#Manchester Council promises to study Aquatic Centre lighting… then doesn’t. Where are the promised 1/4ly progress reports?

In July 2013 the Environmental Strategy team (bureaucrats employed by Manchester Town Hall) promised councillors (and the public) that

“Leisure estate (39% of building emissions) will deliver savings through the Manchester Sport and Leisure Trust (MS&LT) and Serco partners. The Aquatics Centre will commission a study to identify energy efficient options for light replacement in the pool hall, install dry urinals and LEDs and sensors in locations throughout the site.”

And what did they achieve?

“A study of the pool hall lighting at the Manchester Aquatics Centre (MAC) has not been carried out in 2013/14.”

But don’t worry, everything is under control: “This item has been included in MCC’s Asset Management Capital Replacement Programme.”

How do we know? Certainly NOT because the Council released the information in a timely and easy-to-digest manner. In July 2014, despite repeated lobbying, they refused to release a report on what they actually achieved of the “Annual Carbon Reduction Plan 2013-4”. It was left to a group of Manchester citizens to submit Freedom of Information Act requests just to obtain basic information about what the Council had (not) done.

chappellletterpoint5As if that were not enough, in February 2014 the Executive Member for the Environment (a local councillor who has become a member of the 9 councillor “inner core”) promised (among other things) that quarterly progress reports would be produced for the Council’s carbon reduction plans. (see image)

Well, that is still not happening. So who knows how far behind the Council is on its “three year rolling plan”. Who knows if they are, as above, just not doing anything? Not you, not me, and not the councillors who sit on the relevant scrutiny committees. That’s the state of democracy and transparency in this city in November 2014.

What you can do.

Write to your three ward councillors (enter your postcode here to find out who they are), to the Executive Member for the Environment (she’s on maternity leave, but the principle’s the same, cllr.k.chappell@manchester.gov.uk) and to Council Leader, Richard Leese – r.leese@manchester.gov.uk

Something like:

Dear councillors,

In February 2014 the Executive Member for the Environment made a public written commitment that quarterly progress reports on the Council’s Climate Reduction Plans would be brought to Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Committee and posted on the Council’s website.

This hasn’t happened.

I’d like to know why not.

Yours sincerely

[name and address]

Let us know what, if any, replies you get. MCFly will continue to post examples of the Council making empty promises. We have 14 more examples, just from the so-called “Annual Carbon Reduction Plan 2013-14”.

Posted in Democratic deficit, Manchester City Council | Leave a comment

#Manchester Council promises refeshed Sustainable Procurement Policy. Delivered it? No. Where are the promised 1/4ly progress reports?

In July 2013 the Environmental Strategy team (bureaucrats employed by Manchester Town Hall) promised councillors (and the public) that

“This year will see the finalisation of the Council’s refreshed Sustainable Procurement Policy that reflects the approach of working with suppliers to reduce their environmental impacts, and challenging unsustainable staff procurement.

And what did they achieve?

No the policy refresh has not been completed.”

How do we know? Certainly NOT because the Council released the information in a timely and easy-to-digest manner. In July 2014, despite repeated lobbying, they refused to release a report on what they actually achieved of the “Annual Carbon Reduction Plan 2013-4”. It was left to a group of Manchester citizens to submit Freedom of Information Act requests just to obtain basic information about what the Council had (not) done.

chappellletterpoint5As if that were not enough, in February 2014 the Executive Member for the Environment (a local councillor who has become a member of the 9 councillor “inner core”) promised (among other things) that quarterly progress reports would be produced for the Council’s carbon reduction plans. (see image)

Well, that is still not happening. So who knows how far behind the Council is on its “three year rolling plan”. Who knows if they are, as above, just not doing anything? Not you, not me, and not the councillors who sit on the relevant scrutiny committees. That’s the state of democracy and transparency in this city in November 2014.

What you can do.

Write to your three ward councillors (enter your postcode here to find out who they are), to the Executive Member for the Environment (she’s on maternity leave, but the principle’s the same, cllr.k.chappell@manchester.gov.uk) and to Council Leader, Richard Leese – r.leese@manchester.gov.uk

Something like:

Dear councillors,

In February 2014 the Executive Member for the Environment made a public written commitment that quarterly progress reports on the Council’s Climate Reduction Plans would be brought to Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Committee and posted on the Council’s website.

This hasn’t happened.

I’d like to know why not.

Yours sincerely

[name and address]

Let us know what, if any, replies you get. MCFly will continue to post examples of the Council making empty promises. We have 14 more examples, just from the so-called “Annual Carbon Reduction Plan 2013-14”.

Posted in Democratic deficit, Manchester City Council | Leave a comment

Manchester “Carbon Capital Heritage Tour” this Sunday, 9th November

Manchester World Development Movement offer a tour meeting outside the Bridgewater Hall on Sun 9th November at 13.30 and going for a walk considering Manchester’s social, spiritual, economic, radical history with special ref. to bankrolling carbon (past and present) and looking at power from the Bridgewater Canal to the Co-op’s PV and wind turbines and those at the bottom of Cheetham Hill.
Although this is an event for people other than protestors we’re planning on stopping outside some banks in Spinningfields to stage photos and hand in letters protesting at their involvement financing fossil fuel extraction. We expect to end at the Watt Statue in Piccadilly Gardens. at 16. 30 so people can have a cup of tea before it gets dark.

We’re inviting people to contribute £3 if waged, but don’t want that to stop people coming.

Posted in Upcoming Events | 3 Comments

#Manchester Council promises 4 voltage-optimised buildings. Delivers… 0. Where are the promised 1/4ly progress reports?

In July 2013 the Environmental Strategy team (bureaucrats employed by Manchester Town Hall) promised councillors (and the public) that

“Voltage optimizers will be installed in 4 buildings (subject to financial approvals), following preparatory work last year; these will save 234 tonnes CO 2 and £36k.”

And what had they achieved, a year later?

“In response to your request I can confirm the following:
… no buildings have had voltage optimisers installed.”

How do we know? Certainly NOT because the Council released the information in a timely and easy-to-digest manner. In July 2014, despite repeated lobbying, they refused to release a report on what they actually achieved of the “Annual Carbon Reduction Plan 2013-4”. It was left to a group of Manchester citizens to submit Freedom of Information Act requests just to obtain basic information about what the Council had (not) done.

chappellletterpoint5As if that were not enough, in February 2014 the Executive Member for the Environment (a local councillor who has become a member of the 9 councillor “inner core”) promised (among other things) that quarterly progress reports would be produced for the Council’s carbon reduction plans. (see image)

Well, that is still not happening. So who knows how far behind the Council is on its “three year rolling plan”. Who knows if they are, as above, just not doing anything? Not you, not me, and not the councillors who sit on the relevant scrutiny committees. That’s the state of democracy and transparency in this city in November 2014.

What you can do.

Write to your three ward councillors (enter your postcode here to find out who they are), to the Executive Member for the Environment (she’s on maternity leave, but the principle’s the same, cllr.k.chappell@manchester.gov.uk) and to Council Leader, Richard Leese – r.leese@manchester.gov.uk

Something like:

Dear councillors,

In February 2014 the Executive Member for the Environment made a public written commitment that quarterly progress reports on the Council’s Climate Reduction Plans would be brought to Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Committee and posted on the Council’s website.

This hasn’t happened.

I’d like to know why not.

Yours sincerely

[name and address]

Let us know what, if any, replies you get. MCFly will continue to post examples of the Council making empty promises. We have 14 more examples, just from the so-called “Annual Carbon Reduction Plan 2013-14”.

Posted in Climate Change Action Plan, Democratic deficit, Manchester City Council | Leave a comment

What is a low carbon culture? – Great reply already!

whatisalowcarboncultureThe People’s Environmental Scrutiny Team (PEST) is asking people “what is a low carbon culture?”  It is putting together a report, to be launched on Monday 17th November at the Friends Meeting House (7pm).  Here’s one of the first replies, from Pauline Hocking.

“A low carbon future (or present) would in my dreams look like this – people no longer trying to fill an empty hole inside with material goods, money, position, power but instead happy and content with simplicity and loving connections to other humans, our companion species and the entire earth. Our intelligence, resourcefulness and creativity would be directed into implementing all the solutions which already exist and developing more rather than putting attention and energy into finances, consumption, petty arguing and war. Food would grow everywhere – in every patio, public space, garden, wall, roof and a plethora of renewable energy sources, each chosen to match local conditions, would generate the minimum of energy that we would need following a maximisation of energy conservation measures. The world would be gorgeous and green as we plant everywhere to soak up all the excess carbon. Human relations would know a new dawn as people mixed and entertained themselves in low carbon ways with music, dance, games, storytelling, food sharing, crafts, art and relaxed with meditation, massage, walking and at night we would see all the billions of stars in the sky and become directly aware (rather than second hand through Brian Cox documentaries) of the amazing universe our precious planet is housed in. xxxx”

Posted in Low Carbon Culture | 2 Comments

#Manchester Council promises 5 “Climate Week” events. Delivers… 0. Where are the promised 1/4ly progress reports?

In July 2013 the Environmental Strategy team (bureaucrats employed by Manchester Town Hall) promised councillors (and the public) that

“the Council will continue to support a range of citywide campaigns, culminating in support for Climate Week, which is scheduled to place from 3-9th March 2014. The Council will deliver at least five events during the week in conjunction with a variety of partners, and support others through advertising their events and campaigns.”

And what did they achieve?

“The Council did not deliver any events in Climate Week.”

How do we know? Certainly NOT because the Council released the information in a timely and easy-to-digest manner. In July 2014, despite repeated lobbying, they refused to release a report on what they actually achieved of the “Annual Carbon Reduction Plan 2013-4”. It was left to a group of Manchester citizens to submit Freedom of Information Act requests just to obtain basic information about what the Council had (not) done.

chappellletterpoint5As if that were not enough, in February 2014 the Executive Member for the Environment (a local councillor who has become a member of the 9 councillor “inner core”) promised (among other things) that quarterly progress reports would be produced for the Council’s carbon reduction plans. (see image)

Well, that is still not happening. So who knows how far behind the Council is on its “three year rolling plan”. Who knows if they are, as above, just not doing anything? Not you, not me, and not the councillors who sit on the relevant scrutiny committees. That’s the state of democracy and transparency in this city in November 2014.

What you can do.

Write to your three ward councillors (enter your postcode here to find out who they are), to the Executive Member for the Environment (she’s on maternity leave, but the principle’s the same, cllr.k.chappell@manchester.gov.uk) and to Council Leader, Richard Leese – r.leese@manchester.gov.uk

Something like:

Dear councillors,

In February 2014 the Executive Member for the Environment made a public written commitment that quarterly progress reports on the Council’s Climate Reduction Plans would be brought to Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Committee and posted on the Council’s website.

This hasn’t happened.

I’d like to know why not.

Yours sincerely

[name and address]

Let us know what, if any, replies you get. MCFly will continue to post examples of the Council making empty promises. We have 14 more examples, just from the so-called “Annual Carbon Reduction Plan 2013-14”.

Posted in Democratic deficit, Manchester City Council | 2 Comments

It’s worse than that… new IPCC report may well be too cautious…

We need a low carbon culture (and we need you to help define it first). And part of a low carbon culture is going to be paying attention to the science.

ipccisthisthingonToday the 5th “Synthesis Report” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is released.  The IPCC was created in 1988, and produced its first full assessment in 1990.  It’s produced plenty of other reports, but the “Assessment Reports” are the biggest things they do.  American journalist Chris Mooney has just written a piece for the Washington Post that you should definitely read

Here are a couple of excerpts

On Nov. 2, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will release its “Synthesis Report,” the final stage in a yearlong document dump that, collectively, presents the current expert consensus about climate change and its consequences. This synthesis report (which has already been leaked and reported on — like it always is) pulls together the conclusions of three prior reports of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report, and will “provide the roadmap by which policymakers will hopefully find their way to a global agreement to finally reverse course on climate change,” according to the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri.

There’s just one problem. According to a number of scientific critics, the scientific consensus represented by the IPCC is a very conservative consensus. IPCC’s reports, they say, often underestimate the severity of global warming, in a way that may actually confuse policymakers (or worse). The IPCC, one scientific group charged last year, has a tendency to “err on the side of least drama.” And now, in a new study just out in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, another group of researchers echoes that point. In scientific parlance, they charge that the IPCC is focused on avoiding what are called “type 1” errors — claiming something is happening when it really is not (a “false positive”) — rather than on avoiding “type 2” errors — not claiming something is happening when it really is (a “false negative”).

and

There’s yet another problem with the IPCC process — it only considers scientific papers that were published before a particular cutoff date, which in this case, was March 15, 2013. But in May 2014, long after that cutoff date, a blockbuster study came out suggesting that global warming has already irrevocably destabilized the massive West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which contains some 10 feet worth of sea level rise. That is not to say that all of that ice will fall into the ocean immediately and raise sea level, but rather to say that its disintegration, over time, is inevitable. How fast will it happen? That’s the big unknown — but obviously, it is unwise to underestimate an ice sheet, when the consequences around the world would be so devastating.

The lead author of that research, the University of California-Irvine’s Eric Rignot, stressed in an interview that there is no scientific consensus yet about the validity of his alarming results. But adds that in his own opinion, the IPCC’s estimate for sea level rise is “very conservative.”

Posted in academia | Tagged | 2 Comments

You want scary? Warmest. Halloween. Ever.

Hat-tip to Greenpeace UK

warmesthalloweenever

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Job Alert: Writer/researcher jobs at Ethical Consumer

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/aboutus/workingforus.aspx

Current job vacancies at Ethical Consumer

We are currently recruiting for two new writer/researcher posts.

Both posts: Writer, researcher and co-op member

Salary: £15,600 pro rata (40 hrs) for 20 hours per week.

We are looking for two team players to help produce research for publication in our magazine, customised database and websites, and contribute to our growing consultancy business.

Both posts are based in our Manchester office.

Flexible working arrangements are available.

Download an application pack >

 

Deadline for applications: 5.00pm Thursday 20th November 2014

Posted in Job Alert | Leave a comment

Divesting from fossil fuels – part of a low carbon culture for #Manchester

We need a low carbon culture (and we need you to help define it first).

And part of a low carbon culture is going to be divesting from fossil fuel companies.  The University of Manchester, which hopes to have global weight, could – if it chose – lead by example (and follow the example of Glasgow, Stanford etc).  There’s a campaign group trying to get them to do just that.

Divestment at the University of Manchester: why are we doing this?

Definition: “DIVESTMENT” is the reduction of some kind of asset for financial, ethical, or political objectives.


Climate change – the scientific context

Climate change, caused by emissions of greenhouse gases from burning oil, gas and coal, threatens the lives and livelihoods of billions of people around the world. Climate change directly causes the deaths of over 400,000 people every year, with 98% of these deaths in developing countries [1]. Extreme weather events — the floods, droughts, hurricanes, melting icecaps and wildfires we’ve seen in recent years — are increasing in frequency, duration, size and intensity as we heat up our planet [2]. Estimates vary but suggest that by the end of the century global temperatures will have increased by 4-6°C, making large swathes of the planet uninhabitable and triggering mass migration as people fight for declining resources [3]. Clearly climate change is no longer a future threat, it’s a clear and present danger: we’re calling for widespread divestment from the fossil fuel industry in order to prevent this from happening, to send a message for change.

Greenwashing by fossil fuel companies

Shell’s human rights and environmental abuses are well documented. In the Niger Delta, it is estimated that the company burns excess gas from oil wells (a process known as “gas flaring”) with a volume of 2.5 billion cubic feet, equivalent to 40% of all Africa’s natural gas consumption in 2001, every day [4]. Every single day. The toxins released in this process adversely affect the lives and livelihoods of communities in the NIger Delta, leading to increased risk of premature deaths, child respiratory illnesses, asthma and cancer [4]. Companies such as Shell show blatant disregard for people and the environment in their industrial practices, whilst simultaneously bombarding people with messaging to suggest their organisation has environmental and social credibility. This “greenwash” overstates a company’s eco-credentials manipulating the public into having a more positive attitude toward them, which further encourages inaction and disengages people from the issue. A recent advert said “Tackling climate change and providing fuel for a growing population seems like an impossible problem, but at Shell we try to think creatively”, alongside a diagram of a human brain, divided into sections labelled “fuel from algae”, “fuel from straw”, “fuel from woodchips”, “hydrogen fuels”, “wind farm”, “gas to liquids” and “coal gasification”, deliberately diverting attention from the vast majority of Shell’s business in normal fossil fuel production, with only one token Shell wind farm currently in operation [5]. Relationships with companies like these are immoral and only serve to maintain the social licence which these companies require to operate unimpeded from scrutiny.

A danger to democracy

All the while, fossil fuel companies continue to lobby for watered-down regulation, deception and inaction on the climate change issue, much as the tobacco industry did when the adverse health effects of smoking became apparent [6]. According to an Oxfam report last week the fossil fuel industry spent $213 million lobbying US and EU decision makers last year whilst governments globally continue to prop up this tired industry with $1.9 trillion in subsidies [3]. “Climate denying” think tanks exist to further spread confusion funded by the fossil fuel industry and hedge funds which have a serious financial interest in the continued exploitation of fossil fuels. Billionaire oil tycoons the Koch Brothers (who own an oil company which is the second largest private company in America) have spent $67 million on hundreds of climate-denying front groups and think tanks that exist to create the perception of debate on the issue in the public sphere while expert climate scientists are unified in their call for more action to prevent disaster [7]. Perhaps the most prominent such think tank in the UK is the Global Warming Policy Foundation set up to combat the “extremely damaging and harmful policies” of the government in tackling climate change[8], a group which leading NASA climate scientist James Hansen describes as “one link in a devious manipulation of public opinion [regarding climate change]” [9].

The carbon bubble – a risky investment

We now know that at least two-thirds of fossil fuel companies’ known reserves will have to remain underground if the world is to meet existing internationally agreed targets, such as avoiding the threshold of 2°C for “dangerous” climate change – yet they continue to investigate new energy-intensive and uneconomic sources such as Arctic fuel and fracking. Experts warn this ‘carbon bubble’ could lead to stranded assets worth trillions and plunge the world into another financial crisis if left unaddressed [10]. The University of Manchester in 2012 had over 1.7 million shares in fossil fuel companies including 738,166 in BP PLC alone [11]. Between June and October this year BP’s shares have fallen by more than 18% [12]. To give you an idea, if the University still has around 700,000 shares in BP then the University endowment has lost over £650,000 in value in the last three months, equivalent to 73 students’ tuition fees gone. These are incredibly volatile investments and it is fundamentally irresponsible for the University to invest in BP and other fossil fuel companies for economic reasons.

What can we do?

So these companies are profiting from inaction on climate change, poisoning the planet and local communities to protect their profits, manipulating governments and democracy in order to maintain the completely unsustainable status quo and are also a really volatile investment. Seems like a pretty bad idea giving these people our money, so what are we going to do to stop this?

Around the UK through endowments and other investment higher education institutions have £5.2 billion tied up in the fossil fuel industry [13]. Targeting this and other ties with the industry is a great way to remove the power and influence that fossil fuel companies have in society. There are strong and pervasive links between The University of Manchester and the fossil fuel industry, all designed to legitimise their activity.

For example, in 2012 BP announced it was opening a £64 million research centre at The University of Manchester to “help its search for oil into deeper and more challenging environments”; despite existing reserves being more than enough to destroy the planet [14]. Manchester’s website says “BP’s alliance with The University of Manchester … enables BP to access the University’s world-class executive education, high-quality research facilities and its undergraduate talent pool” [15] and it has trained 600 BP staff at Manchester’s “BP Projects and Engineering College” [16]. For anyone who has ever been to one of our Careers fairs and seen their stand or looked on any notice board in our Engineering & Physical Science faculty and seen their ever-present graduate recruitment posters, the institutional ties with BP are clear. The University of Manchester also has BP’s chief scientist on its Board of Governors, the group which will have the final say over whether to divest or not [17]. Well played BP.

Shell and BP both sponsored Manchester’s School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences postgraduate conference in 2012. Just £1000 from Shell and £500 from BP [18] ensured that every participant of the conference got a BP-branded goody bag with a Shell-branded screwdriver inside along with other conference merchandise.

With an endowment value of £154 million [19] (the UK’s 4th largest), despite Manchester having an ethical investment policy, according to the 2013 Green League it has not taken any divestment actions in line with this policy [20]. This policy specifically states that  “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” [21].

 

We are campaigning for the University to uphold this policy and pledge to:

  1. Move UoM’s money

– immediately freeze any new investment in fossil fuel companies

– screen for and exclude the fossil fuel industry from the UoM investment portfolio

– divest from the fossil fuel industry and shift funds to lower risk, ethical investments within 5 years

  1. Stop the greenwash

– publish full details of the UoM’s financial and other ties to the fossil fuel industry

– stop giving out honorary degrees to fossil fuel industry CEOs

– stop accepting sponsorship and advertising from fossil fuel companies

  1. Support a clean energy future for all

– provide students with ethical careers advice and opportunities

– refocus research & expertise on climate solutions and phase out climate-damaging fossil fuel research

– demand more research funding for renewables from fossil fuel companies and government

 

We are calling for immediate action to reduce links with the industry and an end to further research contracts once existing agreements are finished. We’re not calling for anything radical, just for the necessary transition away from fossil fuels to begin as soon as possible. It’s time for The University of Manchester to realise how incompatible fossil fuel investments are with a safe and sustainable future for the planet, it’s time to take meaningful action and to go Fossil Free. We will be using this blog and our Facebook page to update you on the campaign as it happens, we’ve got plenty in the pipeline… (b’dum tsch). If you’re already convinced it’s time for them to divest then sign our petition below.

Petition: bit.ly/fossilfreemcr

Page: facebook.com/fossilfreemcr


[1] Dara International, “Climate Vulnerability Monitor”, 2012.

http://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf

[2] Friends of the Earth, “Extreme weather events & climate change”, September 2013.

http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/extreme_weather_cc.pdf

[3] Oxfam, “Food, fossils and filthy finance”, 17 October 2014.

http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bp191-fossil-fuels-finance-climate-change-171014-summ-en.pdf

[4] Friends of the Earth, “Gas Flaring in Nigeria: a human rights, environmental and economic monstrosity”, June 2005.

http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/gas_flaring_nigeria.pdf

[5] George Monbiot, “Shell’s game: why good people do bad things”, 6th January 2009.

http://www.monbiot.com/2009/01/06/shells-game/

[6] Global Policy website, “Global warming & the energy corporations”, 12th July 1996.

https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/212/45478.html

[7] Greenpeace USA, “Koch Industries: secretly funding the climate denial machine”.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

[8] BBC News, “Ed Miliband clashes with Lord Lawson on global warming”, 6th December 2009.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8398103.stm

[9] The Guardian, “Michael Hintze revealed as funder of Lord Lawson’s climate thinktank”, 27th March 2012.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/27/tory-donor-climate-sceptic-thinktank

[10] The Guardian, “Climate bubble will plunge the world into another financial crisis”, 19th April 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/19/carbon-bubble-financial-crash-crisis

[11] The Mancunion, “Greens deputy leader calls University’s investment in ‘big oil’ “completely irresponsible”.“ 5th March 2012.

http://mancunion.com/2012/03/05/greens-deputy-leader-calls-manchester-universitys-investment-in-big-oil-completely-irresponsible/

[12] BP share charts, calculation made between 24th June and 17th October 2014.

http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/investors/investor-tools/share-charts.html

[13] People & Planet, “Knowledge and power: fossil fuel universities”, October 2013.

http://peopleandplanet.org/dl/fossil-free/knowledge-power-report.pdf

[14] The Daily Telegraph, “BP Invests in UK research to help it drill deeper”, 7th August 2012.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9457340/BP-invests-in-UK-research-to-help-it-drill-deeper.html

[15] The University of Manchester, “Manchester Energy Global Partnerships” website.

http://www.energy.manchester.ac.uk/globalpartnerships/

[16] The University of Manchester, “Business Engagement Case Study: BP”.

http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=15003

[17] Dr Angela Strank, Board of Governors, University of Manchester website.

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/governance/structure/board-governors/members/angela-strank/

[18] Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Conference Fund 2012 Final Review Report.

http://www.researchsupport.eps.manchester.ac.uk/documents/funding/RCF_Reports/EAES_PGRC_2012.pdf

[19] The University of Manchester, ‘Financial Statements for Year Ended 31 July 2011’.

http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=12021

[20] People & Planet, ‘Green League 2013’ website.

http://peopleandplanet.org/green-league-2013/tables

[21] The University of Manchester, ‘Policy for Socially Responsible Investment’

http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=659

Posted in academia | Leave a comment