Skip to main content

Day: 10 February 2015

University of Manchester invests almost £40 million in fossil fuels

Written by Aidan Gregory on . Posted in News, Science & Tech.

Despite criticism from politicians and campaign groups in the past, the University of Manchester still retains an enormous investment portfolio in the fossil fuel industry.

A series of freedom of information requests made by the Manchester Fossil Free Campaign have revealed that as of last April, the university still had 846,337 shares in fossil fuel companies, worth a total of £9,529,172. This is a total of half a million pounds more than last year, due to the investing over £800,000 in mining and trading company Glencore Xstrata.

In addition, the university has 117,612 shares in Shell, which are worth £2,963,822. A further £29.5 million is invested in the 10 FTSE 100 fossil fuel companies via the university’s pension fund in the form of equity and corporate bonds.

The FOIs also found that during the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in April 2010, which killed 12 people and caused huge amounts of environmental damage to the Gulf of Mexico, the university’s 646,466 shares in BP cost them £2.28 million in endowment value losses by the end of June 2010. This, according to the Fossil Free Campaign, “highlights the massive volatility in share price, making the case for divestment economic, scientific and moral.”

The issue of the university’s involvement with the oil industry has caused controversy in the past. An expose in 2012 by The Mancunion made the case that by having 1.7 million shares in oil companies; the university’s contradicted its own ‘Policy for Responsible Investment’.

The policy states that with its investment managers, “the university will use its influence in an effort to reduce and, ideally, eliminate irresponsible corporate behaviour leading to… environmental degradation and human rights violations.”

At the time, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and Tony Lloyd MP all spoke out in opposition. Yet the university has continued to invest in the industry, and until now the value of the shares was unknown.

In response to the release of the new data, a University of Manchester spokesman said: “The university has a Socially Responsible Investment Policy, which is a public document available on our website. The university’s investment portfolio is managed by one of the world’s leading asset management firms, and is reviewed annually against this investment policy.

“The terms of the policy were agreed by the university’s Finance Committee and by the Board of Governors, which both have Students’ Union representation. We do not hold any direct shareholdings, so any influence is brought to bear purely by our fund managers, and because they work on behalf of a number of institutions, they can bring much greater influence than a single organisation.”

The FOIs have also revealed that the oil industry has invested large amounts of money in the University of Manchester. Currently, the university receives £16.37 million of inward investment from BP, with the company also helping to fund the International Centre for Advanced Materials. Shell have also invested a further £4.74 million.

In a statement to the The Mancunion, Professor Colin Bailey, the university’s Deputy President and Deputy Vice-Chancellor, said: “Ignoring the global challenges of climate change and energy is not socially responsible and refusing any engagement with companies involved with fossil fuels is not the answer either.

“We are all dependent on energy produced from coal, oil and gas, so we must work with these companies to ensure this precious resource is not wasted, while using the latest research and techniques, together with regulation and investment, to reduce the impact any extraction of fuel has on the environment and ensure it is transported to its point of use without any waste and is used sparingly and effectively.

“In parallel, we continue apace to research and develop all low-carbon forms of energy, in terms of its source, transmission and use, with the ultimate aim of significantly reducing the world’s dependency on fossil fuels.”

The Manchester Fossil Free Campaign however insist that the university should “instead be investing in energy technology which can be used for generations to come.”

In a statement to the The Mancunion, Joel Smith, Activities Officer of the Students’ Union and member of the Manchester Fossil Free campaign, said, “this research shows the incontrovertible monetary links between the fossil fuel industry and the university. Despite the university’s focus on social responsibility, it’s disappointing to see that there has been little internal debate over the impact of supporting companies such as BP & Shell.”

Smith added further that students can “join us at 12pm outside University Place on the 13th of February to demonstrate for divestment from fossil fuels and can join 1500 other students in signing the petition at bit.ly/fossilfreemcr.”

Our not-so-right human rights

Written by Marina Iskander on . Posted in Opinion.

If there is one human feature that governments, media outlets and news agencies have not failed to use to their advantage, it is how easily human beings are swayed by words. Given the right scenario, even the simplest words can carry a strong emotional connotation, capable of swaying anyone. The words ‘human rights’ seem indubitable at first glance—the phrase has been thrown around enough times to become the holy grail of a typical democracy. Yet ironically, in one of the world’s most renowned democracies, the United Kingdom, the Human Rights Act has diverted from a set of liberties into a weapon that could easily be used maliciously.

In order to understand the issue as a whole, one must first remember that the United Kingdom does not have a codified constitution—meaning that there is no hierarchy of laws, and no law can overrule another. Being one of very few countries that do not have a constitution, the question of reform is always in the air. This reform, in turn, would entail two major changes: More difficulty in amending said constitution (as opposed to the ease of amending or repealing mere acts) and a supremacy of certain laws. In regard to the HRA specifically, the latter product would mean that human rights would override any other laws, meaning that they must all be read and applied in light of the HRA. Currently, however, a human right, such as freedom of speech, is of as much weight and importance as, for example, the law dictating that it is legal to watch TV without a license.

It is clear, therefore, that this act does not serve the exact same purpose as the Bill of Rights in the United States, since legally it is not of special importance. Politically, however, it is a reminder of the importance of the safekeeping of the liberties that must come to citizens of a democratic country. Liberties, as opposed to rights, are much more passive. They are actions one can commit because they are not specifically prohibited by any law. This main problem with a system of liberties rather than a system of rights is that liberties are simply residue of quickly evolving law, meaning that they can be very easily eroded. Therefore, a document that merely serves as a reminder of aspects as weak as liberties can never suffice in an allegedly democratic country.

Historically, the creation the Human Rights Act in 1998 arose from the fact that the United Kingdom, at the time, relied on the European Convention of Human Rights. While the document was mainly written by British lawyers and went along perfectly with British beliefs and morals, it did not suffice because of an issue of practicality—if anyone wanted to raise an issue regarding infringement on their human rights, they would have to do so in the courts in Strasbourg. Therefore, the HRA was not created because of some shortcoming of the not-so-European Convention on Human Rights, but rather because of a more physical issue.

Recently, in 2010, an issue arose regarding 300 terrorists, some of whom were strongly believed to be killers, who avoided deportation by simply claiming the right of ‘family life’ in Britain. Julian Huppert, a Liberal Democrat MP, thus sees that Britain is not governed by our own terms but rather by a sloppy and misworded document. The issue is neither the first nor the last of its kind, for as long as the Human Rights Act is only an act, the question of the hierarchy of its laws will always be an issue.

While the debate is surely ongoing, the most pressing issue is the fact that things are usually very far from what they seem at first glance. As utopian as the words ‘human rights’ sound, the issue has instead become a gruesome political debate of whether or not these rights are safeguards for the weak or weapons in the wrong hands.

Innocent until labelled extremist

Written by Isaac Atwal on . Posted in Opinion.

The government’s new Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill currently making its way through the House of Lords has worrying implications for free speech within universities should it become law. It seeks to change universities from bastions of freedom of expression and incisive debate into corridors of censorship. Forcefully placing the government’s fear of a Britain rampant with extremist ideology firmly upon the shoulders of the very people who understand these ideologies and research and question them is hugely misguided.

By extending the existing anti-extremist ‘Prevent’ program into statutory law and putting a legal obligation on public bodies to stop terrorism, the government is placing a potential cloud of suspicion on all who might involve themselves with anything that could be considered ‘extremist’. University staff would be obliged to monitor students to check they aren’t being drawn into terrorism, and all speakers would have to be announced two weeks in advance to be vetted in case they held extremist views.

The vagueness of this will create an uneasy climate in academic institutions; who decides what is extremist and what is not? What does extremist actually mean? Is it a speech calling for the beheading of the Prime Minister or is it a robust and forceful criticism of British foreign policy? The government has offered no clarification and this is precisely why this legislation is so dangerous.

Herein lies the problem with forcing universities, by law, to report any potential extremist activity. Firstly, there is no coherent idea of what to look for, so anything could potentially be considered extremist and be reported.

Secondly, an expectation that university staff monitor their students would have a devastating effect on the academic freedom that university provides. Students should not be worried that their academic work and interests could be considered extremist and of interest to the security services and they should be able to attend talks and hear speakers of all views and be given the respect to form their own opinions on what they hear.

Thirdly, the government of the day could change the goalposts regarding what is considered extremist, forcing universities to then monitor and report on, say, green activists, left-wing student organisations or any other such group. Whole groups of students will fall under suspicion depending on what this season’s extremism is, purely for holding different or radical views. Will Abdul be suspected more than Sarah for raising the same point about the sickening effect of Western foreign policy? Will the radical socialist embarking upon a march be suspected more than the young neo-liberal advocating a lower tax rate?

This has already happened in the past under existing rules and guidelines that universities have to abide by.

In 2008 Dr. Rizwaan Sabir was studying terrorist tactics for his Masters at the University of Nottingham when he was arrested on terrorism charges for downloading an Al-Qaeda training manual. He had downloaded this manual from a US government website, and it was also available in his university’s own shop. Held for one week without charge and then released, it later transpired that police had fabricated evidence against him. Dr. Sabir was eventually awarded £20000 in compensation for his ordeal.

Increasingly in our society we are told that the threat of terrorism is so severe that we must, yet again, surrender more of our civil liberties to the government. That this usually comes immediately after a terrorist attack or news of a plot foiled by the security services will be of no surprise to many. The UK has had seven major pieces of counter-terror legislation, including this latest bill, since 2000. We have had only two terrorist attacks on our soil since then, and the perpetrators were all known and under surveillance to the security services. Clearly then, the security services and police already have enough powers of surveillance without needing to monitor universities.

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris it seemed that the entire world’s leaders joined together in a harmonious declaration to the commitment to, and protection of, free speech. The need for this protection of free speech was highlighted in bloody fashion over three days.

It is then no surprise that only several weeks later new draconian counter-terror legislation is announced to help secure our way of life against the threat of terror. Indeed it will secure our way of life, as we seem to have sleepwalked into a new way of life; one where we are constantly worried by overblown threats, encouraged to be suspicious of difference and comfortingly stripped of our civil liberties so ‘they’ can be watched. We must wake up, because before long, the mere questioning of the status quo will be labelled extremist.

The hypocrisies of censorship

Written by Mancunion on . Posted in Opinion.

At the Refreshers’ Fair last week, the Free Speech and Secular Society (FSS) was restricted by the Students’ Union from showing the Charlie Hebdo magazine. The reasons for this centred around the importance of maintaining a non-threatening environment for returning and new students. The intellectual dishonesty and moral vacuousness of this response offended me. However it did not make me feel threatened. Why would it? Just because I didn’t like what was happening it didn’t mean I was threatened.

A further reason was given regarding the need to ensure all students felt welcome. However it could not be the case that the Union acted so as to maintain a welcoming environment. If it was, then why was Domino’s Pizza allowed to park front-and-centre handing out free slices of pepperoni pizza? Surely by Students’ Union logic such an act would encroach upon the sensitivities of the vegetarian student?

Not a valid comparison, you may say. But think about it for a second. On the one hand, you have the satirical portrayal of a historical figure worshipped by many as God’s last messenger. On the other, you have the slaughter of innocent animals in order to hand out freebies to students. Is one really objectively worse than the other? Both vegetarianism and religious belief are life choices that are of varying degrees of importance to their adherents. Why should the sensitivities of the latter be prioritised over those of the former?

Suppose the prioritisation of a welcoming atmosphere really was the salient issue. It is worthwhile taking a minute to consider the implications of this precedent. Think of the possible effect it would have on the Marxist society. Some Eastern European students might have lost family members to Marxism-motivated brutality. Are they not just as entitled to feel uncomfortable when they walk past a stall with Lenin’s face on show? Cries from the Palestinian society of “free Palestine” would have to be restricted. So too would the Israeli flag in the Jewish Society stall. Both constitute an unwelcoming atmosphere for certain students, and thus via this newly adopted method would be rendered viable for censorship. The UKIP society would certainly be banned outright.

The most bitingly ironic thing of them all, though, is the effect that such a policy would have on religious societies, many of which treat the very nature of homosexuals as sinful, or at least condemn the form of love that they practise as being an affront to God. No amount of cognitive gymnastics can posit the discomfort of homosexual students here as being any less valid than the discomfort felt by other groups—at least not without making some morally repugnant value judgement regarding homosexuality.

Here we see how the comical fruition of the precedent set comes full circle. A decision taken to maintain the welcoming atmosphere on behalf of a religious minority will almost certainly lead to censorship of them. Doesn’t sound very welcoming, does it?

One can forgive the Students’ Union for covering its back like this. But did they really have to? What has been so insulting (not threatening) about the reaction to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons is the notion that it offended 1.2 billion Muslims. There is something rather insidious about this. “You have offended 1.2 billion people.” Every single one? One wonders what extensive polling was conducted to come up with such a conclusion. It is no coincidence that the number is so often stressed. It is the implicit suggestion that some people are not capable of having their beliefs challenged.

I reject this notion outright. It is intellectually absurd, not to mention offensive, to project such an excessively homogenised image onto such a diverse group of people. That is exactly what the Students’ Union is doing by taking pre-emptive and collective offence. The fact that some members of the Islamic society approached us and expressed their displeasure at our censorship serves to highlight the insulting narrative that is so unfairly perpetuated by actions such as this.

For the sake of a thought experiment, let us go along with the absurdity that all 1.2 billion of the world’s Muslims act as a homogeneous group. That they share some sort of telepathic connection that binds them together in reflexive rage (if this isn’t offensive, I don’t know what is). Should this matter? If the issue at hand is one of principle then obviously not. The number of people offended could be one, or a million, or even a billion. The principle is the principle, and not contingent upon numerical circumstances. The Students’ Union should bear this in mind the next time they wish to take pre-emptive offence.

E-Sports becomes a second-level Olympic Sport

Written by James Thursfield on . Posted in Games.

On the 27th of January E-Sports was recognised as a 2nd level Olympic sport in Korea. In doing so, E-Sports has been placed alongside competitions such as Chess, Automobile Racing, Polo and Cheerleading. In response there has been a social media backlash, stating that E-Sports needs to remain separate from the Olympics.

To the uninformed, E-Sports stands for electronic sports. Competitive gaming over the last couple of years has transformed from a niche market to the biggest entertainment industry in the world. Reports estimate that League of Legends will see 42 million new players in 2015, with the global audience expected to grow to 145 million by 2017, and generating over $600 million in revenue. Put into perspective, in 2013 and 2014, more people watched the League of Legends World Championship Final than the World Series or NBA Finals.

The creator of Warcraft, Rob Pardo, stated that, “there’s a very good argument for E-Sports being in the Olympics. It’s a very competitive skill set and you look at these professional gamers and their reflexes are lightning quick and they’re having to make very quick decisions on the fly.” However, he also conceded that gaming faced a cultural battle against more physical sports and the broadening of the definition of what is considered a ‘sport’.

Reddit user daydiem, following the announcement of E-Sports as a second tier Olympic Sport, stated: “It just doesn’t make sense, it’s not a good match.” The user argues that “E-Sports is not a single discipline,” and that the International Olympic Committee is merely integrating the industry for the youthful demographic associated with the sport. This implies that video games are being aligned with other sports, not for cultural reasons, but for their sheer popularity.

Arguments against video games not being a legitimate ‘sport’ have existed for several years. Points have been constructed around the notion that ‘proper’ sports involve greater physical exertion. ESPN’s president, John Skipper, has previously commented on gaming, stating: “Its not a sport—it’s a competition… mostly, I’m interested in doing real sports.”

In spite of such comments, ESPN has also recently partnered with E-Sport League and Major League Gaming, to allow pro-gamers to compete at the same venues as other sports athletes, whilst regularly streaming games on their channel X-Games. E-Sports may not be officially a ‘sport’, but it sure as hell is being treated like one.

In the UK, E-Sports is also on the rise with Kingston-based Ginfinity planning to raise £3 million to build the UK’s first E-Sports Arena. This is intended to accommodate 500 spectators at a time and make sure that the UK does not fall behind the likes of Germany and America and their respective gaming venues.

What this all indicates is that it is irrelevant whether video games are a ‘sport’ or not. The industry is growing at such an exponential rate that it cannot be ignored and cannot be marginalised, irrespective of its definition. Gaming presently sits at the forefront of modern technology whilst at the same time is beginning to dominate the entertainment industry. When something is earning in excess $600 million annually, it doesn’t need to be considered a sport—its popularity speaks for itself.

One interesting final thought is that E-Sports has been on television in Korea since 1999, with roughly a 15-year headstart over the rest of the world. Presently, over 20 per cent of its population watches E-Sports and it is considered a national past-time. Assuming that E-Sports continues to grow at its present rate, this not only indicates a huge growth of gaming in the rest of the world in a commercial sense, but also alludes to its potential of integrating into society and becoming a phenomenon in a cultural sense.