Considérant que les engagements pris dans l'accord de Paris adopté à l'issu de la COP21, par lequel la communauté internationale s'est engagé à maintenir le réchauffement climatique « bien en-deçà de 2°C » ; Considérant que l'Assemblée nationale a adopté, le 25 novembre dernier, une résolution pour une société bas carbone, dans laquelle elle « "encourageant les investisseurs institutionnels, les entreprises, notamment celles dont l’État est actionnaire, et les collectivités territoriales à cesser d’investir dans les énergies fossiles et notamment dans le charbon » ; Considérant que, dans son rapport « Unburnable carbon », la Carbon Tracker Initiative montre que les entreprises du secteur fossile exploitent actuellement ou s'apprêtent à exploiter des réserves de charbon, de gaz et de pétrole représentant 2,795 gigatonnes d'émissions potentielles de CO2, soit cinq fois ce que nous pouvons émettre si nous souhaitons pouvoir maintenir le réchauffement sous cette barre des 2°C ; Considérant que des travaux récemment publiés par la revue Nature ont montré que l'ensemble des combustibles fossiles présents dans le sous-sol, qu'il s'agisse de gisements exploités, en passe d'être exploités, ou simplement identifiés, représentent 11 000 gigatonnes d'émissions potentielles de C02, soit vingt fois ce que nous pouvons émettre si nous souhaitons pouvoir maintenir le réchauffement climatique sous cette barre des 2°C ; Considérant la campagne lancée il y a trois ans par le mouvement 350.org de « désinvestissement du secteur fossile », qui se fonde sur le constat que certaines institutions encouragent le réchauffement climatique en détenant des investissements directs dans des entreprises du secteur des énergies fossiles, et encourage les institutions à initier une stratégie d’investissement socialement et écologiquement responsable et pour ainsi agir en faveur du climat ; Considérant que les entreprises ciblées dans le cadre de cette campagne sont toutes celles qui appartiennent à la liste des 200 entreprises qui possèdent les plus grandes réserves de charbon, de gaz et de pétrole, autrement dit qui représentent les principales sources d'émissions de CO2 à venir, telles que listées par la « Carbon tracker initiative » ; Considérant que pour réellement initier ce changement souhaité deux principaux acteurs sont prioritairement à convaincre : les fonds de pension et les banques, qui gèrent des portefeuilles d’investissement très importants ; Considérant que les caisses de retraites de la fonction publique (Ircantec, Erafp, Cnrac) ainsi que le Fonds de réserve pour les retraites détiennent plusieurs milliards d'actions et obligations émises par ces entreprises ; Considérant que plus de 500 villes, universités, musées et autres institutions se sont d’ores et déjà engagées dans cette démarche, à l’image des villes de San Francisco et Seattle ou encore de l’université de Stanford, du Fonds souverain de Norvège, de la fondation Rockefeller Brothers, rejointes par la ville de Paris par 34 collectivités locales françaises (parmi lesquelles les villes de Paris, Lille et Bordeaux, les régions Ile de France et Rhône-Alpes-Auvergne) ; Considérant que Dijon a la responsabilité de protéger la vie et l'environnement de ses habitants des conséquences du changement climatique ;

Considérant que les engagements pris dans l'accord de Paris adopté à l'issu de la COP21, par lequel la communauté internationale s'est engagé à maintenir le réchauffement climatique « bien en-deçà de 2°C » ; Considérant que l'Assemblée nationale a adopté, le 25 novembre dernier, une résolution pour une société bas carbone, dans laquelle elle « "encourageant les investisseurs institutionnels, les entreprises, notamment celles dont l’État est actionnaire, et les collectivités territoriales à cesser d’investir dans les énergies fossiles et notamment dans le charbon » ; Considérant que, dans son rapport « Unburnable carbon », la Carbon Tracker Initiative montre que les entreprises du secteur fossile exploitent actuellement ou s'apprêtent à exploiter des réserves de charbon, de gaz et de pétrole représentant 2,795 gigatonnes d'émissions potentielles de CO2, soit cinq fois ce que nous pouvons émettre si nous souhaitons pouvoir maintenir le réchauffement sous cette barre des 2°C ; Considérant que des travaux récemment publiés par la revue Nature ont montré que l'ensemble des combustibles fossiles présents dans le sous-sol, qu'il s'agisse de gisements exploités, en passe d'être exploités, ou simplement identifiés, représentent 11 000 gigatonnes d'émissions potentielles de C02, soit vingt fois ce que nous pouvons émettre si nous souhaitons pouvoir maintenir le réchauffement climatique sous cette barre des 2°C ; Considérant la campagne lancée il y a trois ans par le mouvement 350.org de « désinvestissement du secteur fossile », qui se fonde sur le constat que certaines institutions encouragent le réchauffement climatique en détenant des investissements directs dans des entreprises du secteur des énergies fossiles, et encourage les institutions à initier une stratégie d’investissement socialement et écologiquement responsable et pour ainsi agir en faveur du climat ; Considérant que les entreprises ciblées dans le cadre de cette campagne sont toutes celles qui appartiennent à la liste des 200 entreprises qui possèdent les plus grandes réserves de charbon, de gaz et de pétrole, autrement dit qui représentent les principales sources d'émissions de CO2 à venir, telles que listées par la « Carbon tracker initiative » ; Considérant que pour réellement initier ce changement souhaité deux principaux acteurs sont prioritairement à convaincre : les fonds de pension et les banques, qui gèrent des portefeuilles d’investissement très importants ; Considérant que les caisses de retraites de la fonction publique (Ircantec, Erafp, Cnrac) ainsi que le Fonds de réserve pour les retraites détiennent plusieurs milliards d'actions et obligations émises par ces entreprises ; Considérant que plus de 500 villes, universités, musées et autres institutions se sont d’ores et déjà engagées dans cette démarche, à l’image des villes de San Francisco et Seattle ou encore de l’université de Stanford, du Fonds souverain de Norvège, de la fondation Rockefeller Brothers, rejointes par la ville de Paris par 34 collectivités locales françaises (parmi lesquelles les villes de Paris, Lille et Bordeaux, les régions Ile de France et Rhône-Alpes-Auvergne) ; Considérant que la ville de Marseille a la responsabilité de protéger la vie et l'environnement de ses habitants des conséquences du changement climatique ;

Divestment is not a political issue. It’s a moral issue. It is about global warming and the impact it’s having and will have on ecosystems and people across the world. Being invested in fossil fuel companies is being invested in the continued warming of our planet and harm done to billions worldwide. Divestment will not harm the Reed Endowment Fossil Free Reed is advocating for fossil fuel divestment not only because we believe it is a moral action, but also because it is the fiscally responsible choice. As it stands, harmful externalities associated with the fossil fuel industry are absorbed by individuals and the environment. For this reason, fossil fuels are priced above their market value creating what has been termed the “Carbon Bubble.” By investing in fossil fuels, Reed College is presuming that, in the future, policy levers will not be employed to price fossil fuels accurately. Arguably, however, a ‘future’ where fossil fuels are considered inefficient investment is not so distant. After the recent climate talks in Paris, many newspapers announced “The death of the Fossil Fuel Industry” following commitments by world leaders to drastically cut carbon emissions. Combined with political action such as Obama’s Clean Power Plan, demand for fossil fuels has already decreased. At time of writing, 3.4 trillion institutional dollars have been divested from fossil fuel companies by groups ranging from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The Lutheran World Federation to the ten campuses of the University of California. Call to action Fossil Free Reed would immediately reject any plan to divest from fossil fuels which would harm the endowment and members could not remain in good conscience were we advocating a plan for divestment which would diminish financial aid funds. We do not, however, believe this to be the case. We believe that the Reed Board of Trustees have a fiduciary duty to recognize that Reed owns one of the greatest long-term risks on the market: fossil fuel investments. Failure to recognize the inherent risk in fossil fuel investments greatly endangers the portfolio—and financial aid funds—over the long-term. We also reject the notion that the endowment impacts just Reed, and for this reason we believe that Honor Principle necessitates ethically responsible investing. Fossil Free Reed understand that change necessitates deliberate action and precision. As it stands Fossil Free Reed is asking for divestment and reinvestment over a span of ten years. We ask for the Board to freeze new fossil fuel investments and join the student body and staff in making Reed a more carbon neutral campus. In taking steps towards these actions, we ask that the Board disclose where the endowment is invested, and lastly, acknowledgement that our endowment serves more than the Reed, and Reedies care where our funds are invested. We ask for continued communication and support in this process. Sincerely, Fossil Free Reed

We wish to see accountability from our higher education institution. We are not asking for the university to take radical action; only that it abides by its own policies. The university is explicitly breaking its own ethical investment policy regarding tobacco investments and environmental damage and is in an extremely grey area regarding its investment into arms policy. Sign this petition and have a say in where YOUR tuition fees are being invested.

The impacts of climate change are being felt worldwide. It is a real and serious threat that demands response. It is not a problem for the future, it is happening now and it is time to take a stand. The first step in fighting climate change lies within the fossil fuel industry. A global movement is coming together to challenge this industry, and it’s time we join at a local level. Our university – yes, that’s right, the University of Prince Edward Island – is one of many that have large investments in the fossil fuel industry. This investment is in complete contradiction to UPEI’s vision statement, which is “to foster a culture of sustainability at UPEI that is action oriented, touches all aspects of university life and the broader community and positions UPEI as a leading educational institution in sustainability.” Fossil fuel is not sustainable, and investing in the industry is actively going against UPEI’s own claim. As students, our voices have power. We need to speak up and show UPEI that divestment in the fossil fuel industry is the way to go.

Waseda University is the biggest investor among Japanese univesities, so it would be the huge impact if they would divest from fossil fuels.

Wiltshire Pension Fund holds a total of £1.8 billion, of which – currently - £64 million (3.5 per cent) is invested in fossil fuel – oil, coal and gas companies. This percentage may rise and fall. Wiltshire Pension Fund operates on behalf of Wiltshire Council and a further 157 employer organisations. Investment in fossil fuel is bad news for two reasons. Firstly, experts (1) warn these investments could become 'stranded assets' and irrecoverable, when the market for fossil fuels begin to decline in the years ahead. All local authorities, including Wiltshire Council, have a duty to act in the public interest, and to take steps to reduce risk to public money. Secondly, fossil fuel investment is a matter of right or wrong. More than 80 per cent of the world’s known coal reserves need to stay in the ground to avoid dangerous climate change, recent research (2) has indicated. The scientific and political consensus is that we must not allow global warming to exceed two degrees. If all known reserves are used we will exceed this limit, and tip into runaway climate change. This means extreme weather events, sea-level rise, fires and floods. Local impacts of fossil fuel dependence The Environment Agency and Salisbury City Council are drawing up emergency plans to protect Salisbury from ‘freak floods’, noting that the city came within 1cm of a major flood last January (3). Extreme weather events will cause severe flooding in Salisbury, and knock-on effects across Wiltshire, due to, for example, impassable roads and damage to communications systems (4). A further direct impact of fossil fuel dependence is disease caused by air pollution from traffic emissions. Salisbury Clean Air Network reported in March 2015 that nitrogen dioxide was at illegal levels in ten out of 25 of SCAN’s samples. This was a higher and more widespread pollution level than Council findings. Government data (Public Health England, 2010) indicated that air pollution causes 28,000 excess deaths in the UK per annum. If it’s wrong to cause these harms, then it is wrong to profit from investing in what causes them. Wiltshire Pension Fund should sell its fossil fuel investments and Wiltshire Council should follow the example of several other local authorities who have invested in local sustainable projects such renewable energy, energy efficiency or building much needed energy-efficient social homes. References: 1. Unburnable Carbon – Are the world’s financial markets carrying a carbon bubble? Carbon Tracker Initiative, March 2012 http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Unburnable-Carbon-Full-rev2-1.pdf ‘No more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is to achieve the 2 °C goal, unless carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is widely deployed.’ World Energy Outlook 2012, International Energy Agency ‘The issue of the bubble arises because the combined proven oil, gas and coal reserves currently on the books of fossil fuel companies (and governments in the case of NOCs) will produce far more than this amount of CO2 when consumed’, David Hone, Climate Change Advisor for Shell 3 May 2013 ‘We agree that burning all known reserves would probably cause global temperatures to rise by more than 2°C – and that addressing this issue will require the efforts of governments, industry and individuals. However, we believe that the unburnable carbon approach to assessing the impact of potential climate regulation on a company’s value oversimplifies the complexity of the issue and overstates the potential financial impact’ BP webpage on climate change, accessed 17 Oct 2015 2. The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C, McGlade, C, Ekins, P, Nature 517,187–190, 8 January 2015 3. Salisbury Journal, 1 October 2015. 4. Environment Agency advice to Salisbury City Councillors and volunteer Flood Wardens, 9 November 2015.

Berklee is a multi-cultural, progressive and forward-thinking college, and prides itself on being on the cutting-edge in terms of music education and production. As such, it should join the growing number of colleges and universities that are paving the way towards a more socially responsible role in the future of this planet and all it's inhabitants.

Divestment ist unabdingbar für den Kampf gegen den Klimawandel. Wenn wir die katastrophalen Auswirkungen der globalen Erwärmung verhindern wollen, darf ein Großteil der bisher bekannten Reserven an Kohle, Öl und Gas nicht gefördert werden. Durch den Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien werden die Entwicklung grüner Technologien gefördert, neue Arbeitsplätze geschaffen, lokale Wirtschaftszweige gestärkt und die Abhängigkeit von Energieimporten reduziert. Die Landeshauptstadt München trägt die moralische Verantwortung, ihr Kapital aus einer Industrie abzuziehen, die die Zukunft ihrer Bürger*innen zerstört. Deutschland nimmt im Kampf gegen den Klimawandel eine Vorreiterolle ein. München darf beim Klimaschutz nicht hinterherhinken. Divestment is essential for the fight against climate change. Most of the world’s coal, oil and gas known reserves must remain in the ground, if we are to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change. With the support of renewabel energy systems the development of green technologies must be promoted. This wil create new jobs, strengheten the local economy, as well as reduce our energy import. The city of Munich has a moral responsibility to divest from an industry that is destroying the future of its citizens. Germany is a world leading figure in the fight against climate change and Munich should not lag behind.

We feel it is critical to start this process of divestment NOW. 1. As the local authority, it has rigorously set, carbon reduction targets and therefore cannot be 'feeding the fire' by maintaining investments in fossil fuels, as this completely undermines SLDC's commitment to reducing its carbon emissions. 2. If it is wrong to continue to wreck the Earth’s climate, then it follows that it is wrong to profit from that wreckage. There are increasing indications that the profitability of the fossil fuel industry will decrease significantly in coming years. When action is taken to limit global warming and a large degree of carbon reserves are left in the ground, shares in fossil fuel companies will drop significantly in value. As such, investments in fossil fuels risk exposure to this 'carbon bubble'. There is already evidence that fossil fuel-free portfolios are capable of out-performing those including fossil fuel investments.The fossil fuel industry is volatile and the historical bankable returns MUST not and CANNOT be relied upon in the 21st century. See http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/20/04/2015/11-reasons-divest-fossil-fuel-industry for a comprehensive overview for reasons to divest now.

It has been reported (http://gofossilfree.org/uk/pensions/) that the Worcestershire County Council Pension Fund has £197,423,000 (10.74% of its total pension fund) invested in fossil fuels. If fossil fuel companies extract and burn just 20% of the reserves they hold, this will cause catastrophic climate change (extreme weather, food shortages and conflict). The urgency of stopping climate change requires that we progressively stop burning fossil fuels now. It is irresponsible and immoral for public bodies and pension funds to invest in fossil fuel extraction companies and instead they should, where possible, direct investment into 'green energy' infrastructure. Fossil fuel companies are highly overvalued due to the assumption that all of their reserves will be burnt. But as policy catches up to climate realities, this overvaluation means there’s a multi-trillion dollar “carbon bubble” that’s poised to burst. This will greatly effect the value of our Pensions if they are still invested in Fossil Fuels.

Climate change is occurring at unprecedented rates, thanks in large part to the massive amounts of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere by the fossil fuel industry. 2014 was the hottest year in recorded history. And yet, in 2009, 114 countries had already signed the Copenhagen accord, in which they agreed that the world must work together to limit global warming to a safe level of not more than 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures. The Carbon Tracker initiative has shown that we can only afford to emit 565 more gigatonnes of CO2 if we want to remain under that threshold. We would emit 2795 gigatonnes of CO2 if we burned all the reserves already discovered, though, and the industry still invests millions in finding new reserves. Every institution that divests from fossil fuels helps to erode the industry's social license to operate. We urge the University of Auckland School of Medicine Foundation to demonstrate that they do not wish to align themselves with an industry which is not only unethical but also economically insecure in the long-term. HSBC, one of the world's largest banks, has published a report indicating that major oil and gas companies could lose up to 60% of their market value if the existing international protocols on emissions reduction are enforced. Furthermore, leading global investment research firm MSCI has stated that fossil fuel divestment even “has the potential to reduce overall portfolio risk because of Energy Sector volatility”. The University of Auckland’s Medical School aims to achieve; “aims to improve the health and wellbeing of our local, national and global communities through excellence in teaching, research and service,” yet our medical school is likely receiving funds from fossil fuel activities that are in direct contravention to this noble goal. Therefore it would make sense for the foundation to openly declare their divestment from the fossil fuel industry and set an example for other foundations within the University and the wider country Once again, we, the undersigned, students of the University of Auckland Medical School ,urge the University of Auckland Medical School Foundation to look to the future by creating an ethical investment policy in which the Foundation and the University commits to divestment of all holdings, direct and indirect, from the fossil fuel industry within five years and to the exclusion of this industry from all of its future investment portfolios.