General Synod Fossil Fuel Divestment Discussion Paper

This Discussion Paper provides full references for the fossil fuel divestment motion and explanatory note submitted to the General Synod / te Hinota Whanui 2014 of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia.1

Executive Summary

Climate change is already upon us and will intensify rapidly. Its worst impacts will be felt by people in poor communities in vulnerable regions, including the Pacific Islands.

To keep global warming to 2°C or less, we need to make a decisive break with fossil fuel dependency, the United Nations and other authorities conclude. Up to 80% of known reserves of coal, oil and gas will need to be left unexploited.

Churches and other faith communities are in a position to exercise moral leadership on this urgent issue through dis-investing from the fossil fuel industry.

Dis-investing from the fossil fuel industry will:

• align the Church’s investment policy with our mission “to safeguard the integrity of creation and to sustain and renew the life of the earth” and “to seek to transform the unjust structures of society”; • demonstrate that the Province stands in solidarity with its neighbours and Church members in Polynesia who are already beginning to suffer the effects of climate change; • give tangible expression to the Church’s existing commitments to be an ethical investor; • give tangible expression to the policy of “carbon neutrality” advocated by our in their statement on climate change published in April 2006; • draw attention to the urgency of the need to break with fossil fuel dependency.

Fossil fuel divestment is not the only step the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia will need to take to play its part in the transition to a low-carbon economy. But it is an important and meaningful step that must be taken if the Church is to maintain its credibility as a prophetic voice on the issue of climate change. We cannot call for urgent action on global warming and at the same time seek to profit from the fossil fuel industry.

The case for fossil fuel divestment is not predicated on legal or financial arguments. However, it is important to note that divesting is legally permissible and financially prudent as well as being morally and theologically mandated.

Independent legal advice provided by LeeSalmonLong Barristers and Solicitors states that there is no legal impediment, as a matter of fiduciary duties, to the trustees adopting the policy contained in the motion. The legal advice notes that this is especially the case if the policy can be implemented without risk of significant financial detriment because there is a wide enough pool of alternative

1 This document is a revised version of the Auckland Diocese Fossil Fuel Divestment Discussion Paper, dated 17th July 2013. investment options. And, in fact, financial analysis shows that a “negative screen” on fossil fuel companies is unlikely to compromise, and may improve, risk-adjusted returns over the medium to long term.

The Anglican Dioceses of Auckland, Waiapu, Wellington, Waikato & Taranaki, and Dunedin considered the case for divestment at Synod meetings in September 2013, and all five Diocesan Synods voted to divest.

This motion is presented in the hope that General Synod will extend this record of leadership by resolving without delay that Church funds should no longer be invested in the fossil fuel industry.

1. Climate Change: An Overview of the Current Situation

We are currently on course for catastrophic global warming within the lifetime of our grandchildren.

The most recent Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR5) finds that the evidence for global warming is “unequivocal” and that it is “extremely likely” (95% confidence) that human influence has been the “dominant cause” for global warming since 1950.2

Modeling included in the IPCC AR5 shows that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at current rates, the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase to roughly 650 ppm by the end of the century, leading to an average temperature increase of between 4°C and 6°C.

The IPCC AR5 reflects the prevailing view of the scientific literature. Despite the popular perception that scientists are divided in their views about the fundamental cause of global climate change, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are in agreement. A recent systematic review of 11,944 abstracts from peer-reviewed climate science papers published from 1991–2011 found that of abstracts expressing an opinion on anthropogenic climate change, 97% endorse the consensus position that humans are causing global warming, with less than 2% of abstracts rejecting this position.3 Large surveys of scientists have independently found that 97% of actively-publishing climate scientists endorse the consensus position that climate change is driven by human activity, with the large majority of earth scientists in agreement.4

1.1. Impacts

Kiribati in the South Pacific is one of several island states already affected by rising sea levels. Negotiations are reportedly underway to relocate the entire island community to in what may

2 Website: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/, accessed 1st Feb 2014. 3 Cook J, Nuccitelli D, Green SA, Richardson M, Winkler B, Painting R, Way R, Jacobs P and Skuce A. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2013) 024024. 4 Doran P and Zimmerman M. Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 90 (2009) 22–3; Anderegg W R L, Prall J W, Harold J and Schneider S H. Expert credibility in climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107 (2010) 12107–9. become the world’s first “climate-induced migration of modern times.”5 In a public statement last year, the President of Kiribati said:

In the Pacific, the degree of our fragility and insecurity will increasingly be due to climate change and the implications it poses on various aspects of our lives ranging from food security, health, increasing salinity in our water lens, our resources as well as our very survival and existence.6

The Kiribati experience offers just one snapshot of an emerging global crisis. A 2013 report published by the World Bank expresses grave concerns about the direct threat posed by global warming to vulnerable human communities in Sub-Saharan Africa, South East Asia and South Asia. The report notes that:

many significant climate and development impacts are already being felt in some regions, and in some cases multiple threats of increasing extreme heat waves, sea level rises, more severe storms, droughts and floods are expected to have further severe negative implications for the poorest. […] High temperature extremes appear likely to affect yields of rice, wheat, maize and other important crops, adversely affecting food security. Promoting economic growth and the eradication of poverty and inequality will thus be an increasingly challenging task under future climate change.7

Climate change will not only have economic impacts, it will also adversely affect human health. A high-profile review in leading medical journal The Lancet describes climate change as “the biggest global health threat of the 21st Century,” having “its greatest effect on those who have the least access to the world’s resources and who have contributed least to its cause.”8 A group of leading New Zealand health professionals echoed this assessment in a landmark study published in the New Zealand Medical Journal, which concluded that New Zealand “must commit to substantial decreases in its greenhouse gas emissions, to avoid the impact of climate change on human health, both here and internationally.”9

1.2. Fossil fuels and the transition to low-carbon economies

The Copenhagen Accord signed by world leaders in 2009 acknowledges the scientific view that global atmospheric temperature rises should be kept below 2°C to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”10

5 “Entire nation of Kiribati to be relocated over rising sea level threat”, The Telegraph (UK), 7 Mar 2012. Website: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/kiribati/9127576/Entire-nation-of-Kiribati-to-be- relocated-over-rising-sea-level-threat.html, accessed 13 July 2013. 6 Website: http://www.climate.gov.ki/2013/03/04/global-collective-action-needed/, accessed 13 July 2013. 7 Turn Down the Heat: Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts, and the Case for Resilience. A Report for the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2013), p. xv. Website: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/14000, accessed 16th July 2013. 8 Costello A, Abbas M, Allen A, Ball S, Bell S, Bellamy R et al. Managing the health effects of climate change: Lancet and University College London Institute for Global Health Commission. Lancet 373 (2009): 1693-1733. 9 Metcalfe S, Woodward A, Macmillan A, Baker M, Howden-Chapman P, Lindsay G, et al. Why New Zealand must rapidly halve its greenhouse gas emissions. N Z Med J. 122(1304) (2009): 72-95. 10 The Copenhagen Accord. Published in the Report of the Conference of the Parties on its fifteenth session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009: Addendum (UNFCCC, March 2010), p. 5. Website: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/11a01.pdf, accessed 5th July 2013. Price Waterhouse Coopers’ Low Carbon Economy Index 2012, Too Late for Two Degrees?, found that in order to stay within this 2°C guardrail there will need to be radical transformations in the way the global economy functions, including: a rapid uptake of renewable energy, sharp falls in fossil fuel use (or massive deployment of currently unavailable carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology), and removal of industrial emissions and halting deforestation.11

In particular, research by the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics and the Carbon Tracker Initiative has estimated that burning any more than 20% of known coal, oil and gas reserves will put us at risk of exceeding 2°C of global warming.12

In other words, we must leave up to 80% of the world’s fossil fuel reserves in the ground in order to avoid the risk of severe climate change.

These figures give us a “carbon budget” within which to live.13

Despite the adoption of emission reduction policies by many governments around the world, global carbon emissions continue to rise year on year. On current trends, our “carbon budget” may be spent within the next 15 years.14

Climate modeling is inexact, and emission trends may change, but the overall message is clear. The scientific view of our present situations leads inescapably to the conclusion that industrialized and industrializing economies need to decarbonize very rapidly to avoid the risk of severe climate change. Unless we are willing to take extreme risks with our planet’s future, we need to put the fossil fuel industry into retirement as soon as possible.

We are entering a period of transition. We cannot instantly leave fossil fuels behind. What is required is a managed but urgent process whereby we move to low-carbon energy sources and eventually to non-use of fossil fuels (unless in the context of carbon capture and storage). Divestment by people like us encourages this process.

1.3. Investing in the fossil fuel industry is a moral issue

As Prof. James Hansen, pioneering climatologist and former head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has said:

11 Price Waterhouse Coopers, Low Carbon Economy Index 2012: Too Late for Two Degrees?. Website: http://www.pwc.co.uk/sustainability-climate-change/publications/low-carbon-economy-index-2012.jhtml, accessed 1st Feb 2014. 12 Carbon Tracker & The Grantham Research Institute (LSE), Unburnable Carbon 2013: Wasted Capital and Stranded Assets (2013), p. 4. Website: http://carbontracker.live.kiln.it/Unburnable-Carbon-2-Web-Version.pdf, accessed 2nd July 2013. 13 The “carbon budget” is derived from research published in the journal Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/full/nature08017.html, accessed 17th July 2013. 14 This calculation is based upon energy use and emissions date from the most recent summary report by the Directorate of Global Energy Economics (GEE) of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map: World Energy Outlook Special Report (Paris: OECD/IEA, 10 June 2013), p. 9. Website: http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2013/energyclimatemap/RedrawingEnergyClimateMap.pdf, th accessed 5 July 2013. The report states that global energy-related CO2 emissions reached 31.6 gigatonnes in 2012. This is to be compared to the total “carbon budget” of 565 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions, which is expected to result from burning 20% of known fossil fuel reserves. The basic matter […] is not one of economics. It is a matter of morality—a matter of intergenerational justice. The blame, if we fail to stand up and demand a change of course, will fall on us, the current generation of adults. Our parents honestly did not know that their actions could harm future generations. We, the current generation, can only pretend that we did not know.15

Given the current scientific understanding of climate change and the urgent need to break the dominance of fossil fuels as a source of energy, we submit that ongoing investment in the fossil fuel industry by the Church and its subsidiaries should be considered to be socially irresponsible and morally unacceptable.

2. Theological and Missional Commitments

Three basic Christian beliefs inform this motion:

1. The Gospel calls us to delight in and give thanks for the wonderful, diverse, abundant, precious, interconnected community of creation in which the good Creator has placed us; and we have been invited us to enjoy, rely upon, and care for creation. (Genesis 1; Psalm 148)

2. The Gospel calls us to wise and attentive concern for our neighbours, especially those who are most vulnerable and who have contributed least to the problems we face: in the case of climate change, this means the global poor, future generations, and other species. (Matthew 22.36-40; Romans 8.8-10)

3. The Gospel calls us to reflect honestly upon and repent of the attitudes, behaviours, and projects that fail to love God and our neighbours. We are to seek and receive forgiveness in Christ and the power of the Spirit to discover afresh a life focused on relationships and love, not exploitation and profligate consumption. (1 John 1.8-9; Revelation 11.17-18)

In line with these beliefs, the Mission Statement of the Anglican Church calls us to “strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and to sustain and renew the life of the earth” and to “seek to transform the unjust structures of society”.16

It has gradually become clear that our carbon-intensive economies are uncreating God’s good world at an alarming pace and on an unprecedented scale. It is welcome, therefore, that Anglican Church leaders here and abroad have issued statements over the past few years seeking to articulate the connection between these theological and missional commitments and the issue of climate change.

In April 2006, the Anglican Bishops in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia issued a joint statement (Appendix A) acknowledging global climate change to be “a real and present danger to the future of this planet and the survival of the species.” The statement also affirms the church’s support for exploration and cross party development of policy measures to address, contain and limit the extent and impact of climate change; commits to commending a policy of carbon

15 James Hansen et al., “The Case for Young People and Nature: A Path to a Healthy, Natural, Prosperous Future” (May 2011). Website: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeople.pdf, accessed 13th Feb 2014. 16 Website: http://www.anglican.org.nz/About/Mission-Statement, accessed 13th Feb 2014. neutrality; and calls on central and local governments, businesses and faith communities to work together in this important area. In the statement, the Bishops also say:

We are opposed to political and economic initiatives which would further contribute negatively to climate change and the needless destruction of our environment.

In March 2009, the then Archbishop the Most Revd. gave an address on the science and theology of global climate change to Anglican Primates in Alexandria, in which he urged “moral leadership” by the Church in view of our commitment to social justice and to the care of creation, of which we are part.

The 2012 Ash Wednesday Declaration, “Climate Change and the Purposes of God,” published by Operation Noah UK and signed by the then Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and the of London Richard Chartres, among others, states that:

Continuing to pollute the atmosphere when we know the dangers, goes against what we know of God’s ways and God’s will. […] For our generation, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels has become essential to Christian discipleship.17

Furthermore, in 2002 the General Synod / te Hinota Whanui of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia passed a resolution affirming its commitment to ethical investment. The New Zealand Anglican Church Pension Board (ACPB) thereafter adopted an Ethical Investment Policy and has since established a reputation as an industry leader in ethical investment. The ACPB Ethical Investment Policy includes a resolution to “endeavour to avoid direct investment in companies with a poor environmental record.”18

In light of these theological and missional commitments, we submit that ongoing investment in the fossil fuel industry should be considered to be contrary to the Church’s missional goals of the care of creation and social justice, and to be contrary to its responsibilities and commitments as an ethical investor.

3. The Legal and Financial Case

The case for fossil fuel divestment is not predicated on legal or financial arguments. It is motivated by the “real and present danger to the future of this planet and the survival of the species” posed by climate change, and it is grounded in fundamental theological and ethical convictions. However, financial returns from Church investments are critical for supporting the mission of the Church, paying pensions, and providing other services to beneficiaries; and it is right that Synod should seek to understand the financial and legal implications of screening out fossil fuel investments.

Thankfully, divesting is legally permissible and financially prudent as well as being morally and theologically mandated.

3.1. Fiduciary Duty

17 Website: http://www.operationnoah.org/ash-wednesday-declaration, accessed 1st Feb 2014. 18 Website: https://www.acpb.org.nz/publications/Ethics.pdf, accessed 13th Feb 2014. Independent legal advice provided by LeeSalmonLong Barristers and Solicitors states that there is no legal impediment, as a matter of fiduciary duties, to the trustees adopting the policy contained in the motion. The legal advice notes that this is especially the case if the policy can be implemented without risk of significant financial detriment because there is a wide enough pool of alternative investment options. And, in fact, financial analysis shows that a “negative screen” on fossil fuel companies is unlikely to compromise, and may improve, risk-adjusted returns over the medium to long term (see 3.2. below).

Moreover, it is increasingly asserted among leading authorities that trustees and fund managers have a positive duty to take climate risk into account.

The President of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, has urged long-term investors (in this case, pension funds) to “recognize their fiduciary responsibility to future pension holders who will be affected by decisions made today” and on this basis to consider withdrawing funds from coal, oil and gas companies.19

Similarly, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), has argued that institutional investors could be in breach of their fiduciary duty if they ignored the “clear scientific evidence” of climate change.20

This line of argument challenges the common assumption that fiduciary duty constrains trustees to prioritize maximization of profits and to disregard the social and environmental impact of investment choices. In fact, this common assumption stands fiduciary duty on its head. Fiduciary duty embodies the idea that trustees act on behalf of others whose interests and priorities must be respected above the trustee’s own interests and priorities.

In the context of this General Synod motion, the interests and priorities in question include the mission of the Church and the wellbeing of unspecified beneficiaries over an indefinite period of time. Given the nature of the Church’s mission and the potential impacts of climate change on beneficiaries over the medium to long term, the emerging view suggests that fossil fuel divestment could be required as a fiduciary duty.

3.2. Risk and Returns

Financial analysis shows that a “negative screen” on fossil fuel companies is unlikely to compromise, and may improve, risk-adjusted returns over the medium to long term.

Research by HSCB, the Carbon Tracker Initiative, Standard & Poor’s, and other financial analysts has identified a “carbon bubble” in the international share market which is expected to burst (or deflate) as governments tighten regulation on carbon-intensive sources of energy. That is to say, fossil fuel companies are currently valued by global stock markets on the unrealistic assumption that they will be able to realize profits from their coal, oil and gas reserves. If governments tighten regulation on the production of fossil fuels, these reserves will become “stranded assets” and projected profits will not be realized. According to a report published by HSCB, for instance, major

19 Ed King, “World Bank chief backs fossil fuel divestment drive,” RTCC, 27.1.2014. Website: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/01/27/world-bank-chief-backs-fossil-fuel-divestment-drive/ , accessed 14th Feb 2014. 20 Ed King, “Fund managers who ignore climate risk breaching ‘fiduciary duty’,” RTCC, 16.1.2014. Website: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/01/16/fund-managers-who-ignore-climate-risks-breaching-fiduciary-duty/ , accessed 14th Feb 2014. oil and gas companies could lose up to 60% of their market value should the international community enforce agreed emission reduction pledges.21

These analyses have shown that exposure to fossil fuel companies over the medium to long term poses significant, quantifiable risks for long-term investors such as the Church, and that overall investment risk may be reduced, not increased, by eliminating exposure to the fossil fuel industry.22

At the same time, a recently published report by The Australia Institute has concluded that “a screen eliminating companies whose business model is dominated by fossil fuels can readily be conducted, reducing unburnable carbon risk without compromising returns and, if necessary, without compromising tracking error.”23

The Australia Institute analysis is based on the Australian share market (ASX 200), but analysts have reached similar conclusions in other global equity markets. According to Dr. Ellen Dorsey, executive director of the Wallace Global Fund, a leading US philanthropic fund which recently announced its decision to divest from fossil fuels:

Divesting from fossil fuels need not adversely affect portfolio risk or performance. The best analyses we have seen, in backcast studies by Impax, Aperio Group, and Boston Common Asset Management, all show essentially zero risk in being out of the top 200 fossil fuel companies. To the contrary, staying in fossil fuels may present the greater risk, given the existence of the “Carbon Bubble” and the valuation of fossil energy stock based on stranded fuel reserves.24

Risks and opportunities for New Zealand-based investors will differ from those in Australia and the US. However, we have seen no evidence to suggest that the New Zealand context differs in such a way as to override the assessment provided with respect to the Australian and US share markets. Indeed, the bulk of New Zealand investors’ exposure to fossil fuel companies will be through these foreign stock exchanges. Hence, we conclude that there is a strong case that investment in the fossil fuel industry is not necessary in order to maintain strong returns on funds over the medium to long term, and that dis-investing may prove to reduce overall risk in diversified portfolios.

4. The proposed action

It will be some time before the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia can achieve carbon-neutrality in its day-to-day activities as it aspires to do, and efforts in this direction must continue. In addition, there is an open question concerning whether it should be a policy of the Church to prioritise investment in renewable energy and sustainable business, and we would welcome further discussion on this issue. In the meantime, withdrawing investments from the fossil

21 Website: http://www.carbontracker.org/news/hsbc-study-finds-oil-majors-are-at-significant-financial-risk-from- unburnable-reserves, accessed 6th March 2014. 22 Website: http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/07/Unburnable-Carbon-Full-rev2.pdf, accessed 13th Feb 2014. 23 The Australia Institute, Climate Proofing Your Investments: Moving Funds Out of Fossil Fuels (March 2014), p. 3. Website: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.350.org/images/Climate_Proofing_Your_Investments_final.pdf, accessed 6th Mar 2014. Emphasis added. 24 Ellen Dorsey and Richard N. Mott, “Philanthropy Rises to the Fossil Divest-Invest Challenge” Huffington Post, 30.1.2014. Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-dorsey/philanthropy-rises-to-the_b_4690774.html, accessed 13th Feb 2014. fuel industry is an important and meaningful step towards fulfilling the Church’s commitments to the care of creation and to social justice, and it is a step that can be taken today.

Indeed, fossil fuel divestment is vital if the Church is to maintain its credibility as a prophetic voice on the issue of climate change. We cannot call for urgent action on global warming and at the same time seek to profit from the fossil fuel industry.

Divesting sends a powerful message. By withdrawing financial support from fossil fuel companies, we declare our belief that dirty energy has no future on God’s good earth, and that we are committed to a future beyond fossil fuels.

At the same time, it signals a cultural shift. We used to think of tobacco smoking as a harmless activity; now we see it as a health hazard and an addiction. By divesting we will help bring about a similar shift in attitude towards fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have brought great benefits over the past decades. But today we see that the threat posed by the fossil fuel industry far outweighs the benefits, particularly when cost-competitive clean and renewable alternative energy sources are available. Divesting signals this shift in attitude. And as public perceptions change, it will be easier for all of us, including politicians, to make the right decisions about our energy future and to speed the transition to a low-carbon economy.

It has been argued that shareholder activism is more effective as a strategy to influence companies to change direction than divestment. In some cases this may be true. However, the fossil fuel industry has forcefully resisted the implications of the climate science for over three decades. In 2012 alone, the fossil fuel industry spent USD $417 million in donations and lobbying to secure political influence to prevent adverse legislation being enacted, including climate change legislation.25 It is unrealistic to expect fossil fuel companies to abandon their core business. As Bill McKibben has said, there is no flaw in their business plan that activist shareholders could correct, “the flaw is their business plan.”26 In any case, the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia does not have the organizational infrastructure to engage in shareholder activism on any significant scale.

Therefore, we propose that the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia resolve that it should no longer invest in corporations whose main business is the extraction and/or production of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas), and that it should divest existing holdings in such corporations within 2 years.

Since the responsibility for investing money on behalf of the Church has been given over to legally independent entities, including the New Zealand Anglican Church Pension Board and various other Trusts, the motion requests that the Standing Committee require these entities to implement this resolution.

Although these Trusts and other entities are legally independent, they have a legal obligation to invest in the interests of their beneficiaries and a moral obligation to invest according to the mission and ethical principles of the Church. The General Synod / te Hinota Whanui therefore has the moral authority to call on these entities to implement this resolution. 5. Background

25 Duncan Clark and Mike Berners-Lee, The Burning Question (Profile Books, 2013), p. 97. 26 Reported by Michael Kramer, “Why shareholder engagement with fossil-fuel companies won’t work”, GreenBiz.com (29 May, 2013). Website: http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2013/05/29/why-shareholder-engagement-fossil-fuels- companies-wont-work, accessed 5th July 2013.

In April 2013, Archbishop Desmond Tutu issued a call for churches to cut their financial ties with the fossil fuel industry, saying:

The divestment movement played a key role in helping liberate South Africa. The corporations understood the logic of money even when they weren’t swayed by the dictates of morality. Climate change is a deeply moral issue too, of course. Here in Africa we see the dreadful suffering of people from worsening drought, from rising food prices, from floods, even though they’ve done nothing to cause the situation. Once again we can join together as a world and put pressure where it counts.27

The Archbishop’s call comes as part of the global ‘Go Fossil Free’ divestment campaign launched by the leading international grassroots climate NGO, 350.org.28

The Anglican Dioceses of Auckland, Waiapu, Wellington, Waikato & Taranaki, and Dunedin considered the case for divestment at Synod meetings in September 2013, and all five Diocesan Synods voted to divest.29

In the UK, the Southwark Diocesan Synod passed a resolution in July 2013 calling on the General Synod of the Church of England to consider divestment from fossil fuels.30 On 12th Feb 2014, the issue was considered by the General Synod and it voted overwhelmingly to align its investment strategies with its commitments on climate change, a decision that opens the way for divestment.31

Hundreds of other churches, universities, and cities in the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and worldwide have begun to divest or are considering doing so.32

The General Synod / te Hinota Whanui of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia is now invited to consider the case for divestment.

Authors:

Rod Oram Matheson Russell

Appendix A

27 Desmond Tutu, “Archbishop Desmond Tutu on Divestment”, published online 26th April 2013. Website: http://youtu.be/SR-xBzs09D8, accessed 2nd July 2013. 28 Website: http://gofossilfree.org, accessed 2nd July 2013. Information for religious institutions is available at http://gofossilfree.org/religious-institutions/. 29 Website: http://www.anglicantaonga.org.nz/News/Tikanga-Pakeha/Five-dioceses, accessed 14th Feb 2014. 30 Press Release, 5th July 2013. Website: http://www.southwark.anglican.org/news/pr/pr.php?id=2622, accessed 8th July 2013. 31 Website: http://www.operationnoah.org/PR_synod, accessed 14th Feb 2014; http://www.christiantoday.com/article/climate.change.is.great.demon.of.our.day/35821.htm, accessed 18th Feb 2014. 32 For updates and reports, see: http://gofossilfree.org/commitments/.

Bishops’ Statement, 4 April 200633

Together with the Social Justice Commissioner for the Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia, The Rev Anthony Dancer, we offer the following statement:

Climate change is a real and present danger to the future of this planet and the survival of the species. We welcome the recent conference on Climate Change and Governance as one opportunity for the thinking that needs to be done about the relationship between science and policy. We do this because of our belief about the care of God’s creation and the sacred integrity of the earth.

We wish to affirm this church's support for the exploration and cross party development of policy measures to that seek to address, contain and limit the extent and impact of climate change. We believe this development needs to explore both containment and reduction strategies, and that all parties must work together on reducing climate change in recognition that this is a long term problem effecting us all, and solutions cannot afford to be compromised by the electoral cycle.

We emphasise the important role local governments and local communities play in addressing climate change, and emphasise this church's commitment to creating and cooperating with initiatives at a local level that seek to contain and reduce the impact of climate change and our part in it as human beings.

We are a part of our environment, and have the power to change it for good or ill. Our country and all that is in it needs to be managed and cared for, to prevent any plundering of our ecological base. Ethics and the environment are closely linked. Therefore, we are opposed to political and economic initiatives which would further contribute negatively to climate change and the needless destruction of our environment. We wish, with many others across our nation, to help build solutions to the crisis that humanity has created for itself.

As bishops, we are now committed to commending a policy of carbon neutrality, and for the sake of us all we call upon governments, local governments, businesses and faith communities to work together in this important area to both contain and reduce climate change.

Signed: Archbishop + Tom Brown + + Apimeleki Qiliho + + + David Moxon + John Bluck + Philip Richardson + Kitohi Pikaahu + Winston Halapua + + Richard Randerson + John Gray + Derek Eaton + Gabriel Sharma + David Coles

Bishop John Paterson is overseas at the time of this statement.

33 “Ethics and environment closely linked – Anglican Bishops call for serious, concerted efforts to grapple with climate change,” published online 4th April 2006. Website: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/un/bishop_statement.htm, accessed 2nd July 2013.