BBC Environment Correspondent Helen Briggs has an explainer article out today on the pros and cons of the campaign to get people to divest from oil and gas companies. The piece could easily have been part of the Guardian’s own fossil fuels divestment coverage launched this month.

The ‘scientific’ viewpoint on divestment is dealt with in one sentence:

“Scientific studies show that existing fossil fuel reserves are several times greater than can be burned if the world’s governments are to fulfil their pledge to keep global warming below the limit of 2C regarded as the threshold of dangerous climate change.“

Just read Helen’s conclusion and see if you can tell which side of the ‘lets screw over the third world by forcing them to keep cooking over wood stoves’ debate she stands on…

“One view is that the recent drop in oil prices presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for governments to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies and introduce a price on carbon. This generally goes against government thinking and concern over job losses in the oil and gas industry. With the divestment campaign gathering pace – and momentum building for the Paris climate talks in December – there is renewed hope among campaigners. But with environmental policies getting little attention in the UK election, and coal, oil and gas companies continuing to spend billions on exploration, NGOs are already upping their rhetoric in calling for renewed government efforts over climate change.”

Fair and balanced…