WMPF third worst investor in planetary destruction
Why is WMPF getting defensive about its fossil fuel exposure?
If you like this newsletter, please consider sharing. Does your local councillor still think it’s better to chat with oil companies than divest from them? Why not drop a link to this newsletter in their inbox.
I could probably exclusively devote this newsletter to the horrors of BP and Shell, the multi-national greenwash-majors. But that would be to exclude that other planet-destroying dinosaur, ExxonMobil. Back to these stories later. First, some major news in the UK divestment movement landed on Tuesday .
WMPF get defensive over 3rd place fossil fuel ranking
A major report revealed that WMPF has the third highest investment in the top fossil fuel companies compared to other UK local government pension schemes. The report, which analysed FoI data from all the councils in the country, found that they collectively had £10 billion invested in the top fossil fuel producers (2019/2020 data). This report by UK Divest found that our old planet destroying friends Shell and BP are the top two companies held by these pensions. The report received widespread media coverage from The Guardian, The Times and even the Express.
WMPF officers traditionally make no public response to reports by activist groups, but this time was different. The manager of the fund was quoted by Professional Pensions as saying the report was “inaccurate, resulting in a gap and error which overstate the West Midlands' exposure”. No other local authority was quoted by the piece. This prickly response shows that the fund is on the defensive about its extremely high exposure to the threatened fossil fuel industry. Curiously the UK Divest team finding of £508 million is actually lower than the fund’s own official disclosure (using a different methodology) of £587 million.
Why are WMPF being so tetchy about their high fossil fuel exposure? Perhaps it is because of increasing calls for divestment by a diverse range of groups and high profile individuals including political parties, trade unions, entire local councils (Birmingham, Dudley), several Mayoral candidates, and even the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. We believe the fund will soon give in to the pressure for divestment as they realise that not only is fossil fuel investment ethically wrong, but also financially disastrous. The West Midlands have already lost £80 million on fossil fuels in the last three years. If they don’t divest quickly, we foresee far greater losses in the near future.
This report lays out the urgent case for divestment using the very latest information, and makes a compelling case. It should be essential reading for all councillors, the vast majority of whom have voted in favour of climate emergency motions, but who are still not holding the fund to account.
So what has BP been up to?
WMPF has trumpeted the “ambitious” climate commitments of BP, so you would have thought they’d have no need to use cultural institutions to launder their reputations. But the uncomfortably cosy relationship between the boss of the Science Museum and the company behind the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe were laid bare last week by a trove of emails received by Culture Unstained. Honestly, take a look at the emails, it’s extraordinary how chummy and back-slappy their relationship is. Perhaps this is why he told the FT in 2019:
“Even if the Science Museum were lavishly publicly funded I would still want to have sponsorship from the oil companies.”
In response to the revelations, George Monbiot, who was due to attend a Science Museum climate seminar in March, pulled out saying on Twitter:
But surely Shell are the good guys?
Shell has announced their plan to net-zero, which I should have welcomed. But I had a nagging suspicion that all would not be as it seemed. Shell after all has a record going back decades of keeping secret its knowledge about climate change while protecting its own infrastructure against sea-level rise; being linked to the killing of the “Ogoni Nine”; and just a few weeks ago, losing a 13-year legal battle to avoid paying £1 billion damages for oil contamination in Nigeria. On the face of it, the idea that the company behind 1.7% of global carbon emissions committing to end its carbon pollution business should be welcomed.
However as ever with oil companies, they appear to be deploying a more sophisticated delay tactic so that they can continue extraction for as long as possible, according to analysis by Ketan Joshi.
Effectively the company is ‘backloading’ the cuts in emissions for as long as possible until in 2050, they drop to zero. So should we bet the planet on Shell holding to its promises in 2 decades time? Based on the company’s track record, I don’t think humanity can afford that risk.
All the oil companies, including BP and Shell are failing to align with the critical 1.5C target to prevent a global catastrophe of climate breakdown. To be taken seriously, they all need to ditch their plans to expand fossil fuel extraction.
And for Wolverhampton and the other West Midlands councils to be taken seriously on climate change, it’s long past time to divest from fossil fuels. Councils need this investment for Covid recovery; it shouldn’t be betting on risky fossil fuel companies.
Did you find this newsletter useful or informative? If you haven’t yet, please consider subscribing.
This newsletter is published by DivestWMPF, a volunteer campaign group pushing for West Midlands Pension Fund to divest from fossil fuels and reinvest in the local green economy.
Our current letter writing campaign asks local Wolverhampton residents to pressure their councillors over the pension fund to divest.