15 Feb 2013

Avalos isn't the first official to say so. In December, Seattle mayor Mike McGinn declared that the city's cash balances-the $US1.4 billion it uses to manage its daily operations-would no longer be invested in fossil fuel stocks. He also wrote to the city pension fund, which counts Exxon-Mobil and Chevron among its major holdings, requesting it do the same.
The deliberations in the two west coast cities made a media splash, adding momentum to America's fastest growing social movement: ''Go Fossil Free'', a nation-wide blitz calling for universities, governments and churches to freeze new investments in fossil fuel assets, and to sell what they've already got.
The impetus for the campaign is a set of simple numbers-a global carbon budget. It's a way of framing the climate crisis that is now uniting student activists and market analysts. The former use the numbers to prosecute a moral case that the fossil fuel industry has gone rogue; the latter, for a cold-blooded calculation that trading away from carbon-heavy assets is in an investor's own interest.
The numbers were set out in a report called ''Unburnable Carbon'', which was released last year by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a group of analysts and environmentalists in the UK. It highlighted the work of the Potsdam Climate Institute, which in 2009 produced a set of emissions scenarios together with their likely influence on global temperatures.
These are the numbers: for a low chance-one-in-five-of exceeding 2° warming, we can only emit another 565 Gt of CO₂ by mid-century. But proven fossil fuel reserves (held by listed corporations, private companies and nation states) equate to 2795 Gt-five times the carbon budget. In Copenhagen in 2009, the world's governments agreed to limit warming to 2°. To do so, four-fifths of our fuel must stay in the ground.
0 comments:
Post a Comment