How to stop your pension fund from fuelling climate change and deforestation

Climate change protest by Andrew Dallos

What if there was a way to fight climate change, improve society and protect nature with no costs, no sacrifices and pretty much zero effort? Would you join in?

First, imagine spending 15 years trying to save people from cancer, only to find out that you had been funding tobacco companies for decades through your pension. That’s what happened to Australian oncologist Bronwyn King.

”She suddenly realised she’d killed more people than she’d saved in her life,” said filmmaker and activist Richard Curtis, on a recent edition of the Outrage and Optimism podcast.

Curtis credits King’s story with helping to convince him to launch a new campaign that could be a game-changer in the fight against climate change. He wants to use the invisible power of vast pensions funds to invest in sustainability instead of funding destructive industries.

The potential is huge.

The combined pension pot of people in the UK alone is £3.1 trillion, that is more than 200 times bigger than the country’s overseas aid budget. That’s £3,100,000,000,000 of our money that could be doing good.

But according to the Good Guide to Pensions, 99% of people with pensions are like Bronwyn King. They have their money invested in ‘default’ schemes that fund tobacco companies, arms manufacturers, coal and oil producers, and companies responsible for deforestation of the Amazon and other tropical forests.

Our money, the result of years of hard work, is actively working against our best interests by funding — indeed accelerating — the breakdown of the global climate and the destruction of nature.

Imagine if instead it was funding the best and most sustainable companies, investing in clean energy and alternatives to plastics, for example. Curtis has launched Make My Money Matter to encourage pension providers to make this shift, moving our money to invest in our common future.

The campaign website says “Moving your savings to sustainable funds can be 27 times as effective at reducing your carbon footprint than eating less meat, using public transport, reducing water use and flying less combined.” (That’s not to say those things aren’t important too!)

It is madness that pensions are set to make life WORSE for those hoping to use them in retirement. It is sanity to ask pension providers to move the money. “There’s no point getting a pension in a world on fire,” said Curtis. “So, you’re actually doing it for you own good”.

Investments in fossil fuels are a significant financial risk anyway. Oil pipelines are being cancelled. Coal mines are closing. Investments in fossil fuels are looking less attractive by the day. Yet 99% of UK pensions are in default schemes investing in fossils. Is yours? Probably.

The economic case is strong. In May, the International Energy Agency and Imperial College Business School reported that investments in renewable power shares displayed less volatility and offered “significantly higher” total returns compared with investments in fossil fuel companies.

And last year, the Good Guide to Pensions showed that ethical funds “strongly outperformed” the default option at the UK’s two biggest independent pension providers over one, three and five years.

But this isn’t just about money. It’s about justice. As Christiana Figueres said on the podcast I mentioned, if our money is invested in fossil fuels, “we are stealing the future from our kids, because we are saddling them with a world that they will not be able to manage, not be able thrive in.”

Joining the campaign to convince pension funds to change is a quick and easy way for most people to take action on climate change without having to spend or sacrifice anything. So, what can you do?

  1. Sign the petition.

You can find it here.

  1. Contact your employer and your pension provider.

Tell them you want a pension that helps create a world in which you would want to retire — not a planet on fire. Make My Money Matter has email templates you can copy-and-paste.

  1. Spread the word.

Pretty much everyone you know who has a pension plan will be unwittingly funding the companies that are destroying our planet and our liveable atmosphere. Help them to see the problem and how it harms their best interests.

Some pension funds are already taking responsibility. Momentum is growing. Don’t get left behind. Don’t leave your retirement money invested in an industry that belongs in the past. Don’t be an accidental investor in things you don’t believe in.

We urgently need to divert those vast pension funds into investments that secure our future. Make My Money Matter’s message is clear and its arguments have integrity. Its theory of how people power can create positive change is robust.

I’m in. Are you?


More info: Listen to Richard Curtis discuss Make My Money Matter on the Outrage and Optimism podcast

Photo credit: Andrew Dallos / Flickr (Creative Commons)

The coronavirus backlash against bats is a bad idea

Fruit bat in flight

In March 2020, hundreds of bats hung crowded in cages in a market in the Indonesian city of Surakata. They waited wide-eyed to be killed and sold as meat. But Covid-19 was spreading, and people in Indonesia and elsewhere were soon blaming bats. The city authorities decided the bats could not be sold and, rather than release them into the wild, they gassed them and threw them into a fire pit, cages and all.

The animals were targeted in what bat biologist Merlin Tuttle has called a “viral witch hunt”. While bats do carry many viruses, there is no evidence yet that they transmitted to people the coronavirus that causes Covid-19. But thanks in part to false stories about the virus originating in bat soup, and to media coverage of a ‘bat-borne virus’, there has been a rise in anti-bat sentiment around the world. This has led to attacks on bats and calls for culls. Now scientists are fighting back. They want us to know that, rather than endangering us, bats bless us in many ways.

Bats eat insects that harm crops or transmit diseases to people and livestock. They pollinate economically and culturally important plants. They disperse the seeds of thousands of plant species, planting the forests of the future. To economies, bats provide services worth billions of dollars. To ecosystems, and so to us all, they are priceless. Yet we are driving hundreds of their species towards extinction, through hunting, habitat loss and heat. The new coronavirus is adding to their threats.

Fear that bats will spread the virus has led people in China to demand that the authorities remove hibernating bats from their houses. It has led people in Singapore to throw live bats down a rubbish chute. It has led people in Egypt to set fires in an abandoned building, killing a hundred fruit-bats with thick smoke. Antipathy towards bats has also increased in Peru and the United States.

“The backlash is very real,” wrote Malaysian bat ecologist and conservationist Sheema Abdul Aziz in March, in an article for Rice. It warned that culls are misguided, ineffective and could potentially make things worse. “I was alarmed by the usual premature speculation and associated scaremongering around bats that always happens after a new disease outbreak,” she told me. “I felt I had to issue a warning before the situation got much worse.”

“Direct transmission of viruses from bats to humans is very rare,” says Sheema, who is president of a Malaysian conservation organisation called Rimba. “We need to explain to people how culling will increase disease risk and accelerate disease transmission, not prevent disease.”

It is true that bats can carry several viruses that have jumped the species barrier to infect people in recent years — including MERS, SARS, Hendra and Nipah. But this does not mean bats are to blame. As Merlin Tuttle pointed out in Issues in Science and Technology in April, the first three of these viruses seem to have been spread to people by animals other than bats, while Nipah is easy to prevent.

The recent emergence of new diseases caused by viruses that originate in wildlife is more to do with human than animal behaviour. Deforestation, hunting and wildlife trade, unsanitary live markets and crowded farms all create the conditions for viruses to ‘spill over’ into human hosts and potentially wreak havoc among us. But regardless of the origins of the Covid-19 virus, it is people, not bats, that are spreading the disease.

“We have been co-existing with bats for centuries and have been largely disease-free,” says Rohit Chakravarty, an Indian PhD candidate at the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research in Germany, who studies bats in the Himalayas.

“Irrespective of transmission routes, killing bats is never going to be the answer because they are animals that know how to keep their distance,” he says. “It would be more prudent to spend that effort in finding out the exact flow of virus transmission so that proactive mitigation measures can be taken.”

In April, Chakravarty and a fellow doctoral candidate called Baheerathan Murugavel joined a growing chorus of scientists urging people not to stigmatise and persecute bats. They had noticed an increased occurrence of people killing bats and destroying their roosts, in fear of bats spreading the coronavirus. To debunk myths and dispel fears about bats and covid-19, they organised a press statement — signed by 64 bat biologists from across South Asia.

“We should be educating the public to peacefully co-exist with the animals around them instead of getting them culled,” says Murugavel, who is doing research on bats at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, in Thiruvananthapuram.

Another scientist warning of a backlash against bats is Huabin Zhao of Wuhan University in China. Writing in the journal Science in March, he warned that: “The exaggeration of bats’ negative traits without regard for their positive ones could ultimately lead to their needless and intentional elimination.”

“Most people do not realize that bats’ populations are decreasing more than ever across the globe,” says Zhao. “We should do our best to convince people that bats are in need of protection more than ever.”

He told me that bats would have a better reputation if more people knew about their positive ecological importance and how research into their unique adaptations can help humanity in fields as diverse as cancer prevention, healthy aging and engineering.

“Communicating how wonderful and amazing bats really are should be a top priority,” says Sheema Abdul Aziz of Rimba. “Ultimately, we need to find ways we can get people to fall in love with bats, and really start caring about bats.”


More reading

Sheema Abdul Aziz: ‘Covid-19: The public scapegoating of bats needs to stop

Merlin Tuttle: ‘A viral witch hunt

Joint statement: 64 South Asian bat biologists bust myths about bats and Covid-19

Huabin Zhao: ‘COVID-19 drives new threat to bats in China

Rimba: ‘FAQ on bats and Covid-19’ (also available in Bahasa Malaysia and simplified Chinese)

Bat Conservation International: ‘ FAQ on bats, coronaviruses and zoonotic disease

Photo credit

Andrew Beresford / Flickr (Creative Commons)

Demand for meat is driving jaguars towards extinction

Jaguar looking at burger

The emblematic top predator of South and Central America — the jaguar — is sliding towards extinction because of rising demand for meat around the world. Researchers say a “drastic reduction” in meat consumption both inside and outside the jaguar’s range will be essential to protect the species.

Alfredo Romero-Muñoz of Humboldt University Berlin, and colleagues, outline the situation in the new edition of Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. They explain that much of the jaguar’s habitat has been destroyed in recent years and replaced with cattle ranches and vast fields growing soybeans – most of which are exported to Europe and Asia to feed livestock and poultry being reared for their meat.

“Across Latin America, beef and soy production now extend across an area half the size of the United States,” says Romero-Muñoz. “And they keep expanding rapidly into huge expanses of forests and savannahs… This is depleting jaguar populations and nature in general across huge areas.”

The cats are not only losing their habitat. The spread of farmland and ranching also leads to more jaguars being hunted and killed, in part to protect livestock. The researchers calculated that about 180 jaguars were killed in one year on just 115 ranches in lowland Bolivia. Given that those ranches occupy just 3% of the total ranching area, the true figure is likely to be much higher.

Romero-Muñoz says people’s appetite for meat is the main reason that jaguars have disappeared from half of their historic range. But with demand for meat rising, prospects look dim for the jaguar and millions of other species that share its habitat.

Latin American exports of both soy and beef are increasing, particularly to Europe and Asia. And countries that the jaguar calls home have plans to clear more forests to meet rising demand for these commodities. Bolivia, for example, aims to triple its area of farmland by 2025. Brazil is also promoting agricultural expansion, including in the Amazon.

“Consumers in Europe and Asia are having an increasing contribution to habitat destruction and accompanying hunting in South America’s forests, which are the most biodiverse areas on the planet,” says Romero-Muñoz. He says a “drastic reduction” in meat consumption would be needed to halt further expansion of beef and soy production into remaining forests.

“I believe that this is unlikely to come from producers, while there is no regulation and there are financial incentives to keep expanding production into previously forested lands,” he says. “These changes have to come from the public and the policymakers.”

Reference: Romero-Muñoz, A. et al. 2020. Beyond fangs: beef and soybean trade drive jaguar extinction. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 18: 67-68.

Photo credit:

Related posts: Life and death and the jaguars of the mind

Palm oil: The pros and cons of a controversial commodity


Oil palm fruit gathered at a mill in Indonesia for oil extraction

On 18 December 1591, a seven-month sea voyage from Africa to England ended when a ship anchored at Limehouse docks in London. Along with 150 elephant tusks and 589 sacks of pepper, the ship carried 32 barrels of palm oil. It is thought to have been the first arrival into Europe of what would become perhaps the most controversial plant product that is not a drug. Continue reading

Expert insights into the past progress and vital future of environment journalism

EJN Climate Change Media Partnership Fellows, including Pierre Fitter from India, Gustavo Bonato from Brazil and Pia Faustino from the Philippines, interview a Danish wind energy executive.

Climate Change Media Partnership Fellows from India, Brazil and the Philippines interview a Danish wind energy executive (credit: James Fahn)

How do journalists who cover the environment cope with the relentless flow of depressing information? Should they strive for neutrality or become advocates for action on issues such as climate change and the biodiversity crisis? And how can these journalists stay safe when powerful forces want to silence them, and too often succeed? Continue reading