After a year of unprecedented agreement on the existence of climate change, The Berry assesses the final question: how are we to reduce emissions, carry on living our lives and allow for the needs of developing countries?
From glitzy concerts to explosive direct action to international negotiations, 2007 has been a big year for climate change. A big year, it would seem, in almost every sphere except that which actually matters – real progress on cutting carbon emissions. Depending on your opinion, the Bali agreements (“historic” if you’re Hilary Benn, “even worse than Kyoto” if you’re climate campaigner George Monbiot) are at best a start and at worst a distraction in the fight against runaway global warming.
Despite the efforts of the makers of controversial Channel 4 programme The Great Global Warming Swindle, 2007 also seems to have been the year when being a ‘climate sceptic’ finally became untenable – akin to denying that smoking causes cancer or that HIV causes AIDS. But as the consensus grows stronger, and the evidence on the likely effects of climate change ever more alarming, the proposed solutions have failed to escalate in proportion – and concrete action has increased even less.
The government’s much-trumpeted Climate Bill provides a classic example. It enshrines emissions reduction targets of 60% by 2050, when all the scientific evidence (including a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) suggests we need to cut carbon by at least 90% by 2030. And we’re still waiting for a policy package which might give us a chance of actually achieving these targets. Even by the government’s own conservative projections, its programme of airport expansion means aviation will be using at least 100% of the country’s carbon allowance by 2050.
What is needed in the face of a challenge like climate change is not pseudo-realism but bravery and political vision. When faced with a seeming gap between what is possible and what is necessary, the answer cannot be to throw up our hands and set ourselves more ‘realistic’ targets. This will not alter the facts – will not make the necessary cuts any less necessary. The only defensible answer is to seek to make the necessary possible.
Nobody denies that this is a tall order. But when the stakes are so high, this only underlines the urgency of action. Cambridge may seem at times like a bubble with a tenuous connection to the real world, but when it comes to the issue of climate change, it cannot afford to stand on the sidelines. This applies equally to us as students and to the University as an institution, which is in a unique global position to provide the research and intellectual leadership needed to make sustainable solutions work.
And in fact, scratch the surface and there’s a lot to be proud of. Last term saw the launch of the Go Greener campaign, a new CUSU initiative calling on colleges and the university to institute their own carbon reduction strategies and to take a global lead in tackling climate change through teaching and research. The University is already planning major investment in on-site renewables and is engaging with the campaign’s demands at the highest level. Cambridge University Environmental Consulting Society is also due to publish its annual College Environmental League Table soon. This measures and compares colleges’ efforts to reduce their environmental impact. And in February, a coalition of Cambridge student societies will be hosting the pilot event of the national Student Climate Project – a day course to educate, inform and inspire students on the complex issues surrounding climate change.
Climate change is not just an environmental issue – it’s a human rights issue, a development issue, an issue which will profoundly affect not just our children or our grandchildren, but we ourselves. And it will not be solved by token gestures, by an energy efficient lightbulb here and a recycled newspaper there. It’s going to need huge political will and massive social change. It’s our responsibility – not something that’s going to be dealt with for us by technology or politics. But this realisation is empowering: by getting involved in the fight against climate change, we can become part of a movement not only to turn around one of the most dangerous situations mankind has ever faced, but to create a more sustainable, a better way of living. And if that isn’t worth making an effort for, I don’t know what is.
Christine Berry
There is finally a political consensus that something needs to be done about climate change. Thanks to reports from well-respected bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also to the efforts of figures such as Nobel Laureate Al Gore, most people (including the recalcitrant President Bush) now agree that global warming is real, man-made and a threat.
This global shift in consensus has produced some promising, if vague, commitments. Last year’s G8 summit in Germany announced the aim to halve CO2 emissions by 2050. And the UN Summit in Bali in December promised new negotiations for a deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol by 2009 with an arrangement to bring about “deep cuts in global emissions”. But, as ever, it will be the detail of these measures that will determine success.
The Kyoto Protocol has proved undeniably lacklustre in its results. Of those countries that signed it (and the US did not), only a handful of countries (the UK included) have made significant headway in meeting its targets. Furthermore, China and India were not bound to numerical targets by the arrangement and have witnessed some of the most marked emissions increases in the world. Given the stretch it has taken to make the tiniest indent on the ever-steepening curve of our emissions increases, one begins to wonder what hope there can be for more ambitious projects.
Part of the problem in getting countries like the US and China to commit relates to the belief that any such deal will harm economic growth. And, indeed, those on the left of the environmental lobby demand that punitive taxes be placed upon the dirtiest industries and habits. It is possible to sympathise with the spirit of these suggestions. In addition, aspects of these ideas are worth considering. Taxing the use of 4×4 vehicles in town centres seems a valuable recommendation, for instance. But consider the problems with this approach.
We must remember that the ultimate aim of any climate deal must be to benefit people who otherwise would suffer from the effects of global warming. Suppose, then, that a company would be so heavily taxed for opening a high-emissions factory in Bangladesh that it chooses not to do so. Sure, that would mean lower emissions, but also less investment in the country and lower incomes, leaving its inhabitants far worse equipped to deal with the rising sea levels that climate change could bring. And if all of this is done in the name of an unimpressive reduction in emissions (the kind that Kyoto has brought about), it is highly unlikely that the flooding could be forestalled. In the event, people would much rather have food, sanitation and better flood defences.
Granted, we cannot put off the problem forever: lowering emissions should still be our goal. But our money and efforts should be put where they can do the most good. Firstly, this means research and development. Ultimately one hopes that promising possibilities such as nuclear fusion or space-based solar energy could solve our problems. We should not be unrealistic, however. Until future technologies can seriously help cut emissions, we should focus on what we can do now without hampering the world economy.
One idea proposed by scientists is using “stabilisation wedges” to manage the problem piecemeal in the meantime. This theory holds that there is no one solution to global warming, least of all harsh taxation. But a combination of many ideas can work. This means a mandatory end to embarrassing waste, such as heat-loss from buildings, combined with improvements in areas like public transport.
It means colossal investment (both at home and abroad) in solar, wind and tidal energy alternatives along with new carbon capture and storage mechanisms. And, yes, it will also mean that we must abandon our reluctance to use nuclear power. If France can make it work, then so can we.
Reducing our emissions is an important step to take. But subduing economic activity to this end is unwise. Research for the future holds promise; the technology of the present, properly and diligently harnessed, can help us achieve impressive results until then.
James Eastwood
