Th
eCa
s
ef
o
r
Di
v
e
s
t
me
n
t
Put
t
i
ngyourheadi
nt
hesand
shoul
dnol
ongerbeanopt
i
on
f
ori
nst
i
t
ut
i
onali
nvest
or
s.
-TheAust
r
al
i
aI
nst
i
t
ut
eRepor
t
The Case for Divestment
Contents
Climate change will affect us all
The fossil fuel industry is socially irresponsible
The fossil fuel industry is complicit in human rights abuses
The global divestment movement grows by the day
Three simple numbers
Divestment makes financial sense
Divestment retains Warwicks academic integrity
Divestment is in Warwicks best interests
Bibliography
About Us
Fossil Free Warwick is part of the global Fossil
Free movement that aims to remove the fossil fuel
industrys social licence to operate. Fossil Free
Warwick is calling on the University of Warwick
to move its money out of fossil fuels, stop the greenwash, and support a clean energy future for all.
[Link]
Fossil Free Warwick works in conjunction with:
Warwick People & Planet is a member of the
student-led movement that empowers students
and young people with the skills, confidence and
knowledge they need to make change happen, at
home and globally. People & Planet is the largest
student network in Britain campaigning to end
world poverty, defend human rights and protect
the environment.
[Link]/fossil-free
[Link] is building a global climate movement.
Its online campaigns, grassroots organising, and
mass public actions are coordinated by a global
network active in over 188 countries.
1
[Link] 1
[Link] 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 by
the impacts of climate change [1]. Should global temperatures exceed a rise of 2 , our generation faces
food and water scarcity, increased resource conflict and a future of insecurity [2]. We will experience
unbearable strain from mass migration, severe, adverse impacts upon our health, and rising tides will
destroy our coastal cities [3].
The economic and social costs of inaction vastly exceed those of prompt and effective action [4]. Put
bluntly, a 2 rise is incompatible with human civilization as we know it [5]. Much of this can be
avoided 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, is
the fossil fuel industry. Often cited as leaders in investing in renewable technology, the fossil fuel
industry invests a relative pittance in renewables. To put this in perspective, over the next decade
private-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-hydrocarbon
technologies [8]. In 2012, Shell and Chevron each spent just 1.5% of their yearly capital expenditure in
renewable energy production and research [9]. In April 2013 BP sold off its $3.1bn wind energy business
as 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 emissions since 1750 [11]. Moreover, the vast majority of their capital expenditure is directed towards more
exploration for fossil fuels and developing increasingly destructive and dangerous methods of extraction [12]. This includes oil sands exploration that experts at Stanford University found to be 22% more
carbon intensive than conventional sources [13].
Every government in the world has agreed to limit warming to 2 [5]. The fossil fuel industry, on the
other hand, has made it clear that they intend to extract and burn more coal, oil and gas than a 2 limit
could possibly allow [14]. This is evinced by the fact that the Big 5 fossil fuel companies alone spent
over $200 billion on exploration for new carbon projects in 2014. The bonus pay packets of their chief
executives 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 efforts
will amount to little if the fossil fuel industry is allowed to continue pouring millions of pounds into
influencing government policy [16] [17]. The industry is actively and effectively lobbying to prevent
political action on climate change [18].
Through divestment we seek to name and shame these companies, removing the industrys social license to operate. Divestment will not financially bankrupt the industry, but it can morally bankrupt
them. More concretely still, divestment pressures elected officials into rejecting money from the fossil
fuel industry, weakening their lobbying power [19]. It also creates a general clamour for legislative intervention; an Oxford University study found that [i]n almost every divestment campaign we reviewed
from adult services to Darfur, from tobacco to South Africa, divestment campaigns were successful in
lobbying 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 the
United 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 of
asthma [22, p.19]. In Alberta, Canada, oil sand extraction has destroyed, and forced indigenous people
away 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 peoples sources of clean water and
food [24] [25]. In Ecuador, the industry is destroying local peoples homes and the ecosystems upon
which they rely [26]. In Australia, coal mining companies are planning to enter into a new megaproject in the Galilee Basin in Queensland, which Aboriginal elders have described as attempted cultural
genocide [27].
The health impacts alone of fossil fuel extraction near to peoples homes should be cause enough for
divestment [3]. This list is indicative, not exhaustive. There is little doubt that behind its faade of Corporate Social Responsibility, the industry is neither acting in accordance with our Universitys mission
statement, nor its Policy for Socially Responsible Investment, nor common morality. The Universitys
own Socially Responsible Investment Policy states the need to reduce, and, ideally, eliminate, corporate
behaviour leading to: environmental degradation [28]. The impact of climate change will only compound these abuses.
The global divestment movement grows by the day
The Fossil Free divestment campaign is the fastest growing divestment campaign in history [29]. This
is a global campaign gathering pace as it crosses international borders and spills into many sectors of
the economy:
Fossil Free Universities There are currently over 450 active Fossil Free University campaigns spanning the globe, including in the US, Europe and further afield. Here in the UK, Fossil Free campaigns have sprung up at 50 universities since November 2013 [30]. 33 universities and colleges
worldwide have already committed to divestment [31]. Most recently, the University of Hawaii
has pledged to fully divest its $66 million endowment from coal, oil, and gas companies, and the
University of Oxford and University of Washington both pledged to eliminate their investments
in thermal coal [32] [33] [34]. The University of Edinburgh pledged to divest from three major
fossil fuel companies after a ten day occupation on campus this year [35].
Furthermore, the NUS, representing seven million UK students, has voted overwhelmingly to
commit 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 the
notable supporters are former Archbishop Rowan Williams, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Christian
Aid 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 human health, MedAct and Healthy Planet are leading the divestment campaign on behalf of medical institutions in the UK. These institutions include the British Medical College, British Medical
Association and the Royal Colleges. Leading medical researchers in the British Medical Journal
support the campaign, calling upon these institutions to divest [39] [40].
Action is not restricted to students, religious organisations, or health professionals, however. 42 cities
worldwide have committed to fossil fuel divestment [31]. This year the Norwegian Parliament voted to
fully divest its $900 billion sovereign wealth fund the worlds largest of its $8 billion holdings in coal
companies [41]. Frances 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, many
internationally recognised and influential figures have directly called for divestment, including former
Goldman 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 UNs
primary organisation on climate, the UNFCCC, this year threw its weight behind the divestment campaign [47]. Even Mark Moody-Stuart, former Chairman of Shell, has described divestment from oil
companies an entirely rational market approach [48].
Three simple numbers
The case for divestment is backed by three simple numbers:
2C 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% of
proven fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground (see Figure (a)). That is, about two thirds of
prospected carbon is unburnable.
2860
2860
GtCO2 Proven Reserves
GtCO2
Proven Reserves
1425
900
GtCO2
Carbon
Budget
GtCO2
Carbon
Budget
(a) 80% chance of avoiding 2
(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 carbon
bubble [52]. With environmental regulations destined to become ever more stringent, and whilst proven
carbon reserves increase and our carbon budget decreases, the threat of the carbon bubble bursting
becomes 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 Shells reserves saw a 10% decrease in share price. This suggests
that 50% of the stocks value was attributable to proven reserves [52]. Research from Standard & Poor
3
Coal
Gas
Oil
82%
49%
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 borrowing
costs and difficulties refinancing debt [56].
Furthermore, HSBC demonstrated that the likely fall in the price of fossil fuels combined with the direct
effects of the carbon bubble could see the market capitalisation of some companies at risk to the tune of
40-60% [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 mandated by fiduciary duty. The perceived profitability of the fossil fuel industry combined with the inertia
of the status quo can present artificial barriers to move upon the facts. However, careful consideration
not only permits but encourages investors to act.
A wealth of studies show that a fossil fuel screened tracker fund offers no statistically significant impact
on 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 a
global benchmark index would actually have induced a small positive return [60]. MSCI found that
fossil fuel divestment reduced portfolio risk due to the energy sectors high volatility [61]. Similarly,
Aperio Group summarises its fossil fuel screening research thus: over seven years, there would have
been no impact on performance [62].
In June this year, Mercer released a ground-breaking report supported by the UKs Department of Energy 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 portfolio
decarbonisation as a serious option for investors, purely on financial grounds [63]. It found, for example, that in the coal sub-sector, there will be as much as a 74 percent drop in average annual returns
over the next 35 years [64].
A report this year by Thomson Reuters and commissioned by FutureSuper, Australias first fossil free
pension fund back-tested a hypothetical ethically screened (including fossil free) index over the past
few years. Its key findings were that this fund outperforms the Thomson Reuters Australia index over
a three and five year time period, and furthermore, that outperformance has been achieved at a much
lower level of investment risk [65].
Although the fossil fuel industry may once have been a lucrative sector, due to higher risks and increased
uncertainty regarding returns, it is argued that divestment from the sector is not only prudent but an
imperative for investors wishing to meet their fiduciary duties.
Investors are beginning to appreciate the implications climate change mitigation will have upon the
fossil fuel industrys business model. To give just a few examples, 70 investors worth $3tn have written
to the worlds largest fossil fuel companies asking them to better assess climate change risks [66]; following recommendations from its investment committee, Stanford University has divested its $18.7bn
endowment from the coal industry [67]; the FTSE has created a set of indices excluding the fossil fuel
industry, and BlackRock will be offering investors related funds based on these indices [68]. In fact,
4
FTSEs All-World ex Fossil Fuels Index has outperformed the FTSE All-World index across three and
five year timeframes, with reduced levels of volatility [69]. Finally, The Bank of England is investigating
the 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 divestment
is one that institutional investors cannot afford to ignore and one that must be addressed now rather
than later; no wonder then that [t]wo-thirds of the UK public believe that investments in fossil fuels
are becoming increasingly risky [72].
Divestment retains Warwicks academic integrity
Investing in fossil fuel companies is incongruous with the Universitys values and policies. The University has stated a responsibility for, and a commitment to, the protection of the environment at all
levels [73]. Its investments should reflect this policy and encourage actions to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions.
Furthermore, there is historical precedent for divestment at this university. During the campaign against
South African apartheid, the University of Warwick divested its holdings in apartheid-linked shares and
stopped banking with Barclays. This was a move consistent with the Universitys current Policy for Socially Responsible Investment [28]. Considering the aforementioned human rights concerns, investing
in 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 than
two-thirds of students voting in favour in an all student referendum [74]. Similarly, Warwick Fossil
Frees petition to Vice Chancellor Nigel Thrift has received almost 1500 signatures from students, staff
and alumni [75].
In a powerful show of support from the academy, over 100 academics at Warwick have put their name
to an open letter declaring support for divestment. [76]
Across several departments research is currently being undertaken into renewable energy and sustainable technologies, which will be vital for removing fossil fuels from our economy. Warwick Manufacturing Group are developing renewable technologies that will ease the practicalities of wind and solar
power, as well as technologies that reduce energy usage from appliances like mobile phones [77]. In the
Energy Innovation Centre, researchers are developing more economic and stable batteries for the electric and hybrid cars of the future [78]. 1 million in research grants have been provided by organisations
like 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 solar
energy [80]. Finally, two of the three focuses of the new 100 million National Automotive Innovation
Centre (NAIC) are electric vehicles and carbon reduction [81]. In light of the considerable money
and priority reserved at Warwick for interdisciplinary research into alternative energy, sustainable materials and low carbon transport solutions, the University is undermining its academic integrity by also
investing in the fossil fuel industry.
Additional support for this perspective can be seen in the Universitys Global Research Priorities, which
are centred around challenges directly related to climate change, like food security (including concerns
about social justice and public health), sustainable cities, energy (including solar) and international
development [82]. As part of its 50Forward campaign for donations, the University includes the priority
of food security, pointing out that 98% of hungry people live in developing nations, which are most
badly affected by natural disasters and the effects of climate change [83].
Additionally, in the Universitys strategic vision for 2015, they cite goals of embedding internationalism
and sustainability into their mission, which includes a commitment to halve projected carbon emissions
by 2020 [84]. Fossil fuel divestment perfectly aligns with and epitomises these directives.
5
Divestment is in Warwicks best interests
Warwick is 50 years young this year. It was born in a decade of huge social change and widespread
cultural innovation. Divestment is not only a moral and financial imperative, but presents Warwick
with an opportunity to return to those roots. Institutions worldwide are waking up to the fact that
divestment is well within the bounds of reason.
Here in the UK, SOAS, and the Universities of Oxford, Edinburgh, Bedfordshire and Glasgow have all
pledged various degrees of divestment [31]. Warwick still has the opportunity to join these leading institutions 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, demonstrating
true leadership on climate change by becoming one of the UKs first Fossil Free universities would be
overwhelmingly positive for Warwicks image. Divestment gives Warwick the opportunity to distinguish itself as forward looking, socially and environmentally responsible and prepared to align its values
with its research. It communicates to alumni and stakeholders that environmental sustainability is more
than mere words on paper, but part of a coherent, considered and all-encompassing strategy. Such a
display of prudence, conscience and consistency can only enhance Warwicks ability to attract the best
and brightest students and researchers, ensuring that its next 50 years will be even more successful than
the last.
Rethink what fiduciary responsibility means in this changing world. Its simple self-interest.
Every company, investor and bank that screens new and existing investments for climate
risk is simply being pragmatic.
Jim Yong Kim
World Bank Group President
Davos Press Conference, 23 January 2014 [85]
Academic institutions that are still vested in fossil fuels should ask themselves whether they
are in breach of their social responsibility to serve the community, the nation, and the world.
Christiana Figueres
Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
Statement to Brown University, 16 April 2014 [86]
We need an apartheid-style boycott to save the planet. We must stop climate change. And
we 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 injustice
of climate change.
Desmond Tutu
Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town and famous anti-apartheid campaigner
Writing in the Guardian, 10 April 2014 [37]
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 its far, far worse, 2014.
[5] [Link]. The science.
[6] Kevin Anderson. Climate change going beyond dangerousbrutal numbers and tenuous hope. 012|
Clima, page 15, 2012.
[7] Carbon Tracker Initiative Energy Transition Advisors. Carbon Supply Cost Curves - Evaluating Financial
Risk to Oil Capital Expenditures, 2014.
[8] American Petroleum Institute. American Made Energy, 2012.
[9] Rolling Stone. Big oils 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, 18542010. Climatic Change, pages 113, 2014.
[12] Guardian Environment. $1tn oil projects will not see return, 2014.
[13] Reuters. Canadas 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. Shells 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 & Planets 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.
[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 funds 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] The Wall 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. Shells 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 worlds 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):150152, 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 investors, 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 cant 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.
cb n a
The Case for Divestment by Fossil Free Warwick is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Version: 20150627
9
