Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice and provided the text to Democratic Services (DemocraticServices.Central@northyorks.gov.uk) no later than midday on Tuesday, 3 March 2026, three working days before the meeting takes place. Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item.
If you are exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not wish to be recorded, please inform the Chair who will instruct those taking a recording to cease while you speak.
Minutes:
One public question was received.
Question from Richard Tassell on behalf of Fossil Free North Yorkshire:
We ask that the committee make the climate model that has been used by North Yorkshire Pension Fund and the resulting market analyses public, so that pension fund members can gain a greater understanding of how the fund intends to respond to the impacts of climate breakdown.
Supporting Evidence:
Three reports published in the last two years by eminent and trusted experts demonstrate that the climate modelling that pension funds and others have been using is dangerously flawed. In ignoring climate science, assertions about the impact of rising temperatures in these models bear no relation to fact. In grossly underestimating impacts, pension funds have tended to under react to the risks and to continue to invest in the fossil fuel industry which is the major cause of global heating. We trust that you are familiar with these reports (1, 2, 3).
Flooding in the UK that is now causing people's homes to be condemned and causing increasing alarm within the insurance industry; wildfires, such as those affecting the North Yorkshire moors last summer; drought conditions causing reduced crop yields and risks to farm animals — these are all impacts of an increasingly unstable climate. Our persistent wet weather over the past many weeks is made much more likely by temperature rise resulting from fossil fuel pollution (4).
The climate is changing. This is a scientific certainty and the cause is fossil fuel use. Every fraction of a degree increase in temperature makes a difference. We have the technology to move away from fossil fuels and that would bring many other benefits to human health and wellbeing. But political will is lacking. Your will is lacking.
You have to do more to address this. You have the facility to direct substantial fund monies into positive projects that foster thriving and wellbeing instead of into corporations that are delaying the necessary transition and in the meantime providing expensive and unstably priced energy and causing unacceptably low air quality in all UK urban centres.
1. Loading the DICE against pension funds. Flawed economic thinking on climate has put your pension at risk.
2. The Emperor's New Climate Scenarios. Limitations and assumptions of commonly used climate change scenarios in financial services.
3. Recalibrating Climate Risk. Aligning Damage Functions with Scientific Understanding
4. Why is the UK so rainy this year and how is the climate crisis making matters worse?
On page 4 of the BCPP Climate Change Policy, it states: “We understand that scenario analysis can be useful for understanding the potential risks and opportunities attached to investment portfolios and strategies due to climate change.” Later, the document states: “We will be considering a 1.5°C disorderly scenario, 2.0°C scenarios (orderly and disorderly) and the 3.0°C ‘Hot House World’ scenario. We will initially conduct scenario analysis on our listed equity and investment grade credit funds.”
Response to Richard Tassell:
Nobody doubts the seriousness of climate change. It is an issue that is discussed by the Committee often. This public statement is specifically about climate scenario models and the economic forecasts that they are based on.
The 2023 reports referred to in the question were discussed by the Committee at that time. They and the more recent report and article refer to economic projections on which climate models are based. As previously noted in our replies to public questions, these projections are just one source of information, where we recognise the limitations of their usefulness, and that they evolve over time.
The climate models used by our investment consultant Aon are their commercially sensitive intellectual property and therefore will not be made public. However, much of the output from the modelling, including the climate scenario analysis undertaken as part of the 2022 valuation, was included in the valuation report which is on the Fund’s website. A similar level of detail will be included in the 2025 valuation report, which will be published on the website later this month.
The Fund’s investment pooling company Border to Coast undertakes its own modelling as it relates to specific investment funds. Output from this is included in their Climate Change report, published on their website.
Richard Tassell asked a supplementary question, querying why the models could not be published publicly. Officers reiterated that the models are commercially sensitive intellectual property belonging to Aon and Border to Coast respectively and therefore could not be made public.