Nearby Petitions

All Petitions

• 

  North Yorkshire Fossil Fuel Divestment

  The North Yorkshire Pension Fund Committee could, like a growing number of other Local Authority-administered Pension Funds, adopt a strategy of steady 'divestment and re-investment'. ThisA means moving away from investing in an increasingly unstable and more costly fossil fuel dependency towards a cleaner, cheaper and ultimately more profitable renewable future, which will enable local communities across North Yorkshire and beyond to benefit. To help achieve this, we are asking the Pension Fund Committee to: 1. Adopt the ‘Principles of Responsible Investment’ devised by the UN/PRI[1] in order to inform the Pension Fund Committee’s investment strategy and all its future mandates to Investment Managers [1] United Nations/Principles for Responsible Investment 2016 at info@unpri.org 2. Freeze any new investment in the top 200 publicly-traded fossil fuel companies[2] at the earliest opportunity [2] The Carbon Underground 200 Project, at http://fossilfreeindexes.com/research/the-carbon-underground 3. Commit to a policy of divesting or withdrawing from direct ownership and any commingled funds that include fossil fuel public equities and corporate bonds over the next 5 years; and of re-investing in a new carbon-free portfolio of more local, ethical and renewable energy technologies and infrastructure developments 4. Include these action points above in the Pension Fund Committee’s Investment Strategy Statement, with effect from the earliest possible date. (* Adapted from the petition model in the Gofossilfree campaign’s guidance – see Local Government Guide at https://gofossilfree.org/uk/pensions/#action )

  10 of 100 Signatures

  Created by Mike Barron
• 

  Divest Huddersfield University From Fossil Fuels

  Huddersfield University aims to be 'an inspiring, innovative university of international renown' and prides itself on its commitment to green policies and practice. It now has the chance to prove its values and refuse to profit from the hazardous actions of fossil fuel companies. The divestment movement is snowballing, winning over companies, organisations and universities all over the world. The Fossil Free movement has proven that the public wants action on climate change at a political level and the University of Huddersfield can help to lead the movement at a critical time. Fossil fuel companies' current reserves of oil, coal and gas hold 5 times more carbon than the world's atmosphere can safely handle. Their business plan will cause climate chaos for billions of us, yet UK universities still collectively invest £5.2bn in fossil fuel companies. Divestment will not stop climate change. It will show our refusal to feed the industry which poses the greatest threat to us all. Divestment is for our shared morals, progress and commonsense.

  1,004 of 2,000 Signatures

  Created by Sam Broderick
• 

  Lets Make Sure Plymouth Uni NEVER invest in Fossil Fuels

  At the People and Planet society here at Plymouth University, we believe that our educational institution should be consistent throughout their policies. At the moment, there is no policy in place which stops our University investing in Fossil Fuels. We want this to change. Even though there are no investments at the moment, doesn't mean they won't in the future, and as the top of People and Planet's Green League Table 2015, we don't want them too. As students we are investing our time and money into our education, so why shouldn't our institute of learning promise never to invest in Fossil Fuels, and invest in our future instead?

  375 of 400 Signatures

  Created by Paisley Turner
• 

  Divest Ulster University from Fossil Fuels

  The Students’ Union recently received a response to their freedom of information request Ulster University on their investment portfolio. We had inquired as to Ulster University’s direct investments through Innovation Ulster and those made indirectly through it’s Endowment Fund. It was found that the University invests its Endowment Fund through the Rathbones Active Income and Growth Fund. Without taking into consideration the fund’s direct investments, and bearing in mind that the total amount of money Rathbones are managing for the University is over £7 million, it has invested approximately £80,000 in fossil fuel companies such as Dutch Shell and BP. Furthermore, the University also have significant investments in the tobacco industry (Over £26,000) and most worryingly in the arms industry (£13,000). In this current climate we believe this money should be invested into student facilities and more sustainable alternatives.

  2 of 100 Signatures

  Created by Campaigns Officer
• 

  Divest Appalachian

  Climate change is accelerating. We are witnessing the increasing impacts of a warming planet more and more consistently; in this last year alone our country experienced record-breaking heat, droughts, and hurricanes, which impacted hundreds of thousands of people and cost our country hundreds of billions of dollars. Hurricane Sandy alone caused $50 billion in damages. Experts agree that global warming caused by humans burning fossil fuels will continue to accelerate and intensify these tragic climate disasters. The scientific consensus is clear and overwhelming; we cannot safely burn even half of global fossil-fuel reserves without dangerously warming the planet for several thousand years.

  1 of 100 Signatures

  Created by Dustin Hicks
• 

  Disinvest the Church of England from fossil fuels

  1. At ExxonMobil's AGM in May 2016, 61.8% of shareholders rejected the resolution proposed by the Church Commissioners calling on the company to report on the impacts of climate change policies on its business. Furthermore, 81% of shareholders rejected a resolution to limit global warming to 2˚C. It is clear that engagement with fossil fuel companies such as Exxon isn't working. 2. Increasing numbers of experts in the financial and investment sectors are warning of the increasing financial risk of investing in fossil fuels. The Church of England held at least £190 million of investments in major fossil fuel companies in 2015. 3. There is a moral imperative for the Church and Christian community in the UK to take immediate and decisive action in response to the growing threat of human-induced climate change from the burning of fossil fuels. Care for God’s creation is central to the Christian faith. 4. The impact of human-induced climate change is already being experienced around the world, often affecting the poorest communities most severely. The impacts, which are likely to increase, include reduced food security, drought, famine, severe flooding and extreme weather causing devastation, fires, heat-waves, disease and migration of populations. 5. The scientific consensus tells us that at least 85% of known fossil fuel reserves must not be burned but must remain in the ground, in order to keep the rise in average global temperature to below 1.5 degrees Celsius. 6. The Church has made commitments to address climate change and reduce its overall carbon footprint. It is important that this commitment is extended to how funds are invested. The Church has a unique opportunity to demonstrate leadership on this issue and to influence the public debate on the ethics of continuing to invest in fossil fuels. For more information about the Bright Now campaign please see www.brightnow.org.uk

  4,669 of 5,000 Signatures

  Created by Operation Noah
• 

  UCL, DIVEST FROM FOSSIL FUELS

  Climate change has already caused millions to lose their lives and livelihoods after only one degree of global average warming [5]. ‘Business as usual’ scenarios see us facing up to six degrees of warming and hundreds of millions suffering. It’s time to take this problem on at its source: the fossil fuel companies. If it is wrong to wreck the climate, then it is wrong to profit from that wreckage. UCL cannot continue to use its funds from students, alumni, trusts and grant-making bodies to fund fossil fuel companies through its portfolio of investments. UCL's academics show a strong consensus on the effects of climate change, taking it into account in their research and making constructive proposals for how we can respond to and overcome it as a society. UCL is giving money to further this positive research yet chooses to invest in the fossil fuel industry, the root cause of climate change. This shows massive disrespect to their own staff, to the future of their students, and to all those around the world suffering the effects of climate change but also from the human right violations carried out by fossil fuel companies. With 1/4 of UK universities now having divested, 16 of which in the last year, UCL is losing its chance to lead the way towards a more sustainable world, proving that management prioritises profit over the protection of the environment, the future generations and the voice of thousands of students and academic staff who support divestment. In the ultimatum letter we sent to management in November 2016 we received more than 100 signatures from academic staff who support divestment [6]. How long will management keep disregarding the views of its student body and staff? One of the few counter-arguments management has presented is that they are scared divestment would negatively affect UCL's engineering department. However there is no evidence that by divesting UCL will risk its sponsorship from fossil fuel companies and jeopardise the ties the Engineering department have with them. All other universities who have divested still maintain links with the companies with no effect on their students future relations with these companies whatsoever. It is therefore high time we DEMOCRATISED our university and TAKE ACTION to prevent further planetary degradation. We as students, academics and above all citizens, have the power to change the world. References: [1] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/white-paper/mission [2] UCL Investment Portfolio, December 2012. [3] http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/08/Unburnable-Carbon-Full1.pdf, p.13-14. [4] UCL Ethical Investment Policy, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/finance/finance_docs/investment_policy.htm [5] DARA, Climate Vulnerability Number 2010 http://daraint.org/climate-vulnerability-monitor/climate-vulnerability-monitor-2010/ [6] Open Letter to UCL Management http://fossilfreeucl.tumblr.com/openletter

  3,381 of 4,000 Signatures

  Created by Natasha Gorodnitski
• 

  UCT to divest from fossil fuels and invest in sustainable energy

  Almost every government in the world has agreed that any warming above a 2 °C rise would be unsafe, and many[1] believe that target should no more than 1.5 °C degrees. Humanity has raised the global temperature by 0.8 °C, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected. More than a third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 per cent more acidic, and the climate dice are loaded for both increasing floods and droughts. This damage to a human-friendly climate threatens the most fundamental human right – the right to life – and the environment and economies that support human life. Scientists estimate that humanity can add roughly 565 more gigatonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and still have an 80% hope of keeping average global warming below two degrees.[2] Computer models calculate that even if we stopped increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels now, the temperature would still rise another 0.8 °C above the 0.8 °C we have already warmed, which means that we’re already three-quarters of the way to the 2 °C target. The proven coal, oil, and gas reserves of fossil-fuel companies, corporate and state-owned, which they currently plan to extract, equal about 2,795 gigatonnes of CO2, or five times the amount we can release without passing 2 °C of warming. Given this mounting crisis, there have been numerous authoritative calls[3] for a global target of phasing out all use of fossil fuels, or achieving carbon neutrality (net zero emissions), by 2050. Africa is a continent particularly vulnerable to climate change and it would be short-sighted to contribute to our own destruction – ‘extremely dangerous’ climate change[4] – in the name of short-term economic development. The principle of intergenerational equity is written into the South African Constitution, but contributing further to climate change would inevitably compromise the lives and livelihoods of current and future generations. The fossil fuel industry threatens human health (through climate change, air and water pollution), threatens democracy (through funding, disclosed and undisclosed, of political parties and politicians)[5] and threatens science (by funding climate science denial campaigns and using non-disclosure agreements to block research into the health impacts of fossil fuel extraction). Every societal institution that is aware of the climate change threat has a profound responsibility to take every possible action to avert it, especially to those that hold some responsibility for contributing to it through past and present emissions. It makes no sense to preserve the short- and medium-term value of current investments while contributing to long-term economic destruction. Divestment is wise (avoiding risk of stranded assets), ethical, feasible (many other institutions are doing it), effective and urgent.[6] UCT's own chancellor, Graça Machel, told the UN in September 2014, “There is a huge mismatch between the magnitude of the challenge and the response we heard here today. The scale is much more than we have achieved.” UCT has already made strong commitments to sustainability.[7] Honouring them demands consistent, decisive action to stop dangerous climate change. UCT aims to be a centre of excellence in climate change research, and risks undermining its academic integrity if it continues to invest in companies and practices at odds with the conclusions of its researchers. [*] References can be viewed at gofossilfreesouthafrica.wordpress.com/about. NB: Please sign this petition only if you are a member of the UCT community – faculty, staff, students and alumni.

  702 of 800 Signatures

  Created by David Le Page
• 

  Den Haag Fossielvrij

  Wij willen Den Haag fossielvrij om deze redenen: VERSNELD OVERSCHAKELEN OP DUURZAME ENERGIE Elk jaar dat we eerder afstappen van fossiele brandstoffen betekent minder onherstelbare en onnodige klimaatschade. Onnodig, want volgens sommige wetenschappers kan de transitie naar 100% duurzame energie al in 10 jaar* voor elkaar zijn. Het idee van Fossielvrij: als investeerders hun geld massaal terugtrekken uit de fossiele industrie, en dat geld opnieuw investeren in schone energie, kan de wereld al veel sneller overschakelen op 100% schone energie. INWONERS VAN DEN HAAG BESCHERMEN Geen land ter wereld kan de gevolgen van die opwarming ontvluchten. Ook Den Haag zou miljarden** moeten investeren om onze kust te beschermen tegen de stijgende zeespiegel. Volgens de laatste onderzoeken van enkele wetenschappers kan het zeeniveau over 80 jaar al met enkele meters*** gestegen zijn. Zolang fossiele brandstoffen de normaalste zaak van de wereld blijven, is elke maatregel om de kust te beschermen, dweilen met de kraan open. FINANCIËLE KWETSBAARHEID VERKLEINEN De Nederlandsche Bank, The Bank of England en 's werelds grootste vermogensbeheerder BlackRock waarschuwen**** ook voor de financiële risico's van fossiele investeringen. 80% van de voorraden kolen, olie en gas mogen niet gebruikt worden, volgens de Klimaattop in Parijs. Daarom zijn fossiele bedrijven overgewaardeerd op de beurs. Het is wachten tot de zeepbel (carbon bubble) knapt. Organisaties met veel fossiele aandelen zijn extreem kwetsbaar. MOREEL LEIDERSCHAP TONEN Gemeente Den Haag is de Internationale Stad van Vrede en Recht. Hoe krom zou het zijn als onze stad rijker zou worden van investeringen die klimaatoorlogen en klimaatvluchtelingen veroorzaken? Den Haag heeft een morele verantwoordelijkheid om zelf het goede voorbeeld geven. Door geld terug te trekken uit de fossiele industrie. En bedrijven, overheden van landen en steden aan te spreken op hun verantwoordelijkheid om alles op alles te zetten om klimaatontwrichting te stoppen. ------------------------- Voor wie precies wil weten hoe het zit: * Volgens wetenschappers van de University of Sussex kan de energietransitie al binnen 10 jaar voltooid zijn: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629615300827 ** The London School of Economics heeft in het Stern Review (2007) aangetoond dat het veel goedkoper is om nu de CO2-uitstoot drastisch te beperken, dan om maatregelen te nemen om ons te beschermen tegen de gevolgen van klimaatontwrichting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review ***Klimaatwetenschappers hebben onderzocht dat door het smelten van Antartica het zeeniveau rond 2100 al met enkele meters gestegen kan zijn – behalve als we heel snel stoppen met kolen, olie en gas. http://www.nature.com/articles/nature17145.epdf http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.html **** Artikelen over de financiële risico's van investeringen in de fossiele industrie: http://www.nrc.nl/handelsblad/2016/03/04/dnb-nederlandse-economie-moet-af-van-kolen-olie-1598050 http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/03/21/bank-of-england-regulator-warns-of-growing-climate-risks/ https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/en-mx/literature/whitepaper/bii-pricing-climate-risk-international.pdf https://hbr.org/2016/04/the-data-says-climate-change-could-cost-investors-trillions

  1,033 of 2,000 Signatures

  Created by Femke Sleegers
• 

  Für eine sichere Landesbank Baden-Württemberg: Schluss mit Risikogeschäften auf Klimakosten

  Weltweit spielen Banken eine zentrale Rolle bei der Klimazerstörung durch fossile Energien. Erst wenn Banken ein Projekt finanzieren, kann in Kolumbien nach Kohle gegraben, in Nigeria nach Öl gebohrt oder in Kanada nach Schiefergas gefrackt werden. Lange haben die Banken Gewinne aus diesem Geschäft abgeschöpft – ohne Rücksicht auf die Schäden für die Umwelt, das Klima oder die Bevölkerung [1]. Doch mittlerweile drohen ihnen hohe Verluste: Je ernsthafter die Politik weltweit gegen den Klimawandel vorgeht, umso schneller werden fossile Energien zum Auslaufmodel. Der größte Kohlekonzern der USA, Peabody, musste bereits Insolvenz anmelden, und auch die RWE, die statt auf die Energiewende auf Kohle gesetzt hatte, steht kurz vor der Pleite – mit massiven Folgen für Anleger und Kreditgeber [2]. Die europäische Zentralbank warnt in diesem Zusammenhang bereits vor der nächsten großen Wirtschaftskrise [3]. Auch die LBBW und ihre Kunden sind über Aktienfonds an großen Öl- und Kohlekonzernen wie RWE, Royal Dutch Shell oder Total beteiligt [4]. Zusätzlich unterstützt die Bank Kohle-, Öl- und Gasförderung mit Krediten, zuletzt mit über 250 Millionen Euro im Jahr 2015 [5]. Die LBBW, die während der Finanzkrise 2009 mit öffentlichen Geldern in Milliardenhöhe gerettet werden musste, ist damit anfällig für die nächste Krise – und befeuert aktiv die Zerstörung des Klimas. Im Herbst forderten deshalb mehrere NGOs den neuen Vorstandsvorsitzenden der LBBW, Rainer Neske, in einem Brief dazu auf, seine Strategie für den Ausstieg aus der Finanzierung fossiler Energien dazulegen.[6] Eine Antwort bleibt die Bank bisher schuldig. Doch wir können die LBBW von diesem Kurs abbringen. Die Bank bemüht sich seit einiger Zeit um Nachhaltigkeit und hat im Rüstungsbereich bereits Investitionen in Streumunition und Landminen ausgeschlossen [7]. Und auf Druck der regierenden Grünen verzichtete sie 2012 auf Spekulationen mit Nahrungsmitteln [8]. Da sich die Bank in öffentlicher Trägerschaft befindet (die Stadt Stuttgart und das Land Baden-Württemberg halten über 40 Prozent der Anteile), ist sie empfänglich für Druck aus der Politik. Oberbürgermeister Fritz Kuhn und Finanzministerin Edith Sitzmann sitzen selbst im Aufsichtsrat der LBBW und können sich dort direkt für den Ausstieg aus den fossilen Energien stark machen. Die grün-schwarze Landesregierung hat sich sogar in den Koalitionsvertrag geschrieben, die LBBW bei einem solchen Ausstieg zu unterstützen [9]. Damit diesen Worten auch Taten folgen, müssen wir die Grünen in die Pflicht nehmen. Mit einem öffentlichen Appell schaffen wir Aufmerksamkeit und fordern entschiedenes Handeln. Die Grünen in Baden-Württemberg müssen dafür sorgen, dass die LBBW ihre finanzielle und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung wahrnimmt und die Finanzierung von Kohle, Öl und Gas konsequent ausschließt. [1] Kirsten Bialdiga, „Blutkohle aus Kolumbien“, RP Online, 16. 01. 2016; „Menschenrechtsorganisationen klagen Shell wegen Umweltvergiftung an“, ZEIT Online, 03. 11. 2015. [2] Claus Hecking, „Kohle ist kaputt“, ZEIT Online, 16. 04. 2016; Sebastian Baltzer, „RWE vor dem Aus“, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 06. 07. 2016. [3] Michael Bauchmüller, „Absturzgefahr im Treibhaus“, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 12. 02. 2016. [4] Jürgen Lessat, „Her mit der Kohle“, Kontext, 15. 06. 2016. [5] LBBW Nachhaltigkeitsbericht 2015, S. 73. [6] Offener Brief an Rainer Neske, Vorstandsvorsitzender der LBBW, 1. November 2016. [7] Fair Finance Guide Deutschland, http://fairfinanceguide.de/ffg-d/banken/lbbw/ [8] „LBBW stellt Nahrungsmittelspekulationen ein“, ZEIT Online, 26. 06. 2012. [9] „Baden-Württemberg gestalten“, Koalitionsvertrag zwischen Bündnis 90/Die Grünen Baden-Württemberg und der CDU Baden-Württemberg, 2016, S. 15.

  536 of 600 Signatures

  Created by Christine Langkamp