God Save The Green

GSTG’s latest post is a statement to the G8 leaders, who gather in Tokyo for their 34th summit next week. It has been written by Wen Bo, the China Program Director of Pacific Environment, and was recently given in speech form at the Asahi Shimbun Symposium 2008. The essay gives a unique Chinese perspective on global warming, perhaps something many in the West don’t get to see. And it is difficult to disagree with his stance. I hope you find it as interesting as I did…

GLOBAL warming and climate change have to be solved at an international level. No single country can solve the threat facing humanity and Planet Earth, and no single country can be a safe haven if these challenges are not properly addressed.

Climate change takes a heavy toll on China

It is safe to say that China’s greenhouse gas emissions will or have already surpassed those of the United States. While many are quick to attack China for this, it is important to recognize that the country’s contribution to climate change is being driven by her role as the World’s Factory. Consumers all over the world have contributed greatly to this increase in greenhouse gas emissions by condoning corporations that outsource their manufacturing to polluting factories in China and shirk their corporate social responsibilities to the communities in which they operate. Every time we buy an item made in China at a polluting factory, we are complicit in the pollution our consumption has created. Therefore each citizen should feel the responsibility to reduce their global carbon footprints rather than constrain their sense of responsibility to a narrow concept of national boundaries.

The impact of climate change on China’s natural ecosystem and social economic sectors will be enormously destructive. If sea levels rise by 1.5 metres by the end of the century, as the People’s Daily points out, 72 million people in China could be displaced from coastal areas and become environmental refugees.

In fact, extreme weather and rising temperatures have already had severe impacts on the country in the past 20 years. Warm winters have led to increased occurrences of infectious diseases. In northern China, severe drought and water shortages continue to pose a national ecological threat, while each summer, the increased rain and floods in southern China engulf the government’s agenda. A study by the Chinese government predicted by 2050 the average annual temperature in China will rise by as much as 3.3 C and extreme weather will be more frequent.

Give people a louder voice

Civil society, the media and scientific community deserve much of the credit for elevating climate change to prominence on social, political and economic agendas around the world. Facing such an immense global threat, each citizen should take personal responsibility in reducing their carbon footprint.

At international conferences, China argues on the basis of per capita emissions, as people in China produce a small fraction of the emissions produced by Americans and Japanese. It is understandable and legitimate to pursue development and elevate a large number of people out of poverty. But could development be achieved without a dramatic increase in carbon emissions? Or are more carbon emissions the only path to development?

There is also a huge gap between rich provinces and poor ones. That is to say large parts of China emit far below the average amount of greenhouse gases, meaning there are “big boys” and “big guns” within China who are equal to some of the worst offenders in western countries.

While citizens and environmental groups are fighting these big guns, such as large corporations and dirty factories, they are not only pushing for their own environmental rights, but also ultimately making these “larger emitters” more responsible to the Earth’s climate.

As the populations in China and other developing countries continue to increase in the coming 50 years, and the economy continues its rapid growth, an emissions cut target would mean a much deeper cut collectively in their emissions per capita. This would be painful as these governments would be caught between pressures from both developed countries, global climate security and from domestic industrial sectors. Therefore the current development model based on a fossil fuel economy is fundamentally flawed and problematic. People in these countries are entitled to a voice and the power to decide their economic, environmental and development future. And most of the time, citizens know better than their respective governments.

Finding alternative development models

While achieving economic growth is important, we also need to recognize the ecological capacity of an ecosystem and our planet.

If we know that we are living on a finite Earth and we choose to exceed the limit of resources and the environment, we are embarking on a collective suicide mission. We should explore a development model in which we do not collide with such a limit. Human society must find alternative sustainable development paths. G8 countries have a particular responsibility in leading the way and helping developing countries creatively explore such paths.

G8 countries should take a leading role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time they should help developing countries alleviate poverty, and support the development of environmental technology and sound environmental management skills. The United States in particular should take aggressive action in this regard.

North and South in partnership

Climate talks should not be another issue to divide the North and the South. The UN should continue to uphold the principles of equity, historical responsibility and common but differentiated responsibilities and strengthen this when it comes to operational reality.

Japan is probably the most energy efficient country. Japan should embrace its role and responsibility in leading the rest of Asia in finding alternative development paths. The country should be more open to removing barriers for introducing climate friendly technologies to developing countries and also enable more countries to have affordable access.

To G-8 Leaders

G8 Leaders should streamline their national and international policies towards climate change. G8 countries should take a lead in working together with other countries to address climate change, instead of delaying much-needed action to curb future environmental degradation in the name of national interests.

Posted: 30/06/08

We now know why Gordon Brown is prime minister. It’s because he possesses magical powers. Among the mighty showman’s repertoire of illusions is the ability to make things bigger and smaller at the same time. Unlike the time-worn Rabbit out of a Hat trick, this breathtaking example of the black arts would leave even Penn and Teller scratching their heads.

Brown the Marvellous’s incredible ‘growing shrinking trick’ involves a number of props, namely several million barrels of oil and a Japanese prime minister to act as assistant (I’m not going to call him beautiful because he likes hunting whales). Now, in compliance with Section 1 sub-clause C of the Magic Circle’s rulebook, God Save The Green is unable to reveal exactly how the illusion works. But don’t feel too down about that, because what you don’t know about technique will surely be eclipsed by effect. It rivals Copperfield’s disappearing Statue of Liberty.  

What Brown does is increase the number of barrels of oil produced, while at the same time reducing oil use. Missed it? You have to be quick. It all happens in the twitch of a lopsided grin. Here’s another demonstration. Brown increases the number of barrels of oil produced while at the same time reducing its use.

If you’ve understood the trick but still don’t believe it can be done, here it is in its three stages, as performed during a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda in London on Monday. The first part of the illusion is called the ‘pledge’. It’s where the magician shows off something ordinary to the audience, something to be expected. For the pledge, Brown and Fukuda ”agreed it would be important for G8 members to press oil-producing nations to do all they can to increase production and investment to increase future supply.” To anyone who’s seen Brown’s act before, this approach would be quite ordinary.

The next part is called the ‘turn’, and is exactly that. The performer turns from his audience to trigger the ‘extraordinary’ part of the illusion. Here, Brown ducked a journalist’s question about appeasing petrol-heads. OK, that bit is made up.

The final part of the trick is called the ‘prestige’. This is where the full effect of the illusion is revealed in all its mesmerizing glory. For this, Brown said the two leaders “had agreed on the need to move away from dependence on carbon fuels.”

There you have it. We’re going to increase oil production while moving away from carbon fuels. I knew you’d like it. Not a lot.

Posted: 03/06/08

Last November Stafford Labour MP David Kidney stood up in the House of Commons and said ‘Britain needs a fourth technological revolution’ to tackle global warming. Kidney called for special training centres to be set up around the country to produce the skills needed to develop Earth-cooling technology.

All this couldn’t have come a moment too soon, because at around the same time the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was warning us that we had until about 2015 to stabilise CO2 emissions or risk runaway climate change that would threaten human existence. Scary stuff, which Kidney and his government were no doubt well aware of.

But in something of an awkward coincidence, the same week Kidney made his cry for a world-saving revolution someone forgot to tell him that his comrade and Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly was setting out the proposals for Heathrow expansion. If it goes ahead, the project will increase flights at what is one of the world’s busiest airports by a massive 222,000 a year, bringing misery to hundreds of thousands of its neighbours and a massive rise in CO2 emissions.

Without too much effort, even my simple brain was able to compute that the positive effects of Kidney’s revolutionary carbon fighting technology training centres were unlikely to have any impact on Heathrow’s increased CO2 emissions before the IPCC’s 2015 deadline. Surely the best way to cut emissions is to reduce the use of fossil fuel-dependent technology, right? Relying on yet-to-be-invented technology to save our souls seems like an exercise in extreme dim thinking, does it not?

So I wrote to Kidney. I wanted to know why the government was pushing ahead with plans to give us an even bigger carbon kick when experts were telling us we needed to quit, or at least curtail, our habit, and whether he could spot the government’s glaringly obvious misplaced priorities. To his credit, Kidney’s reply was swift, if a little short.

He said that

if we want more aviation, we must make greater savings elsewhere. Some say there are savings to be made in aviation by measures like full plane loads and better air traffic management. Some see modal shift for shorter journeys if rail is a reasonable alternative (e.g. Manchester to London now that the West Coast upgrade has taken place, or London to Brussels now that St. Pancras and the HS1 is open). I’m glad my speech caught your eye and I hope everyone listens on the need for the skills necessary to introduce a mass of new sustainable development technologies in the coming years.

Hmm, so we’re going to continue with untrammelled aviation growth, because we can make savings in other areas. Would that be done by widening the Ms 6, 42 and 25 perchance? Or by building a new coal-fired power station at Medway in Kent? Time for some number crunching. Aviation fans often say the industry is only responsible for 2 percent of CO2 emissions. Globally in 1990, it was. In fact, aviation’s emissions had more than doubled by the Millennium. And they’re going to keep on growing. Between 2002 and 2030 UK airline passenger numbers alone will have increased by 278 percent to 500 million. Aviation now accounts for 13 percent of the country’s CO2 emissions. Some say 18.5 percent. By 2050, even if households, motorists and businesses all managed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to zero, Britain would still fail to meet its carbon dioxide targets - because of aviation.

Anyway, somewhat dismayed with Kidney’s response, I wrote back accusing him of being disappointingly vague in the face of such a massive threat. After all it’s not every day we’re told we’ve got eight years to save civilisation. I ranted,

If Labour was really serious about cutting UK emissions it would scrap Heathrow expansion and put all the money into improving and reducing the cost of rail services and developing sustainable energy production technology - as a matter of urgency. I applaud the good work Labour has done in the wake of the Tory vandalism of the UK rail network. But it is ridiculous that I can fly from Newquay to Stansted for around 20 pounds with Ryanair but the journey by train would cost at least 70 pounds. You really need to intervene in this situation.

Another matter which makes me suspect the Labour government is not serious about climate change is the recent application to claim a huge chunk of Antarctica. This can really be read as a statement of intent to continue using fossil fuels. This is something that will not have been lost on the leaders of developing countries.

He was clearly rattled by my response, hitting back with,

I don’t mean to be vague - I’m just very busy! Under the Climate Change Act (as hopefully it will become next year) we will set carbon budgets for the UK, which will detail the cuts we will make for 5 years at a time and three budgets at a time (in other words a 15 year trajectory). I can’t believe that you are in China telling me that we should prevent people flying from the UK to China! (ouch) I’ve got no problem at all in making rail more attractive to travellers than air for their shorter journeys and I detailed some of the massive public spending that has gone in the UK during Labour’s time in office since 1997. This isn’t stopping - 1,300 more new carriages, Thameslink, Crossrail, and a feasibility study into the next High Speed Line. In the meantime Air Passenger Duty has been doubled and will be replace in 2 years time with a tax on the plane journey rather than the individual traveller in order to push airlines into making more efficient use of their flights. Today, aviation is a modest contributor to total emissions, it is the forecasts of major increases of air travel to come that would make air travel the damaging emitter you fear. What is China going to do to avert this growth? The EU is going to incorporate aviation into the EU ETS.

Although disappointed, I wrote back thanking him for his time and the opportunity to debate what has to be the most important issue facing Mankind. But after our short email exchange I couldn’t help thinking that Kidney was a man of token gestures, just another lip service politician. New Labour might have rolled “1,300 more new carriages” on to the rail network, but that has failed to halt the explosion in shorthaul domestic and European flights. Why? Because the train’s too freaking expensive. As for Air Passenger Duty, an extra fiver’s not going to put anyone off a 30 quid flight. A monkey could work that out.

Kidney failed to reply to my third email so I left it at that. For a while. Around two weeks ago, I wrote to him again to find out what progress the government was making in reducing CO2. After all, we’re six months closer to 2015. Every second helps. To date, I’ve been met by a wall of silence. Could it be that he is so busy tackling climate change he hasn’t had time to reply?

God Save The Green suspects not. The conclusion has to be that Kidney is doing nowhere near enough to save the planet. In refusing to reject Heathrow expansion, a clue to the government’s true position on global warming, Kidney is merely toeing the party line. Like his weasely colleagues, he’s putting vote winning short-term economic growth above the long-term future of human civilisation. The science is there, the signs are there. But this is not enough to persuade most politicians that drastic action is needed. Instead, like almost everything New Labour has done, we’re just going to tinker around the edges with things like training centres for boffins who are going to save us with uninvented technology before 2015.

Posted: 02/06/08

Coming soon on God Save The Green - Tory MP Bill Cash and the art of ignoring emails