1000 words on climate change

The Western Daily Press have kindly agreed to published a 1000 words on climate change from me in their Comment section towards the end of next week. It is very positive that papers are starting to cover these issues more - but a challenge often to meet deadlines. These 1000 words were pulled together hastily building on an article written a few weeks ago.

Photo: Antarctica ice melt 2006

How can we keep this issue alive and fresh in the press? Already I have seen 2 letters in The Citizen complaining that too many letters on climate change is a bore - yet to my mind they don't publish anything like enough - it should be news everyday!

Anyhow I've sent this morning a letter responding to the Comment in The Citizen yesterday - see letter here. It is vital these misconceptions around nuclear are challenged - it is not an answer to climate change.

Climate change: doing the impossible

Tackling climate change can seem impossible. Yet history is full of examples of things happening that previously seemed impossible. The sudden collapse of the Soviet Union, the ending of apartheid in South Africa or more recently, England winning a cricket match in Australia.

The latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report confirms again that the disastrous effects of climate change are already happening and will accelerate significantly without major policy changes. Michael Meacher, former Environment Minister, writes: "What we, and the government, need to get our minds around is that we are at war: at war against climate catastrophe, presenting us a far greater threat towards our survival than 1939."

So why aren't we tackling our addiction to fossil fuels?

In the case of addictions, we have to first recognise the problem. Denial is not an option. Scary reports and warnings do little to help: indeed can paralyse many of us with fear. We need more real communication.

We recognise the need for urgent action on climate change, but we still haven't created a positive debate to ensure everyone understands why change is needed. The online petition against road-pricing with 1.5 million signatures is a perfect example of this.

We have the worst traffic jams in Europe and our emissions from transport are rising. Since 1997, the real cost of motoring in the UK has gone down while public transport costs have gone up. We urgently need both better public transport, and tax measures to reduce demand and ensure we use less polluting vehicles. These could include fuel tax, road user charging, graduated vehicle excise duty, but the measures we choose need to be the subject of genuine public debate.

A sophisticated programme of road pricing could be accepted, if people know that the money raised is sorting out public transport and that it doesn't penalise the worst off. Indeed I challenge those objecting to such measures to come up with alternatives that will work.

Signs of hope

The report by Sir Nicholas Stern has been hailed as a turning point: he translated climate change into the language of economics which sadly too often seems the only language that governments and business can understand.

President Bush now recognises climate change, while over 400 US Mayors representing 60m US citizens are taking action. Even China has made dramatic shifts with new legislation not least because of the impact floods and drought will have on food supplies.

Al Gore's excellent film 'An Inconvenient Truth' has raised awareness enormously. More of us are taking action, businesses are changing and local Councils, like Stroud, are developing strategies. Opposition in this country is also growing to criminal plans like new coal power plants and aviation growth: over 3,500 objections to Bristol airport expansion alone.

The word 'criminal' is not used lightly: the average Somali is about 100 times more likely to die from events caused by climate change than the average American, despite emitting roughly 16,000 times less carbon. We must cut emissions not create more.

The Government already recognises the need to cut CO2 emissions by at least 60% by 2050. Most scientists now believe this is inadequate. If aviation is excluded from such cuts it will mean that everyone including other businesses will have to cut emissions even harder.

Similarly people have objected to the draft South West Regional Spatial Strategy; the most important regional planning documents for the next 20 years. Incredibly this strategy’s own Sustainability Assessment notes it will increase climate-changing CO2 emissions in the region! What are those politicians thinking when they develop such plans or want to expand airports?

Dangerous beliefs

Too many of us still hold dangerous beliefs that we can take ‘hard’ decisions without impinging on our rights as consumers, that some unspecified swift action will sort the problem or some Branson-inspired technology will transform us into an environmentally-friendly society. These assumptions distort reality.

However perhaps most dangerous of all is that we can tackle climate change whilst continuing economic growth. Do people really believe the climate and the natural environment can be protected in a world where the population is forecast to grow from its current 6.5 billion to over 8 billion, and in which everyone is entitled to the lifestyle of the most extravagent consumers?

Continual growth for an expanding population means greater exploitation of natural resources, greater pollution and catastrophic climate change. We need to start talking about quality of life, not quantity of consumption. Living sustainably doesn’t mean living miserably.


The challenge ahead

We know what needs to be done. The challenge is for us all to build sufficient political to make it happen. For starters no more tinkering, lets stop the £12 billion road building programme, end aviations annual £9 billion tax break, end subsidies to the oil industry, and build peace and save £78 billion by not replacing Trident. Then with all those savings make vast investment in home energy conservation, renewables and public transport.

Let us also introduce individual tradeable carbon quotas with smartcard technology that could ensure everyone gets the same ration of carbon. Light users could actually benefit by selling to others with the poor on average benefiting. While internationally Britain should assist sustainable development in poorer countries and push for the "Contraction and Convergence" model which would achieve the necessary reductions in emissions in a globally equitable manner.

We can all play our part in our own lives but without changes in government policy we are not going to win. Politicians rarely act unless they have public support. We must make them act: write letters, campaign, vote and consider joining the march on 24th February in London against Trident.

The changes ahead mean that nothing short of a new human era is in the making. The choices we make now will determine whether the birthing is successful.

Philip Booth is a Stroud District councillor and Coordinator of the 5-strong Green party District councillor group in Stroud. His ‘renowned blog’ can be found at:
http://ruscombegreen.blogspot.com