Tag Archives: votes

London Assembly votes for £5 bn fossil fuel divestment – listen up, Boris! Updated for 2026





Some victories are sudden and unexpected. Some take time, planning and weeks upon weeks of hard work. Today’s City Hall divestment victory falls into the latter category.

For months, the campaigners of Divest London have waged a less-than-silent war of persuasion, argument and charm on members of the London Assembly.

With the Green party as an ally, we fought to expand our influence on Labour and the Liberal Democrats. We prepared, we practiced and we convinced. We tweeted, we emailed, we called, we wooed.

And we won!

The London Assembly has voted – with an overwhelming majority of 15-3 – in support of fossil fuel divestment. Specifically, it has called on the Mayor of London to support divestment and on the £4.8bn London Pension Fund Authority to divest over the next five years.

This is no small feat. The motion – drawn up by Divest London and filed by Green Party Assembly Member Jenny Jones – will help to push fossil fuel divestment high up on the agenda for the 2016 mayoral race in the UK capital and square in front of Boris Johnson for the rest of his term. (You can read more about the motion here).

Now it’s over to Boris

This is a key moment for our campaign to get City Hall to go fossil free. The London Assembly is our voice in city government. The 25 elected members examine issues on behalf of Londoners and hold the Mayor to account.

Although Boris gets the final say, this positive vote at the Assembly is a key milestone for the campaign and gives us a strong mandate to put pressure all the way to the top.

Boris does not directly set the agenda for the LFPA, but he does appoint its chair and half of its board. This influence is significant given the political and financial scale of the Fund.

We estimate that the Fund currently invests upwards of £100 million in fossil fuel companies, including Shell and two coal companies – Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton – despite the fact that Goldman Sachs has warned thermal coal is reaching its ‘retirement age’, downgrading its long-term valuation by 18%. Meanwhile Ed Davey has singled out coal as “the short-term biggest worry by a long way.”

Boris Johnson is already behind on his climate adaptation and mitigation targets, receiving a 4.6 out of 10 scorecard from the London Assembly.

Perhaps most outrageously he had been accused by the head of the Met Office’s Climate Monitoring and Attribution Unit of “misleading the public” over spurious claims that global warming is due to solar activity.

Growing risk of ‘stranded’ carbon assets

If the Mayor refuses to divest, he will be forced to justify why City Hall is investing in companies that bank on the Conservative government, at both the city and national level, not enacting their emissions policies and not meaningfully tackling climate change.

This is what the major fossil fuel companies hope will happen. Shell and Exxon Mobil have written letters to shareholders saying they think it “highly unlikely” government will limit emissions in the way they have promised. We’re going to prove them wrong – starting today.

If Boris Johnson refuses to divest, he will be actively ignoring the wishes of the London Assembly, Londoners of all stripes – health workers, teachers, students, clergy members, lawyers and parents. He will also be willfully ignoring the warnings of the Bank of England, the Church of England, the World Bank and the UN.

Divestment campaigners claim that those invested in fossil fuels face serious risk from the prospect of ‘stranded assets’, which mean that the majority of reserves could ultimately be unburnable as governments worldwide consider committing to limit global warming to 2C, with global climate talks in Paris scheduled for December 2015.

Indeed, Carbon Tracker research has found that the London Stock Exchange is exposed to particularly high carbon risk, with a third of the FTSE 100 represented by resource and mining companies. And this exposure is increasing year on year; between 2011-2013, exposure to carbon (particularly coal) rose by seven per cent.

A recent London Assembly report cited the warning that, consequently, ‘London’s role as a global financial centre is at stake’. Over 250,000 individuals have their pension benefits invested in the LPFA. Most of them are unlikely to be aware that their money is invested in what Ed Davey has called ‘the sub prime assets of the future’.

Oslo, Oxford, Bristol – and now London?

This is only the beginning. Divest campaigns are springing up in city and borough councils all over the UK. If any of you have read the Guardian’s recent environmental and divestment coverage (which is excellent by the way) you can see that the divestment movement is going mainstream.

Indeed, it is no accident that this vote follows the massively successful Global Divestment Day – with its army of Boris Johnson lookalikes and 500 citizens rallying outside of City Hall – or the Time to Act! National Climate March last week with 20,000 people marching through London.

It is no accident that the vote comes less than two weeks after Oslo became the first world capital to support fossil fuel divestment, or after Oxford and Bristol City Councils have both divested.

Divestment is an idea whose time has come. More than 39 other cities in five countries worldwide have committed to divest from fossil fuels.  London can be on that list. London will lead on that list.

So – what are you on, Boris? You are in a position to do some real good for the city and to set an example for the UK and for, really, the world. You can be a leader in this fight for our planetary future or you can fall in line behind fracking CEOs and oil money.

Londoners and the London Assembly have sent a clear message. Are you listening?

 


 

Petition:Divest City Hall from fossil fuel investments!

Source: Divest London.

 




391180

EuroParl votes in new era of GMO farming Updated for 2026





The European Parliament has just passed a law allowing the cultivation of GMO crops by EU member states, by 480 votes to 159, with 58 abstentions.

The proposed law allows individual member states to ban genetically modified crops, but only on very limited grounds that environmentalists fear could be subject to legal challenges.

The law also opens the door to the possibility of more varieties of GM crops being approved in the EU. Currently only one GM crop – a herbicide resistant strain of maize used for animal feed – is grown in Europe, but a further seven GM varieties are in the pipeline and may be approved early this year.

Green UK MEP Keith Taylor said: “This agreement is not all it seems. While giving EU countries new powers to ban GMOs, I believe what this will mean in reality for the UK is more GMOs not fewer. This is because our pro-GM Government are now able to give the go-ahead to more authorisations.”

Wales and Scotland have welcomed the opportunity to confirm their non-GM position, but they may find that the limited terms of any opt-out may in fact force them to allow GM crops to be grown once approved by the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA.

Within the EU, Only Spain, Portugal and the Czech Republic currently permit GM crop cultivation. The current UK government is committed to the introduction of GM crops after “a few years”.

Safeguards stripped out

The European Parliament’s Environment Committee voted last November to impose strong safeguards on GM crop cultivation, as reported on The Ecologist.

However the draft law then went to the ‘Trilogue’ – comprising the European Council, the Commission and representatives from the Parliament – for amendment.

An agreement was struck on 3rd December which stripped out most of the safeguards. While the form of national opt-outs remained, any such opt out would only be allowed under highly restricted circumstances.

Responding at the time, Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director said: “Environment ministers say they want to give countries the right to ban GM crop cultivation on their territory, but the text they have agreed does not give governments a legally solid right.

“It ties their hands by not allowing to use evidence of environmental harm to ban GM cultivation. This leaves those countries that want to say ‘no’ to GM crops exposed to legal attacks by the biotech industry.”

The Green French MEP José Bové, also a campaigner against GM crops, added: “in the short term, this change will allow multinationals like Monsanto to challenge national bans at the WTO or, if free trade deals like TTIP are finalised, in arbitration tribunals.”

But – with the exception of the Greens – all the main political groups in the European Parliament united today to back the GMO law.

Regulation devolved to member states

Among the problems in the new law is the absence of strict regulation at the European level. Instead it will be up to member states to impose their own safeguards and regulations.

GM Freeze Director Liz O’Neill explained: “This directive offers no meaningful protection to people who want to make informed choices about what they are eating or to farmers who want to protect their fields from the superweeds and biodiversity loss associated with the kind of GM crops likely to be heading our way.

“There are no EU-wide mandatory measures to prevent contamination within an individual member state and no rules governing liability. That means it’s down to the UK Government to protect our right to grow and eat GM Free.”

GM pollen from crops permitted in one country can easily spread to another neighbouring country. Add to that the largely unrestricted cross border trade in both foodstuffs and seeds, and GM trangenes are likely to spread widely across the EU once permitted in any one country.

Furthermore single market rules that govern EU trade will make it illegal for member states to control imports of GM foods, even if they forbid their cultivation.

Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association said the new law “fails to require countries to ensure that any GM crops grown will not contaminate GM free farms, nor to ensure that the cost of any contamination will fall on the shoulders of the GM companies who own the patented products, not on farmers or food businesses that suffer from pollution.”

UK – a regulatory void?

As far as the UK is concerned. the Conservative manifesto for the 2010 election committed the Government to “develop a legally-binding protocol covering the separation of GM and non-GM material, including clear industry liability” – however this has not taken place.

A letter from farming minister Lord de Mauley recently stated that there was no problem with transgenes from GMO crops: “cross pollination is, again, a normal process between compatible plant species and there is nothing different about GM crops in this respect.”

As reported on The Ecologist, the UK Government is proposing to introduce “pragmatic rules” to govern the separation of GM and non-GM plants and seeds – by implication, given the UK’s supports for GMOs, “pragmatic” for farmers and the GMO industry, rather than for organic farmers or those that wish to remain GM-free.

Peter Melchett commented: “The rights of farmers who do not wish to grow GM crops, particularly in England are therefore under threat by this proposal. Indeed, the entire organic sector, growing rapidly in Europe and which may double by 2020, is in danger – as are the rights of anyone who wants to buy GM free foods.”

Amid the chaos the law will create, at least one thing is cerrtain: that the situation will be exploited ruthlessly by the GM corporations to establish ‘facts on the ground’ and introduce GMOs as widely as possible with a minimum of regulation.

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




388945