SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
May, 26 2015, 11:45am EDT
Contact:
Kirsty Haigh (Student campaigner and NUS Scotland Vice President of Communities) 07950 671 772, kirsty.haigh@nus-scotland.org.uk
Eleanor Dow (Student campaigner) 07770 433 737
Juliette Daigre (Fossil Free Campaign Manager, People & Planet) 01865 264 194, juliette.daigre@peopleandplanet.org
University of Edinburgh Concedes to Divestment Campaigners: Divestment from Coal and Tar Sands Likely Within 6 Months
EDINBURGH, UK
On Tuesday 26 May, in a big step forward for student campaigners, the University of Edinburgh announced its intention to divest from coal and tar sands within the next 6 months. The news represents a significant shift in the university's position, after it announced on Tuesday 12 May that it would not divest from fossil fuels, sparking a student occupation of a university management building which lasted for more than 10 days.
The University announced today that it is writing to three of the world's biggest fossil fuel producers to inform them that it intends to fully divest from their activities within the next six months, giving the three companies the opportunity to respond in the next four weeks. It is not known what, if any, response from companies might change their stated intent to divest.
Kirsty Haigh, student campaigner with Edinburgh People & Planet and NUS Scotland VP Communities, said:
"We are glad to see the University finally accept that there are lower carbon alternatives to coal and tar sands, but it should have never taken this long. The University is pledging to 'engage' with these companies for the next 4 weeks before divesting, but have refused to outline what that means. These companies pour millions into greenwashing and it is crucial that the University is not bought over by this, and that they follow through and fully divest from them."
The announcement follows a 3-year campaign by Edinburgh People & Planet student group, which has been calling for the university to divest from the world's top 200 fossil fuel companies. The University of Glasgow, Bedfordshire University and SOAS, University of London have all committed to divest from fossil fuels, whilst the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has committed to divest from coal and Oxford University has spurned coal and tar sands investments.
Since the University first announced its decision not to divest two weeks ago, students have staged dozens of actions including pickets, marches, rallies, banner-drops, die-ins and a 10 day occupation of the University's central management building. The students have also received endorsements from environmental groups Friends of the Earth Scotland, World Wildlife Foundation Scotland and Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, as well as from several MSPs and the Nobel Laureate author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report to the Kyoto Climate Summit.
Over 40 civil society organisations, including many from the Global South, have signed an open letter which condemns the University of Edinburgh for its refusal to divest from fossil fuels [2] in response to an article written by the university's senior vice principal published in the Guardian earlier this month [3]. Earlier today, 300 Edinburgh alumni have also pledged to not donate to the university until it commits to fully disinvest from fossil fuels [4].
Miriam Wilson, Fossil Free campaign coordinator at People & Planet, said:
"Companies involved in coal and tar sands extraction are irrevocably damaging our climate and attempts to engage with them to mitigate their climate impacts have failed. Eighty-percent of coal reserves and all of the Canadian tar sands need to stay in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate change. We urge the University of Edinburgh to go beyond today's announcement and commit to full divestment within 5 years - nothing short of this is enough."
LATEST NEWS
'This Is an Insane Plan': Democrats Fume After Briefing on Trump Plot to Steal Venezuela's Oil
The Trump administration "is going to be spending just as much time running Venezuela as they are running America," Sen. Chris Murphy said in an address to voters. "That's terrible news for you."
Jan 07, 2026
Democratic lawmakers were stunned as they emerged from a briefing Wednesday with Trump administration officials on the White House's plan for Venezuela following the US invasion last week—a meeting that marked the first time all members of the US Senate and House were briefed on the details of the attack and President Donald Trump's intentions going forward in the South American country.
"We learned a lot, I'm glad we had the briefing," a visibly shaken Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told reporters. "But this is going to be a very rough ride for the United States."
The senators and later members of the House were briefed by officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Attorney General Pam Bondi, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Dan Caine.
As Rubio told the press after the meeting, the lawmakers learned about a three-step process the White House is planning, starting with an effort to "stabilize" Venezuela by seizing and selling 30-50 million barrels of oil and then controlling how the proceeds are dispersed.
The US will then ensure “American, Western, and other companies have access to the Venezuelan market in a way that’s fair” before ensuring that the third step is "one of transition," claimed Rubio.
Murphy said the proposal amounts to "stealing the Venezuelan oil at gunpoint for a period of time, undefined, as leverage to micromanage the country."
Murphy: "This is an insane plan. They are talking about stealing the Venezuelan oil at gun point for an undefined period of time as leverage to micromanage the country. The scope and insanity of that plan is absolutely stunning…This is going to be a very rough ride for the U.S." pic.twitter.com/0fQ2KryJTS
— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) January 7, 2026
"This is an insane plan," he said after the briefing. "The scope and insanity of that plan is absolutely stunning."
In a video he posted on social media, Murphy spoke directly to US voters about how Trump's plan represents not only "corruption" that will benefit the president's "energy industry and Wall Street friends" and a "failure to learn lessons" from the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also an abandonment of working families across the US.
"This is going to be a multi-billion-dollar effort which is going to take money—your money—but also enormous time," said the senator. "Donald Trump, the White House, everybody there is going to be spending just as much time running Venezuela as they are running America. That's terrible news for you, for the American taxpayer. Because there's huge problems here at home. Healthcare premiums, prices going up, and now the United States government is going to be spending most of its time on many days running the country of Venezuela."
The Senate finally got briefed by the Trump Administration on Venezuela today - and I'm going to share with you what I can.
The bottom line is this - their plan is insane: take Venezuela's oil at gunpoint and use it run the country from DC. America is nation building again. pic.twitter.com/yEqaCTlNtl
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) January 7, 2026
At a press briefing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt elaborated on Rubio's comments, saying that the decisions of Venezuela's interim authorities—including Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed power after President Nicolás Maduro was abducted by US forces last week—"are going to be dictated by the United States of America.” She added that it is premature to discuss elections in the country.
Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) told reporters after the House's classified briefing that "there has to be a timeline for elections,” while Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said, “It’s like they’ll wave a magic wand and things will turn out the way they want.”
Numerous polls have shown that Trump's escalation against Venezuela, which has also included dozens of boat bombings since September that have killed more than 100 people whom the White House claimed were trafficking drugs to the US, is broadly unpopular with Americans. Nearly two-thirds of respondents to a Quinnipiac University survey said last month that they opposed US military operations in Venezuela.
“Across America, people are just saying, what the hell is going on?” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said after the briefing. “We need answers as to how long this is going to last. We need answers to how many troops, how much money, are there guardrails, things we don’t do, and a number of things that we had talked about were very troubling.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was among the lawmakers who said the White House briefing made clear that Congress must hold public hearings on the Trump administration's operations in Venezuela, adding that oil companies—who Trump openly said on Sunday were informed of the military strike and capture of Maduro before they happened—"seem to know more about Trump's secret plan to 'run' Venezuela than the American people."
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) added that the US is "four months into a sustained military operation" and has killed more than 200 so-called "enemies."
"American troops have been injured," he said. "We have the US forces arranged around Venezuela. Yet neither the House nor the Senate have been willing to hold a single public hearing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'I'm Just Talking About Globally': Forget Greenland, Says Rubio, US Reserves Right for Military Invasion Anywhere It Wants
"The Trump administration is blatantly colonialist, and proud of it."
Jan 07, 2026
On the heels of President Donald Trump’s threats to use military force to conquer Greenland, Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested during a Wednesday press conference that US presidents reserve the right to do so not only in the Danish territory, but anywhere in the world.
The conference came shortly after Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth briefed lawmakers about Trump's illegal operation to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro last weekend.
After Rubio laid out plans for the US to take control of 30 million to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil following a deal with its newly installed government, reporters attempted to ask Rubio to explain the administration's designs on Greenland.
On Tuesday, amid international outcry, the White House issued a statement that acquiring Greenland was a "national security priority" and that "utilizing the US military is always an option" to annex the Arctic island.
European leaders met on Wednesday to discuss a potential response if Trump were to launch a military operation to seize Greenland, which has been a territory of Denmark—now a NATO member—for over 300 years.
Rubio appeared sheepish about discussing Trump's saber-rattling. Asked by a reporter whether he'd take military intervention "off the table," he shrugged: "I'm not here to talk about Denmark or military intervention. I'll be meeting with them next week."
Rubio pivoted to discuss the president's interest in buying Greenland, which he has suggested since his first term in office. But reporters continued to press on what was meant by Trump's suggestion that the military may be used.
After continuing to stall—and, at one point, interrupting a reporter to tell him he'd "lost a lot of weight"—Rubio obliquely addressed the president's threats.
He said: "Guys, what I think the White House said yesterday is what I will tell you now, and I've always said: The president always retained the option—every president, not this president, every president—always retains the option... I'm not talking about Greenland, I'm talking about globally. If the president identifies a threat to the national security of the United States, every president retains the option to address it through military means."
"As a diplomat, which is what I am... we always prefer to settle it in different ways," Rubio continued. "That included in Venezuela. We tried repeatedly to reach an outcome here that did not involve having to go in and grab an indicted drug trafficker. Those were unsuccessful, unfortunately."
The United Nations Charter, which the US has signed, allows for the use of military force against other sovereign nations only in very narrow circumstances: in self-defense against an imminent attack, or when approved by the UN Security Council as necessary to prevent a threat to peace.
The Trump administration has attempted to stretch this definition to justify its overthrow of the Venezuelan government, claiming that supposed drug trafficking from Venezuela constitutes an imminent threat to the US. But Venezuela is not considered a large player in the global drug trade, and even if it were, drug trafficking has never been considered equivalent to an armed attack under international law.
Rubio did not clarify what "threat" Greenland supposedly poses to the United States. Earlier this week, Trump stated that the US "needs" the island because it is supposedly "covered with Russian and Chinese ships," which isn't true, but would not constitute an imminent threat to the US even if it were.
When a reporter then asked Trump what justification the US would have to take Greenland, he responded that “the [European Union] needs us to have it.” Several major EU members, in fact, issued a harsh condemnation of the idea on Tuesday.
International relations scholars agree with virtual unanimity that for the US to forcibly annex Greenland would not be a legitimate use of force. But Section 2(4) of the UN Charter also forbids the threat of military force as a tool of leverage in negotiations, which Trump may be using in a possible bid to buy Greenland.
"International law does not recognize title obtained through unlawful force," wrote Edmarverson A. Santos, a Dublin-based international law and policy researcher. "The prohibition extends beyond actual armed attack. Contemporary doctrine recognizes that serious threats of force, particularly when coupled with political or military pressure, can fall within the scope of Article 2(4)."
Since its attack on Venezuela, the Trump administration has threatened to use similar force to knock over the governments of several other countries as part of what he has described as a 21st-century revival of the colonial-era "Monroe Doctrine."
Trump issued threats to Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum and Colombian President Gustavo Petro. Rubio, meanwhile, said that if he were part of Cuba's socialist government, he'd "be concerned, at least a little bit."
On Tuesday, André Nollkaemper, a professor of public international law at the University of Amsterdam, warned that Trump's increasing belligerence toward Europe was the direct outcome of European leaders' meek response to his attack on Venezuela.
"The long-term impact of US intervention in Venezuela will not be decided in Caracas or Washington, but elsewhere," he wrote for the German academic site Verfassungsblog. "With intervention now framed as a standard policy instrument of the USA, it is the response of other states—including in Europe—that will determine whether the erosion of international law becomes normalized across regions."
"In deciding the course and content of its response, Europe might be tempted to assume that this new strategy is limited to Latin America, and that the United States should be given some room there," he continued. "That would, of course, be irresponsible; in terms of its implications for international law, and with regard to Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba—not to mention Greenland."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Videos From Scene of Fatal ICE Shooting in Minneapolis Betray 'Garbage' DHS Claims
The US Department of Homeland Security accused the slain woman of committing "an act of domestic terrorism" by "attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them."
Jan 07, 2026
WARNING: This post includes graphic footage of the shooting which some people may find disturbing...
The US Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday defended a federal immigration enforcement agent for fatally shooting a woman in Minneapolis by claiming that the slain woman was committing "an act of domestic terrorism" by "attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them."
However, footage of the incident taken by eyewitnesses shows that the driver was slowly trying to pull away from the scene shortly before an officer fired four shots at her vehicle.
Here's the video for those who don't have Bluesky pic.twitter.com/vM3Bsfk8Uc
— Hussain (@huspsa) January 7, 2026
Does this look like what you’re claiming pic.twitter.com/4rV8n4LuSd
— Mogana (@MoganaPhilips) January 7, 2026
The start of one video shows the woman sitting in her car, which was stationed perpendicular to the street. Several officers are then seen approaching the car with at least one of them telling her to exit. It's unclear what directions other officers may have been giving simultaneously.
When one of the officers tries to open the car door, the vehicle moves slowly backward as the wheels turn, before starting to move forward.
As the vehicle moves forward, an agent standing near the driver-side bumper—who the driver may not have even seen, given her attention to the other agent at her door—draws his gun and fires multiple shots at the driver.
Only after the gunfire does the vehicle accelerate before crashing into an electric pole and another parked car.
Here is a zoomed in slowed down version. pic.twitter.com/tLIgGg0WMg
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 7, 2026
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said during a press conference on Wednesday that the video footage, in his mind, shows that DHS claims about the woman engaging in "domestic terrorism" is complete "garbage."
"So, they are already trying to spin this as an action of self-defense," he said. "Having seen the video of myself, I want to tell everybody directly: That is bullshit. This was an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying."
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz echoed Frey's comments in a social media post.
"I've seen the video," said Walz. "Don’t believe this propaganda machine. The state will ensure there is a full, fair, and expeditious investigation to ensure accountability and justice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular