An oil-coated pelican being checked. Photo: US Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer Caleb Critchfield/flickr CC:BY.
Values for money: divesting from BP
How do we live our testimonies
In recent weeks we have heard that Britain Yearly Meeting (BYM) has defended its financial investment of over half a million pounds in the global oil company BP.
The World Development Movement (WDM) has brought to attention BYM’s current investment, the largest amount invested by the organisation in any one business, and called on Friends to divest this investment due to BP’s contribution to climate change.
BYM has responded by highlighting the positive effects that Friends can have on the company as shareholders, voicing opposition to activities such as oil sands exploration and calling for investment in renewable energy at BP’s annual general meetings.
The opportunities to influence corporations through shareholder status should not be underestimated. As Friends have done, many activists have deliberately invested in problematic businesses and used their weight as shareholders to engage in dialogue with company directors.
It is indeed important to avoid acting on kneejerk urges to disassociate ourselves from companies or organisations whose activities we oppose without considering the power we have to influence them before we do so. However, the benefits of investing in such companies vary with each case, and I believe that in the case of BP they do not outweigh the damage potentially caused.
We need to look at what BP may or may not, or even can and can not, do in the future. BP can play a more responsible role in the clean up of the Gulf of Mexico spill, and offer more compensation to those whose livelihoods have been affected as well as to environmental agencies that are attempting to mitigate the damage caused to ecosystems. As highlighted by BYM, BP can indeed stop its investment in the highly destructive, unsustainable and carbon intensive oil sands activities in Canada. BP can also certainly invest more in renewable energy. Shareholders can potentially play a part in these changes.
However, in a world that will see drastic changes in energy production if it is to avoid catastrophic climate change, BP and the way it works has little potential. Despite the most serious warnings from climate scientists and ecologists, BP has planned to expand its increasingly dangerous deepwater drilling. In recent years it has decreased its investment in renewables. Earlier this month, BP has rejected demands from the Co-op, one of its shareholders, to avoid drilling in ecologically sensitive areas, a concern raised as a result of the Gulf of Mexico spill. All this suggests little concern beyond profit.
Our testimonies lead us to actively strive for a vision of a just and sustainable world. I may seem idealistic, or unrealistic, but I see no place for BP and its strategies in such a future. If we are to meet the global sustainability challenge, energy must be produced by renewable energy companies, smaller and more numerous than the oil giants today. In shares, BYM’s money holds value beyond the direct purposes of the Quaker community and it should be put to its utmost use in supporting our values.
Half a million pounds is small change to BP, leaving the views of investors of such a sum of little concern. Divestment will hardly stop BP’s irresponsible activities, but there are many truly ethical businesses that, with BYM’s investment, can contribute towards a green economy.
The climate and delicate ecosystems are changing faster than BP and other oil multinationals ever will. Let us support companies that are truly facing their responsibilities instead.
