Ludlow Friend urges pension committee to divest from fossil fuels
Friends from Ludlow, Clun Valley and Shrewsbury Meetings supported a Friend in addressing the Shropshire Pensions Committee
Ludlow Quakers addressed the Shropshire Pensions Committee last week in support of a 200-strong petition asking the Pensions Fund to divest from fossils fuels and invest in renewable energy sources.
Friends from Ludlow, Clun Valley and Shrewsbury Meetings supported the five-minute presentation in which Andrew Woodgate, from Ludlow Meeting, drew attention to both the moral case for divestment and the growing business case.Jamie Wrench, co-clerk of Ludlow Meeting and a former Shropshire local government officer, told the Friend: ‘Andrew reminded members of their fiduciary duty to take account of climate change in considering their portfolio, and argued that seeking change through “involved investor engagement” did not work in the case of fossil fuel companies, who were “structurally unable to realign their business models consistent with a two-degree world”.
‘He warned of “asset standing” as investors realised firms with trillion-dollar debts could not turn their fossil fuel reserves into cash without rendering the climate inimical to human life. Other pension funds had already divested without negative effects, and renewables were now seen as a safe investment. Changing now should outperform the market.’
According to ClientEarth, the body that has successfully taken the government to court over air quality, Local Government Pension Scheme funds have been slow to invest in renewable infrastructure schemes compared with other pension schemes. However, it argues that these funds ‘offer the prospect of stable and low-risk returns of five-ten per cent or more per annum… and energy price structure means it acts as a good hedge against inflation’.
Jamie Wrench told the Friend that the Shropshire Council Pensions Committee’s pre-drafted response was ‘polite but, as expected, negative’. He said that it pointed out: ‘They had an overriding duty to consider financial responsibilities above any other considerations and did not wish to restrict their investment managers.’
Comments
Please login to add a comment
