Category: Climate change

The soundbite “think globally, act locally” is attributed to the Scottish town planner Patrick Geddes, whose 1915 book entitled Cities in Evolution was built on the idea of working with the ‘whole environment’ in town planning.  But the phrase appears to have been used in the context of actual environmental matters only within the last 50 years.  Its relative modernity is symptomatic of the fact that, when it comes to climate breakdown, global thinking is at an early stage. Instead, we have national thinking: nations compete to demonstrate that they themselves are not to blame and others (usually China) are the main source of the problem.

This tendency goes beyond politics and infects scholarly analysis.  A case in point is the recent report by the UK Committee on Climate Change (CCC), entitled “Net Zero: The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming”, published in May 2019.  The report considers practical ways of reducing carbon emissions right across the economy, so that the UK’s contribution to global warming is ‘net zero’ by 2050.  These practical steps, which are recommended for the UK government and citizens to follow, are true to the spirit of “act locally”, but the mindset of the supporting analysis is national rather than global.

To be fair, the report is very good in many ways.  It is a comprehensive assessment of how greenhouse gases are produced in Britain.  It outlines actions that could be taken by individuals, corporations and government to reduce these emissions; and estimates numerically both their efficacy and cost.   The tone is matter-of-fact and non-judgemental; the authors make practical proposals without claiming to have all the answers. The report is not afraid to include lifestyle suggestions that are unpopular (e.g. “minimise flying”, “eat a healthy diet, for example with less beef, lamb and dairy”). And it takes a long-term perspective that reaches beyond short-term political claim and counter-claim.

And yet – there is still a sense that the CCC is not being entirely honest with itself or with us.  Despite its Chairman’s claim that the report is the “most thorough assessment my Committee could compile”, there are a few questionable assumptions which a yet more thorough assessment might have addressed.  If it thought globally.

Carbon leakage – past and forgotten

The most important of these assumptions is the starting point: the report comments that our GHG emissions in 2017 were 503 MtCO2e.  That figure relates to greenhouse gases produced in the United Kingdom.  It is the most important figure in the report, because all of the actions that are proposed are measured against it; ‘net zero by 2050’ means, in this report, that in the year 2050 we will have implemented changes so that our net emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will be 503 MtCO2e less than they were in 2017.

Why is that a problem?  It is a problem because the figure of 503 MtCO2e does not take account of any GHG emissions related to stuff that we imported into the UK in 2017.  Food produced in the EU or South America, cars produced in Germany or Japan, jeans from the US, computers assembled in China, the transport of these items to the UK … all of this involved the emissions of GHG.  If these emissions were attributed to the UK, the total figure is likely to have been at least 800 MtCO2e in 2017.  BEIS and the CCC themselves estimate the figure was 847 MtCO2e in 2015, the most recent year for which they provide data on a ‘consumption basis’ on their own website.  Therefore, ‘net zero by 2050’ actually means that if we achieve it we’ll still be responsible, on a consumption basis, for at least 300 MtCO2e per annum.  A considerable reduction, yes, but not exactly ‘net zero’.

Somewhat ironically, the authors comment in Chapter 4: Industry that it’s crucial the policy framework does not drive British industry overseas, which would not help global emissions and be damaging to the British economy.  Such ‘carbon leakage’ is to be avoided in future.  Very good – but what about all the carbon leakage that has already happened, to the extent that the British economy is now largely a services economy with relatively little dependency on industrial output?  Why should that be ignored completely? 

Here’s an analogy.  You are invited to a party with lots of guests.  After a while, after most of the guests have left, the host makes an announcement: “Hi everyone.  I’ve thought of a good game to encourage you all to stay!”

Perhaps it is easier to inspire action if one is economical with the truth about reaching the target – a bit like the leader of a mountain climb saying “I can see the top” when the summit is still out of sight.  Maybe, although such a strategy belongs to a political campaign rather than to a scientific technical report.

Non-CO2 effects in aviation – future and excluded

Another issue with the CCC report is treatment of aviation.  The report claims that aviation now accounts for 7% of the UK’s carbon footprint.  This ignores ‘non-CO2 effects’, which are ways in which aviation contributes to global warming apart from the CO2 emissions emitted by the aircraft.  The CCC admits that the prevailing consensus is that non-CO2 effects account for around half of the total global warming past and present that can be attributed to flying.  On that basis, perhaps a figure closer to 14% would be more representative of aviation’s contribution.

This is a complex and poorly understood area.  But the approach of the Paris Agreement, accepted internationally and adopted in the CCC report, is simply to omit non-CO2 effects from aviation statistics.  It would be more honest to use a central estimate of their impact, even if that estimate is highly uncertain. (The Paris Agreement, incidentally, does not include any target for reducing aviation emissions.)

The CCC comments that the non-CO2 effects are variable by location, whereas CO2 effects are uniform in the atmosphere.  Again, that is a poor reason to exclude them from consideration in the statistics.  In so doing, the CCC and the broader international community are underplaying the impact that aviation appears to be having with respect to climate breakdown.

The CCC has an opportunity to break with convention and to report GHG emissions on a consumption basis by preference.  They could also challenge the myopic convention whereby up to half of aviation’s impact goes unrecorded.  Were they to take either or both of these opportunities, they really would be showing evidence of thinking globally.

“Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages”, Samuel Johnson 1758

In recent days, Extinction Rebellion has been demonstrating in London, calling for urgent action to avoid climate disaster.  Most of the media coverage has been unsympathetic, arguing that Extinction Rebellion has been putting a strain on police resources and inconveniencing millions of people who are trying to earn a living.  A much-repeated statistic has been from the department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS): since 1990, Britain’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have fallen by 44%.  In other words: Britain is making good progress without your interference, Extinction Rebellion, so stop your self-indulgent protest and go back to work.

Certainly a reduction of emissions by nearly half since the commonly used benchmark year of 1990 would be good progress.  But is it true?  Well, it depends how you measure it, and this measure leaves a lot to be desired.

Import dependency

The UK imports most of the goods that we buy.  We even import nearly half of the food that we eat.  And imports have grown since 1990, as we have closed much of our remaining manufacturing industry.  This is an important point, because the standard way of measuring our GHG emissions is to consider what we produce rather than what we consume.  So if we import beef from Argentina, cotton jeans from the United States, or computer hardware assembled in China, the impact on our emissions, as normally measured, is precisely zero. 

The standard reporting is irresponsible, quite literally, even if we abjure the pejorative overtones: we are assuming no responsibility in our measurements for the environmental impact of the stuff that we import.

Though you have to look a bit deeper to find it, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) does also report our greenhouse emissions on a consumption basis.  Or rather, they almost do: even the consumption statistics ignore international aviation, which is inserted as a row with no data in their published spreadsheets.  Subject to that significant omission, the CCC publishes consumption-based statistics as far back as 1997.  What do these figures show?  They show that Britain’s GHG emissions were 878 MtCO2e in 1997 and 847 MtCO2e in 2015, the last year of published data available.  That is a reduction of under 4%, which is a lot less impressive than 44%. 

But, as I say, you need to dig a little to find the data.  CCC have a different way of presenting the trend in consumption-based emissions.  In their FAQ section, see https://www.theccc.org.uk/faqs/, they state: “the UK carbon footprint was 19% lower in 2015 than in 2007”.  Er, why 2007?  Because 2007 shows the highest level of reported consumption-based emissions in the historical record.  If CCC picked any other year against which to measure progress, the reduction would be less impressive.  Since 1997, 4% reduction.  Since 2000, 7% reduction.  Since 2010, 5% reduction … The CCC is meant to be an independent body advising the government on climate change.  Picking statistics that show progress in the best light possible is hardly consistent with proclaimed independence, quite apart from being bad science.

The truth would appear to be that – ignoring international aviation but otherwise putting our trust in government statistics – we have reduced our national GHG emissions by 4% over the timespan of data published by government, i.e. 1997-2015.  International aviation now adds an additional 5-10% to our total – the exact figure depends how you measure it – and its growth since 1997 means that the overall reduction has been minimal at best.

Setting in context

But does that matter?  Aren’t British emissions swamped by those polluting 1.3 billion Chinese?  Again, it depends how you look at it.  On a consumption basis, we are now responsible for 13 tCO2e per capita, using the government’s aviation-ignoring statistics.  China?  I am not sure the data exists on a consumption basis, but on a production basis the Chinese emit 7-9 tCO2e per capita depending on your source.  Given that China is a major net exporter, that means the average Chinese person is responsible for less than that, say around 5-6 tCO2e, or about half the average Brit.

And how much is sustainable?  On a global basis, it’s been estimated humanity needs to get down to 2-3 tCO2e per person to avoid climate catastrophe.  So we have a long way to go, and the evidence – once you strip away the unfortunate political spin that BEIS and the CCC put on their data – is that progress to date has been limited.

Some of the media coverage of the Extinction Rebellion’s demonstrations feels a little bit unfair.  After all, what is more important: having our daily commute disrupted for a day or two, or increasing awareness of the need for immediate action to save future generations?  We laud David Attenborough (no less self-publicising) for saying the same thing.  

We are not at war, yet, over climate breakdown, but the debate is becoming more confrontational.  As the government in its defensiveness publishes highly misleading statistics, and supposedly independent bodies like the Committee on Climate Change become politicised, there is a risk that truth will be amongst the first victims of impending fire.