St. Andrews is an unusual town, in Scotland at least.  It is a town that feels by-passed by modernity yet historically central.  A resort town, in so many senses, yet focussed on its main industry: education and research (we’ll leave aside the golf for now).

The town’s University is the 19^th  oldest in the world, the first to be established in Scotland (in 1410).  The University’s 12,000 students almost outnumber the town ‘residents’: the town’s population is only 18,000.  And since 45% of its students are from outwith Great Britain, the streets have an unusually cosmopolitan and youthful feel.

Yet while it clings to archaisms – many students (and especially choristers) still wear gowns – it is also a site of cutting edge research and scholarship.

The Centre for Energy Ethics (CEE)  at St. Andrews was established in 2021 under the direction of Mette High, a social anthropologist.  The CEE’s staff, students and affiliates collaborate across arts, humanities, social and natural sciences, bringing together their different disciplinary strengths in pursuit of the guiding question:  not only what can we do’ but also what should we do in order to create a better energy future for us all?

The Centre is funded by grants and public donations but does not accept donations from energy companies of any sector.

In June, in the midst of the Pibroch tour, the CEE was hosting an inter-disciplinary conference – Financing the Future.  True to their ultra-inclusive operating model, Mette and the team drew together academics, researchers and artists from far and wide, face-to-face and online, to reflect on the questions.

 How will we finance the future?

What moral aspirations and obligations do present financial practices and modalities inspire?

How should financial practices and modalities be crafted to engender new envisioned outcomes and relationships?

When should we prioritise investing in the distant future rather than focussing on the present?

It was a privilege to perform Pibroch at the Byre Theatre for conference participants and others.  And it was a privilege and a pleasure to participate in conference seminars and other events and encounter such a wide range of informed and thought provoking perspectives on our shared predicament.

There was so much said, so much to think about, that we’ve created this account in 2 separate blogs, using the same practice or record and tessellation that has been used in previous posts.

Here are some comments and questions I heard about Climate Justice in St. Andrews…

I heard it asked, “What is the role of literature in the oil age?”

I heard that philosophers assume there will be more people in the future.

I heard that there is a tension between Energy as a Commodity (the dominant force in modernity) and Energy as Commons. [1]

I heard that sustainable solutions should be analysed at 3 levels  – landscape, regime, niche.  For the community, climate change is landscape.

I heard that industries are funding the crafting of stories for perceived sacrifice zones – feeding them into mainstream and social media – but community realities are grounded on wider issues.[2]

I heard that the tension between individual actions (agency) and the constraints imposed by the polity (legal) represents an issue of demandingness.[3]

I heard that, in South Korea, existing food cooperatives like Hansalim are experimenting with solar energy cooperatives and cross selling cooperative energy through established cooperative food networks. 

I heard that social movements and policy experiments seek to undermine Systemic Inequities.

I heard that regional assets in the North Sea exhibit a pattern of network switching over time from oil & gas corporations to independent producers to equity funds.[4]

I heard that low-lying Island polities should not be obliged to impose burdens.

I heard that sometimes the tarot cards stalk you.[5]

I heard that climate debate in North America is constrained by ad hominem arguments, chauvinism & xenophobia and a distaste for translation.

I heard that, in principle, the polity imposes burdens on a citizen within their obligations under current technology (i.e. no White-Knight tech solutions.) But must avoid callous harms.

I heard that patient intergenerational policy to keep people safe and sustain peace is lost in a history that hasn’t been explained to you.

I heard that, in North America, Andreas Malm’s controversial proposal to blow up pipelines is less seductive than fantasies of race war.

I was asked, “Were you influenced by The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil?

I heard that there is great solidarity among the scientists who have worked in Antarctica.[6]

I heard that there is a danger that blue hydrogen will discredit green hydrogen developments.

I heard that there has been a transformation of the North Sea value proposition from discovery and exploitation of regional assets to assetisation to rentier capitalism.

I heard that private equity companies have hard cash and access to debt (credit) but no interest in the long term. If they can make a 3 or 4 multiplier in 7 years they are happy.

I heard that there is a crisis of the substantial (that no longer makes sense as ideation).

I heard that some regard fossil fuel use as a symbol of independence &rebellion: a sign of cultural loyalty.

I heard that some see American War seen as a template for American Reality.

I heard that there is insight in the rationale of discards.

I heard that there has been a shrinkage of consensus reality.

I heard that philosophers assume there will be more wealth in the future.

I heard it asked: “How do we narrativize the future that we want?”

I heard that there is a philosophical problem with legitimate expectations. [7]

I heard that there are already increasing numbers of flowering plants on Antarctica.

I heard that conspiratorial story forms are promoted by lobbyists and special interest groups.

I heard the question, “When does expectation (Hume) become entitlement(Rawls)?”

I heard that policies should justifiably increase demandingness and policies can demand more than morality.

I heard the question : What is the purpose of community – and what should be our attitude to free riding?

I heard it said that people are entitled to a decent standard of living.

I heard that numerical identity (the individual) is irrelevant to morality.

I heard that ‘interested’ governments are creating ‘big infrastructure’ in Antarctica in excess of scientific needs.

I heard that conspiracy theories compress complexity into easily understandable shapes.

I heard that I should read Returning to the River

I heard that the world will end, not with a bang but in Ab.

I heard that face to face, interdisciplinary discussion is important.

I heard that dystopian fiction is a growth genre

I heard that the past matters as well as the future

I heard that we need to create a culture in Antarctica

I heard that virtual clones of installations will prevent harm and error.

I heard that dystopian fiction focusses on the cost of NOT financing the future

I heard that we should link global finance down to kinship networks.

I heard that there is a need for stories to imagine a form of life we can work towards.

I heard that Gillian Martin, the Scottish Minister for Energy, never once mentioned people or community in her keynote speech.

Key References: Listed below are some of the key presentations from which many of these insights and inspirations arise. Other contributions arose from many generous conversations and comments with other participants in Financing the Future in the course of the 3 day event. My thanks to all for their generosity and insight and especially to Mette High and Sean Field of CEE for their support and encouragement.

[1] Joohee Lee, Sejong University: Food cooperatives in the mission to promote bottom-up climate-energy transitions: opportunities and limitations.

[2] Stephanie LeMenager, University of Oregon: All the Intimate Externalities: Literary Takes on the Costs of Climate Crisis

[3] Luca Stroppa, University of St. Andrews: Callousness, demandingness, and climate change

[4] Gavin Bridge, Alexander Dodge, Tiago Teixeira: Extracting value from the bottom of the barrel: exploring the value proposition for investment in oil and gas in the North Sea’s twilight years

[5] Rebecca Sharp & Elodie Laügt, University of St. Andrews : Good till the close.

[6] Steve Garrett: The Song of the Ice

[7] Eike Düvel, Karlsrhue Institute of Technology: Stranded Assets and Legitimate Expectations