Campaign against Climate Change

Ian, please don't despair of Monbiot and Lynas. They were discussing, in different respects, potential practical routes to averting or reducing catastrophe. I thought Lynn Vincentnathan's comment on the Lynas blog was very salutory.

Perhaps you will join me in writing to Stop Climate Chaos or its trustees to make your respective concerns known, or come to the upcoming AGCC conference (event, 18 May)

Ian, don't worry about Monbiot or Lynas. People have to accept that the problem of climate change is causing the environmental movement to contemplate moving in all sorts of directions - it's that serious, we need to find allies on all sides. The Tories are not necessarily so shallow as some fear; at the very least, Cameron is ratchetting the environment up the political agenda. Monbiot is quite right to consider some fossil fuels within Britain's future energy portfolio; just as I would contend environmentalists are within their rights to at least *consider* nuclear as an option, if it's the lesser of two evils. Monbiot's book on climate is coming out later this year, I think - we'll get the full story then.

As for Stop Climate Chaos: I accept some of your qualms - but let's not get downhearted this early on. They were only founded last September! This is a looong fight. SCC envisage a 5-7 year campaign, according to a previous set of meeting notes published here on the forums. Such a timeframe seems eminently sensible at present; remember, 10,000 last year was a 'milestone' -- but hardly much of one compared to other demos in other social movements! Like you, though, I would be rather suspicious of a 'capped' demo, with a limited number of people involved. If this is really what's being planned, we ought to question it, and ultimately ignore it - just concentrate on getting as many along as possible. Thankfully, at least some of the SCC member organisations are already publicising the demo - I got a People & Planet email the other day saying to put November 4th in our diaries. (Woops, it was already there.;))

Also, this is a multi-faceted movement, very far from all being wrapt up within CCC, or even SCC. I'm looking forward to the Climate Camp this summer - where a couple of thousand activists will debate the dawning future of this grassroots movement. And it is, after all, a future only just unfolding. Before 2000, there were no pressure groups at all solely campaigning on climate. Now there's CCC, Rising Tide, SCC, COIN, Climate Concern, and countless others...

Phil Thornhill and I attended that meeting, and our contact with SCC continues; it is not the esiest of relationships perhaps, but it will not help to hang all its dirty washing out in public so i will say no more than that we as CaCC WILL be organising a march with our established aims and targets and we will be building it as big as possible, i.e. we will not be toning our activities down but it does seem generally agreed that to try and ignore this emerging campaigning behemoth, whatever its shortcomings, would be foolish. they are going to all over the tv and papers etc and we can't do anything about the fact that their message is going to be the mainstream image of climate campaigning in the near future, but we will still be there saying what we've always said, and their organisers know that. please don't worry that CaCC is selling out, whatever you think of SCC. to be honest i think its going to be question of are they happy having their logo appended to all the material we produce, because produce it we will... get my drift? Hope to see and talk with y'all may 20th and/or june 3rd. keep on in there! Cheers,
nick

I've found on Stop Climate Chaos' website a manifesto document (also reproduced here) which includes the following clause:

"The UK government must…Help developing countries get greater access to energy supplies in order to eliminate poverty and promote prosperity for all, including via fossil
fuels, where unavoidable in the medium term." (my emphasis)

Firstly, how old is this version of the manifesto? (the version in the Carbon Dating event notes doesn't have this detail).

Second, how responsible is this fossil fuels remark given that there is no world treaty in place to contain overall fossil fuel emissions in time to prevent 2C warming, or indeed ensure peaking by 2015?

Third, how have they concluded that encouraging fossil fuels to assist development can be a good thing, considering the chronicity of CO2 fallout (e.g. see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-glob...)?

Fourth, how can campaigners object to continued public funding for fossil fuel extraction projects or Gordon Brown calling for increased oil production, against the backdrop of this clause?

Fifth, how does this sit with Greenpeace's blockading of a new coal-fired power station in Thailand? Has Greenpeace as an SCC member dropped opposition to such projects?

The SCC manifesto also says "The [Kyoto] Protocol is the only realistic framework for meeting the 2015 target." (my emphasis again)

Is it a realistic framework when the Montreal Action Plan included a stipulation that further discussions involving the US, Australia and developing countries "will not open any negotiations leading to new commitments" from 2012. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4519702.stm and here). Note that the BBC analysis was despairing of the Montreal deal leading to world peaking even by 2020-2030, being the then orthodoxy.

This is one example of how the Kyoto Protocol means decisions are being persistently being drawn down to the lowest common denominator in the COP and MOP assemblies. This manifesto remark detracts from the need for vigorous independent diplomatic efforts to bring about movement in other countries.

Stop Climate Chaos has previously been criticised for calling for 3% annual cuts (we need to progress to considerably more i.e. 8-9% annually, if and while developing countries are increasing their emissions).

Also, there's no stipulation on counting aviation in the 3% cuts, so another free ride to king-of-tickboxes Gordon Brown. He is likely, as Elliot Morley has said, to announce a 3% carbon-cutting budget. But he can go on building runways, aviation emissions not being counted under the Kyoto protocol, and has no incentive here to increase air passenger duty, ahead of a comprehensive world treaty.

What do others think?

Jim,
Why are campaign groups so weak and contradictory in their demands? The comment about fossils fuels is astonishing. We haven't got a medium term, let alone the longer term switch they advocate away from fossils fuels. If their comment is supposed to show how pragmatic and realistic and grown up they are, as it shows they understand the realities of the developing world, they have missed the point. Their comment is a demand, a recommendation on funding of energy. It is inappropriate if not to say contradictory to their aims (or even immoral) to suggest that this should be anything other than renewables. (Otherwise it is like lobbying for fossil fuels) Unless, there is a direct link to our use of fossil fuels. There must be consistency. I think it would be quite reasonable to recognize that to alleviate poverty in the developing world, they should be allowed to pollute. However this would been that SCC would also have to recognize that we would have to greatly reduce our pollution accordingly. Of course this would be within a framework and of course this is called contraction and convergence. They vaguely allude to this in their sentence about prioritizing cuts.

They do not call for carbon rationing or challenge the accepted orthodoxy on economic growth. The manifesto does not call for the actual changes that are required and how these should be implemented.

They talk about a 30% cut by 2020, when Monbiot is calling for 90% by 2030. There comment about Kyoto is frankly pathetic and suggests that they are either extremely ill-informed or weak and are colluding with government instead of holding them accountable.

It is completely pointless and dangerously mis-leading to talk about 2C by 2015, when all of the measly demands have nothing to do with preventing this from happening. If we have to limit gge to 400ppm then the % targets they refer to must reflect this. They quite obviously do not. Does anyone know if this is Monbiots figure? (This is also a failure of the Big Ask, which is for a govt target of 550ppm). I’ve said it before SCC are failing and to coin a phrase are doing the movement more harm than good.

Thanks for the nod on their manifesto, I will be writing to SCC to compalin.

Ian, I've corrected your post to say, seeking 30% by 2020, as that is the EU goal.

I'm also wondering if Stop Climate Chaos will do more harm than good. With Make Poverty History, lots of people must have got the message that Gordon Brown was a friend of the poor, advancing the UK in fulfilling millenium aid goals (eventually) and getting a bit from the USA. Up to a point, but the public heard less about his pushing water privatisation, and about the greater betrayal of the developing world at the Hong Kong WTO round.

Gordon Brown will do the same with Stop Climate Chaos. In the run-up to 4 Nov, he will make a great play of his plans for a carbon budget (to be detailed further in his Dec pre-budget report). He will also use world junkets to call for carbon budgeting and energy efficiency measures. Although the UK carbon budget will be about achieving well below the past election pledge of 20% by 2010.

He will also justify building more runways by saying "these will accommodate the A380 with 20% less emissions per passenger". And so on.

My understanding is that the Big Ask calls for 3% less CO2 emissions in total - including aviation and shipping. If it became the law then Gordon Brown could not build new runways.

This depends what makes it through passage of the Bill. The Bill states "The “annual target figure” for 2010 shall be 126 MtC (20 per cent below 1990 level)" - see here.

That gives a 1990 level slightly below the 1990 Kyoto-standard UK CO2 emissions of 161.5 MtC, which exclude aviation and international shipping.

The government has announced it does not expect to achieve 20% cuts in the 161.5 MtC as it is. The Climate Change Programme "could reduce the UK's carbon dioxide emissions to 15 - 18 per cent below 1990 levels" (report, 10.4)

Read All About It ! George Monbiot is launching his new book on 19th October 2006 with COIN in Oxford :-
http://portal.campaigncc.org/?q=node/1164