STUDENTS have occupied part of a university building in protest at the institution’s rejection of calls to pull its investments from fossil fuels.
Edinburgh University said it would withdraw investments from the most polluting fuels, coal and “tar sands’’, if there were realistic alternative sources of energy available and the companies involved were not investing in technology to cut carbon emissions.
But environmental campaigners criticised the university for missing a “clear opportunity’’ to take a moral lead on tackling climate change.
Yesterday about 30 protesters from the student People and Planet group occupied the administrative building Charles Stewart House on the city’s Chambers Street in protest.
As The National went to press the protesters were planning to stay in the building overnight – and said they would remain until their demands had been met.
Student campaigner Kirsty Haigh said: “We’ve been running this campaign for three years and people have said that they want to divest from fossil fuels, and the university has not listened.”
She added: “The fact that our university has chosen to continue funding environmental degradation and human suffering shows they care far more about profit than our futures.”
The occupation started at 12.15pm yesterday and the students say they will stay as long as the university refuses to make tangible commitments to “stop funding climate change” by divesting from fossil fuels over the next five years.
The university said that the occupation has been peaceful so far.
Edinburgh University on Tuesday issued a statement on its changed fossil fuel investment policy in the face of a growing campaign to “divest’’ from such fuels, which has seen other universities, including Glasgow, withdraw investment.
It said it would work with companies to reduce their emissions and continue, through research and teaching, to help develop alternative energy sources and technology to capture carbon emissions.
In a statement, senior vice principal Professor Charlie Jeffery said: “The university believes we should seek means through our investments to support the transition from a high-carbon to a low-carbon society, as long as actions taken are consistent with other university objectives and values.’’
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here