As Hayward himself put it so clearly in early 2010, the extraordinary market conditions which oil companies enjoyed in 2007 when BP decided to move back into the Canadian tar sands, no longer exist and look unlikely ever to return. Shell’s new CEO, Peter Voser, appears to have come to a similar conclusion since being appointed CEO in mid 2009. In an interview with the Financial Times in early 2010, Mr Voser pronounced that Shell, which is in the potentially uncomfortable position of having a third of its global oil resources sitting in the tar sands of Alberta, would be slowing down planned expansion in Canada. The reason given was that other global opportunities now seemed attractive in comparison.124 What is becoming increasingly clear is that the oil majors face a situation of great strategic uncertainty, reflecting the disarray and indecision of the UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen at the end of 2009. The world has no legally binding international agreement to reduce carbon emissions, and yet ostensibly, the international will to move decisively towards a lower carbon model of global economic activity remains strong. This poses an uncomfortable dilemma for oil companies and in turn a significant risk for any pension funds dependent for dividends on BP and Shell. Investors in both companies have an opportunity at the Spring 2010 Annual General Meetings (AGMs) of BP and Shell to demand clearer answers on this risk. FairPensions, working with a coalition of investors and NGOs, has
succeeded in coordinating shareholder resolutions to be discussed at BP and Shell’s 2010 shareholder meetings.125 Members of pension funds, including working people in every sector of the UK economy, should be watching this situation with interest. Indeed, they can do more than watch; they can now also actively engage by expressing support for the tar sands resolutions, by contacting their pension provider (most easily via www.countingthecost.org.uk) to urge votes in favour of the resolutions. In recent years, many people in the UK have written letters to RBS and the Treasury, or taken part in actions and demonstrations at local branches at their headquarters to demand an end to the finance of projects that exacerbate climate change or disregard human rights. These actions represent an attempt by civil society to make it possible for ‘ordinary’ people to have their voices heard in boardrooms where key decisions are made. The 2010 UK corporate AGM season represents a similar attempt for citizens who are concerned about tar sands to engage the finance sector in demanding financially and environmentally responsible voting decisions at the BP and Shell AGMs. This is a unique opportunity for people who care about tar sands to exercise influence in decisions being made that will impact us all. For further info about the tar sands resolutions and FairPensions’ plans to mobilise pension fund members nation-wide contact: catherine.howarth@fairpensions.org.uk 43