The Counterfactual Geography of More Sustainable Energy.

cmorgan — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:38:36 +0000

In this blog post Dan Van der Horst explores our very human relationship with energy. He challenges us to peek over the garden fence at the smorgasbord of sustainable energy practices being creatively devised and adopted by our European Neighbours. Dan argues that a ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ attitude may well be what we need to inspire us to reimagine our Nation’s energy options – and may even motivate us to aspire to be future leaders in the sustainable energy market.

Energy is like blood; we can’t do without it but we don’t want to see it. When it comes to the energy debate, much of the focus is about what we don’t want. There are backbenchers who don’t want wind farms in one’s pleasant green, and parties who proclaim they don’t like nuclear. Where there was once a political reluctance to depend on domestic coal, these days our dependency on oil or gas from parts of Asia does not sit comfortably either. Collectively we sound almost like a protest party; blaming the government du jour or politicians in general, distrustful of those foreign ‘Big Six’, we want power returned to us, without too much of a plan as to how that’s done. . Some of us have dreams, for sure; fracking revolution, 100% renewables, nuclear renaissance, take your pick. And then we are rudely woken up by another IPCC report about climbing emissions and pathetic little mitigation and adaptation to date.

Given the threats of climate change, our creaking energy infrastructure, the ongoing depletion of easily accessible resources and the growing issue of fuel poverty it is very clear that significant changes and investments are needed in our energy system. It’s not a shortage of good science that’s standing in the way. It’s a dearth of imagination, of ourselves as citizens and of the governments we elect. We don’t even have to be original in order to be imaginative, there is plenty of inspiration out there, for us to bring home. How much renewable energy would we have if we had been as imaginative as the Danes or the Germans? How much safer and cleaner would your city be if it had reversed the urban pecking order between bikes and cars, like the Dutch have done, or had introduced congestion charges like London has? How much wind power would we have if we lined up all our motorways (already noisy and lacking in aesthetic appeal) with wind turbines? How much heat is being dumped into the atmosphere by our electricity-only power plants, and how many people in neighboring communities could be lifted out of fuel poverty is this heat was offered to them through district heating at a competitive price?

These are just some ideas that have been widely adopted by our neighbours. It is not something futuristic or utopian, it is ‘normal’ next door. We should not waste much time with alternative history (if only we had done x in the past), but devote more effort to imagine a counterfactual geography; comparing ourselves with the best and keeping up with the Joneses in terms of more sustainable energy practices. Maybe even beat them to it one day, and then watch in glee as they run to catch up with us. ‘green’ with envy, if you like.

The above questions are not just rhetorical. Get a pen, calculator, back-of-an-envelope and google; every geeky citizen could do this. I had a go at the first question. Turns out that we would have to quadruple our current on-shore windfarms before we can match the Germans on a MW/km² basis, and increase them by 6.5 times before we match the Danes on a MW/capita basis. That is a lot of energy we allow to blow right past us, wasted. The Danes and Germans are not radical people. They are trying to be responsible citizens, taking their little steps towards the goals set out in the IPCC reports. We don’t have to follow them slavishly. Filling the land with wind turbines is not the only way forwards. But if you want to forego one particular solution, then you have to be extra imaginative with the remaining options. Go get your pen and recycled paper. And share your imaginative solutions, also with your MP.

Perspectives on Global Environmental Change: What does it mean for the University of Edinburgh to be a Responsible Investor?

cmorgan — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:23:31 +0000

“One is not born into the world to do everything but to do something.”
― Henry David Thoreau

The University of Edinburgh has a long and proud history of taking action to address environmental challenges and social concerns, and our latest opportunity is responsible investing.

This is not something new- students and student groups such as People and Planet have been campaigning for many years on these issues, and the University has had a socially responsible investment policy in place since 2003. None the less, it is timely to consider what more we can do.

The University’s strategic plan contains a clear commitment to ‘make a significant, sustainable and socially responsible commitment to Scotland, the UK and the world’. In response, we already have a social responsibility and sustainability strategy and a climate action plan. We want to manage our own impacts, teach our students about the big global challenges of the twenty-first century, and apply our knowledge and research to making a real contribution to solving these issues. Those strategies are now being complemented by the development of a socially responsible investment approach.

I joined this University six months ago both because it convinced me that it wanted to be amongst the world’s best when thinking about social responsibility and sustainability, and because I saw a great opportunity for us to improve and to make changes for the better.

One of my first tasks has therefore been to help the university figure out exactly what being a responsible investor means, having been the first University in Europe to have signed the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment in early 2013.

What Should We Do?

The University has significant endowment funds, that is, monies donated by alumni and others for specific reasons to advance learning, education or other socially valuable activities. The funds are a key component of the University’s ability to meet our objectives and ensure generations to come have the opportunity to learn, grow and research. So, our focus has been working out how we can continue to manage and protect these funds, whilst being a responsible investor.

My dictionary says the following:

Responsible

re·spon·si·ble

adj.

Liable to be required to give account, as of one’s actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust…

Able to make moral or rational decisions on one’s own and therefore answerable for one’s behaviour…

Able to be trusted or depended upon; reliable…

Based on or characterized by good judgment or sound thinking..

Required to render account; answerable..

Investment

noun: investment; plural noun: investments

1. the action or process of investing money for profit.

I think these two definitions capture the central issues and tensions rather nicely. The University has responsibilities, to the people who have donated the endowment monies, to current and future staff and students, but also has a responsibility to the current generation and to our environmental, ethical and social obligations and expectations. And investment, of its very nature, tries to find ways to make a profit on money given to us, in order to allow a body such as ours to meet its other objectives.

But what are those expectations and objectives? In classic university parlance, that question is ‘contested’ i.e. at the moment it’s not completely clear what we mean and how we should proceed. There are quite a few views, inside and outside the university, on what to do and how to do it. For example, see this from People and Planet or this post from Edinburgh University academic Tim Hayward or this counter-view from Harvard.

With that in mind, we decided to undertake a wide ranging consultation with the staff and student community on how to take forward responsible investment in a way that commands widespread support, protects the endowment funds we have, but allows us to make a significant contribution to environmental and social issues.

One final point on context. To me and you, £280+ million is a lot of money, but of course as a fraction of the total amount of money invested in the world, or even in the UK, it is very small. That said, the sum is large enough to make a difference if targeted in a smart way, and our reputation as a leading university does mean we can expect our actions to have knock-on impacts not just for investment and companies directly, but across the value chain of impact from investment, through companies’ actions, to the decisions company board make on corporate responsibility issues and the impact of the signal we send about our beliefs and our values.

The Consultation

You can find a copy of the consultation document here. We are running our consultation to 7^th March 2014 and will afterwards put forward a revised policy for investments, plus a follow up action plan.

Our consultation sets out 12 questions for consideration, in the following areas:

Principles to inform investment

The UNPRI commitment is all about trying to show both what investment decisions an organisation has made, and just as importantly, why and how those decisions are made. The University feels that its commitment to responsible investment would be strengthened if stakeholders were clearer about the principles underpinning the investment decisions that it makes.

Strategic approach to investment

It is important to recognise that in seeking to be a responsible investor, the University has a range of strategic options that it can consider, each of which would appear to have a range of advantages and disadvantages.

1. Investment in companies and funds which contribute to a wealthier and fairer, smarter and healthier, greener and safer and stronger global society

2. Direct investment in university activities and objectives e.g. renewable energy generation- on –site or off-site, climate emissions reduction, energy efficiency etc.

3. Direct investment in a range of ‘start-up’ innovative companies or social investments linked to identified social responsibility themes, perhaps using concepts such as social impact bonds

4. Avoid investment in sectors or companies failing to reach recognised standards

Avoidance of Investment ‘In-Principle’

Circumstances may arise where it is felt that investment activities are simply incompatible with the ethos and values of the university. For example, the University has taken the decision to divest from tobacco. The consultation asks by what process or methodology do you consider that the University should consider these questions?

Organisational and policy changes

The consultation also considers the range of practical matters that the University will need to address in order to fully discharge its responsibilities under the UNPRI – in published principles, guidance to investment managers, transparency and reporting.

Closing

These are difficult issues and we want to make sure we as gain as many views as we can prior to coming to a decision. Just a flavour of what we need to consider:

– What is the right balance between protecting investment returns and avoiding investing in certain areas? What should those areas be and why? Do these decisions have a disproportionate impact on our ability to meet our investment objectives (and hence a knock on impact on the viability of the university)?

– Who decides and how do they decide which issues our investment managers should consider?

– How should the balance be struck between engaging with companies to ensure they meet our standards, and avoiding investment if they continue to fail? How long do companies get before we want to take action?

– Even though we have £284m of investment funds, our influence in the grand scheme of things is limited, so how should we choose wisely to maximise our impact?

– If we should avoid investing in certain activities because they are not in line with the values and aims of the University, then what exactly are those values and aims? How do we decide and who gets to say?

I look forward to hearing your views.

Dave Gorman is the University’s first Director for Social Responsibility and Sustainability. You can find out more about the Department for Social Responsibility and Sustainability here. You can give us your views via the online form here

renewable – Global Environment & Society Academy

The Counterfactual Geography of More Sustainable Energy.

Perspectives on Global Environmental Change: What does it mean for the University of Edinburgh to be a Responsible Investor?