Search Climate Insights Directory

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has called on the Royal Meteorological Society to phase out financial ties to the fossil fuel and arms industries. While acknowledging the Society's commitment to becoming a net zero organisation, SGR identifies critical gaps in transparency regarding investments and a lack of a formal environmental policy. The letter demands the disclosure of corporate payments over £1,000 and investments over £5,000, alongside a transition to fossil-fuel-free indexes. SGR benchmarks these demands against other professional bodies, such as the British Medical Association and the Geological Society, which have already implemented divestment or restrictive investment policies.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has written to the Royal Society calling for the rapid phase-out of financial ties to the fossil fuel and arms industries. SGR identifies several concerns, including the acceptance of donations from these sectors and a lack of transparency regarding specific company investments. The letter outlines ten specific demands, including the use of fossil fuel-free indexes, reporting the carbon footprint of the investment portfolio, and joining the Pledge to Net Zero. SGR notes that other professional bodies, such as the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians, have already divested from fossil fuels and arms companies.

SGR acknowledges The Geological Society's recent updates to exclude arms and high-carbon emissions from its investment policy but argues that financial ties to fossil fuels persist through corporate patronage and sponsorship. The letter demands a rapid phase-out of investments in companies not aligned with the 2C Paris goal, the adoption of a formal environmental policy, and the disclosure of corporate payments over 1,000. SGR cites other UK professional bodies that have divested from fossil fuels as benchmarks for the Society's expected progress.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has called on the Institute of Physics (IOP) to end its financial ties to the fossil fuel and arms industries. SGR identifies ongoing concerns regarding the IOP's lack of transparency in investments and its acceptance of sponsorship from arms companies. The letter demands a rapid phase-out of investments in companies whose activities are not aligned with the Paris Agreement's 2°C goal, the adoption of fossil fuel-free indexes, and the elimination of links to the military technology sector, citing examples of other professional bodies that have already divested.

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) has committed to fully divesting its investment portfolio from fossil fuels starting in October 2021, following an internal audit that revealed approximately 5% of its holdings were in fossil fuels via mutual funds. While the AGU has ceased accepting fossil fuel sponsorship for events—ending a long history that included over $620,000 from ExxonMobil between 2001 and 2015—Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) argues that the AGU lacks transparency, as it does not disclose the specific companies within its $120.6m investment portfolio. The AGU also aims to chart a path toward net carbon neutrality for all investments and is transitioning its buildings to net zero energy, though no target dates for the latter have been provided.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) examines the Institute of Physics' (IOP) investment portfolio and sponsorship ties. SGR identifies that while the IOP has a comprehensive environmental statement, it maintains investments in numerous fossil fuel and arms companies through funds like Vanguard and Invesco. The report highlights specific sponsorships from military entities such as the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) and Babcock International. SGR argues that these financial ties contradict the IOP's stated goals of promoting a sustainable society and acting with integrity, particularly in light of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Paris Agreement.

The report finds that while IOM3 has transitioned its investment portfolio to a sustainable fund with specific exclusions for arms and certain fossil fuels, it lacks a formal ethical investment policy and maintains transparency gaps regarding its specific holdings. IOM3 continues to accept sponsorship from Tata Steel for educational materials, which SGR argues is incompatible with the Paris Agreement goals.

The document highlights a £24bn increase in UK military spending over four years, primarily for equipment and offensive technologies, while noting a reduction in overseas aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI. It further argues that current spending on reducing carbon emissions is far below the £9bn to £12bn annual level recommended by the Committee on Climate Change.

The fact sheet provides a detailed breakdown of major defence companies, including their revenue from military sales and their status regarding the Science-based Targets Initiative (SBTi) and Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI). It highlights a widespread lack of carbon emission commitments among these entities and notes their involvement in nuclear weapons production, which the document states is prohibited under the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

The document provides an update on The Geological Society's financial ties to fossil fuel and arms corporations. While it acknowledges a new responsible investment policy from September 2020 that excludes certain arms and high-emissions fossil fuels, it highlights a significant decrease in investment transparency between 2015 and 2019. The report details extensive corporate sponsorship from oil and gas companies and argues that these ties, along with investments in companies like Shell and Total, are incompatible with the Paris Agreement's temperature goals.

The submission by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) criticises the UK's focus on military deployment and the arms trade, urging a shift toward 'human security'. SGR identifies rapid climate change, nuclear war, and biodiversity loss as high-priority security threats and calls for the reallocation of military funding toward the 'green' economy and social needs.

The report finds that the UK military-industrial sector is a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, estimating a total carbon footprint of 11 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent for UK military spending in 2018. It criticizes the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for selective reporting, noting that figures in the main text of annual reports cover less than one-third of total direct emissions. Beyond climate impacts, the document highlights a poor record in managing radioactive waste from nuclear submarines and warheads, and warns of catastrophic global cooling and famine should the UK launch its nuclear weapons. The author argues that only a fundamental shift in security strategy—away from long-range force projection toward territorial defence and human security—can align the military sector with climate goals.

The 'science oath for the climate' is a pledge signed by nearly 600 scientists and engineers to act against catastrophic climate disruption. Signatories commit to communicating scientific evidence without compromise, resisting political or economic pragmatism when discussing the 1.5°C and 2°C Paris Agreement targets, and reducing their own carbon emissions. The document includes a comprehensive list of signatories from various global academic and professional institutions.

The report examines the 'concern-action gap' within the scientific and engineering communities regarding the climate crisis. It argues that the credibility of climate research is undermined when researchers maintain high-carbon lifestyles, such as frequent air travel for conferences. Through a straw poll of 153 respondents, the document finds that while many scientists are adopting plant-based diets and reducing car use, a significant number still struggle to align their lives with the 1.5°C pathway. It also discusses the role of civil disobedience and activism as a means for scientists to 'walk the talk' and counter the influence of fossil fuel interests.

The Royal Academy of Engineering reported having no direct investments in fossil fuel or defence companies, but acknowledged indirect investments in these sectors totaling approximately 5.5% of its portfolio. Based on 2017/18 financial statements showing total investments of £47.4m, this suggests an indirect investment of approximately £2.6m in these industries.

The report reveals a pattern of funding, investments, and corporate memberships linking leading UK professional engineering and science organisations to the fossil fuel and arms sectors. It highlights a lack of transparency in financial disclosures and the promotion of these industries to schoolchildren without discussing associated ethical issues. The authors recommend that PESOs implement ethical investment policies, end corporate branding in education, and disclose all corporate payments over £1,000.

The report identifies a pattern of financial ties—including funding, sponsorship, and investments—between the UK's professional science and engineering bodies and the fossil fuel and arms sectors. It highlights that organisations such as the Royal Academy of Engineering, EngineeringUK, and the Energy Institute received significant funding and promoted these industries despite their ethical shortcomings regarding carbon emissions and human rights.

The report reveals a pattern of financial links between the fossil fuel and arms industries and UK professional engineering and science organisations, including investments, event sponsorship, and the funding of school education programmes. It highlights a significant lack of transparency and argues that these links compromise the ethical leadership of these professional bodies, particularly when promoting these industries to children without discussing associated ethical concerns.

The Martin Ryle Trust (MRT) is a charity that funds research and education aimed at reducing violence between states and promoting justice, primarily by supporting the work of Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR). The Trust's supported activities include the 'One Planet, One Life' school workshops, briefings on the environmental impacts of the UK military sector, and the publication of the SGR journal. The document also provides detailed information for potential donors on how to leave bequests to the Trust via wills or Deeds of Variation, noting that such donations are exempt from inheritance tax and may reduce the overall tax rate on an estate.

Forty-two European civil society organisations, including Scientists for Global Responsibility, warn that the proposed €13 billion European Defence Fund for weapons and military technology research could accelerate an international arms race and promote the development of autonomous weapons ('killer robots'). The statement also argues that such funding diverts research and development resources away from urgent global health and environmental challenges.