Category: Climate change

In decades to come, when people look back on the performance of our current government, I doubt that parties during lockdown will be the first thing that comes to mind. It is much more likely to be a lack of action on the climate crisis.

In its most recent (2021) progress report, the UK Committee on Climate Change observed that only 5 out of 34 key sectors had made notable progress on action to combat climate change in the last two years. The government’s Net Zero strategy is welcome, but proof will be in the delivery; and the hard evidence is not encouraging.

A sense of how committed the government really is can be obtained by looking at expenditure. For example, in August the WWF released a study showing that green policies make up 0.01% of GDP. Soon afterwards, the National Audit Office revealed that the overall expenditure on the Green Homes Grant would be around £0.3 billion. Compare that with, say, the circa £10 billion that the Financial Times today estimates has been wasted by the government on faulty PPE equipment. Or the >£100 billion for the environmentally damaging HS2 rail project.

Numerous such comparisons are possible; and while any single comparison is inconclusive and exact figures are debatable, the general picture is clear enough. As a nation, we have not – yet – shown a willingness to spend anywhere near enough money on perhaps the greatest issue of our lifetime.

Energy prices

Alongside parties in Downing Street, the major focus of the media is today on energy prices; and across the political spectrum there are calls to curb their rise. And yet the issue with energy prices is not that they are too high, but rather that they are too low. For decades, the overall trend of energy prices, like food, has been downwards in inflation-adjusted terms, to the point where few people bother to turn lights or computers off, or the heating off when they leave the house, or notice whether they have or have not.

Though it seems politically impossible to say so, most of us should pay more for our energy, including transport fuel, with support provided to those who genuinely cannot afford it.

The climate scientist David Mackay liked to say that we always need to ask ourselves: “where is the energy coming from?” Until we reach some golden age when technology has mastered global nuclear fusion, or diplomacy has mastered international cooperation to cover deserts with solar panels and share the output through international power grids – until then, if ever, Mackay’s question should be part of any energy-intensive decision taken nationally or individually. It is not that individuals can seriously be expected to know the answer in detail; but rather that asking the question shows an awareness that energy (and its impact) cannot be taken for granted.

When we get into the routine of asking the question, energy might arguably be priced at the right level.

Nadia Whittome’s private bill

Just as government does not treat the climate crisis seriously, nor does our education system. As a school governor, I find it almost incredible that teaching on sustainability is outside the “core” curriculum and confined to “extracurricular” activities. What is more “core” than the future of life on Earth?

So it’s good to see at least a private members’ bill – the Climate Education Bill – now at its second reading in parliament. The bill is pushing what should not need pushing, namely that sustainability teaching should be included in all subjects and years in the national curriculum. Let’s hope it passes and has at least some effect.

The vision we need

As a society we are in real trouble over climate breakdown. The problem is not a lack of vision as to what needs to be done. There are plenty of sensible policy documents and we have an excellent advisory body in the form of the Committee on Climate Change. The problem rather is a lack of delivery.

And this failure of delivery exposes a genuine lack of vision – which is about what it means to live a happy and fulfilled life. As long as happiness here and abroad is equated with size of house, a new car, new clothes and stuff generally, long-distance travel, external stimuli and never being still, we are in trouble. As long as a sense of security is associated with high earnings and a high animal protein diet, we are in trouble. Above all, our culture and our education system need to address our fundamental notions of happiness and security, for the future of life on Earth.

With a week to go before COP26, blame is on the rise. It’s China’s fault, it’s the West’s fault, it’s Australia’s fault, it’s the fault of oil companies, it’s the fault of long-distance travellers, or meat eaters, or people with large families. If there is one thing that we are generally very good at, it’s finding reasons why it’s someone else’s fault.

Oil company responsibility

Ten days ago, Shell’s CEO Ben van Beurden was on a 3-person panel at a TED climate conference in Edinburgh alongside hedge fund founder Chris James and a climate activist named Lauren Macdonald. At least briefly. After denouncing him as one of the most evil people in the world, Lauren left the stage, giving the moderator Christiana Figueres quite the on-the-spot challenge. (Which she dealt with superbly.)

According to Shell, the company can reduce its operational emissions but not the (ten times larger) emissions associated with using the oil itself, because it cannot control its customers. Well, it might not be able to control its customers’ behaviour, but it can certainly limit its output. It just chooses not to. The company also argues that its traditional business is needed to support its developing green business, which is a bit like saying I need to rob a bank in order to support a charity.

We are brainwashed into thinking that economic forces are as irresistible as natural forces. Consumers have to be supplied with whatever and how much they choose, and if there is a shortage – as has been seen recently with the global bottleneck on the supply of natural gas, and will occur more in the future if oil companies behave responsibly and limit their production – then prices inevitably rise. Actually, companies can choose to cap the price they sell at as well as the amount and nature of the products they sell.

Shell, like other companies in all markets, wants to make money and not lose market share to its competitors. But these ‘forces’ reflect human desires, that can be overcome if we have the will, not ineluctable ‘laws’ as they are often presented.

So come on, Shell, take more responsibility and commit to reducing your output of oil and gas.

Consumer responsibility

But what about the individual consumer? Recently, the BBC reported an interview with Prince Charles in which, according to the report, he agreed that it is very difficult for most individuals to reduce their carbon footprint. No it isn’t. It’s very easy for most individuals to reduce their carbon footprint. Granted we might not be able to run our car on cheese and wine like the Prince, or afford a ground source heat pump – but there is no reason at all why we need to eat meat most days (the Prince has cut down to 5 days a week but how about 1 day a week?); or take holidays that involve flying; most car owners can drive less if they set their minds to it; and nearly everyone – small children excepted – buys stuff they do not need. Maybe in the run-up to Christmas we could think about that as a society.

So come on, most of us, let’s take more responsibility and commit to reducing our carbon footprint.

Government responsibility

It would help, of course, if the Royal family and UK government could lead by example. The Prince’s love of trees would be more convincing if the Duchy land had more than 6% tree coverage by area. The government would have more gravitas if its members were less hypocritical and more prepared to do anything even remotely politically difficult when it comes to climate change.

It is much easier for our leaders to blame others than take meaningful action. So of course it is China’s fault for burning all that coal – ignoring our own heritage, our reliance on China for our way of life, or the fact that it’s simpler for us to give up something we no longer use than for the billions of people around the world who are still dependent upon it …

Yet I am in danger of plunging down the rabbit hole I am trying to avoid. Better to be positive, non-judgemental and enthusiastically active than to sink into some sort of misanthropic malaise. Casting blame and making comparisons are of little value now. The only way in which COP26 can succeed is if everyone, be they a green activist or an oil executive, an American or a Chinese or African, a government minister or an ordinary citizen, is willing to take responsibility and do what they can to confront climate change. And positively support others who are trying to do the same.