Does anyone really want to stop climate change?
by George Monbiot
Published in the Guardian (September 21 2006)
You have to pinch yourself. Until now, the Sun has denounced
environmentalists
as "loonies" and "eco beards". Last week it published "photographic proof
that
climate change is real". {1}. In a page that could have come straight from a
Greenpeace pamphlet, it laid down ten "rules" for its readers to follow -
"Use public transport when possible; use energy-saving lightbulbs; turn off
electric gadgets at the wall; do not use a tumble dryer ..." {2}.
Two weeks ago, the Economist also recanted. In the past it has asserted that
"Mr Bush was right to reject the prohibitively expensive Kyoto pact" {3}.
It co-published the Copenhagen Consensus papers, which put climate change at
the bottom of the list of global priorities {4}. Now, in a special issue
devoted
to scaring the living daylights out of its readers, it maintains that "the
slice
of global output that would have to be spent to control emissions is
probably ...
below 1%". {5} It calls for carbon taxes and an ambitious programme of
government spending.
Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as
unacceptable
as Holocaust denial. But I'm not celebrating yet. The danger is not that we
will
stop talking about climate change, or recognising that it presents an
existential threat to humankind. The danger is that we will talk ourselves
to
Kingdom Come.
If the biosphere is wrecked, it will not be done by those who couldn't give
a damn about it, as they now belong to a diminishing minority. It will be
destroyed by nice, well-meaning, cosmopolitan people who accept the case for
cutting emissions, but who won't change by one iota the way they live. I
know
people who profess to care deeply about global warming, but who would sooner
drink Toilet Duck than get rid of their agas, patio heaters and plasma TVs,
all of which are staggeringly wasteful. A recent brochure published by the
Co-operative Bank boasts that its "solar tower" in Manchester "will generate
enough electricity every year to make nine million cups of tea". On the
previous
page, it urges its customers "to live the dream and purchase that perfect
holiday home ... With low cost flights now available, jetting off to your
home
in the sun at the drop of a hat is far more achievable than you think". {6}
While environmentalism has always been characterised as a middle-class
concern,
and while this has often been unfair, there is now an undeniable nexus of
class
politics and morally-superior consumerism. People allow themselves to
believe
that their impact on the planet is lower than that of the great unwashed
because
they shop at Waitrose rather than Asda, buy tomme de savoie instead of
processed
cheese slices and take eco-safaris in the Serengeti instead of package
holidays
in Torremolinos. In reality, carbon emissions are closely correlated to
income:
the richer you are, the more likely you are to be wrecking the planet,
however
much stripped wood and hand-thrown crockery there is in your kitchen.
It doesn't help that politicians, businesses and even climate change
campaigners
seek to shield us from the brutal truth of just how much has to change. Last
week Friends of the Earth published the report it had commissioned from the
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, which laid out the case for a
ninety
per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 {7}. This caused astonishment
in
the media. But other calculations, using the same sources, show that even
this
ambitious target is two decades too late {8}. It becomes rather complicated,
but please bear with me, for our future rests on these numbers.
The Tyndall Centre says that to prevent the earth from warming by more than
two degrees above pre-industrial levels, carbon dioxide concentrations in
the
atmosphere must be stabilised at 450 parts per million or less (they
currently
stand at 380). But this, as its sources show, is plainly insufficient {9}.
The reason is that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not the only greenhouse gas.
The others - such as methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons - boost
its
impacts by around fifteen per cent. When you add the concentrations of CO2
and
the other greenhouse gases together, you get a figure known as "CO2
equivalent".
But the Tyndall centre uses "CO2" and "CO2 equivalent" interchangeably,
which
leads to an embarrassing scientific mishmash.
"Concentrations of 450 parts per million CO2 equivalent or lower", it says,
provide a "reasonable -to -high probability of not exceeding two degrees
Celsius"
{10}. This is true, but the report is not calling for a limit of 450 parts
of
"CO2 equivalent". It is calling for a limit of 450 parts of CO2, which means
at
least 500 parts of CO2 equivalent. At this level, there is a low-to-very-low
probability of keeping the temperature rise to below two degrees {11,12}.
So why on earth has this reputable scientific institution muddled the
figures?
You can find the answer on page 16 of the report. "As with all
client-consultant
relationships, boundary conditions were established within which to conduct
the
analysis ... Friends of the Earth, in conjunction with a consortium of NGOs
and
with increasing cross-party support from MPs, have been lobbying hard for
the
introduction of a 'climate change bill' ... [The bill] is founded
essentially
on a correlation of two degrees Celsius with 450 parts per million of CO2".
In other words, Friends of the Earth had already set the target before it
asked
its researchers to find out what the target should be. I suspect that it
chose
the wrong number because it believed a ninety per cent cut by 2030 would not
be
politically acceptable.
This echoes the refusal of Sir David King, the chief scientist, to call for
a target of less than 550 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, on the
grounds that it would be "politically unrealistic" {13}. The message seems
to
be that the science can go to hell - we will tell people what we think they
can
bear.
So we all deceive ourselves and deceive each other about the change that
needs
to take place. The middle classes think they have gone green because they
buy
organic cotton pyjamas and handmade soaps with bits of leaf in them - though
they still heat their conservatories and retain their holiday homes in
Croatia.
The people who should be confronting them with hard truths balk at the scale
of
the challenge. And the politicians won't jump until the rest of us do.
On Sunday the Liberal Democrats announced that they are making climate
change
their top political priority, and on Tuesday they voted to shift taxation
from
people to pollution. At first sight it looks bold, but then you discover
that
they have scarcely touched the problem. While total tax receipts in the
United
Kingdom amount to GBP 350 billion a year {14}, they intend to shift just GBP
eight billion - or 2.3%.
So the question which now confronts everyone - politicians, campaign groups,
scientists, readers of the Guardian as well as the Economist and the Sun -
is
this: how much reality can you take? Do you really want to stop climate
chaos,
or do you just want to feel better about yourself?
_____
George Monbiot's book Heat: how to stop the planet burning is now published
by
Penguin. He has also launched a new website exposing fake corporate
initiatives
on climate change: www.turnuptheheat.org
References:
1. Martin Phillips, 14th September 2006. The erode to hell. The Sun.
2. Harry MacAdam, 13th September 2006. Seven days with the greens. The Sun.
3. No author, 16th February 2002. Blowing smoke - George Bush's
global-warming
plan. The Economist.
4. No author, 1st May 2004. Degrees of difference - The economics of climate
change. The Economist.
5. No author, 9th September 2006. The Heat Is On. The Economist.
6. The Cooperative Bank, July 2006. Living the Dream. Brochure sent to
customers.
7. Alice Bows et al, July 2006. Living within a carbon budget. Report for
Friends of the Earth and The Co-operative Bank. Published September 2006.
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/living_carbon_budget.pdf
8. These are explained in George Monbiot, 2006. Heat: how to stop the planet
burning. Penguin, London.
9. Malte Meinshausen, 2006. What does a 2C target mean for greenhouse
gasconcentrations? Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change - Chapter 28.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/internat/pdf/avoid-dangerc
c.pdf
10. Alice Bows et al, ibid, p14.
11. Bill Hare and Malte Meinshausen, 2004. How Much Warming Are We Committed
To
And How Much Can Be Avoided? PIK report 93, Figure 7, page 24. Potsdam
Institute
for Climate Impact Research.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/publications/pik_reports/reports/pr.93/pr93.pdf
12. Paul Baer and Tom Athanasiou, 2005. Honesty About Dangerous Climate
Change.
http://www.ecoequity.org/ceo/ceo_8_2.htm
13. David King, 21st September 2005. Speech to the Decarbonising the UK
conference, Church House, Westminster.
14. Office of National Statistics, pers comm - figure for FY 2005/6.
Copyright (c) 2006 Monbiot.com
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
