From Divest Brent
Divest Brent yesterday organised, as street theatre, a symbolic tug of war with Brent Pension Fund being pulled between the big oil companies, who are anxious to keep their place in the Pension Fund’s portfolio, and the rest of us who believe that in a climate emergency the Pension Fund should not be financing climate break-down. Although light-hearted there was a very serious point behind the event.
In July 2019 Brent Council declared a climate and ecological emergency and committed to do all in its gift to strive for carbon neutrality by 2030.This declaration did not extend to Brent’s billion-pound Pension Fund because the Fund looks after the pensions of Council staff. The Fund has made some progress with investment into a low-carbon fund (but this is only 3% of the Fund) and a Net Zero Roadmap charting a course which should eventually lead to divestment. But global warming is indeed a climate emergency as recognised by the Council and we do not have time for the Roadmap to run its course.
We are supportive of the Roadmap - but we are asking for a more rapid divestment from the fossil fuels which are so much to blame for the emergency. Many things are not in the Council’s power but this action is!
In July 2019 Brent Council declared a climate and ecological emergency and committed to do all in its gift to strive for carbon neutrality by 2030.
So far they are failing on even the simple stuff by chopping down trees and building on what green space we have left. and turning tree lined roads into desert like wind tunnels.
The bee corridors / wild flower meadows have been a complete failure for wildlife, but not for Brent's PR as now most councillors believe the rubbish being spouted.
Either they don't understand or just don't care.
Some of us do understand and do care - but are called nimbies for standing up to protect our local areas and local green and open spaces targeted with more overdevelopment and massive tower blocks.
Brent's 8 population Growth Zones are grey transition zones, harsh used as business extractors to then fund green transition/ community resilience building in its anti population growth conservation zones.
Which side is Brent on? Clearly both sides to extremes.
In Norway, a country not exactly short on energy resources, 2/3rds of its homes are net zero already, they are now even pioneering energy positive homes.
If you look at the London Mayors Green New Deal, the priority there is to retrofit rather than to build every new home net zero, which with building regulation changes (like with banning of flammable cladding and flammable insulation) would cost taxpayers nothing.
Net zero new build flats, and at least overcrowded into grey transition zone dwellers would not have massive energy bills/retro fit bills to add to their intensive environmental and public services facilities state planned deprivations.
Post a Comment