The Case for Divestment

- The Australia Institute Report

“Putting your head in the sand should no longer be an option for institutional investors.”

The Case for Divestment

Contents

Climate change will affect us all 1

The fossil fuel industry is socially irresponsible 1

The fossil fuel industry is complicit in human rights abuses 1

The global divestment movement grows by the day 2

Three simple numbers 3

Divestment makes financial sense 3

Divestment retains Warwick’s academic integrity 5

Divestment is in Warwick’s best interests 6

Bibliography 7

About Us

Fossil Free Warwick is part of the global FossilFree movement that aims to remove the fossil fuelindustry’s social licence to operate. Fossil FreeWarwick is calling on the University of Warwickto move its money out of fossil fuels, stop the gre-enwash, and support a clean energy future for all.

fossilfreewarwick.org

Fossil Free Warwick works in conjunction with:

Warwick People & Planet is a member of thestudent-led movement that empowers studentsand young people with the skills, confidence andknowledge they need to make change happen, athome and globally. People & Planet is the largeststudent network in Britain campaigning to endworld poverty, defend human rights and protectthe environment.

peopleandplanet.org/fossil-free

350.org is building a global climate movement.Its online campaigns, grassroots organising, andmass public actions are coordinated by a globalnetwork active in over 188 countries.

gofossilfree.org 1

1350.org logo licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

ii

Climate change will affect us all

The consequences of climate change are well known. ‘Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched bythe impacts of climate change’ [1]. Should global temperatures exceed a rise of 2℃ , our generation facesfood and water scarcity, increased resource conflict and a future of insecurity [2]. We will experienceunbearable strain from mass migration, severe, adverse impacts upon our health, and rising tides willdestroy our coastal cities [3].The economic and social costs of inaction vastly exceed those of prompt and effective action [4]. Putbluntly, a 2℃ rise is ‘incompatible with human civilization’ as we know it [5]. Much of this can beavoided but the time frame in which we have to act is little more than a decade [6].

The fossil fuel industry is socially irresponsible

Standing in the way of a future compatible with human civilisation, delaying action at every turn, isthe fossil fuel industry. Often cited as leaders in investing in renewable technology, the fossil fuelindustry invests a relative pittance in renewables. To put this in perspective, over the next decadeprivate-sector oil companies are set to invest $1,100bn in new oil-related upstream capital expenditure[7] whilst between 2000 and 2010 US based fossil fuel industries invested just $9bn in non-hydrocarbontechnologies [8]. In 2012, Shell and Chevron each spent just 1.5% of their yearly capital expenditure inrenewable energy production and research [9]. In April 2013 BP sold off its $3.1bn wind energy businessas ‘part of a continuing effort to become a more focused oil and gas company’ [10].Shell, BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhilips alone have produced at least 10% of global emis-sions since 1750 [11]. Moreover, the vast majority of their capital expenditure is directed towards moreexploration for fossil fuels and developing increasingly destructive and dangerous methods of extrac-tion [12]. This includes oil sands exploration that experts at Stanford University found to be ‘22% morecarbon intensive’ than conventional sources [13].Every government in the world has agreed to limit warming to 2℃ [5]. The fossil fuel industry, on theother hand, has made it clear that they intend to extract and burn more coal, oil and gas than a 2℃ limitcould possibly allow [14]. This is evinced by the fact that the ‘Big 5’ fossil fuel companies alone spentover $200 billion on exploration for new carbon projects in 2014. The bonus pay packets of their chiefexecutives are linked to $1 trillion of investments in new extractive projects over 9 years [15].Every citizen and institution has a role to play in mitigating climate change. However, our effortswill amount to little if the fossil fuel industry is allowed to continue pouring millions of pounds intoinfluencing government policy [16] [17]. The industry is actively and effectively lobbying to preventpolitical action on climate change [18].Through divestment we seek to name and shame these companies, removing the industry’s social li-cense to operate. Divestment will not financially bankrupt the industry, but it can morally bankruptthem. More concretely still, divestment pressures elected officials into rejecting money from the fossilfuel industry, weakening their lobbying power [19]. It also creates a general clamour for legislative in-tervention; an Oxford University study found that ‘[i]n almost every divestment campaign we reviewedfrom adult services to Darfur, from tobacco to South Africa, divestment campaigns were successful inlobbying for restrictive legislation affecting stigmatised firms’ [20, p.14].

The fossil fuel industry is complicit in human rights abuses

The fossil fuel industry perpetrates direct and indirect abuses of human rights. From Canada, to theUnited States, to Nigeria, to Ecuador, this industry has made the lives of local residents unbearable[21].

1

In Richmond, California, the Chevron refinery exposes children to lethal pollutants and high rates ofasthma [22, p.19]. In Alberta, Canada, oil sand extraction has destroyed, and forced indigenous peopleaway from, what is legally their land. There has also been a severe increase in rates of cancer [23,p.13]. In Nigeria, Shell refuses to clean up oil spills, degrading people’s sources of clean water andfood [24] [25]. In Ecuador, the industry is destroying local people’s homes and the ecosystems uponwhich they rely [26]. In Australia, coal mining companies are planning to enter into a new mega-project in the Galilee Basin inQueensland, whichAboriginal elders have described as attempted ‘culturalgenocide’ [27].The health impacts alone of fossil fuel extraction near to people’s homes should be cause enough fordivestment [3]. This list is indicative, not exhaustive. There is little doubt that behind its façade of Cor-porate Social Responsibility, the industry is neither acting in accordance with our University’s missionstatement, nor its Policy for Socially Responsible Investment, nor common morality. The University’sown Socially Responsible Investment Policy states the ‘need to reduce, and, ideally, eliminate, corporatebehaviour leading to: environmental degradation’ [28]. The impact of climate change will only com-pound these abuses.

The global divestment movement grows by the day

The Fossil Free divestment campaign is the fastest growing divestment campaign in history [29]. Thisis a global campaign gathering pace as it crosses international borders and spills into many sectors ofthe economy:Fossil Free Universities There are currently over 450 active Fossil Free University campaigns span-

ning the globe, including in the US, Europe and further afield. Here in the UK, Fossil Free cam-paigns have sprung up at 50 universities since November 2013 [30]. 33 universities and collegesworldwide have already committed to divestment [31]. Most recently, the University of Hawaiihas pledged to fully divest its $66 million endowment from coal, oil, and gas companies, and theUniversity of Oxford and University of Washington both pledged to eliminate their investmentsin thermal coal [32] [33] [34]. The University of Edinburgh pledged to divest from three majorfossil fuel companies after a ten day occupation on campus this year [35].Furthermore, the NUS, representing seven million UK students, has voted overwhelmingly tocommit to fossil free investments and to back the Fossil Free campaign [36].

Operation Noah This campaign is working with religious institutions to help them divest. Among thenotable supporters are former Archbishop RowanWilliams, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, ChristianAid and Tearfund [37] [38]. From the Quakers in the UK to the World Council of Churches,representing half a billion Christians worldwide, 82 religious institutions have already divested[31].

MedAct & Healthy Planet Recognising that climate change has severely detrimental impacts on hu-man health, MedAct and Healthy Planet are leading the divestment campaign on behalf of med-ical institutions in the UK. These institutions include the British Medical College, British MedicalAssociation and the Royal Colleges. Leading medical researchers in the British Medical Journalsupport the campaign, calling upon these institutions to divest [39] [40].

Action is not restricted to students, religious organisations, or health professionals, however. 42 citiesworldwide have committed to fossil fuel divestment [31]. This year the Norwegian Parliament voted tofully divest its $900 billion sovereign wealth fund – the world’s largest – of its $8 billion holdings in coalcompanies [41]. France’s largest insurer, AXA, is to divest $559 million from coal by 2020 [42].The financial industry is also preparing for future divestment, as discussed below. Furthermore, manyinternationally recognised and influential figures have directly called for divestment, including formerGoldman Sachs Chief Risk Analyst Bob Litterman [43], US President Barack Obama [44], UN Climate

2

Chief Christina Figueres [45] and World Bank President Dr. Jim Kim [46]. None other than the UN’sprimary organisation on climate, the UNFCCC, this year threw its weight behind the divestment cam-paign [47]. Even Mark Moody-Stuart, former Chairman of Shell, has described divestment from oilcompanies an ‘entirely rational market approach’ [48].

Three simple numbers

The case for divestment is backed by three simple numbers:2°C The average global temperature that must not be exceeded to avoid the most severe consequences

of climate change [49]. This is the only number to which all world governments have agreed upon(as part of the Copenhagen Accord) [50].

900 The gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO2) that can be burnt before 2050 if there is to be an 80%chance of remaining below a 2℃ rise [51].

2860 The total amount of proven fossil fuel reserves, in GtCO2 [51].The conclusion is simple: to have an 80% chance of remaining below a 2℃ temperature rise, 69% ofproven fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground (see Figure (a)). That is, about two thirds ofprospected carbon is unburnable.

2860 GtCO2

Proven Reserves

900 GtCO2

Carbon

Budget

(a) 80% chance of avoiding 2℃

2860GtCO2 Proven Reserves

1425 GtCO2

Carbon

Budget

(b) 50% chance of avoiding 3℃

Comparisons of proven and burnable fossil fuel reserves for period to 2050:(a) Over two-thirds of proven reserves are unburnable under the 2℃-80% budget.(b) Even under a more reckless 3℃-50% budget half of proven reserves are unburnable.

Divestment makes financial sense

There has been little financial adjustment to reflect the necessity of avoiding catastrophic climate change.Thus, the carbon risks inherent within fossil fuel investment have likely led to the creation of a carbonbubble [52]. With environmental regulations destined to become ever more stringent, and whilst provencarbon reserves increase and our carbon budget decreases, the threat of the carbon bubble burstingbecomes a very real risk that cannot be ignored [53].Research published in Nature studied the amount of coal, gas, and oil that must thus remain ‘stranded’underground in order to avoid 2℃ warming [54]:The threat to companies of being left with stranded assets is high and the potential impact is substantial.A 20% downwards restatement of Shell’s reserves saw a 10% decrease in share price. This suggeststhat 50% of the stock’s value was attributable to proven reserves [52]. Research from Standard & Poor

3

Coal

82%

Gas

49%

Oil

33%

Figure 2: Global reserves: Per cent that cannot be burned [55]

suggested that fossil fuel company bonds could face ratings downgrades, leading to higher borrowingcosts and difficulties refinancing debt [56].Furthermore, HSBC demonstrated that the likely fall in the price of fossil fuels combined with the directeffects of the carbon bubble could see the market capitalisation of some companies at risk to the tune of40-60% [57]. The aforementioned risks indicate that fossil fuel companies may not be correctly priced,and moreover, that investment in the industry is a highly uncertain and precarious option.Despite the risks, institutional investors are understandably hesitant to contemplate divestment, as man-dated by fiduciary duty. The perceived profitability of the fossil fuel industry combined with the inertiaof the status quo can present artificial barriers to move upon the facts. However, careful considerationnot only permits but encourages investors to act.A wealth of studies show that a fossil fuel screened tracker fund offers no statistically significant impacton returns compared to common benchmarks (such as the Russell 3000) and reduces risk [58] [59].Research from Impax Asset Management demonstrates that eliminating the fossil fuel sector from aglobal benchmark index would actually have induced a small positive return [60]. MSCI found thatfossil fuel divestment reduced portfolio risk due to the energy sector’s high volatility [61]. Similarly,Aperio Group summarises its fossil fuel screening research thus: ‘over seven years, there would havebeen no impact on performance’ [62].In June this year, Mercer released a ground-breaking report supported by the UK’s Department of En-ergy and Climate Change, as well as the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group.The report gives a detailed analysis of carbon risk in investment portfolios, and recommends ‘portfoliodecarbonisation’ as a serious option for investors, purely on financial grounds [63]. It found, for ex-ample, that in the coal sub-sector, there will be ‘as much as a 74 percent drop in average annual returnsover the next 35 years’ [64].A report this year by Thomson Reuters – and commissioned by FutureSuper, Australia’s first fossil freepension fund – back-tested a hypothetical ethically screened (including fossil free) index over the pastfew years. Its key findings were that this fund ‘outperforms the Thomson Reuters Australia index overa three and five year time period’, and furthermore, that ‘outperformance has been achieved at a muchlower level of investment risk’ [65].Although the fossil fuel industrymay once have been a lucrative sector, due to higher risks and increaseduncertainty regarding returns, it is argued that divestment from the sector is not only prudent but animperative for investors wishing to meet their fiduciary duties.Investors are beginning to appreciate the implications climate change mitigation will have upon thefossil fuel industry’s business model. To give just a few examples, 70 investors worth $3tn have writtento the world’s largest fossil fuel companies asking them to better assess climate change risks [66]; fol-lowing recommendations from its investment committee, Stanford University has divested its $18.7bnendowment from the coal industry [67]; the FTSE has created a set of indices excluding the fossil fuelindustry, and BlackRock will be offering investors related funds based on these indices [68]. In fact,

4

FTSE’s All-World ex Fossil Fuels Index has outperformed the FTSE All-World index across three andfive year timeframes, with reduced levels of volatility [69]. Finally, The Bank of England is investigatingthe systemic risk the carbon bubble poses to the economy, with Governor of the Bank, Mark Carney,stating that ‘the vast majority of reserves are unburnable’ [70] [71].The collective evidence and the actions being taken signify that the question of fossil fuel divestmentis one that institutional investors cannot afford to ignore and one that must be addressed now ratherthan later; no wonder then that ‘[t]wo-thirds of the UK public believe that investments in fossil fuelsare becoming increasingly risky’ [72].

Divestment retains Warwick’s academic integrity

Investing in fossil fuel companies is incongruous with the University’s values and policies. The Uni-versity has stated a ‘responsibility for, and a commitment to, the protection of the environment at alllevels’ [73]. Its investments should reflect this policy and encourage actions to reduce energy consump-tion and carbon emissions.Furthermore, there is historical precedent for divestment at this university. During the campaign againstSouth African apartheid, the University of Warwick divested its holdings in apartheid-linked shares andstopped banking with Barclays. This was a move consistent with the University’s current Policy for So-cially Responsible Investment [28]. Considering the aforementioned human rights concerns, investingin fossil fuel industries can similarly not be considered socially responsible.Notably, there is strong support for the Fossil Free divestment campaign on campus with more thantwo-thirds of students voting in favour in an all student referendum [74]. Similarly, Warwick FossilFree’s petition to Vice Chancellor Nigel Thrift has received almost 1500 signatures from students, staffand alumni [75].In a powerful show of support from the academy, over 100 academics at Warwick have put their nameto an open letter declaring support for divestment. [76]Across several departments research is currently being undertaken into renewable energy and sustain-able technologies, which will be vital for removing fossil fuels from our economy. Warwick Manufac-turing Group are developing renewable technologies that will ease the practicalities of wind and solarpower, as well as technologies that reduce energy usage from appliances like mobile phones [77]. In theEnergy Innovation Centre, researchers are developing ‘more economic and stable’ batteries for the elec-tric and hybrid cars of the future [78]. £1 million in research grants have been provided by organisationslike Wealth out of Waste for studies into sustainable chemistry and renewable polymers [79].In the School of Engineering, the SEED project investigates ‘low carbon energy technologies’ and solarenergy [80]. Finally, two of the three focuses of the new £100 million National Automotive InnovationCentre (NAIC) are ‘electric vehicles’ and ‘carbon reduction’ [81]. In light of the considerable moneyand priority reserved at Warwick for interdisciplinary research into alternative energy, sustainable ma-terials and low carbon transport solutions, the University is undermining its academic integrity by alsoinvesting in the fossil fuel industry.Additional support for this perspective can be seen in the University’s Global Research Priorities, whichare centred around challenges directly related to climate change, like food security (including concernsabout social justice and public health), sustainable cities, energy (including solar) and internationaldevelopment [82]. As part of its 50Forward campaign for donations, the University includes the priorityof food security, pointing out that 98% of hungry people live in developing nations, which are ‘mostbadly affected by natural disasters and the effects of climate change’ [83].Additionally, in the University’s strategic vision for 2015, they cite goals of embedding internationalismand sustainability into their mission, which includes a commitment to ‘halve projected carbon emissionsby 2020’ [84]. Fossil fuel divestment perfectly aligns with and epitomises these directives.

5

Divestment is in Warwick’s best interests

Warwick is 50 years young this year. It was born in a decade of huge social change and widespreadcultural innovation. Divestment is not only a moral and financial imperative, but presents Warwickwith an opportunity to return to those roots. Institutions worldwide are waking up to the fact thatdivestment is well within the bounds of reason.Here in the UK, SOAS, and the Universities of Oxford, Edinburgh, Bedfordshire and Glasgow have allpledged various degrees of divestment [31]. Warwick still has the opportunity to join these leading insti-tutions in shaping the debate on climate change, and claim its legacy on the right side of history.As well as protecting our investment portfolio from the risks of stranded carbon assets, demonstratingtrue leadership on climate change by becoming one of the UK’s first Fossil Free universities would beoverwhelmingly positive for Warwick’s image. Divestment gives Warwick the opportunity to distin-guish itself as forward looking, socially and environmentally responsible and prepared to align its valueswith its research. It communicates to alumni and stakeholders that environmental sustainability is morethan mere words on paper, but part of a coherent, considered and all-encompassing strategy. Such adisplay of prudence, conscience and consistency can only enhance Warwick’s ability to attract the bestand brightest students and researchers, ensuring that its next 50 years will be even more successful thanthe last.

“ Rethinkwhat fiduciary responsibilitymeans in this changingworld. It’s simple self-interest.Every company, investor and bank that screens new and existing investments for climaterisk is simply being pragmatic.Jim Yong KimWorld Bank Group PresidentDavos Press Conference, 23 January 2014 [85] ”

“ Academic institutions that are still vested in fossil fuels should ask themselves whether theyare in breach of their social responsibility to serve the community, the nation, and the world.Christiana FigueresExecutive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate ChangeStatement to Brown University, 16 April 2014 [86] ”

“ We need an apartheid-style boycott to save the planet. We must stop climate change. Andwe can, if we use the tactics that worked in South Africa against the worst carbon emitters.[…] People of conscience need to break their ties with corporations financing the injusticeof climate change.Desmond TutuArchbishop Emeritus of Cape Town and famous anti-apartheid campaignerWriting in the Guardian, 10 April 2014 [37] ”

6

References

[1] New York Times. Rajendra K. Pachauri, Yokohama press conference, 31st March 2014.[2] Climate News Network. Climate change makes violence likelier, 2014.[3] Climate and Health Alliance. Climate Change: Health Impacts and Opportunities - A Summary and

Discussion of the IPCC WGII Report, 2014.[4] Lord Nicholas Stern. I got it wrong on climate change – it’s far, far worse, 2014.[5] 350.org. The science.[6] Kevin Anderson. Climate change going beyond dangerous–brutal numbers and tenuous hope. 012|

Clima, page 15, 2012.[7] Carbon Tracker Initiative Energy TransitionAdvisors. Carbon Supply Cost Curves - Evaluating Financial

Risk to Oil Capital Expenditures, 2014.[8] American Petroleum Institute. American Made Energy, 2012.[9] Rolling Stone. Big oil’s lies about alternative energy, 2013.

[10] Bloomberg. BP to Sell U.S. Wind Business in Retreat to Fossil Fuels, 2013.[11] Richard Heede. Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement

producers, 1854–2010. Climatic Change, pages 1–13, 2014.[12] Guardian Environment. $1tn oil projects ’will not see return’, 2014.[13] Reuters. Canada’s oil sand battle with Europe, 2012.[14] Bill McKibben. Terrifying new math, 2012.[15] Guardian Environment. Oil company bosses’ bonuses linked to $1 trillion spending on extracting fossil

fuels, 2015.[16] Think Progress. Koch-funded groups fuel assault on Kansas clean energy law, 2014.[17] Bill McKibben. A moral atmosphere, 2013.[18] Counter Punch. How big oil bought Sacramento, 2014.[19] World Development Movement. The fossil fuel web of power.[20] Ben Caldecott, James Tilbury, and Atif Ansar. Stranded assets and the fossil fuel divestment campaign:

what does divestment mean for the valuation of fossil fuel assets? SSEE University of Oxford, 2013.[21] Oil Change International. The Price of Oil: Human Rights Violations.[22] Communities for a Better Environment. Richmond Health Survey Report, June 2009.[23] Amnesty International. Amnesty International Report 2013, 2013.[24] Amnesty International. Oil giant Shell criticized over Niger Delta pipelines ’sabotage’ claims, 2013.[25] Oil Change International. Shell’s Secret Collusion Documents, 2009.[26] CNN. Why oil drilling in Ecuador is ’ticking time bomb’ for planet, 2014.[27] Guardian Environment. The new coal frontier: Galilee Basin, Australia. 2015.[28] Warwick University. Policy for Socially Responsible Investment Policy, 2015.[29] Ben Caldecott, James Tilbury, and Christian Carey. Stranded Assets and Scenarios. SSEE University of

Oxford Discussion Paper, 2014.[30] People & Planet. People & Planet’s Fossil Free campaign, 2014.[31] Go Fossil Free. Fossil Free Commitments, 2014.[32] Huffington Post. University of Hawaii to divest from fossil fuel holdings by 2018, 2015.[33] Guardian Environment. Oxford University rules out investing in coal and tar sands, 2015.[34] Seattle Times. In symbolic move, UW votes to divest from coal, 2015.

7

[35] Guardian Environment. University of Edinburgh to divest from three major fossil fuel providers, 2015.[36] People & Planet. NUS backs Fossil Free campaign, 2014.[37] Guardian Comment is Free. Desmond Tutu calls for anti-apartheid style boycott of fossil fuel industry,

2014.[38] Operation Noah. Signatories and supporters.[39] MedAct. MedAct, 2014.[40] Healthy Planet. Divestment and Health.[41] Guardian Environment. Norway confirms $900bn sovereign wealth fund’s major coal divestment, 2015.[42] Guardian Environment. AXA to divest from high-risk coal funds due to threat of climate change, 2015.[43] CNBC. Ex Goldman risk chief: Stanford coal cut a ’tipping point’, 2014.[44] TheWall Street Journal. US President Barack Obama Speech at University of California, Irvine, 14th June

2014.[45] BBC. Get your cash out of fossil fuel backed funds says UN climate chief, 2014.[46] RTCC. World Bank chief backs fossil fuel divestment drive, 2014.[47] Guardian Environment. Climate change: UN backs fossil fuel divestment campaign, 2015.[48] CNN Money. Shell’s former chair calls fossil fuel divesment ‘rational’, 2015.[49] University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. Climate change: Actions, trends and

implications for business, 2013.[50] UNFCCC. Copenhagen Accord, 2009.[51] Carbon Tracker Initiative. Unburnable carbon 2013: Wasted capital and stranded assets, 2013.[52] Carbon Tracker Initiative. Unburnable Carbon - Are the world’s financial markets carrying a carbon

bubble?, 2014.[53] The Australia Institute. Climate proofing your investments: Moving funds out of fossil fuels, 2014.[54] M Jakob and J Hilaire. Climate science: Unburnable fossil-fuel reserves. Nature, 517(7533):150–152, 2015.[55] Guardian Environment. Leave fossil fuels buried to prevent climate change, study urges, 2015.[56] Standard & Poor Ratings Services. What A Carbon-Constrained Future Could Mean For Oil Companies’

Creditworthiness, 2013.[57] HSBC. Oil & carbon revisited: Value at risk from ’unburnable’ reserves, 2013.[58] Go Fossil Free. Common questions about divesting your finances.[59] Advisor Partners. Fossil Fuel Divestment: Risks and Opportunities, 2013.[60] Impax Asset Management. Beyond Fossil Fuels: The Investment Case for Fossil Fuel Divestment, 2013.[61] MSCI. Responding to the Call for Fossil-fuel Free Portfolios, 2013.[62] Aperio Group. Do the Investment Math: Building a Carbon-Free Portfolio, 2013.[63] Mercer. Investing in a time of climate change, 2015.[64] Forbes. Investors will take a hit from climate change, says Mercer report, 2015.[65] Thomson Reuters. Fossil-fuel free ESG investing: Recent Australian performance, 2015. Unpublished.

Seen by authors and reported in: Sydney Morning Herald. Fossil fuel-free super fund pay off for in-vestors, 2015.

[66] Ceres. Investors ask fossil fuel companies to assess how business plans fare in low-carbon future, 2013.[67] Stanford University. Stanford to divest from coal companies, 2014.[68] Financial Times. FTSE joins Blackrock to help investors avoid fossil fuels, 2014.[69] FTSE. Factsheet: All-World ex Fossil Fuels Index Series, 2015.[70] Guardian Environment. Bank of England investigating risk of ‘carbon bubble’, 2014.

8

[71] Guardian Environment. Mark Carney: most fossil fuel reserves can’t be burned, 2014.[72] Financial Times. Fossil fuel investments widely seen as ‘risky’, 2015.[73] University of Warwick. Environmental policies, 2014.[74] Warwick SU. All student meeting results: 2013-14 Term 2, 2014.[75] Fossil Free Warwick University. Petition to Vice Chancellor, 2015.[76] Fossil Free Warwick University. Open letter delivered to Jo Horsburgh, 2015.[77] WMG. Sustainable materials & manufacturing projects, 2014.[78] WMG. Energy Innovation Centre overview, 2014.[79] Andrew Clark. Sustainable chemistry, renewable polymers and materials, 2014.[80] Sustainable Energy Engineering and Design (SEED). Research overview, 2014.[81] WMG. National Automotive Innovation Centre, 2014.[82] University of Warwick. Global Research Priorities, 2014.[83] University of Warwick. Improving nutrition and reducing hunger in the UK and developing world, 2013.[84] University of Warwick. Our strategy, 2013.[85] The World Bank. World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim Remarks at Davos Press Conference, 23rd

Janaury 2014.[86] UNFCCC. Statement by Christiana Figueres to Brown University, 16th April 2014.Note: All referenced websites retrieved 26th June 2015.

cbnaThe Case for Divestment by Fossil Free Warwick is licensed under a Creative Commons

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.Version: 20150627

9