20th November 2023
The Diocese of Chichester votes against divestment
On Saturday 18th November I joined a group of CCA people holding a vigil as members arrived for Chichester Diocese’s Synod which was to vote on whether or not to remain invested in fossil fuels. We were then invited in to observe the debate. What follows is based on the notes I made as people spoke.
The motion came from the Chichester Diocese Fund and Board of Finance (incorporated) and was as follows:-
“1. ETHICAL INVESTMENT Mrs Lesley Lynn (Chair) to move that “This Synod re-affirms that care for God’s creation is foundational to the Christian gospel and central to the church’s mission and, recognising
(a) the importance of working towards a future which does not depend on fossil fuels;
(b) the need to both develop alternative energy supplies and reduce the demand for energy before freedom from fossil fuels can be achieved; and
(c) the central role that large energy companies have to play in developing alternative energy supplies, agrees that it will continue to invest in Shell and BP only while those companies have a clear strategy aligned with the Paris Agreement goal to limit the increase of average global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.”
The first part of the motion states a positive green view of the Church’s values and calling. From this (a) and (b) are logical ambitions, and by inference so is (c) – which it is certainly not! There is a lot of published material that shows that fossil fuel companies like Shell and BP are part of the climate crisis problem; not the solution.
Yet Lesley was forthright in her views that continuing to investing in fossil fuels was a responsible solution to the climate crisis. Her main argument was that to address the climate crisis we must reduce energy consumption. At the same time she believed fossil fuels were essential to our daily lives for energy and transport. To reduce the availability of fossil fuel energy would be detrimental and would further impoverish the poor through higher prices.
This view ignores the facts that renewable energy is cheaper to produce; that the prices of both fossil, fuel and renewable energy are distorted by government subsidies and policies which favour fossil fuels over renewables; and that renewable energy can and will increasingly support our daily living needs as we transition to net zero.
A speaker against the motion, reminded us of the plea from the Churches of the South, who are calling on us, their brothers and sisters in the west, to divest because they are suffering unbearably from the effects of the climate crisis.
The actions the Church – in this case the Diocese of Chichester – carry with them a message that is heard far and wide, that proclaims our values. Divesting speaks of justice for those in the global south – as well as for the poor in our own communities. Divesting also speaks of care for the environment which is a message many young people and the unchurched in our society want to hear.
Lesley presented the argument that staying invested gave the Diocese a voice in the boardrooms and AGMs of Shell and BP, and thus the means to effect changes in the ways these companies addressed climate issues. She noted that the Church of England nationally no longer had this agency. A speaker against the motion pointed out that the National Investment Body NIBs had taken this view up until this year but has concluded that the rate of progress was too slow – given the urgency of the climate crisis – and that both Shell and BP had in fact changed direction and showed no intention of transitioning at a rate fast enough to be of benefit.
The motion put forward by Lesley asserted that large energy companies had a central role to play in developing alternative energy supplies. No evidence was given in support of this. In fact with regards to Shell and BP this is certainly not the case.
Global Witness examined Shell’s spending on wind and solar for 2021 and found it equated to just 1.5% of their capital expenditure. In March 2022 Shell announced it would spend £20-25bn over the next ten years in the UK energy system – a figure which shrinks when considered in relation to their annual profits for that year alone of £32bn. Further, of this proposed spend in the UK, only 75% would be on low and zero-carbon products and services, which while including offshore wind, hydrogen, also includes carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS) and electric mobility.
A smiliar picture exists with BP. Between 2016 and 2022 BP spent $3.2bn on clean energy compared with $84bn on oil and gas exploration and development. Since then Bernard Looney the CEO has been replaced as he was felt to be leaning too much in favour of green policies.
In terms of investing in renewable energy, Lesley said that if the Diocese did divest, they would not reinvest that money in renewables as the Diocese already had a sufficient spread of renewable in their portfolio.
The motion put forward by Lesley also had the proviso that investment would continue only so long as ‘those companies have a clear strategy aligned with the Paris Agreement goal to limit the increase of average global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.’
One research body that assesses the compliance status of companies is the The Transition Pathway Initiative Centre. This is the research body used by the Church of England. It finds that both Shell and BP are not compliant. However Lesley does not agree with their formulations and prefers instead those of the World Benchmarking Alliance. However even their benchmarking does not actually confirm that Shell and BP are Paris Aligned, just that there are relatively more ecological/ ethical than other oil companies, ranking 11th and 12th respectively. Lesley did add that as well as investments in Shell and BP, the Diocese has investments in Total (which ranks third on the World Benchmarking Alliance) and the Diversified Energy Company. (This latter, apparently buys old oil wells and revamps the infrastructure so as to reduce the emissions linked to the extraction process. This sounds like a positive but it does nothing to reduce the much larger emissions from when the oil is used).
Another speaker against the motion suggested that as the Church was capable of making ethical investment decisions not to invest in tobacco, arms, drugs or the sex trade, why could it not equally make the decision not to invest in fossil fuels? In reply, Lesley differentiated between them saying that if overnight all arms or drugs disappeared, the world would be a happier, safer place. But if oil disappeared overnight we would all be stranded.
Bringing the debate back to ethics and values was important, for the motion was linking investment decisions to the Christian calling to care for creation. Nothing in the debate supporting the motion suggested how continuing to invest in Shell and BP would achieve this. At a recent conference ‘Church Investment in Climate Solutions: Financing a Liveable Future’ (organised by Operation Noah and FaithInvest) the importance of having a clear investment policy that reflects faith values was emphasised. With such a clear policy, churches and faith groups are then equipped to go to their financial advisers and say these are the values we want our portfolio to reflect.
This is where I feel the Diocese of Chichester has failed. It has a adopted an ethical investment policy that is illogical, claiming in the one hand to care for creation whilst at the same time investing in companies whose main product is one that is destroying the planet. Further, having included provisos within its policy to limit the adverse effects of its investments on the climate, it is continuing to invest in companies that clearly do not meet the stated criteria.
The vote sadly went in favour of continuing investment in Shell and BP:
For 62 against 32 abstention 9.
Saturday was a sad day for the Diocese of Chichester, for the wider church, for Christian witness and for the wellbeing of creation.
The Green Tau 