Thread by @ZeroCarbonSoc

Ready to kick off today's #DivestmentConference by grilling the Cambridge VC Stephen Toope, head of their Zero Carbon initiative and the CFO Anthony Odgers. Follow for live updates here!

Toope begins by reaffirming his statement that climate change is the 'most urgent threat' the world faces. Maybe time to get out of the bed with fossil fuel companies then! #DivestmentConference

He suggests that the role for the University in tackling this is as a research institution 'not an NGO or campaigning organisation'. Does this research have to be funded by fossil fuel companies like their very own BP Institute? #DivestmentConference

Says the University has an 'open mind' to how it engages with fossil fuel companies, and even to cutting ties. But then argues for an 'even deeper engagement' with all companies!

Toope finishes his statement with a bit of spin straight from the BP playbook. Argues that we need to look at the energy demand as well as the supply. Thinking about what 'we all' do.

Funny that we're all to blame when the top 100 FF companies produce 71% of global emissions!

Emily Shuckburgh, is next. She discusses how she has spent her life understanding climate crisis and the need to take urgent action.

She argues that the University's new spin initiative Cambridge Zero is one way of doing this but why is the BP Institute one of its partners?

Anthony Odgers gives a brief introduction, now onto the grilling!

Asked on the morality of investing in companies that destroy communities in the global south, Toope says that 'making a moral statement' is one thing, but questions the effectiveness of divestment ...

Toope argues for closer engagement with all companies as an effective strategy. Odgers also suggests that 'selling shares' not a moral question.

Yet engagement with fossil fuel companies has done nothing to stop the climate breakdown, the panellists claim to care about so much!

Toope dodges question from the audience asking for a single specific example of past effective shareholder engagement...

Then cites a recent 'productive conversation' with between reps of the University and an asset manager. But zero evidence of any material effect...

Audience member cites BP's human rights abuses in West Papua. Toope again cites the idea that engaging to 'change' such companies might be a better strategy in dealing with climate crisis.

He does say that he is 'undecided' on the issue despite this...

Odgers next uses the irrelevant example of DONG, the small Danish energy company switching its operations to renewables.

How does he seriously think this can relate to companies like BP, Shell or Exxon?

Shuckburgh says that students should 'yes, go and doorstop BP' when they do events at the University. Why does her new Cambridge Zero list the BP Institute as one of its partners for 'climate repair' in that case?

Toope comes back to his twisted arguments on engagement, and also suggests again that demand for energy is the problem rather than the companies extracting more fossil fuels at all costs!

But Toope and Odgers claim that if the evidence from the University's ongoing report into divestment backs divestment as a policy, then this is the strategy that they'll follow.

Toope has reasserted his desire for shareholder engagement multiple times though...

Audience member asks for clarification - if the report recommends divestment as the best strategy, will the University follow it?

Toope suggests that this will be for the University Council to decide 'based on the evidence', but he will support it 'if the evidence is there'

Odgers also suggests that if the evidence is there on stranded assets, the University might also consider divestment on financial grounds.

When pressed on the idea of engagement by an audience member, and the DONG argument is dismantled live, Toope affirms that they are only trying to look into engagement.

He says we should look at whether modes of engagement that haven't yet been tried could work.

Despite his fairyland ideas on shareholder engagement, he suggests that he is hoping for a 'clear answer' on engagement vs divestment when the report comes out in next year.

Audience breaks out into applause after brilliant question which shows in detail that engagement is an unworkable, impossible tactic. Audience member argues that 'engagement' being used as a delaying tactic, divestment does not mean 'disengagement'

Toope still in fairyland. Annoyed by idea that the panellists did not recognise the urgency of the crisis, despite his support for engagement tactics that let fossil fuel companies destroy the lives of millions across the world, and burn the planet to a crisp.

He doesn't let go of the idea that 'new forms of engagement' could somehow change the world's largest polluters! Not sure what he's been smoking before the panel.

End of thread, thanks for following. Keep on our page through the day for more from #DivestmentConference