies this is a tremendous buying opportunity. And any sort of mass divestitures could only benefit them
Davy on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 6:31 am
E investor, you can deny human influence on the climate but can you deny climate change by natural activity. Climate change is climate change. If you study this like we have here on this board especially with the assistance of Ape Man and his daily posting on CC results how can you deny climate change by any means?
Personally it doesn’t matter how it happens. It is happening so the “why” is mute in a sense of urgency of needed change. I will also add the powers that are and the general global public are barking up the wrong tree thinking there are solutions to fix this through policy and more technology. The only solutions will be adaptation and broad based political, social, and economic changes. These changes will eventually bring an end to the status quo because of their costs and degree of disruption. These changes are in the pipeline because they will be forced changes on us by nature. Dangerous climate change is occurring now.
It will destroy infrastructure and reduce global food production. It will not take much food production reductions to cause global food insecurity, hunger, and localized famines. Peak oil dynamics is waiting in the wings along with economic decay both a brick wall in front of us. These are likely the near term danger but climate change will make these worse.
Climate change means there is little hope for a modern civilization longer term. The disruptions that appear to be ahead will be beyond anything we can cope with. Let us hope that is towards the end of the century but in any case severe destabilizing climate change issues are now and on the increase.
kanon on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 6:50 am
Rockman: “So the bottom line for the fossil fuel industry by such “mass divestitures: neutral to somewhat beneficial.”
I have to disagree. The real issue is whether the divestment leads to redeployment into renewable energy and alternatives, i.e. competition. The divestment movement seems to me to imply strongly that new and sustained competition will grow, so the FF industry will suffer from lack of capital and from reduced markets. Also, as Davy points out, the fact of climate change will work against the FF industry. I’m not suggesting all will be well, just that the general pessimism extends to the FF industry as well. I’ll say it again: We are all Brazilians now.
Davy on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 7:06 am
Kanno, as long as this thought is kept to the edges then I agree with you. If you think that alternative energy is going to replace fossil fuels then you are delusional. Any pressure on fossil fuels and support for alternatives are good policies. We need diversity of energy sources in the coming collapse.
kanon on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 7:41 am
Davy: “If you think that alternative energy is going to replace fossil fuels then you are delusional.”
I completely agree. What I think of are the numerous studies that show human happiness is not increased by material wealth beyond a certain, rather low, level. The behemoth of the modern FF fueled civilization is really transient, no matter how you look at it. So the idea of “replacing” FF to maintain BAU is not rational. The BAU is what will be replaced because it is so much a reflection of energy source and use. It will happen, one way or another. Today the FF powered system has no real rival, but the beginnings are appearing, e.g. Germany and even some power companies in the U.S. We do have the raw materials to transform the energy picture, but whether we have the intelligence or the environment is an open question, IMHO.
Davy on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 7:49 am
Ok, Kannon, then the big question is how BAU is replaced. I am seeing nothing but bad scenarios. I am hoping for something in between. A long emergency would give us the all important variable of time.
ghung on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 8:20 am
energy investor is a classic case of why simple, deluded minds should refrain from making comments. Increasing CO2 is already acidifying the oceans, and literally dissolving the tiny creatures which produce over 50% of the oxygen that energy investor breathes. Virtually every organism on the planet is adapted to current levels of CO2. Will life adapt to higher levels? Sure. Will that adaptation period eliminate all higher lifeforms as in the past? Bet on that.
This isn’t climate change; it’s a climate reset.
Kenz300 on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 8:34 am
Climate Change, declining fish stocks, droughts, floods, pollution, water and food shortages all stem from the worlds worst environmental problem……. OVER POPULATION.
Yet the world adds 80 million more mouths to feed, clothe, house and provide energy and water for every year… this is unsustainable… If you can not provide for yourself you can not provide for a child.
Too many people and too few resources……..
Our World Living With Slums(philiphines)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s9o_kb-gZg
rockman on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 9:32 am
kanon – I don’t want to sound like I’m patronizing you because I’m not. But you don’t seem to understand that who owns the stock of a public oil company has little or no bearing on how they operate. The divestitures mean some stock will transfer from one owner to another. With respect to company operations nothing changes. Except, of course, in the rare case when the current shareholder owns enough to have some influence over the board. So if they sell they lose that ability. But in the case of those 500 shareholders I doubt any of them own that much.
IOW who owns the stock has no essentially no effect on how the company operates. Except in case the company buys back those share and thus has more capex to spend since they will be paying out less dividends.
Again I’m not trying to insult you but your thoughts, and perhaps like many of the divesting owners, are being clouded by meaningless symbolism and thus not being able to see the practical side. To be blunt: ExxonMobil et al don’t give a sh*t if those minority shareholders TRANSFER their stock positions to new minority shareholders. Except, of course, if these companies get to buy their own stock back on the cheap. In that case they are looking forward to the divestitures.
Boat on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 9:34 am
Hey Mak, Kenz300 took a shot at you. LOL
kanon on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 10:28 am
Rockman: “But you don’t seem to understand that who owns the stock of a public oil company has little or no bearing on how they operate. The divestitures mean some stock will transfer from one owner to another. With respect to company operations nothing changes.”
I do understand that Rock. So called public stock ownership often amounts to public relations or a convenient way for the real owners to raise some quick cash. However, I feel you underestimate the potential and effect of competition. I think the divestiture movement will result in solid competition emerging, and in many forms — renewable energy, public transportation, conservation, etc. Also important is the loss of a free hand politically. I know the FF industry believes itself to be hamstrung by regulations and everyone’s latest whipping boy, but they are second only to the banking cartel in political power. Without the political support gained through investment, i.e. the little guy thinks he has a common interest, the FF industry could find itself in a position similar to the once powerful railroads. We have recently learned how to wipe out coal, for example. It will take time, but we shall see. In the meantime, we humans will just have to adapt.
kanon on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 11:06 am
P.S. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/uruguay-makes-dramatic-shift-to-nearly-95-clean-energy
rockman on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 11:34 am
kanon – We’ll just have to agree to disagree on the subject and stop wasting space here. Apparently you think Mr. A telling the world he is going to sell his ExxonMobil stock to Mr. B is somehow going to change the dynamics. You might want to do a bit of research and discover just how much of the oil stocks are controlled by funds that are investing in fossil fuels on behalf of millions of retired citizens including many union workers. As far as “divesting” stock (which is just another way of saying selling the stock) are you aware that in the last 12 months over 3 BILLION SHARES of ExxonMobil stock have been “divested”? That doesn’t seem to have interfered much with XOM doing its business. And XOM represents just a very small amount of the industry stocks. So how many shares of fossil fuel stocks are they planning to “divest”. IOW are they even talking about divesting anything close to just 1% of the fossil fuel industry total stock volume? I doubt it but I’ll let you run the numbers.
“…the FF industry could find itself in a position similar to the once powerful railroads.” In in that regards you don’t seem to know that President Obamas, the greenest POTUS in th4 history of the country, has been one of the biggest supporters of the fossil fuel industry we’ve had in the White House for a very long time. Take coal for example: he is exporting more coal from govt lease than ever before. He has had his departments fast track approval for the expansion of coal export facilities along the Texas coast. And at the same time his Corps of Engineers is still fighting local opposition to get 3 new coal export facilities on the west coast. Since the BP blowout at Macondo he has offered to lease the fossil fuel industry over 100 million acres in the GOM…including some lease offsetting the Macondo leases. Several years ago he ordered his departments to do whatever possible to expedite the completion of the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline which eliminated the choke point at Cushing and allowed Canadian oil sands producers a better market edge.
kanon on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 12:03 pm
Rockman, you seem infatuated with the invincibility of the FF industry. I just think the Goliath has feet of clay. Yes, Obama is a complete fraud on his concern for CC. He is the most greenwash POTUS. You can add that Obama is using the WTO to block solar in India, probably for the benefit of the coal exporters. But all the help Obama provides could be absent in future years.
dave thompson on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 12:13 pm
Hay people want to divest of FF’s? All ya got ta do is stop driving, flying, heating and cooling your home.Cary and lift all of your water from the nearest stream for drinking cooking and bathing. Gather all of your food locally from the wild using only what can be fashioned from the things you find,like pointy sticks and throw able stones. The sarcastic list goes on, but you all get my point. Industrial civilization is based on cheap FF hydrocarbons that will never be willingly given up completely by anyone living modern a life.
makati1 on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 10:03 pm
Boat, I ignore Kenz for the most part.
makati1 on Thu, 3rd Dec 2015 10:08 pm
dave, you can live a very comfortable life without hydrocarbon energy, as you probably know and the rest will soon find out by experience. Yes, you might need wood for cooking but not much more.
Keeping warm? Migrate south.
Granny getting worthless? Put her on an ice floe and push it out to sea like the Eskimos did.
I suspect a lot of things will come back into style, IF the human species survives this century.