NATIONAL TRUST ANNOUNCES IT WILL DIVEST FROM ALL FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES
- Europe’s biggest conservation charity has just over £1billion invested in stock markets with the returns vital for helping protect and care for special places
- Majority of fossil fuel equity divestments to be made within 12 months
- Charity currently makes its own green heat and power and wants to invest in green start-ups and portfolios that benefit environment and nature
The National Trust has today announced it will cease any investment in fossil fuel companies.
The charity will introduce a series of new measures to ensure its investment strategy continues to support its aims as a conservation charity.
Previously the Trust had required that no investment be made directly in companies which derived more than 10 per cent of their turnover from the extraction of thermal coal or oil from oil sands. Fossil fuel investments comprise just 4 per cent of its current portfolio.
Hilary McGrady, Director General of the National Trust said: “Returns from our investments are vital for helping us protect and care for special places across the nation. They enable us to look after the natural environment and keep our membership fees affordable to the millions of people who are part of our organisation.
The impacts of climate change pose the biggest long-term threat to the land and properties we care for and tackling this is a huge challenge for the whole nation.
We know our members and supporters are eager to see us do everything we can to protect and nurture the natural environment for future generations. This change is part of our ongoing commitment.”
The new measures include:
- Divesting from all fossil fuel companies within the next three years.
- Establishing a long-term goal to continue the reduction of the carbon footprint of the investment portfolio.
- Increasing engagement with companies invested in, to encourage them to make material improvements in their environmental performance.
- Actively seeking out opportunities to support green start-up businesses
Peter Vermeulen, the charity’s Chief Financial Officer said: “The Trust has just over a billion pounds invested on the stock market, the returns from which are an important source of income. Over the years we’ve gradually evolved our investment strategy to reduce our carbon footprint.
Many organisations have been working hard to persuade fossil fuel companies to invest in green alternatives. These companies have made insufficient progress and now we have decided to divest from fossil fuel companies.
We have set a three-year timescale but expect the majority of divestments will be accomplished in the first 12 months.
We would not expect this divestment to have a negative effect on financial returns and we know that our members and supporters are eager for us to play our part in tackling climate change through everything we do.
Now we will seek to invest in green start-up businesses and other suitable portfolios that deliver benefits for the environment, nature and people.”
The Trust is Europe’s largest conservation charity and looks after 780 miles of coastline, 248,000 hectares of land and over 500 historic houses, castles, monuments, gardens, parks and nature reserves. 43 per cent of all rainwater in England, Wales and Northern Ireland drains through National Trust places.
Mr Vermeulen concluded: “We want to protect the environment by becoming more energy efficient. In the last four years we’ve created our own green heat and power through the design and build of heat pumps, hydro schemes, solar PV and wood fuel boilers.
We’re also exploring farming and land management methods that reduce flooding, help clean water supplies and restore wildlife, while at the same time offering innovative ways to deliver new revenues into farm businesses.
We also have a plan to phase out single use plastics from our shops and to substantially reduce it in our cafes by 2022. These are part of our commitment to a healthy and thriving natural environment.”.
ENDS
Mark writes: this is a smart and welcome move by the country’s most conservative ‘nature conservation’ organisation. NT’s financial model, holding large amounts of financial reserves where income from investments is an important part of the mix, means that this is a significant move. With £1bn of investment then even with only 4% of that invested in fossil fuels this means a withdrawal of £40m of support for climate-harming industries.
[registration_form]
A positive commitment to a healthy and thriving natural environment. Hopefully such commitment will spread to their negative actions of tree felling, hedge / verge cutting during the bird nesting season in Norfolk. Another case of Green Hypocrisy !!
Tell them I know a good roofer if they want to keep that rain out.
Normally I would have felt a sense of optimism reading this but knowing that Brazil is now, literally, hell-bent on destroying the world’s largest remaining rainforest I’m finding it difficult. It would seem that even democracy is incapable of delivering the action the planet needs in the timescale required. Nevertheless, well done NT.
More impressed about the other elements of their statement rather than the fossil fuel divestment bit. At a time when biomass – turning forests into fuel chips or land being given over to growing it when it could be ecologically restored – is pushed quite strongly the emphasis is instead on stopping the use of fossil fuels. Is it now more acceptable to burn trees rather than coal, because campaigning priorities suggest to me it is? Of course real conservation might have been a better option – for instance FoE, NT, RSPB, WWF and Greenpeace getting together to ask the public to drive smaller cars, don’t try to keep up with the Joneses and company cars should reflect corporate responsibility not excess, the car fleet should be fuel efficient and not use over large ‘prestige’ vehicles. Sod carbon emissions umpteen social and environmental reasons why this is incredibly important – kids breathing in less polluted air, finite resources conserved, people saving a bloody fortune on fuel and insurance some of which could go to public services instead, smaller cars mean the consequences of road accidents will be less serious, and without so many unnecessary SUVs car parks and roads a bit less cluttered, smaller cars as with fewer cars meaning the urban environment is a nicer one for people. No government legislation required, just informed and conscientious consumer choice and potentially, if the lovely public take up the challenge, significant and easy reductions in carbon emissions. Of course for those who put driving around in a big car over public safety and the environment such a campaign would underline their rather selfish attitudes. That wouldn’t go down well with quite a broad swathe of the public I believe so much easier politically to point the finger at institutions, multi nationals and politicians. All these years and all of these groups talking of the dangers of Climate Change, now a climate emergency, but not quite bad enough it seems for them to do anything that’s truly politically challenging like tell the glorious people one way or another through their vote or wallet it’s down to them, or for that matter even mentioning population growth. The result of this is that in certain parts of the world millions of people can’t get access to contraception even when they want it. Do the big NGOs ever mention this – when pushed WWF said they thought it best to leave that to other organisations, but not so much reticence calling for FF divestment obviously? Shame it’s down to individuals like David Attenborough or Chris Packham to try and remind people the actual numbers of us on this planet might just possibly have an impact on it and each other. FF divestment not necessarily a bad thing, but aren’t there other issues which deserve at least the same level of attention? Is it current flavour of the month because it’s actually a soft target?
Unfortunately, Les, Chris Packham is not, currently, a very good role model for what you are suggesting, as he is involved with a travel company running tourist trips to the Antarctic! He is by no means alone in having a conflict of interest with his sincere environmental concerns. I am aware of several individuals supporting Extinction Rebellion who have the personal carbon footprints of elephants. As you suggest, until we are all prepared to curtail our indulgent lifestyles and lead by example why should anyone listen to us!
The foreign travel one is incredibly difficult. Whereas I think driving a bigger car than you need to is incredibly selfish because it means more air pollution to breathe in, and any accidents will be worse when a bigger, heavier mass is involved – foregoing the chance to get abroad really is a sacrifice in terms of life experience. I didn’t get to go abroad until I was thirteen, but my paternal grandmother never got out of Britain for a single second and my paternal grandfather only got out of the country because of WWII. That makes me cherish and appreciate getting abroad and it has definitely made me a better person such as I am. The trips CP and others do at least help local conservation projects abroad. Carbon emissions have become THE environmental issue rather than a byproduct of all of the other ones which desperately need to be addressed because of their real, material damage to people and planet right here, right now. I’m a lot more worried about rainforest being lost, not least for biofuels, than the CO2 produced by a family having a holiday on the Med. I’d much rather campaign about the Amazon being cleared for agriculture when we’re throwing away a third of our food – an absolute travesty – than how much CO2 travelling causes. I haven’t been abroad for three years and before that for eighteen years, but not through choice! Unless it’s a luxury trip, I don’t think anybody has to beat themselves up about going abroad especially if they do their best to cut the real crap out of their lives. There’s a hell of a lot more to our eco footprint than the carbon footprint, but that seems to have been kicked into the long grass. I’m uncomfortable with the way cutting carbon emissions smacks of religious zealotry at times, projections/predictions have become dogma with little scope to question or discuss rationally without being labelled a sceptic (heretic?) or a climate change denier (so similar to the term ‘Holocaust denier’ is that an accident?). The general standard of debate on the issue isn’t high.