Faith in fossil fuel divestment

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/09/faith-fossil-fuel-divestment

Version 0 of 1.

Larry Elliott provides a comprehensive analysis of the climate change problem from a policymaking point of view (The long read, 8 April) but he ends with that old trope: it’s down to us – as fossil fuel consumers – to call for action. But why should government be let off the hook? If the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens, shouldn’t our political leaders be legislating for what’s needed – such as requiring low-carbon electricity by 2030 – without waiting to see whether that’s a popular move? We fossil fuel consumers need government to provide leadership not followship.Frances ButlerLondon

• Would Larry Elliot take advice from a butcher about a vegetarian diet? He quotes data “helpfully provided” by BP that the renewables can supply only 20% of energy demand by 2035. My book, The Burning Answer: A User’s Guide to the Solar Revolution, discusses the evidence from Germany that the UK could have an all-renewable electricity supply well before that date. The renewables can also greatly reduce the demand for natural gas for heating. German experience has shown that wind, solar and biogas can reliably meet electricity demand 24/7, all year. Their contributions are already reducing the wholesale price of German electricity. I doubt the BP report contains that information.Emeritus Professor Keith BarnhamPhysics department, Imperial College London

• Your long read addresses the urgent need to decouple growth in the developing world – alongside the rest of the globe – from fossil fuels. But there is another link between our addiction to fossil fuels and the world’s poorest countries. Whether in the form of slow drip-drip effects that have seen desertification of huge swaths of Africa’s Sahel region, or the rise in number and severity of extreme weather events, like Cyclone Pam, which all but wiped out recent development gains in Vanuatu, it is those with the least who are currently bearing the greatest costs of our collective inaction.

From across the global south and north, 1,500 organisations have joined together to form the action/2015 movement. We collectively recognise that efforts to end poverty, tackle inequalities and avoid the worst excesses of climate change must be aligned if we are to forge a sustainable future.

A series of international summits this year offer governments the opportunity to do precisely this. But if we allow our representatives to fail in this task, the costs from our failure to act will one way or another soon be borne by us all.Sepi GolzariClimate change and sustainable growth adviser, Save the Children

Without concerted global action to tackle climate change, the economic impacts of hotter working conditions will be vast

• Members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a coalition of more than 300 faith-based institutions representing more than $100bn in invested capital, have been engaging the fossil fuel industry to address climate change since before the term was coined. You could say they are gnarled veterans of shareholder engagement with an industry, like tobacco, that is “on the ropes” due to a product offering that continues to be in high demand yet is widely known to present clear public health risks. The conundrum responsible owners of these companies face is not new; it is a tension that they have faced for decades. The divest/engage debate fuelled by your article (Climate campaigners losing faith in value of engaging with fossil fuel firms, theguardian.com, 7 April), which seeks to oversimplify the issue and to divide climate activists, only underscores the complexities of the problem and the genuinely difficult tasks we all face in shifting the energy industry, and our economy, on to a more sustainable path. Is shareholder engagement difficult and slow? Most definitely. Is it enough? Of course not. But do we still believe engagement is a powerful tool for social change? We do.

Responsible investors are deploying all their tools – divestment, engagement and everything between – to advance green energy solutions because we believe multiple and collective, inside and outside strategies are needed for what is a herculean task. Is the cause best served by discrediting the methodologies of our allies or leveraging the complementarities? Should we focus on our tactical differences or concentrate our collective energies on our common climate change enemies: investor apathy and policy inertia? We propose the latter.Laura BerryExecutive director, Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility

• George Marshall (What the climate movement must learn from religion, 4 April) makes the classic mistake of assuming that anyone who wants a style of life that is more sustainable and less carbon intensive will be making sacrifices. By deciding not to believe the message that to be a successful and happy person we need to earn enough to buy the latest fashions, live in a big house and go on foreign holidays, we might have to give up high-stress or tedious jobs and much of the stuff that makes us look fashionable and successful. But look what we could gain: more time with family and friends, time to get to know the neighbours, enjoy hobbies and develop our talents.

The psychologist Oliver James identified “affluenza” as the condition that affects high earners (and high carbon emitters) who end up using drugs and alcohol and suffer depression because of the stress of maintaining their lifestyle and fear of losing their money.

The message the climate campaigners should be sending out is that life can be better if you jump off the material consumption juggernaut.Eileen PeckBenfleet, Essex

It’s about time the union movement looked to the future than the past on energy policy. And the Labour party too

• Wouldn’t it make more sense for rich people who want to run down and end the use of fossil fuels to buy shares in energy firms to push them to change to renewables? Why drive the share price down so climate change deniers can buy them up to grab whatever they can while the going is good? Or do we just accept that hanging on to your own wealth is the right priority for rich people?Professor Thomas ActonBrentwood, Essex

• Your report on the economic benefits of limiting climate change (31 March) is welcome, for in debates about global warming the effects on work have been greatly neglected. Nevertheless, while climate change may well create opportunities for new jobs in climate-friendly industries, such as renewable energy systems and services, in many parts of the world the increasing heat will also severely limit the physical capacity for work.

Above an ambient temperature of about 35C (and especially when the humidity is high) the human body begins to experience severe stress. Equally, high temperatures and humidity at night make it difficult to lower core body temperature sufficiently to recover from the physical stresses of the day. Both threaten health; both reduce workers’ productivity. Those most at risk are agricultural and construction workers who spend long hours out in the sun, and workers in poorly ventilated factories. Our own analyses (climatechip.org) suggest that more than a billion people are already affected. Workplace heat causes the annual loss of 3%-7% of daylight work hours, mainly in the tropics, and during the hottest months the losses are much greater; by 2050 these losses are set to double.

Without concerted global action to tackle climate change, therefore, the economic impacts of hotter working conditions will be vast. At best, efforts to reduce poverty will be severely undermined; at worst, significant areas of the world will become economically unsustainable.Professor David Briggs, Chris Freyberg, Dr Olivia Hyatt, Professor Tord Kjellstrom, Dr Bruno Lemke, Matthias OttoRuby Bay Research Centre, Nelson, New Zealand

• Kevin Coyne of Unite union needs to update his thinking (Hinkley Point C nuclear project workers face layoff, 3 April). First, Britain has no “growing energy needs”: UK electricity demand has declined 14% since 2000, while GDP has increased 18%. Second, although temporary site-clearing workers will be laid off, is this a reason for continuing with a grossly uneconomic project that UK banks, international funding agencies, other UK energy companies, and foreign governments are steering well clear of?

For more jobs, Coyne should look to Germany whose non-nuclear energy policies have resulted in 440,000 direct jobs in its burgeoning renewable energy industries in recent years. Wouldn’t it be nice to have 440,000 new jobs here?

It’s about time the union movement looked to the future than the past on energy policy. And the Labour party too. I write as a union man, a former TUC research officer. Ian FairlieLondon