SCOTTISH universities signed up to a COP26 green network of academic institutions committed to tackling climate change have shares worth nearly £5.2 million in fossil fuel firms and arms companies.
An investigation by The Ferret ahead of the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow (COP26) can reveal that Glasgow and Strathclyde universities invest millions in Royal Dutch Shell and BP.
Glasgow University also invests in Halliburton, a US firm which operates in the oil and fracking sectors.
The universities also own shares in arms companies such as BAE Systems, Thales, and Leonardo, major players in a military-industrial sector whose carbon footprint has caused concern.
READ MORE: Eco-friendly homes shift ‘could boost Scottish GDP by £8 billion’
According to one report, arms firms annually emit more greenhouse gases than 60 individual nations – including Uganda which has a population of 45 million people.
Critics have called on both universities to divest from these firms, arguing they should not fund companies that profit from environmentally damaging practices and conflict.
Campaign group People and Planet said that academic institutions continuing to invest in fossil fuel companies, “shows a clear and indefensible gap between words and action”.
In reply, however, both Glasgow University and Strathclyde University said they are fully committed to tackling the climate emergency.
COP26 is due to take place in Glasgow in November. The United Nations event will be hosted by the UK Government with US president Joe Biden expected to attend, as well as dozens of other world leaders.
READ MORE: Top health expert warns it's unwise for COP26 to take place in 2021
Both Strathclyde and Glasgow universities are part of the COP26 Universities Network which involves more than 40 UK universities.
The network’s mission “is to ensure that the UK academic sector plays our role in delivering a successful COP26, getting all players on track to deliver a low-carbon, resilient world”.
It adds: “We aim to do so by easing access to evidence and academic expertise for COP26 for government, NGOs, and other actors, and by taking action ourselves.”
The Ferret looked at hundreds of firms’ green credentials after obtaining details of share holdings through freedom of information requests.
We found Glasgow University’s shares in BP, Shell and Halliburton were worth £2,161,314 collectively, as of July 31, 2020. Strathclyde University’s shares in BP and Shell were jointly worth £1,052,731 on the same date.
Both universities also invest in arms companies whose operations impact the environment.
Glasgow University has shares worth £524,381 in BAE Systems and £18,525 in Leonardo, an Italian arms firm which employs nearly 2000 people in Edinburgh. Its shares in US defence company Lockheed Martin are worth £151,587 while shares in Northrop Grumman amounted to £80,230.
It also invests in the French arms firm Thales, with holdings worth £16,418, while its shares in Qinetiq were worth £523,994.
READ MORE: How the Covid-19 pandemic can help prepare the world to battle for the climate
THE total Glasgow University has invested in arms firms amounts to £1,314,863.
Strathclyde University has shares worth £514,200 in BAE Systems and £137,653 in Thales, a total of £651,853.
The Ferret calculated that both universities collectively hold shares worth £5,180,761 in fossil fuel and arms companies.
Military activity – such as deploying combat planes, warships and tanks – is energy intensive and dependent on fossil fuels.
A report last year, by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) and Declassified UK, said the military-industrial sector is a large source of greenhouse gas emissions.
SGR analysed the carbon emissions produced by 25 leading UK-based arms companies.
The report said that the carbon footprint of UK military spending in 2018 was “equivalent to the total CO2 emitted by the annual average mileage driven by over six million UK cars”.
BAE Systems, the UK’s largest arms corporation, contributed 30% of the emissions, the report said.
Ric Lander, divestment campaigner at Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: “Glasgow University students and staff will be especially surprised, given the university made a historic commitment to divest from fossil fuels as long ago as 2014. What’s the hold up?”
Lander pointed out that some Scottish universities have gone fossil free, including Glasgow Caledonian and Edinburgh University. He said this proves that “investment in zero-carbon solutions is entirely achievable”.
Lander continued: “In 2021, the year of COP26, divestment from fossil fuels would be a fantastic way for Glasgow-based institutions to make a bold statement for climate justice.”
J Clarke, co-director of climate campaigns at People and Planet – a UK-wide student network – said: “The continued investments of academic institutions in fossil fuel companies, the industry most responsible for the climate crisis, shows a clear and indefensible gap between words and action.”
Clarke added: “Universities positioning themselves as key actors in the solution to the climate crisis must immediately cease actively participating in the causes of that crisis. As the divestment movement has been saying for almost a decade: if it is wrong to wreck the climate, it is wrong to profit from that wreckage. It is time to move the money out of fossil fuel companies.”
READ MORE: Call for ban on fossil fuel investments by Scotland's new bank
Emma Cockburn, Scotland co-ordinator for Campaign Against Arms Trade, said it was “disgraceful” that Glasgow’s two largest universities are investing millions of pounds worth of public money into “companies who thrive on arms sales and the exploitation of the Earth’s natural resources”.
“These institutions are supposed to be working for the public good,” Cockburn said.
She called on universities to “do the right thing by adopting ethical investment policies”.
Cockburn added: “With COP26 fast approaching, the contribution of Scotland’s universities should be to champion positive-change and to focus on the devastating impact that these sectors are having in conflict zones around the world and on the environment around us.”
In reply, Strathclyde University said that last year it transferred approximately 7% of its investment portfolio to a sustainable fund, “resulting in a near halving of the carbon intensity of the portfolio”.
The university added it does not invest in companies that breach a number of criteria on human rights and ethics including firms deemed “incompatible with the ‘2 degree world’ climate change objective”.
Steven Wallace, Strathclyde University’s chief financial officer, told The Ferret: “As a socially-progressive, values-driven organisation, the University of Strathclyde recognises and is fully aware of its responsibilities towards tackling climate change.
“We are committed to implementing a responsible investment strategy that takes account of a range of environmental, social and governance issues to inform the university’s investment portfolio.”
A UNIVERSITY of Glasgow spokesperson said the institution was “proud to have taken a leading role among higher education institutions in making real and lasting commitments to tackle the climate emergency”.
The spokesperson pointed out that in 2014 Glasgow became the first UK university to commit to fully disinvesting from fossil fuels within a decade, adding that “this was a promise we are on track to deliver”.
In 2017, Glasgow University signed the Sustainable Development Goals Accord to formalise efforts to combat climate change.
The university spokesperson added: “In 2020, we launched Glasgow Green, our climate change strategy and action plan, in which we promised to go further and faster with our climate actions, setting an ambitious target to make the university carbon-neutral by 2030.
“Last year we also established our Centre for Sustainable Solutions to find new ways to turn our climate-related research into action and to further our integration into the local community’s climate change planning.”
Defence-related organisations provide a small fraction of the university’s income, the spokesperson added.
A BAE Systems spokesperson said: “We’re committed to the highest standards of environmental management and, as a major manufacturer, we’re focused on reducing the environmental impact of our operations, products and supply chain as part of our sustainability agenda.”
A spokesperson for Lockheed Martin said: “Lockheed Martin is applying sound science and forward thinking to address some of the most pressing environmental, social, and governance issues facing society today and in the future. As a global technology leader, we’re engineering science that supports the world’s most advanced infrastructure from space-based communications to efficient energy access to government stability. As a responsible global citizen, we’re developing our products and services in ways that protect the environment, strengthen communities and propel responsible growth.”
A Shell spokesperson said: “We agree action is needed now on climate change. What will accelerate the energy transition is effective policy, investment in technology and changing customer behaviour. Addressing a challenge this big requires a collaborative and global approach. Shell is playing its part. We have set an ambition to be a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050, or sooner, which means moving in step with society to address our own emissions and help customers to reduce theirs.”
READ MORE: 'A blow to the North East': Shell to cut 330 jobs, mainly in Aberdeen
In 2019 The Ferret reported that Shell had been named in a new database on pollution compiled by the government’s Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Shell’s St Fergus gas plant near Peterhead emitted nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas. BP’s operations have caused oil spills.
The Ferret is an editorially independent, not-for-profit co-operative run by its journalists and subscribers. You can find it at https://theferret.scot/ and can subscribe for £3 a month here: https://theferret.scot/subscribe/
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