I share this from the Guardian morning newsletter today:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has delivered its “final warning” on the climate emergency. The report took eight years, hundreds of scientists, runs thousands of pages long and has one clear message: act now or face irrevocable damage to the planet. There is still hope though, as the authors of the report stress that it is still possible to avoid the worst ravages of climate breakdown.
What can I say?
I have known of a coming ecological crisis since the 70s when I first read E J Mishan's 'The cost of economic growth', Schumacher's 'Small is beautiful' and much more. I have been environmentally aware for more than five decades now.
I have called for a Green New Deal. It is possible.
And the powers that be have ignored it all.
At 65 I will make it through this crisis. Billions won't.
Do we really not care?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The temptation to party like it’s the end of the world is very strong. I suspect the loss of faith has led to nihilism, so why not go out on a tide of excess?
That said, I hope you enjoy your birthday party.
Most people are aware, if not of catastrophe as the IPCC points out, but there may be a “problem”. However, from the evidence shown by our masters, whether political or corporate, no meaningful change in policy is going to occur in the next 5 – 10 critical years. True, there is plenty of lip service to “net zero” by such and such a date (2050!) resilience, carbon capture, recycling blah blah blah but no sign of the immediate massive reduction in CO2, methane etc that has to happen now. The 1992 Rio international agreement looked promising but nothing happened, Copenhagen 2009 the same, 2015 Paris promising but turned out to be a damp squib, Cop 26 Glasgow in 2021 a glimmer of hope, and Egypt 2022 a complete whitewash and disaster.
It is now clear that fossil fuel companies and governments in their thrall are never going to comply or allow us to take the crucial measures to survive. either for the human race or the natural world as a whole. Knowing all this, unless there is massive civil resistance on an unprecedented scale now, we are doomed – it is staring us in the face!
How dare I criticise such an august gathering as you and your admirable coauthors? But I do.
The title, Green New Deal, creates the impression that society can carry on in much the way it is. Reading the latest IPCC report confirms beyond doubt, that proposing relatively minor adjustments to existing practices was, and is, calamitously wrong. As the UN Secretary General has just said we need to do ‘Everything, everywhere and all at once’.
First, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was already too great in 2008.
Second, the report aims to reduce *the rate of increase* of carbon dioxide being added every year … Obviously, that would not reduce the concentration at all.
Third, time is against us. Solar panels, wind generator towers, nuclear power stations and electric cars … all require adding more greenhouse gases before hoping that there will eventually be a benefit.
You refer, Richard, to Small is Beautiful. After its publication, Schumacher presented a television programme in which he showed that so much energy was needed to mine and process uranium, so much steel and concrete required to build a nuclear power station that it would take years to recoup the investment of extra carbon emissions (and other resources). [At that time ‘carbon capture and storage’ might have been an imagining. It is still far from an effective programme.] Meanwhile, if nuclear was to play a significant part in solving our energy problems, work would be needed on the next power station and the next after that. He suggested that we would never catch up. At the end of it all there would be radioactive waste to be disposed of – and [still] nobody knows how to do it safely.
Cuts are needed to flying; private flying should be forbidden. Cuts must be made to the frequency, extent and speed of motoring. Housing space must be distributed fairly. TV programmes glorifying child abuse are anathema. Yet, ‘A place in the sun’ and other such encourage wealthy people to deny future generations a habitable living space. Samoans are being driven from their islands. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/19/samoa-pm-fiame-naomi-mataafa-urges-world-to-save-pacific-people-from-climate-crisis-obliteration)
*Public* transport should be extended of course. *Public* swimming pools provided while heating *private* pools must be forbidden (Sorry Rishi.)
While in the past there were palaces and great houses, most people managed with dwellings that had one room kept warm enough in winter or cool enough in summer. Building is energy intensive. Sea-level rise will generate homelessness and migration on an epic scale.
In 1942, the UK petrol ration for private motoring – including transport to and from work – was reduced to zero. Granted nearly everyone lived in the community where they worked and public transport by bus was prevalent, frequent and reliable. Now, though, working from home is often both possible and realistic.
From Pearl Harbour until the end of hostilities, the US national speed limit was 35 mph.
The Wright brothers made the first controlled, sustained flight of a powered, heavier-than-air craft in 1903. Humans can exist without flying!
In 1973, there was an OPEC (most of the oil exporting countries) crisis. I recall Ted Heath, PM at the time, announcing, ‘There will be a speed limit of 50 mph for all roads from midnight tonight’. Is it possible that today’s government could make a start like this?
Emissions must be cut deliberately and dramatically. Rationing, restrictions and incentives are essential.
If necessary, Britain should now act alone.
Have you read my book The Courageous State?
If you think I or the Green New Deal are about maintaining the status quo you are seriously mistaken
I think all of us in the GND would take exception to that
I can’t recall the detail of ‘The Courageous State’ but the title exemplifies exactly what is needed and I’ll certainly have another look at your book.
Of course not one of you is content with the status quo – and apologies as it seems I have given that impression.
My point is that a half-hearted pursuit of ‘renewables’ has supported the belief that if people put solar panels on their roofs then they are justified in operating multiple houses and cars and frequently flying for holidays abroad.
Such people will not have read any of your publications – which *I admire*. In fact, I hold you – and your co-authors – in very high regard (of course Caroline Lucas is the best known).
There is a climate and ecological emergency – that demands immediate *cuts* in consumption on a massive scale. I think our whole economy needs far more radical changes.
I my post some bits of that book on the blog
………………………………again.
The IPCC report is already out of the headlines – confirming the sceptism here that yet again action will be minimal, despite their clear statement that we have seven years.
I couldnt believe the report added the pink elephant ‘carbon capture and storage’ in their summary – which just gives the nod to the oil and gas and coal companies to carry on as usual , and who themselves claim to be developing CCS – ‘it can all be cleared up later’.
There was a news report today that this was due to late modifications to the report by Saudi Arabia and other governments.
It is like living in a nightmare. We are clearly not in an age of enlightment – the science on climate and on covid – has been misused, distorted, ignored, prostituted, even though politicians do know and understand what it is saying.
Carbon capture and storage is just a con trick
It has never worked at scale and I doubt it ever will
Hi Richard
I think this is worth sharing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz-toCCI-Dc
Professor Joanna Haigh and Jonathan Pie
It is
Back in the day we had only 100 months to avoid irreversible climate change:
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/07/21/a-green-new-deal/
According to the Green New Deal Group, humanity only has 100 months to prevent dangerous global warming.
I think you nailed it back then in ’08. I’m not sure why the change in tack today, because you had it right the first time.
I remember reading Small is Beautiful in the 70s when doing an environmental science course. My whole family is vegan or vegetarian because of that course.
What gives me hope is that the geography GCSE course that my granddaughter is taking at the moment includes much of that environmental science that I learned in the 70s.
I don’t think anybody is going to “make it through this crisis“, Richard. I’m 63. I used to hope that I would die before the crisis became extreme. No longer. If I live another 10 years, which is possible, current predictions suggest that I will go out at a point where it is very bad indeed. And I really don’t look forward to that
Climate change, crop failure, water shortages, species eradication, massive relocation of populations that are suffering the effects of climate change – these are all happening, now. The extreme temperatures that most of the world is currently experiencing are simply being ignored in the more northern countries. Literally, if there is food on the shelves now, petrol in the tanks, people feel a bit chilly and have to put a coat on or it’s a bit wet outside this morning, then it seems impossible for people in the UK to grasp the extent of the global problem.
The only way to bring home how serious this near term crisis is seems to be to start demanding that the government plans and explains its plans for what it is going to do. Not a long-term plan, but a five-year plan: the word “crisis“ seems to have lost the urgency that the word should convey. We need to know what is going to be achieved by 2028.
The complex infrastructure that we depend, not just food and water, but also public order, transport, and the computing resources that global systems currently depend on, is not going to be available when these poly crises take hold. We can – or could given sufficient interest- see this from what is happening currently in other countries. Simply talking about a problem and writing books hasn’t worked: we have to be vocal in demanding strategies and accountability to deal with the problem.
The real problem, in my view, is the fantastic and pernicious insistence on optimism and hope. Others with more understanding of the scientific issues have pointed out that hope without evidence and action is simply fantasy. We have to plan for what is, not hope that somehow it will all be ok.
“Do we really care”?
Saw this headline this morning: “North Carolina approves its first wind farm” – pathetic does not even get close.
Attended two conferences in Brussels yesterday: the sense of “business as usual plus a little bit” was pervasive.
Example: the IRU (International Road Transport Union) rep saying: “we need to de-carb (trucks) in a non-disruptive way”
there are 6 million heavy trucks in the EU – each one with a CO2 footprint equivalent to 32 households (i.e. 190 million households – there are roughly 250 million households in the EU). As the Transport & Environment person observed: all the tech is available to de-carb – now. But the industry is taking baby steps – after all – we can’t have disruption – can we?
Speaking of which: last Tuesday @ 0800hrs there were……450kms of traffic jams on Belgian motorways.
Leonard Cohen’s song “Everybody Know’s” seems to sum up the situation quite well.
We are not completely doomed – but doom avoidance will require large-scale pulling of heads from arses, which is not happening.
Agreed
Thanks
Apologies for posting twice – but this is relevant: politicos (and their penumbra of lobby groups) are well behind the curve when it comes to citizens concerns regarding the climate disaster and action – as this Clean Energy article shows (I recommend subscribing to the site – it is rather good):
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/polls-reveal-citizens-support-energiewende
and this one
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/most-germans-willing-make-significant-lifestyle-changes-environment-survey
The articles on the RHS are also interesting: “German cities debate giving in to climate activists’ demands to end protests”….won’t happen in the Uk of course, because (disruptive) protests are no longer allowed to happen. Goes to show though, in democratic societies (like Germany and France) protests can make a political difference. Obviously, the UK (like Russia) has taken a different path, & I note that Liebore has yet to indicate an intention to repeal the tory legislation banning demos.
You raise a good point about the malign influence lobbyists have. There was widespread disgust at the east with which the Greens caved in to FDP (basically a front for Big Business) demands that the 130kph speed limit (the single easiest anti-CO2 measure) not be introduced. This has been made worse by the latest refusal to abandon internal combustion engines for vehicular traffic.
The mood is definitely shifting against the automakers (everyone still feels embarrassed when you mention Dieselgate). The automakers are aware of this. The second paragraph of BMW’s current financial report notes sales of fully-electric vehicles were up 107% to 9% of total sales, and this morning’s paper headlined Hamburg’s intention to introduce 10,000 self-driving shuttle taxis, likely made by VW, starting in 2025. In parallel, Hamburg is making it much more expensive and inconvenient to own and use private cars.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/13/alaska-willow-project-approved-oil-gas-biden
What chance do we have if Biden has agreed to this?
Low
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/03/14/biden-administration-approves-alaskas-willow-oil-project-sparking-anger-from-environmental
It could still be blocked.
Successive governments have done nothing to address the crisis. We have seen Feed in Tariffs for Solar Panels reduced significantly, EV grants scrapped, EV chargers grants reduced, Solar Panels are too expensive for even those on a decent salary, Insulation for a solid brick home is too expensive, public transport is very expensive and at times unsafe (especially for women travelling on their own). I can’t really see a way out unless we get a government that takes drastic action, like free public travel for all, imagine how many cars would be off the roads then? Generous subsidies on Solar Panels for all, who care how much it costs, it’s worth it if it means we are saving the planet!
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/03/22/the-worlds-richest-country-made-public-transport-free-heres-what-happened-next
Surprised that there is only one country that has free public transport for all.