Campaign against Climate Change

I have written a very long response, which is rather strong because of my anger over our Government's woeful, deceitful record on climate change. However, if anyone wants to use any of the points I have raised and highlighted then please do so. Don't miss this opportunity - the closing date is Tuesday 9th May, and remember you can send your responses via e-mail. Ian.

"It depends what you mean by consensus. There is plenty of obfuscation, appeasement, prevarication, dilatoriness, double standards, meaningless gestures, insulting rhetoric, and criminal neglect to take the necessary action, and finally but by no means least, lies from all parties. And behaviour in the House of Commons that would not be tolerated at playtime in primary school. The adversorial tradition of our Parliament is petty, self indulgent and an embarrassment to the electorate who literally switch off. This circus is only of interest to the Westminster obsessed media. The duty of the opposition is to oppose so it is difficult to see any concensus beyond merely paying lip service to the word.
If there is a concensus in Parliament on climate change, it appears to be that it is not serious - it is not serious enough to discuss or take action on. At the last general election when our first past the post democracy was brought into disrepute and reduced to the treacherous charade of ten words, or five pledges, to appeal to swing voters in marginal seats, I am not aware of a single politician discussing global warming in the media. This is unforgivable and damning. Our electoral system needs to be changed to prevent this ever happening again. The current new found ‘greenwash’ coming from Brown, Cameron and Campbell is too little too late and is a woefully unacceptable debate in light of the threat.
If there is a consensus, it is that the fight for the middle ground actually means moving to the right. We have two political parties who believe in neo-liberalism. They believe in free trade which should not be interfered with by the state. They believe in privatisation and in de-regulating and not in legislating. They are allied to the CBI and massive corporate lobby. All this is directly at odds with putting the environment first (let alone people) and will stop us saving it. This is the real consensus that needs to be changed. On top of that you have the WTO, IMF and World Bank setting very undemocratic rules to the rest of the world. You’ve got your work cut out.
The biggest lie of the measly debate on climate change, is the one that says that you can grow your economy and reduce emissions, which Blair and Beckett are keen on pointing out. They have recently said that emissions have grown because of strong economic growth and a switch back to coal due to high gas prices. Emissions have only ‘fallen’ in this country from 1990 due to a change from coal instigated by the Conservatives. According to the Tyndall Centre, emissions are actually higher if air and sea transport figures are included which unfathomably they are not. This ridiculous and highly misleading practise needs to be reversed. The government’s record on climate change is shameful, as is much of the EU, USA and Austalia. At least they do not have the bare-faced audacity to be a self-proclaimed ‘global leader’. Brown’s green budget was risible and frankly offensive. A couple of weeks later he was demanding that OPEC drop oil prices to help British motorists.
This mantra of absolute economic growth is a myth and a dangerous game for the planet and would seem to be rather at odds with Contraction and Convergence (C & C). Infinite growth on a finite planet is another modern oxymoron.
The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives want a cross party consensus. The government will not even discuss it. But not as limiting and mealy-mouthed as the opposition leaders appear to think is a representative response to limiting emissions to a safe level. Just because you sound more green than the government, that is not good enough as it would be virtually impossible not to be. It is quite possible that Cameron’s conversion to the environment is more to do with reinventing his ailing party and differentiating them from the one in power that has such a poor record on it, so that he can win an election. Climate change needs to be the most important issue to government and opposition alike, since it will be responsible either for our survival or extinction. Climate change must set the context and define all policy decisions of local and national government. Decisions made independently of global warming can only be counter productive and unacceptable.
The country needs to be on a war footing, much as it was in the Second World War. The threat is far greater. We need to put everything into preventing global warming and preparing for its consequences. Not to do so would be a reckless act of gross incompetence and morally indefensible. Our system of government and our way of living need to be completely restructured around this common goal. That is how closely our elected leaders must work. That is how seriously they need to take the problem.
You have a moral responsibility to take the necessary action to avert a catastrophe of unimaginable horror. You will be more responsible than most if this not averted. You will be culpable for the possible end of life on earth. That would be a crime against humanity. That would be genocide. 225 million years ago at the end Permian the globe warmed by 6 C. Over 95% of life on earth became extinct. We are already in the sixth mass extinction. This is the only one that isn’t natural. The IPCC TAR gave a top limit of 5.8 C. This did not include positive feedbacks and global dimming. Some scientists believe that the figure could be as high as 10 C. Leaked reports from the fourth IPCC report say that climatologists no longer want to put a figure on how high the temperature could get this century.
If you are serious about tackling climate change then you must implement C & C, which I believe is in all the major party manifestos. If no other country is prepared to converge then we must contract. We are part of an exclusive club that has caused 80% of historical greenhouse gas emissions (gge). So it really is down to us to do more than our bit. We must actually take a lead and set an example. This is why it is not acceptable that Brown and Beckett point out that we only contribute 2% of current global gge, as if to somehow excuse us and divest ourselves of responsibility and lack of progress and point the finger elsewhere. Today’s pollution hasn’t caused the problem. It started with the Industrial Revolution that we, the UK, started.
In our democracy the Labour Party has the mandate from the people to do this. This must be done very soon indeed and not in a ‘suitably long period of time’ as the CarbonNeutral website advises. This doesn’t really sound urgent enough! You ask if the electorate be left with or without a choice of approaches? I do not understand what this means! If all the parties have joined a coalition to save life on earth, instead of grow our economy, there will be only one approach and again haven’t they all already signed up to the way of doing so, C & C?
The level of emissions that is deemed safe enough to stop runaway global warming was stated to the government in Exeter, last February, by the International Climate Change Taskforce (ICCT). They said that it was 400 ppm. This would give the world a 75% chance of global temperatures going no higher than 2 C. 450 ppm would be evens. Not a good bet! Yet Sir David King said: “To aim for 450 ppm would, I am afraid, seem unfeasible” and “But no country is going to turn off a power station which is providing much desired energy for its population to tackle this problem – we have to accept that.” Firstly, it is not appropriate for the Chief Scientific Adviser to comment on politics in this way. Secondly, we absolutely do not have to accept it. King is consigning us to climate chaos. He has repeated to state we can not achieve what has to be done. If every house had micro-generation and public buildings had decentralised CHP and micro-generation and people used less energy, we could switch off all our power stations. And there’s our coastline and tidal rivers just in case we want to keep our power stations.
I am not sure if this figure of 400 ppm means that emissions have to be cut back in this country by 90% by 2030 as some commentators say. I am sure that the non-binding, vaguely aspirational government target based, on the C & C figure of 550ppm and a reduction of 60% by 2050 is dangerously out of date. I also know that the ICCT warned that the world had ten years left to ensure that this catastrophe was averted. That was over a year ago and in that time emissions have gone up (for the third year in a row in this country). Indeed King recommends 550ppm as ‘realistic’ and a temperature rise of 3 C. The government is committing the world to a future that they have been warned is without parallel for millions of years. This is utterly reprehensible and abhorrent beyond comprehension. The PM needs to be impeached for gross dereliction of his duties. His policies have been an abject failure.
The focus of the inquiry seems to be very narrow. Let us hope it is not a repeat of the Hutton and Butler enquiries, which were an utter farce and disgrace to our democracy. The fact that you have to ask the question is rather worrying, when it is so obvious what the answer has to be. Based on the Government’s atrocious record, I suppose I should welcome the fact that some of our elected representatives seem to be waking up to a threat our leaders promised to prevent at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. It seems timely to remind you that 160 countries (including Bush Snr.) signed The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). They agreed that Parties to the Convention should take “precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimise the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures.” They have failed mankind miserably and all the species who are trying to share the planet with us.
How long will it take to complete your inquiry? When or would it be implemented? Remember, you have less than nine years left. And is not acceptable, like Beckett has done when the government failed to reach targets, to say it is down to us to bail you out; No mention of business there! Your questions seem very limiting and do nothing to examine how the necessary actions would be deemed necessary by the electorate. The first and easiest and most difficult is to stop lying to us. People need to know the truth of the threat and what needs to be done to prevent it. The natural or real world rather than the ‘real world’ referred to by politicians and economists and businessmen has changed. If we ignore this, we are doomed. No living human being has faced what we now do. Everything must now change accordingly. We are relying on you to show the leadership required to do what needs to be done.
So a Climate Change Cabinet would have sweeping powers. The sort that they have during war time. This would need to be explained to the people. The government must now put a case together for a war against climate change. They tried very hard to do this for a very long time in order to justify a war with Iraq. This time the dossiers will not have to be ‘dodgy’. Instead of a bogus war on terror, we need a war on global warming. The oxymoronic war on terror has meant an infringement on all our civil liberties. The Prime minister has said this was necessary to fight the threat. The government has derogated from the European Convention on Human Rights. People do not seem to have objected at all really. The same would be the case if you tell people the truth about climate change. They would see that changes were for their long term benefit and their children’s futures. It is a complete cop out to say that people will not respond if it is too gloomy. In this age of spin you should know how to sugar-coat the pill. If you don’t the people will be most unhappy and unruly when the changes in our natural world affect the economy or the ability of the world to feed itself.
I imagine many limitations on everyday life will be enforced on us if Bird Flu breaks out in this country. The citizens will understand why given the millions lost in the Spanish Influenza. Global warming is a bigger threat and as David King has said: “Global warming is a more serious threat than terrorism.”
Those who have power over those of us who do not should be preparing for an emergency anyway. According to experts this decade we will have reached peak oil. The mirage of economic growth and our modern lives paid for by cheap abundant oil will be over. To start off with, the price of everything will go up and two things that are deemed to be more important in our financial societies than actual climate change will be adversely affected – inflation and interest rates will rise. The economy will go into a downturn and unemployment will increase. Later, the world economy will crash and will experience a depression. Our unsustainable society that depends on everything being transported will change irrevocably. There is likely to be great civil unrest.
Our food is saturated with oil and the only reason the world can sustain 6 billion people is because of intensive agriculture supplied by oil. We are reaching the limits of available agricultural land. The UN Millennium Assessment Report warns of the catastrophic impact on all ecosystems of increasing agriculture. By 2050 the UN estimates that there will be 9 billion people on our planet. How will they be fed without oil in a globe that according to King could have been warmed by 3 C by this date, with its reduced rain fed agriculture and droughts? According to WWF, the world lost 30% of its natural wealth from 1970 to 1995. God knows how much more has been lost since. An environmental assessment by WWF and the Worldwatch Institute showed that humans are now exploiting about 20% more renewable resources than can be replaced each year. Also according to the Worldwatch Institute more goods and services have been consumed since 1950 than in all the rest of human history. You will doubtless know of the WWF quote about 2 planets being necessary by 2050 if we go on consuming the natural resources of the planet at our current rate.
We are not just living unsustainably, even without the terrible spectre of climate change, we are actually destroying the means of sustaining a habitable planet. So, yes we need consensus politics; yes globalisation and capitalism will come to an end with or without our consent. We haven’t really got any choice whatsoever. That’s the real world. What they are replaced with is within our control. If we combat global warming by ceasing our addiction to oil there will be sacrifices and it certainly will not be as convenient, but life will be tolerable. If we choose to carry on with business as usual, then for those who are left, life will be most intolerable.
Oil is causing global warming and it is going to run out, with dire consequences even without climate change. The only rational, responsible response to this fact is to plan to have an economy without oil in a timeframe that prevents runaway global warming. This is exactly what Sweden has done. Where is our plan?
The political discourse in this country needs to be about fairness and equity, which is difficult given that we have two right-wing parties with any chance of winning an election. In the meantime the present one can:
- Listen to the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) and not build anymore nuclear power stations;
- The money saved should be spent on energy saving and renewables;
- The renewable industry must be given a guaranteed price to allow it to invest. Onshore planning laws must be changed to greatly speed up the process. Local objections on grounds of environmental damage must be compared to the damage to the environment of climate change;
- Transfer proposed money from road building to a re-nationalised rail network and reverse their intention to cutback the rail network;
- Remove the RFTO. The RFTO Feasibility Report said: “The main environmental risks are likely to be those concerning any large expansion in biofuel feedstock production, and particularly in Brazil (for sugar cane) and South East Asia (for palm oil plantations).” The government understandably decided the way to prevent this was not to import environmentally destructive fuels. The government asked whether a ban would infringe world trade rules. The ‘Feasibility Study on Certification for a Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation’ said it would. The UK will therefore not be banning environmentally damaging imports and in so doing is accelerating rainforest deforestation which is causing global warming.
The legality of this decision needs to be challenged in the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, which is a mouthful but a complete waste of time as they are not enforceable by law. Our government’s decision (or is it the WTO’s?) should be taken to the WEO and World Environment Court…except they don’t exist as trade is deemed to be more important to the rulers of the ‘real world’ than the actual world that supplies the trade.
As oil increases in price there will be a greater demand in the UK to use arable land not for food, but for biofuel. This would be very unwise as we will need all the land we can get to grow our food. Also there will be no oil-based fertilizer and pesticides, which incidentally contribute to global warming.
If you want to save 5%, then enforce speed limits on the motorway. In fact the government’s Climate Change Review admits this: Stricter enforcement of the 70 mph limit, the document says, would save 890,000 tons of carbon a year - more than the biofuels obligation and many other listed measures put together. But unfortunately and spinelessly as usual when it comes to offending motorists, officials acknowledge that any move to force the 15 million motorists who currently exceed the 70 mph speed limit to slow down would be "politically sensitive". I think officials need to get some backbone and perspective on what global means. How about an actual war on motorists rather than the pretend one perceived by those that use that phrase?
If you are serious about reducing emissions from car exhausts, then you can do the following:-
- reduce the size of the car and engine and increase its efficiency;
- reintroduce the fuel tax escalator;
- financially incentivise car sharing and congestion charging;
- plan towns to suit pedestrians and cyclists (which means taking cycle paths off the roads and change the new Highway Code just in case you don’t so cyclists can’t be sued for not using them);
- when planning suburbs, link them with centres of work by a network of public transport.
If you are serious about reducing transport emissions, then you can do the following:-
- have a proper integrated transport system with affordable, attractive, efficient, reliable public transport, using hybrid or hydrogen engines powered by renewable electricity. In the last decades public transport has increased in price in real terms, unlike motoring which has fallen;
- put freight on the railways and canals;
- stop out of town developments;
- vastly reduce food miles;
- ban internal flights within the UK.

- Through the UN compel Indonesia to re-wet their peatlands: In 1997 2.67 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide was released through burning of their peatlands. This equates to 40% of one year’s global fossil fuel consumption. Destruction of the peatlands was for amongst other things rice and oil palm plantations. The use of palm oil should be banned. The UK is now working on a resolution to impose sanctions on Iran. (These caused untold suffering in Iraq). It appears that where there is a will there is a way;
- Stop all runway expansion. Flying is the fastest growing source of gge. According to the SDC, the growth in emissions from air travel threatens to negate all other reductions made in other sectors of the economy. Research by the Tyndall Centre indicates that if aviation continues to grow at its present rate all other sectors will have to reduce emissions to zero to make the reductions necessary by 2050. The government’s aviation White Paper promotes airport expansion. The Chancellor wants this to promote economic growth and competitiveness. This is despicable;
- Remove the £9 billion subsidy the UK taxpayer gives the aviation industry. Aviation fuel must be taxed. Of course thanks to our world where trade is more important than people it can’t. So do something about it in another way. There is no VAT on a flight. Although 17.5% of nothing isn’t that much for a stag party to Prague so perhaps you need to look at the whole cheap flight giveaway-bonanza in a different way. Please ignore the fine words of our PM “I mean hands up around this table how many politicians facing a potential election lets say at some point in the not too distant future that would vote to end cheap air travel - right, none..” That corrupt arrogance and cynicism certainly does not reflect the thinking of the vast majority of taxpayers and voters in this country who in some cases can’t even afford to leave their homes;
- Compel the privatised water companies to repair their leaking infrastructure. Perhaps another windfall tax might help them pay for it;
- Government Departments should stop using the amount of energy that Liverpool does;
- Implement recommendations of Commission for Sustainable Development report without delay;
- Commercial waste must be recycled. Commercial waste of which there are no targets accounts for 90% of UK waste;
- Think about people rather than the industry lobby. After pressure from the CBI Blair is taking the EU to court. This from a man who said: “This year offers a unique set of opportunities. I am committed to using the UK’s G8 and EU Presidencies to try to make a breakthrough on … climate change.” His actions are bizarre, embarrassing and a disgrace;
- The government's climate change review is negligible, pathetic tinkering and shows that they do not take the problem seriously.
- Remove the subsidy from coal companies and make it illegal to switch from gas to coal because of increase in gas prices. A phase-out date for ‘no coal’ should be drawn up. Clean coal is another oxymoron. Geological carbon sequestration is an un-tested technology, which will also increase the amount of oil available. If Iraq can cope without electricity at all in some places then we can have power cuts if ministers are not bright enough to make energy savings;
- Have a windfall tax on BP and Shell that is invested directly into energy saving schemes and renewables. Their profits are immoral given that their product is cooking the planet;
- Create a war chest against global warming by stopping Trident. Without doing that, it wasn’t too hard to find money for a war against Iraq or Afghanistan (and presumably Iran if Blair still insists on putting the perceived threat from oil rich Middle East countries above climate change);
- Invest in micro-generation by ordering a large amount so the cost to the consumer is greatly reduced encouraging a mass take-up. The economies of scale of the first action and increased sales will keep prices coming down. The government should concentrate initial efforts on solar power for heating as this is the biggest polluter;
- Our power supply should be decentralised. Over 75% of the energy of the fossil fuel power source is wasted in generation, transmission, distribution and inefficient end use. This is scandalous and a gross mis-management of the countries’ energy. CHP should also be employed;
- Legislate like there is no tomorrow, to make sure there is one. I know it is anathema to such a pro-market party, but the market are asking for it. Last May corporate leaders called on the government to show leadership on climate change. They said there “was a need for urgent action to be taken now to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, and offered to work in partnership with the government”’. Whether this is just more ‘greenwash’ is debatable, but taken on face value it is quite incredible as some of the well known luminaries were once part of a global coalition that lobbied for action not to be taken and even denied there was any such thing as global warming. If they can apparently change so much, then isn’t it time our pro-business government did?
- Introduce a maximum power output of all types of electrical appliances. Manufacturers will have to design the most energy efficient model possible. In other words they will not be allowed to develop and sell products that are needlessly harmful to the environment. As above they should not object too much as it will be a level playing field and competitive advantage can be gained with innovation. As in China tariffs can be put in place to stop imports that do not comply. This would create a market for UK manufacturers and jobs;
- Ditto with cars, re: Co2 emissions;
- Ditto new builds. Last January the Environmental Audit Committee found that climate change would be exacerbated by government housing policy. Also property developers were “reluctant to recognise the need for drastic improvement in how homes are built.” You have a chance to do the right thing with the million homes planned for the South East;
- Stop delaying the opening of the plant in the North East for recycling e-waste;
- Ban filament light bulbs, patio heaters, SUVs, plastic bags, packaging etc. The list is long;
- Bring in meaningful green taxes and of course breaks to those trying to save energy. Surveys have shown that the public are quite prepared to pay more to protect their environment;
- Introduce laws that change the behaviour of the supermarkets and loosen their grip on the food chain. For example, outlaw any food with a certain number of food or air miles. This would prevent food being grown in one part of the country, being transported for processing to the other end of the country (or a different part of the world) and again for packaging and / or distribution all over the country. They should also be compelled to sell a certain percentage of organic local produce;
- Greatly reduce advertising. Bhutan has an index of Gross National Happiness instead of a GDP, which I understand our government is considering. They have banned billboards. If the governments pleased parents instead of corporations which it has just failed to do then there would be less junk food consumed. The list is endless;
- Greatly increase advertising to combat greed and avarice and the need to consume. Greatly increase advertising to sell the notion of having less and living sustainably. Just think about the amount of time and money that has been spent on going digital, or the National Lottery (or as I prefer to call it ‘the poor tax’), or those ingratiating campaigns to encourage the taxpayer to sell their public utilities to foreign multi-nationals. As I said, where there’s a will there’s a way;
- Instigate public information films about doing with less like everyone did in the wars, e.g. eat less meat and explain why. Use celebs;
- The BBC with its public service remit must do more to raise awareness and how to change behaviour. As should the media. But it is difficult to see political parties encouraging the media to change as it is they who prostitute themselves to the press barons to win elections;
- The government have fought tooth and nail to introduce an ID card at huge cost. They must now do the same for a carbon card. They must employ their PR gurus to sell rationing.
I am very unhappy that I must write to a private company about climate change rather than the All Party Group directly. The APPCCG partnership with CarbonNeutral is deeply dubious and shows a level of denial on climate change that is extremely worrying. It is just as well that Future Forests changed their name as the report published in ‘Science’ showed that tree planting had a drastic effect on stream flow, changing soil chemistry. Tree sequestration also has unreliable rates of carbon absorption. Large-scale forest plantations also impact negatively on biodiversity. Furthermore, as usual when the West impinges on the rest of the world, it affects people. Plantation forestry has an adverse affect on the lives of local people all over the majority world.
Carbon offsetting is flawed and deceitful. If we all wanted to ease our consciences the UK, we would need two UK’s to do so. That wouldn’t leave much room for us to live or put all those extra runways! How long does it take for a tree to offset the emissions? If it is the life of the tree then the offset will not work. Then what happens? It dies and releases carbon. Which means that, you haven’t magically vanished the emissions. Remember, the International Task Force said we had ten years to take action before the horrendous possibility of runaway global warming. Similarly low energy life bulbs will only be ‘offsetting’ the immediate global warming emissions over their entire life span. Again this is years.
It appeases the consciences of the West who have contributed 80% of the historical gge. In an almost imperialistic way it perpetuates the idea that the developed countries are doing the undeveloped ones a favour. It is another form of ‘feel good charity’. When in fact it is our flying and overdeveloped lives that have condemned them to death in an unfortunately large number of cases. The WHO state that up to 160,000 people already die each year from climate change. The vast majority of victims are in the innocent majority world.
Sequestration allows people to carry on their dirty business as usual without cutting back the actions that actually cause the emissions. In fact they could even increase them and just purchase some more trees or light bulbs. It’s little more than shopping. The hidden parts of the website talk about ‘reducing where possible’ and yet I could have offset a flight to Sydney without any mention of reduction. The only possible way to reduce the flight is not to take it. This seems to be a contradiction and at odds with your protocol.
Finally the idea that a person can abstain themselves from actual reduction by buying apparent absolution by becoming climate neutral is wicked folly. But not as preposterous as making, say the London Olympics, carbon neutral unless it’s a virtual one where nothing is built and no one travels to it.
Burying our heads in the sand as well as our carbon is entrenched in establishment thinking. This does not reduce emissions. Within Kyoko it allows the rich to carry on polluting at the expense of the poor. It allows Ministers to appear to be doing something about their frequent flying. Even the ‘I will if you will’ report by the SDC recommends: “Automatically give travellers the option to carbon offset their flights, to demonstrate the environmental impact of flying”. This does nothing of the sort. This does not reduce flying. This is simply not acceptable. It is alarming that a report from the Sustainable Consumption Roundtable that talks about radical action and titles its report ‘Towards Sustainable Consumption’ should recommend offsetting when flying is not sustainable in a globally warmed world without oil. The report is very weak indeed and is yet another depressing example of how radical action, far from being taken, isn’t even on the agenda. Politicians are scared to even talk about what that means. They are scared because they have lied to the electorate about economic growth and they are scared of losing votes. It is now time to tell the truth about climate change. Time is fast running out to do so.
Finally in asking for comments, the group states that the findings of the inquiry should have weight, rigour and integrity. Let us hope so. It is your responsibility to see that they do and to hold the government accountable for implementing meaningful action. Weight, rigour and integrity are not three words that come immediately to mind when discussing the governments’ record on climate change. They have betrayed the people of this country and more so the citizens of the undeveloped world."

The first report of the inquiry is now available to view at:

http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/Consensus_Report.pdf

This includes a quote from Ian Lander and 2 rather banal ones from James Levy, but the challen-ging issues raised in posts above hardly feature.

The report does admit: "at the time of finalising this report in June 2006 the Liberal Democrat Leader Sir Menzies Campbell MP had just announced that his party was suspending its participation in the Cross-Party Approach. He stated that this was because of failure to reach agreement with the Conservatives on the development of specific policies."

Right on Ming! No flawed compromises - or as you might say, no mercy!