That’s the end of our live Q&A for today - thanks to everyone who asked a question and apologies we couldn’t get to you all.
Keep an eye on our coverage here and follow @guardianeco and #keepitintheground on Twitter.
Guardian staff
The Guardian is something of a polarising brand. Climate change can be a polarising issue. Are you concerned that putting this issue front and centre may make some people think climate change is an issue only stereotypical 'Guardian readers' should care about? Is the Keep it in the Ground campaign trying to build broad public support, or galvanise those who already care?
Guardian staff Thanks for your comment. A few points:
- That may be true to some extent in the UK but the Guardian has a huge global readership (6m-7m per day) for whom that stereotype doesn't really apply.
- We are very much wanting to build a consensus around this issue. I feel passionately that the politicisation of this issue has been a huge barrier to progress. Neither side of the political spectrum owns this issue or has a monopoly on solutions. On the first day of the project we had this piece from Jonathan Freeland arguing that the climate movement is doomed if it is a left only issue.
Right now, climate change has become an issue of the left. One look at the speakers lined up for today’s London rally confirms it: trade union leaders, the Labour MP John McDonnell and Russell Brand. In the US, climate scepticism has become one of the defining traits of the right, a more reliable marker even than attitudes to abortion or gun control.
This is a disaster. If the threat to our planet is a preoccupation confined to only one half of the political spectrum, meaningful action will never come. This has to be the cause of all humanity. That means a new, additional climate case has to be made, one that will appeal to the right – and come from the right. That’s hardly an impossibility. Who was the first world leader to dedicate a speech to climate change, but Margaret Thatcher in 1989? Angela Merkel is as sound as any left politician on the subject. Had John McCain beaten Barack Obama in 2008, the US would still have had a president who understands the climate crisis.
Lastly, we feel that if we did not mount a serious journalistic response to the biggest issue of our age it would be a dereliction of editorial duty.
Question: Where does the global biodiversity crisis (i.e., loss of wildlife, ecosystems, services, natural capital etc) fit in the scheme of things when compared with climate change (which is just one of the causes of this crisis)?
Guardian staff Good (and big) question. The two issues are inextricably linked of course because climate change is such an important driver of species loss. Also, if we adopt the wrong solutions then we may inadvertently make the species crisis worse (eg chopping down natural habitats to grow biofuels).
WWF says that we have lost half of its wildlife in the last 40 years.
We plan to include species extinctions in our coverage. Watch this space.
Would it be more effective to increase taxes on fossil fuels? A question from EnviroCapitalist, answered by Damian Carrington.
What will divestment achieve as long as the big state owned fossil fuel companies continue to produce.
The aim of divesting from, say Shell, is to make Shell produce less oil. That will put up the price and reduce demand - but the price rise and demand fall will be limited as companies like Gazprom and Saudi Aramco will increase production.
The main effect will a slight increase in price, a slight fall in demand, and an increase in wealth transfers to the major oil exporters.
Wouldn't it be more effective to increase taxes on fossil fuels? That at least would provide revenues to the Government, which could be used to cut other taxes. It would lead to a reduction in demand and a reduction in transfers to oil exporting countries.
Guardian staff good question
carbon taxes are advocated by many, including some fossil fuel companies themselves
but look at Australia to see how hard the fossil fuel industry fights, and how powerful they are, when any politician suggests implementing them
the aim of the divestment campaign is to highlight the fact that we have several times more fossil fuels in known reserves than we can burn safely, and the delegitimise the companies who are nonetheless spending billions looking for more
I've written more on the state-owned company question here (no 9)
Another question from Twitter:
@guardianeco How can we get newspapers in other countries to follow your lead ?
— jed (@kukra_poc) March 18, 2015
Guardian staff
Here’s a question we received via Twitter from @ErinMRoll:
@guardianeco #keepitintheground With the campaign, what has the response from the Gates Foundation and Wellcome been at this time?
— Erin M. Roll (@ErinMRoll) March 19, 2015
Guardian staff the Wellcome Trust have said they believe engagement with the fossil fuel companies they invest in is more effective in getting change - though they wouldn't provide any examples
they also won't disclose their full fossil fuel holdings, despite saying they are "transparent"
we have yet to receive a formal response from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but watch this space
Limpet has a general election-themed question:
Which political party does the Guardian think has the most credible policies on climate change and will we see an endorsement?
Guardian staff Guardian staff Good question. We haven't seen the manifestos yet so hard to judge properly at this stage. Climate change will be an important element of the Guardian's decision about which party to back. Watch this space :)
A question here from Norway:
Thank you to the Guardian for bringing this campaign to the forefront of your newspaper. it is the reality check of the century indeed. I am curious about the reach of this campaign so far - among your readers and the general public. It is spreading here in Norway as well. Also, a follow up story on green companies and green solutions to do invest in would be great. They are out there, just not communicated well..
Guardian staff Thanks :)
There is indeed interesting action in Norway. Oslo is the first capital city in the world to make a commitment to divest. We have some reporting on the way about that.
We are going to be doing lots more reporting on what the alternative investments are and what are the green energy technologies that will provide the solutions.
Hi, regarding the first line of the campaign email you sent out "As yesterday's news from Vanuatu - where cyclone survivors have been reduced to drinking saltwater to stay alive - reminds us, the fight against climate change is urgent. " This is not true. Here is the fact of the matter from someone living in Vanuatu:
"I'm hearing reports of people drinking seawater. They seem ti ignore that our islands are largely porous limestone. The rain leeches down into the stone and exits at the shore. It is not only common, it's actually very safe to dig into the beach and tap these springs for drinking water. I know, because I have one such spring outside my house. Please people, try not to propagate this kind of ignorant alarmism."
https://www.facebook.com/HumansOfVanuatu
Please don't exaggerate to make your point - inaccuracies will be used as a weapon against you.
Guardian staff As you know, the BBC reported this, based on the word of residents on the island of Moso. The reporter, John Donnison, was on the spot. If you look at his Twitter feed https://twitter.com/jondonnisonbbc I don't think he has much need to exaggerate the desperate situation he found.
Here’s what we really needed to know: what kind of car does Alan Rusbridger drive?
Guardian staff I suspect I am the only editor in the world to have owned not one but two G-Wiz . This was described as the worst car in the world in the 2997 Top Gear Awards before being blown up by Richard Hammond using his model radio controlled car.
Guardian staff I mean, 2007, obviously. Though I expect Top Gear will still think it's the worst car in the world in 2997.
Updated
A question about our own advertising from connal99
Will The Guardian refuse advertising from fossil fuel companies?
This would send a powerful signal that as an organisation you would not accept money from those engaged in continued climate destruction.
Guardian staff Fair question. As I wrote at the start, we're looking at our own investments. We publish an annual sustainability report about the progress we're making on the cost and impact of our own operations. As for the advertising question, I'll discuss it with our commercial director. When I last saw him, he didn't think we took vast sums from fossil fuel companies!
James Randerson explains what campaign success would look like:
Great campaign Alan and well done for the initiative. However can you explain what campaign success for The Guardian would actually look like?
Guardian staff Thanks for your support.
As the petition says we are asking the two largest charitable foundations to first freeze their fossil fuel investments and then commit to divesting over 5 years.
We are under no illusion that is a huge ask. These are massive decisions involving vast amounts of money but we believe that the impacts of these investments clearly run counter to the aims and objectives of the Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. If either or both were to decide to change their position it would have a huge impact on other foundations and other investors.
More generally, we want to highlight the issue and inject some energy into the response to climate change in a new way. The divestment movement is growing rapidly, but it is striking that it is only just on the radar for a lot of fund managers despite warnings from the Bank of England and others. We hope that this campaign will put the issue front and centre.
We will also be explaining to individuals how they can make they can divest their own pensions etc. and lobby for their employers and elected representatives to do the same. If readers decide to take that on, that will also be a success.
This was a question we’ve also had on Twitter:
How are you working with Indigenous people and Africans in the diaspora to amplify their voices in this campaign to #KeepItInTheGround? After all this movement began in those communities. Some of the most affected by oil and gas extraction.
Guardian staff You make a very important point and we are very conscious that those voices need to be prominent in our campaign and reporting, and they will be.
The artwork used to illustrate one the major pieces that launched our campaign was by the Australian indigenous artist Judy Watson
Junglelarry has a question about being eco-friendly with the realities of day-to-day life:
alan, excuse my selfishness but today I had to take my wife to hospital, take and pick up 2 kids from school, take one kid to and from day care, take one kid to and from soccer training, do the grocery shopping and pick up dinner.
it's not practical to do that on a push bike and we live in a smaller city with limited to no public transport. I can barely afford to put petrol in the car as it is. won't leaving oil in the ground make the price of petrol rise and if so, what am I supposed to do?
given that a genuinely affordable electric family car could be years away and would in all likelihood be powered by a coal fired power station anyway, how do you propose average income earners will afford transport in the short to medium term if projects like these are wildly successful?
Guardian staff I drive a car, too. I, like you, would love a viable alternative. What are the levers to force action to solve this question? We haven't suggested divestment on its own is a magic wand. But, if successful, it would, we think, help change the terms of the debate.
James Connington asks should we encourage companies to invest in renewable energy in place of fossil fuels:
Totally support this campaign: Will you (or should you) be encouraging them to invest in renewable energy in place of fossil fuels?
Guardian staff Thanks for your support James. We wanted to keep the campaign relatively simple so we are not explicitly suggesting where the investments should move to. But you raise a good point. This is about the first steps in a huge shift away from an economy based on fossil fuels towards one based alternative energy.
That shift is beginning to happen. Investors ploughed $310bn into renewable energy last year, up 16% on the year before. And because of improvements in the technology, that money bought nearly twice as much renewable electricity capacity as in 2011.
There is a strand of the rapidly growing divestment movement that advocates a Divest-Invest approach.
Why not sooner, asks dlw1066:
you've been there for decades why not sooner?
that is my question, not a kind one, but there it is sir, and for the record I am boosting your campaign among my colleagues here in Canada
Guardian staff In my defence, I'd say the Guardian - with an environment staff of seven a monthly audience of 4m uniques - has taken the subject extremely seriously over the past 20 years. If you know of another paper with that kind of depth and range and commitment to the subject, I'd love to learn of it. We've also run campaigns in the past, such as the Manchester report and the 10:10 campaign. But me mea culpa as we kicked this thing off admitted that we have - in common with most media - failed to do justice to the seriousness of the subject.
Why focus on divestment from oil companies specifically? Alan Rusbridger answers this question from Aetrus:
Why focus on disinvestment from oil companies, which will have no noticeable effect (using the tobacco companies as a guide) rather than going after the political parties, which really can change policies and the energy landscape? Aren't you just going for the easy sound-bite?
Guardian staff We did consider that question. I tried to explain our thinking in this piece
When, as Guardian colleagues, we first started discussing this climate change series, there were advocates for focusing the main attention on governments. States own much of the fossil fuels that can never be allowed to be dug up. Only states, it was argued, can forge the treaties that count. In the end the politicians will have to save us through regulation – either by limiting the amount of stuff that is extracted, or else by taxing, pricing and limiting the carbon that’s burned.
If journalism has so far failed to animate the public to exert sufficient pressure on politics through reporting and analysis, it seemed doubtful whether many people would be motivated by the idea of campaigning for a paragraph to be inserted into the negotiating text at the UN climate talks in Paris this December. So we turned to an area where campaigners have recently begun to have marked successes: divestment.
What about fracking, asks leonzos:
Why hasn't the Guardian been more proactive supporting the anti-fracking movement, whose environmental concerns are broadly similar?
Guardian staff One campaign at a time. We've covered fracking and the anti-fracking movement in some detail, as I'm sure you know. Here's an editorial we wrote on the subject 14 months ago that's pretty consistent with what we're advocating now.
.But the deeper question is when UK policymakers will face the fact that, if there is to be any chance of keeping global temperatures below the danger level of two degrees celsius, there are reserves of fossil fuel that must be left in the ground. Instead, Mr Osborne’s focus is on bulldozing through the development of an unconventional fossil fuel that is likely to be locked into the UK’s energy mix by the sheer scale of investment required. He is ignoring serious dilemmas, that demand serious consideration. Bullying and bribing people into accepting fracking is no substitute for winning the argument
Alan Rusbridger on the familiarity of the concept of “decarbonisation”:
Do you agree that divestment and forceful shareholder engagement are complementary tactics for persuading fossil fuel companies to change their practices to be compatible with a 2 degrees C increase in global average temps? If so, which kinds of shareholders do you think should be divesting and which engaging? Or do you see divestment as the sole strategy?
Guardian staff We had a long discuss about whether to advocate "decarbonisation" - which I think captures the strategy you describe of forceful shareholder engagement - or pure divestment. Both look good to us. But "decarbonisation", thus described, is a less familiar concept and it's difficult to build a campaign around a term that needs explaining every time you use it...
Guardian staff hi bobjob21
my argument is that nuclear is expensive and only ever gets more expensive - renewables and efficiency only get cheaper
the divestment campaign is not asking for the overnight shutting down of the fossil fuel industry. but the IPCC is very clear - emissions will have to fall to near zero to avoid devastating climate change
James Randerson answers a “million dollar question” from Sonny Lematina:
I am totally behind this campaign, but something that's been bothering me is: 'If there is roughly five times more fossil fuel waiting to be extracted than we can safely use, what is the mechanism for deciding which 4/5ths must be kept in the ground? Has there been any progress on answering that kind of question?
Guardian staff Thanks for your support Sonny :)
You have of course hit on the million dollar question. States at the international climate talks have committed to staying under the 2C warming threshold (generally accepted as the point at which dangerous climate change kicks in) which implies that they are signed up in principle to the notion of a global carbon budget.
But at present, none are putting serious curbs on their own extraction. In fact, many are encouraging more extraction with generous subsidies (Rich countries are spending $88bn a year propping up the fossil fuel industry).
George Monbiot has written a lot about this double think.
This Nature study from January had a go at working out which reserves should stay in the ground but the only game in town for actually making that happen is the international climate talks (or a market shift forced by the falling price of alternative energy).
Foie_gras asks whether public opinion is on the Guardian’s side:
Significantly more people have signed up to bring back Jeremy Clarkson than to divest. Do you think that you may have misjudged public opinion on this? Is this more of a personal crusade from an editor on the way out the door?
Guardian staff 73% of people want world leaders to agree a global deal and 66% think action must happen now, according to a new Populus survey.
Would you think better of an editor who thought “People are more interested in Top Gear than in climate change so let's write about the former more than the latter”?
Our editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger has been answering a number of your questions below the line:
Why does the Guardian ignore the fact that 75% of the public want all energy re-nationalised?
Guardian staff if you Google "guardian utilities renationalised" you'll find quite a lot
We've had a week of this now, back slapping, works of art, divestment. All of which are important, I'm sure.
Yet the guardian has failed to publish stories like this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/16/the-melting-of-antarctica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/?tid=sm_fb
Guardian staff Here's a link to our (considerable) coverage of Antarctica over the months and years
Edit;
How will fossil fuel divestment stop the global warming seen on other planets within the solar system and why does the guardian ignore this correlation?
Guardian staff
Assistant national news editor James Randerson answers this question from crystaltips2:
How would your divestment campaign affect state owned producers such as Aramco, Rosneft or Statoil?
Guardian staff Thanks for your comment. You are right to say that divestment does not impact on state owned producers. We've written more about that here:
The International Energy Agency estimates that 74% of all coal, oil and gas reserves are owned by state-controlled companies. The most straightforward response to this is that divestment is just one of many ways of trying to curb carbon emissions and that international action at state level will of course be essential. But there are reasons why divestment could help. The listed fossil fuel companies have huge influence and undermining their power could embolden politicians in leading nations to deliver ambitious international climate action.
In any case, many of the biggest state-controlled companies float some of their stock, while also contracting the publicly traded companies to help extract their reserves. Furthermore, the state-controlled reserves tend to be the ones that are easiest and cheapest to extract and are therefore the most sensible to use in filling up the last of the atmosphere’s carbon budget, the trillion tonnes or so of carbon that scientists say is the limit before dangerous climate change kicks in. Last, the extreme and expensive hydrocarbons that really must stay in the ground – such as tar sands, the Arctic and ultra deep water reserves – are the near exclusive preserve of listed companies.
We don't think this campaign or divestment as an action is the whole answer - far from it. But we hope it is a way of highlighting the compelling logic of the Keep it in the Ground argument and of presenting a practical action that is part of the huge economic transition away from fossil fuels that will need to happen over the coming years and decades if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. Ultimately, there will need to be political action at all levels but particularly by states.
On the latest episode of our podcast you will hear the discussion we had internally about whether to go for divestment or something else.
Our second question from foie_gras asks about the impact on those in fuel poverty:
What impact do you think leaving reserves in the ground will have on those in fuel poverty?
I don't see that renewables at the moment are developed enough to replace fossil fuel. Your proposal can only have one effect on energy prices. Wouldn't it be better to campaign for advancements in renewables first?
Guardian staff There are many people in the world in poverty and access to energy is vital to alleviating that. But the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear that poverty cannot be alleviated unless climate change is tackled.
There's more here (#8):
The most recent report from IPCC, written and reviewed by thousands of the world’s foremost experts and approved by 195 of the world’s nations, concluded that climate change, driven by unchecked fossil fuel burning, “is a threat to sustainable development".
It warned that global warming is set to inflict severe and irreversible impacts on people and that “limiting its effects is necessary to achieve sustainable development and equity, including poverty eradication”. The IPCC went even further, stating that climate change impacts are projected “to prolong existing and create new poverty traps”.
On your other point, renewables, efficiency and storage are increasing rapidly, but not rapidly enough. There needs to be a huge switch of investment from fossil fuels – which spent $670m in 2013 looking for more fossil fuels when we already have far too much – to clean technologies. The divestment campaign encourages that.
First question in from Achayan, who asked:
Two Charities.. why should they be targeted?
Give people reliable alternatives... they will naturally boycott the bad stuff
Head of environment Damian Carrington answered this one:
Guardian staff Thanks Achayan
We have focused on the Bill and Melinda Gates and the Wellcome Trust because in all other areas they are an enormous force for good in the world. As our campaign petition puts it:
Your organisations have made a huge contribution to human progress and equality by supporting scientific research and development projects. Yet your investments in fossil fuels are putting this progress at great risk, by undermining your long term ambitions.
Regarding reliable alternatives, renewables, efficiency and storage are increasing rapidly, but not rapidly enough. There needs to be a huge switch of investment from fossil fuels – which spent $670m in 2013 looking for more fossil fuels when we already have far too much – to clean technologies. The divestment campaign encourages that.
On Monday, the Guardian launched our Keep it in the Ground campaign to persuade the two wealthiest charitable foundations to remove their investments from fossil fuel companies.
From 11.45am (GMT) on Thursday editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger will be answering questions live on the site along with head of environment Damian Carrington and assistant national news editor James Randerson.
In his introduction to the campaign Rusbridger wrote:
The argument for a campaign to divest from the world’s most polluting companies is becoming an overwhelming one, on both moral and financial grounds. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu puts it: “People of conscience need to break their ties with corporations financing the injustice of climate change”.
Divestment serves to delegitimise the business models of companies that are using investors’ money to search for yet more coal, oil and gas that can’t safely be burned. It is a small but crucial step in the economic transition away from a global economy run on fossil fuels.
The usual rule of newspaper campaigns is that you don’t start one unless you know you’re going to win it. This one will almost certainly be won in time: the physics is unarguable. But we are launching our campaign today in the firm belief that it will force the issue now into the boardrooms and inboxes of people who have billions of dollars at their disposal.
This video sums up the case for keeping a large proportion of fossil fuels in the ground.
Specifically, the Guardian is calling on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust to divest from coal, oil and gas companies.
They are two of the most important and successful philanthropic organisations in the world and have between them achieved a huge amount for healthcare and development. The Wellcome Trust handles a portfolio of more than £18bn and invests around £700m a year in science, the humanities, social science education and medical research. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has an endowment of $43.5bn. Last year it gave away $3.9bn in grants towards health and sustainable development. It also funds the Guardian’s Global Development Website.
The ask of them is, we think, both modest and simple. We understand that fund managers do not like to make sudden changes to their portfolios. So we ask that the Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust commit now to divesting from the top 200 fossil fuel companies within five years. And that they immediately freeze any new investment in the same companies.
You can find a full briefing on the campaign here but if you have further questions please submit them in the comments below – or send them to us on twitter @guardianeco and using our hashtag #keepitintheground.
Updated
Thank you for having the courage to put this on the Guardian's front pages! My question is: Government subsidies for fossil fuel extraction vs. renewable energy ought to be a hot election issue - how can we make it so?