From the Revd Michael Roberts
Sir, - Well! Oxford diocese is the first to vote for divestment,
right under the nose of the Shell Geoscience Laboratory in my old
Earth Sciences Department (News, 5
December). That caused a ripple when it was formed last year,
with a designated Shell professor. Ironically, the vote for
divestment coincided with the fall of oil prices, disarray in OPEC,
and confusion in the oil market - all of which may or may not be
game-changing for oil.
The call for divestment, however, seems to be more ideological
than ethical, theological, or practical, as it seems more like a
vote against sin rather than dealing with it. Every one of us will
be using fossil fuels, either directly or indirectly, for the rest
of this century. The important issue is, rather, how the whole
world can move to cleaner energy production, not token divestment,
which will marginalise the protesters. Thus green voices will be
ignored.
Like any industry, fossil-fuel companies need ethical
challenging both from outside and within, and investors should take
firms to task when necessary. In both of these areas, Churches have
an important part to play, as we are seeing with Archbishop Welby
and foodbanks, provided the arguments presented are well thought
out and grounded in theology and the real world, and not from a
knee-jerk ideology.
Much of the divestment movement is not well thought out, and is
marred by serious errors. Whether we like it or not, the whole
world is dependent on fossil fuels, and they cannot be dispensed
with in a few years or a few decades. The progress to cleaner
energy can be either catastrophic or gradual. The two threats are
doing nothing and accelerating climate change, or forcing the
removal of fossil fuels, which will either be rebuffed, so that
"fossil abusers" get the upper hand, or break down a society
dependent on fossil fuels, creating hunger and fuel poverty on a
massive scale. It seems that divestors have not considered any
alternatives or ways of transition to cleaner energy.
This is not surprising, as one cleaner energy is demonised and
rejected: shale gas. Operation Noah, the driving force of
divestment in our churches, has fallen into this trap. It fails to
consider alternatives, and is seriously inaccurate on shale gas, as
can be seen in its report Bright Now, and in the writings
of several of its patrons and board. One such document has been
described by a professor of petrophysics as "perhaps the most
erroneous document on shale gas I have ever seen". I found that
comment embarrassing, but irrefutable.
It does raise questions of competence and bias, but it is common
among those who oppose shale gas and repeat the common
anti-fracking memes. There is little awareness that fossil fuels
vary in their dirtiness, and that coal is by far the worst; or that
least worst is sometimes the best. False claims that fracked gas is
worse than coal do not make for a sensible dialogue.
Far better would it be for churches, and the Church of England,
to consider all options rather than appeal for divestment. They
also need to get their facts right. If not, the C of E will become
a stranded resource.
MICHAEL ROBERTS
35 Worcester Avenue
Garstang PR3 1FJ