Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
Samples of oil sand, bitumen, oil sand and water, and Syncrude sweet blend
Samples of oil sand, bitumen, oil sand and water, and Syncrude sweet blend in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Photograph: Jimmy Jeong/Getty Images
Samples of oil sand, bitumen, oil sand and water, and Syncrude sweet blend in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Photograph: Jimmy Jeong/Getty Images

Why the University of Edinburgh will not divest from all fossil fuels

This article is more than 8 years old

We will not withdraw investment without prior engagement but will seek to help tackle climate change through research and development with companies in the fossil fuel sector and beyond

How universities invest their endowment funds is not normally headline news. But universities have found themselves in an unaccustomed spotlight over the last few months as student campaigners have called on them to withdraw their investments from companies involved in the extraction of fossil fuels. That spotlight can feel harsh when media debate takes an easy, black and white line: are they divesting, or are they not?
When we looked at this over the last few months at the University of Edinburgh we found it to be a little more complicated than that. Following a request by our students’ union leadership we convened a Fossil Fuels Review Group to look into the issue and make recommendations which the University this week accepted. We learnt from others’ experiences, making sure that perspectives from different sides of the debate were part of the group: the students union, specialists both in climate change and in the extraction of fossil fuels, experts in finance and investment. We also thought about how the University in all its activities – not just its investments – engaged both with climate change and its mitigation, and with the exploration and exploitation of fossil fuels.


There wasn’t much that was black and white beyond a fundamental agreement that human activity, and as a large part of that the burning of fossil fuels for energy, was driving climate change. But that was not all we considered about fossil fuels. We also asked about other uses of fossil fuels alongside energy generation, among them the production of fertilisers, plastics and steel. Energy, fertilisers, plastics and steel are basics of everyday life. So we asked whether feasible alternatives were available. The answer was yes for electricity generation, heating and short-distance travel, but no for pretty much everything else. And that ‘yes’ only fully applied in the developed world. In much of the developing world there are no currently feasible alternatives to fossil fuels that can ensure power for basic needs, such as heating, clean water and refrigeration. So one of our concerns was what many politely call ‘climate justice’ but can be put more bluntly as the easy privilege of the developed world in calling for an end to fossil fuel use after we have used them for centuries to ensure the supply of our basic needs and power our economic growth. Another was to focus on emissions. We made three points. First, different fossil fuels emit different levels of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Some do more damage to the environment than others. Second, new technologies, such as carbon capture and storage are designed to prevent those emissions from reaching the atmosphere – if we perfect these then we have the prospect of breaking the causal link between burning fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change. And third, there is an emissions ‘chain’. Burning fossil fuels emits greenhouse gases as a consequence of our demand for the energy they release so we can run industries, power lecture theatres or produce newspapers. Reducing that demand wherever it occurs reduces emissions. Another concern was to think of what the University does in its research and teaching. We want to help tackle major global challenges, including climate change. A large and growing part of our research and teaching portfolio is on climate change and its mitigation through behavioural change, renewable energy and carbon capture technologies. We also research and teach on fossil fuels, and students graduate to work in fossil fuel companies. Importantly, fossil fuel research and carbon capture research intersect, grounded in the same geological and engineering science. Not much black and white here. Drawing on these reflections we produced a set of recommendations which will now be taken forward. Two stand out. One is to withdraw investment from companies involved in coal and tar sands subject to two conditions. We will withdraw if the markets they serve have feasible alternative energy sources (which may not be the case in much of the developing world). And we will withdraw if they are not also investing in technologies that tackle their emissions. The second recommendation reaches beyond the fossil fuels sector and applies to any company we invest in. It is now increasingly common for companies to report their emissions, and investment products are emerging which focus on companies that are ‘best in class’ for emissions performance in their sector. We will require companies we invest in to disclose their emissions if they don’t already and to move up their sector league table. If change doesn’t happen we will look to take advantage of the new kinds of low-emissions investment product that have entered the market. It is easy to portray recommendations like these as adversarial, ‘us’ the investors versus ‘them’ the companies. We don’t see it like that. We will engage with companies to discuss and – we hope – bring about the changes we want. We will not withdraw investment without prior engagement. And we will continue to work with companies in the fossil fuels sector and beyond to develop the research programmes and through them the technology that limits emissions and opens up alternative energy sources in all parts of the world, not just the rich west. We know that not all will agree with our chosen way forward. But this is not an exercise in pleasing one constituency over another or grabbing headlines. It is about taking a measured, balanced approach to a complex, multi-layered issue, and coming up with a solution which most closely chimes with our values as a university. Professor Charlie Jeffery
Senior Vice Principal
University of Edinburgh


More on this story

More on this story

  • Climate activists attack Edinburgh University's stance on fossil fuels

  • Why the University of Edinburgh must divest from all fossil fuels now

  • Edinburgh university rejects calls to divest from all fossil fuels

  • Security guard filmed appearing to assault student at Edinburgh University divestment protest

Comments (…)

Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion

Most viewed

Most viewed