I find this a fascinating picture, so much detail! It is the work of Bruegel and is his representation of Mary and Joseph finally reaching Bethlehem so that they can be registered. You can easily recognise Joseph as he carries a large saw over his shoulder.
The sun is setting as they arrive. The building to the left seems to be both an inn and the government tax office (note the red plaque with a crown and double headed eagle) where people are being registered. There are people busy with daily tasks – slaughtering a pig, gathering firewood, hauling goods, assembling a timber framed building, warming themselves around a fire, sharing a drink in a temporary tavern – and children playing.
It is also a scene that shows the faults and frailties present in the world. There are men brawling, and soldiers standing-by – are they there to defend or subjugate the people? There is a man emerging from a small shelter – he’s a leper with his warning clapper in his hand. Behind his hut someone is tending – or pilfering – what ever is kept there (are they plants or rabbits?)There is also a broken down wagon, its wheel stuck in the snow. There are a group of people sheltering from the cold in another rudimentary shelter – and the severe cold is clearly something they are all having to contend with. And in the background is a ruined castle – lack of money or the result of a siege? And of course there are the tax collectors.
In Bruegel’s picture, Jesus will be born in a world of poverty and oppression, of men fighting and children playing, a place where people struggle to make life work for them. If we could envisage Bethlehem in the time when Jesus was born, what would that world have looked like? Again it would have featured poverty and oppression, a place controlled by foreign soldiers and a remote king. It would have been full of people some who were rich and some who struggled, some who were rejected and some who were revered. A place where people could be exploited to suit the aims of others.
Contrary to some of our carols and Christmas cards, Jesus was born into a world where things were flawed. God became human in a discordant world where there was evil and wrong doing. Bruegel asserts the same truth in his painting.
And sadly the truth is not much different this year. But somehow this is where I think I find hope. God comes to us, to be alongside us, when we most need that divine love. God doesn’t wait for us to overcome our faults before seeking us out. I think we celebrate Christmas not because we’ve solved all our problems, but because we need the reassurance that God always comes to us in love, and that of all things, love is the most powerful.
How would – how will – we cope with an emergency? The increasing scale of the climate and biodiversity – and the crisis in social injustice – means we may well be faced with any number of different and probably overlapping emergencies.
flooding that effects us and our homes directly or flooding that interrupts the services we rely upon – sewage disposal, clean drinking water, electricity, transport, access to shops, schools, medical centres, etc
Storms that damage our homes directly or which bring down trees blocking roads, cutting off power supplies and telephone cables, preventing access to shops, schools, medical centres etc. Storms are not limited to the winter months, and in summer months trees in full leave may catch more wind and be at a greater threat of falling. Hot, dry spells can put trees under stress increasing the likelihood that they may fall or loose branches. Whilst many parts of the UK now receive less rain than previously, it can more often come in a very intense rainfall where a significant amount of rain falls within a short time frame, and so trigger flooding.
Snow that likewise might disrupt services including electricity, transport, access to schools, shops, medical centres etc; which might actually block in our homes; and which when it may cause flooding and further disruption.
Cold snaps that can be particularly concerning for the old, the young and the frail, as people find it hard to keep warm. This will also be a particular concern for those with limited incomes who cannot afford to heat their homes. Like snow, frost and ice can make it more dangerous for people getting out and about – and again affecting particularly the old and frail.
Heat waves are a particular concern for, again, the old, the young and the frail, whose bodies are less able to cope with high temperatures. And again people with limited incomes, living in small homes which may not have the capacity for through air currents or which may have large glass windows filling the majority of an outside wall, may particularly struggle to keep their homes cool. Such households are also less likely to have access to a garden and less likely to live in areas where tree-lined streets maintain lower temperatures.
Pandemic outbreaks are also more likely threats as global temperatures rise. Having experienced Covid we know how such an outbreak can create nationwide difficulties.
How will we know if an emergency is on the horizon? How much warning will we get?
Keeping a check on the news and weather forecasts is a practical starting point.
You can sign up for weather alerts from the Met Office and from the UK Health Security Agency which can flag up weather conditions (such as heat waves) that may be a particular health risk. And everyone with a mobile
Emergency planning – local authorities will have emergency plans in place. Use a web search to find out what your local authority has in place.
You will find that they in turn suggest that each household also prepares an emergency plans – what are the specific risks and difficulties that you might face? What is the best escape route from your home? Do you know where to turn off the water/ electricty/ gas supplies in your home? Who should you phone in an emergency?
If you get separated from other household members, where will you meet up? Are there two different places where you know you could be offered temporary accommodation? (And can you offer the same in reverse?) Do you have a first aid kit, emergency supplies, a Grab and Go bag? Are there neighbours you should look out for? Is there a community hub that would be a place to seek refuge?
Emergency planning will likely need to cover three different scenarios.
Having to stay put in the home with no access to outside support. This might be the scenario if there were a heavy fall of snow or a period of very cold/ very hot weather, or the outbreak of a pandemic.
Having to evacuate one’s home with little or no notice. This might be the scenario if there were a flash flood, a wild fire or a chemical leak.
Not being able to get back home ( eg for those at work, at school, visiting friends etc) because transport has been disrupted by weather events or power outages etc.
The first scenario of staying put has given rise to the advice – given both here in the UK (low key) and across Europe (more loudly) – that households should maintain a stock of supplies that would meet their needs for 72 hours – three days.
The second scenario of having to leave in a rush, has given rise to the advice of preparing a Grab and Go bag.
The third scenario of not being able to get home is less often considered, but would probably give rise to something similar to the preparation of a Grab and Go bag – but who would want to carry that around? For those who regularly use a car, keeping a Grab and Go bag there would be a more convenient option. Maybe this option should be the Have to Hand kit?
72 Hour supplies – what might this include?
Food – this needs to be food with a long shelf life – dried and tinned as opposed to frozen (freezers don’t work during power cuts. If there were a power cut, it would also be sensible to ensure that much of the food is such that can be eaten with little or no cooking. Most tinned food can be eaten cold although some options may be more palatable than others. Oats can be eaten raw or after soaking. Dried fruit would be excellent as would biscuits, crackers and oat cakes, plus jam, yeast extract, nut butters etc. if you have a camping stove you would be able to make hot drinks and cook simple foods such as pasta, millet and quinoa. UHT milk and fruit juice, and tetrapacs of tofu and cream would be another addition. Pickles and saurkraut have a long shelf life, and you could also store bottled fruits and vegetables – maybe jars of olives? Dried food is another option – provided you have enough water. And a couple of bars of chocolate may be very welcome in an emergency!
To buy everything you need in one go might be too expensive but you could build up your stores over time. When you finish something you regularly use, replace it with two then you will have one to use and spare in hand. To ensure everything is in date, do use and replace what you have in your store cupboard on a regular basis.
Hopefully even if you have to rely on your 72 hour supplies, there won’t be a power cut, and it would be sensible then to keep in your stores things you regularly use and enjoy. You might make sure you always have enough onions, root vegetables, apples and bananas to hand, packets of tea and coffee etc. If you do a big shop every week try and make sure that even on the day before you do that shop, you still have enough food to last 72 hours. Think of this as keeping a well maintained pantry!
If you have pets, include in your stores enough food for them too.
Water – a minimum of 2.5-3 litres of drinking water per person per day is recommended by the World Health Organisation. You may also want to store extra water for washing etc – say 10 litres per person. You may have a cold water tank in your house that feeds the bathroom and toilets – if you don’t use the shower/ bath and only use waste water (eg washing up water) you may well have enough water there for hand and dish washing to last three days. But for drinking water you might store bottled water (make sure you keep checking it is in date, or might refill clean demijohns with sufficient water for three days, and rotate and refill these on a daily basis.
Another item you might add to your supplies would water sterilising tablets in case there is a risk that your tap water is temporarily tainted.
Medication – make you sure you always have at least three more day’s worth of any medication you take regularly. At the same time make sure you keep an upto date first aid kit, plus supplies of whatever painkillers, antihistamines, indigestion tablets, sore throat medications etc that you would normally use. As well as keeping an upto date first aid kit, add in a first aid manual and if you can, undertake some first aid training.
Torches and radio – in the event of a power cut, having fully charged torches and a radio will be useful and either spare batteries or opt for a windup torch/ radio. A fully charged power bank for recharging mobile phones would also be useful. You might consider a solar powered power bank.
Clothes etc – you might want to stock up on extra layers so that in case of a power cut and/ or cold snap, you can keep warm – fleeces, woollen hats, extra thick socks, blankets and sleeping bags, thermal underwear etc. Equally you may already have enough in your cupboards. Assuming you not coping with a power cut, but cold weather, hot water bottles are good for warming beds and making people feel cosy.
Wellington boots would be good and maybe a snow shovel.
In the summer, wet towels to hang over the windows can help cool your home – as can closing both curtains and windows in the morning before it gets hot and opening them in the evening to allow in cool air. Maybe some traditional paper fans would also be useful.
Hygiene – make sure you have a sufficiency of toilet paper, hygiene products, toothpaste etc to last three days – which perhaps really means don’t leave replenishing your normal stocks until the last minute. A bucket would be useful for collecting waste water from any washing of hands or plates, or for rainwater which can be used to flush toilets if the is an outage/ shortage of water. Another addition for your stores, would be hand wipes and sanitiser – again do check their dates and use and replace them as necessary.
Entertainment – maintaining mental as well as physical health is important. Being stressed is wearing and doesn’t always help us to make good decisions. If we are housebound for three days we may also get bored. Books, playing cards, jigsaws are all self sufficient when it comes to electricity. Telling stories, playing words games, charades etc are also good options. And maybe pencils and paper for more games, doodles etc.
Grab and Go bag – what might that contain? The following suggestions come from West Berkshire Council.(1)
Ideally they should fit into an easy to carry rucksack.
essential/prescribed medication, plus asthma and respiratory aids
hearing aids
glasses/contact lenses
useful phone numbers – have these as a paper copy in case your phone runs out of battery
mobile phone and charger
house and car keys
money and credit cards
first aid kit
basic toiletries (for example: toothbrush and toothpaste, sanitary towels)
Other essential items (this will vary according to your needs and the weather):
food and water (canned or dried food, snacks, bottled drinking water)
special food needs
clothing and equipment
warm, wind and rainproof clothing
strong shoes for outdoors
waterproof torch and spare batteries (check regularly)
radio and spare batteries (check regularly) (perhaps you could consider getting wind-up torches and radios)
Other items to consider:
copies of insurance documents
anti-bacterial hand wipes/gel
blankets and sleeping bags
sun hats and sunscreen
rubbish bags
thermos flask
The Red Cross also suggests a whistle and pencil and paper.
Another useful item might be a high viz vest.
Some of these items I would keep permanently in handy bag – and check and replace items on a regular basis – but I’m not sure I would be able to justify keeping a separate set of waterproofs, clothes, phone charger etc there too. Maybe I could use the Grab and Go bag to store my phone charger when I’m not using it. Maybe I could keep the bag next to where I keep my waterproofs. Maybe I could keep spare blankets, sleeping bags etc in with my 72 hour supply pantry so that everything is one place ready to grab.
Have to Hand kit – this sounds like it would be a subset of the Grab and Go bag, and might therefore contain some of the following.
essential/prescribed medication, plus asthma and respiratory aids
hearing aids, glasses/contact lenses – I always wear my varifocals. What I will do is put my spare glasses in the Grab and Go bag.
useful phone numbers – I will put these into my diary which I always take when going
mobile phone and charger – these I do routinely carry when going out
house and car keys – ditto but for car keys substitute bike keys
money and credit cards – ditto
first aid kit – this I think would be more than I want to carry daily. When I am out and about in London I feel I can rely on there being first aid kits in shops, offices, stations etc.
basic toiletries (for example: toothbrush and toothpaste, sanitary towels) –
Waterproofs if rain is forecast, and/or sunhat and sunscreen in summer
strong shoes for outdoors
waterproof torch and spare batteries (check regularly)
radio and spare batteries (check regularly) (perhaps you could consider getting wind-up torches and radios)
Snack and refillable bottle of water – plus the reuse cup I carry for coffee.
Why poor diets are a systems issue not just a food issue.
Part 1
Recently The Eat-Lancet Commission updated its Planetary Health Diet. This is a scientifically developed diet that can be followed anywhere in the globe using local, traditional ingredients. As the name ambiguously suggests, it is a diet that both promotes our physical health and planetary health. It is a diet rich in plant based foods with small amounts of fish, meat and dairy items.
The 2025 overview begins with the arresting sentence: “The food we eat is more than a personal choice.” Can what we choose to eat make that much of a difference to the lives of other people?
The report continues: “It is a public issue with global consequences. What we eat affects agricultural land use, greenhouse gas emissions, water availability and quality, labor systems, and public health. Today’s food systems are, in many ways, failing. Millions face hunger, while others suffer from completely preventable chronic diseases. Food production contributes to environmental degradation and deepens inequality, when it could be the primary source of environmental regeneration, and justice. The EAT-LancetCommission’s approach to food addresses these challenges by linking health, sustainability, and justice. It promotes a shift in both consumption and production patterns, making healthy and sustainable food more accessible and reducing pressure on planetary boundaries. Transforming food will require cooperation across sectors, cultures, and regions. But the science is clear: changing what we eat is essential to building a future in which both people and planet can thrive.” (1)
What we choose to eat can shape how much land has to be used to produce our food and if that is less than at present, then more land can be used to restore biodiversity and the natural resilience of the world’s ecosystems.
What we choose to eat can reduce greenhouse emissions and so contribute to ensure a more amenable (or perhaps just less disastrous) environment for everyone.
What we choose to eat can reduce the amount of water needed for agriculture and so can make water available for more essential needs such as drinking and sanitation.
What we choose to eat can have an impact on the welfare given to livestock, the welfare given to the soil, the welfare given to agricultural workers and food producers. (For example a cheap cup of coffee may come at the expense of deforestation where the beans are grown, at the expense of an inadequate price paid to the person growing and processing the beans, at the expense of a poorly paid barista, and at the expense of society if the coffee chain doesn’t pay its taxes. (2))
So yes, the EAT-Lancet Commission is clear that diet is not just about the food we eat but also about the systems that being the food from the farm to the plate. And not only that, these systems also impact our health not just through the food produced but through the impact that food production has on our environment – and thus on our health – and that it has an impact on incomes earned by those in the food industry which again (as we will see in more detail below, impacts health.
Part 2
In many way the Planetary Health Diet as a guide, is not hugely dissimilar from the UK government’s Eat Well diet guide (3) – although the later increases the proportions of plant based foods at the expense of cereals/ starch and animal based foods. This Eat Well guide dates back to 2016 which itself is not very dissimilar to the 2014 guide known as the Eat Well Plate.
The UK government produces a regular National Diet and Nutrition Survey. This is “designed to assess the diet, nutrient intake and nutritional status of the general UK population … is used by UK governments to monitor progress towards achieving diet and nutrition objectives and to develop food and nutrition policies”. (4)
Has the Eat Well guide improved healthy eating in the UK? Sadly not.
According to analysis of the data by Field Doctor, the most recent survey shows :-
only 17% of adults eat at least five portions of fruit and vegetable a day
We eat 100% more sugar, and 25% more saturated fat than is recommended
96% of adults eat an insufficient amount of fibre
18% have sub optimal levels of vitamin D (5)
Whilst the Roadmap for Resilience: A UK Food Plan for 2050 (produced by The Agri-Food for Net Zero Network), notes that under 1% of people in the UK fully meet dietary guidelines and comments: “Poor diets cost the UK dearly – through pressures on the NHS, lost productivity and poor quality of life. Shifting towards healthy diets is a win-win that cuts emissions, saves public money, and helps improve the quality of life and work for productivity.” (6)
And The Broken Plate Report 2025 (produced by the Food Foundation) highlighted the following findings from its research:-:
Over a third of supermarket promotions on food and nonalcoholic drinks are for unhealthy food.
Over a third of food and soft drink advertising spend is on confectionery, snacks, deserts and soft drinks, compared to just 2% on fruit and veg.
Three quarters of the baby and toddler snacks that have front-of-pack promotional claims contain high or medium levels of sugar.
And
On average, healthier foods are more than twice as expensive per calorie as less healthy foods, with healthier food increasing in price at twice the rate in the past two years.
To afford the government-recommended diet, the most deprived fifth of the population would need to spend 45% of their disposable income on food, rising to 70% for those households with children.
And
children in the most deprived fifth of the population are nearly twice as likely to be living with obesity as those in the least deprived fifth by their first year of school
Ditto twice as likely to have tooth decay in their permanent teeth. (7)
Clearly both poverty and the high cost of healthy foods, plays a big part in the unhealthy diets of many people in the UK. Other factors are also relevant, some linked to poverty and inequality such as
lack of access to cooking facilities (especially true of people living in hostels, bed and breakfast or other shared accommodation). Research carried out in 2020 revealed that 1.9 million people in the UK didn’t have a cooker and 900,000 didn’t have a fridge. (8)
Lack of access to local shops selling fresh produce – so called food deserts – affecting 1.2 million people. (9)
Lack of time to prepare and cook meals especially for households juggling multiple jobs and/or long hours (apparently this hasn’t been widely researched (10) but in one recent survey of 2000 adults, 21% sited lack of time as a reason for not eating healthily (11)).
And other factors that have an impact across the board
Power of advertising in promoting ready meals and ultra processed foods. This report from Obesity Action Scotland is very clear as to the advertising has on diets. (12)
Lack of experience of cooking from scratch – again this is area which has received little research so the conclusion is conjecture.
What I think these various surveys show is, that whilst lack of financial resources a major factor in poor diets, unjust social systems may be a more embracing reason. It is unjust social systems that means that households do not have adequate cooking facilities, do not have access to fresh food shops, so not receive adequate incomes and especially so for those households with children. At the same time big businesses have a disproportionate amount of power in influencing what is advertised and to whom, and in controlling (or at least influencing) where and how food is sold, and a major role in continuing to underpay their workforce.
Systems change is essential nationally and globally if we are to ensure everyone has a healthy diet (ideally the Planetary Health Diet) and a healthy environment in which to live.
A few days before Christmas 2021 – and very late on in the the typhoon season – super typhoon Odette slammed into the Philippines. This was category 5 tropical cyclone with combined high winds in excess of 175 mph, extreme rainfall and a storm surge. Devastating the lives of 8 million people across 514 towns and cities, it brought down power cables and trees, broke up roads and fishing boats, disrupted communications and water supplies, destroyed or damages 1.4 million homes and 2000 schools, destroyed crops and livelihoods, and killed over 400 hundred people.
Research has shown that the extreme rainfall recorded was twice as likely due to anthropogenic climate change, and the extreme winds 70% more likely for the same reason. (1) At the time, it was the second most costliest typhoon. To hit the Philippines causing damage of nearly $1 billion.
67 survivors of Typhoon Odette from several Philippine communities whose family members were killed or whose homes were destroyed are now preparing to sue Shell. The first stage of this has been the issuing of a Letter Before Action (LBA) which has been sent to Shell notifying them that the claimants, having suffered severe losses including damage to,property, personal,injury, bereavement, loss of earnings and loss of cultural rights. The claim all edges that Shell has contributed materially and knowingly to anthropogenic climate change, and therefore contributed in no small way to the damage suffered by the claimants.
The claim is being brought in the UK as that is where Shell is domiciled but will apply the law of the Philippines as that is where the damaged occurred The claimants are being represented by the London law firm Hausfeld LLP. If no agreement is reached between Shell and the Philippine claimants, then a law suit will be filed, probably in December. “The case seeks to hold Shell accountable to our Filipino clients. By proving in court that Shell was at fault for this climate change-driven extreme weather event and the suffering it caused, the case highlights the far-reaching and direct impacts on vulnerable communities worldwide of oil and gas company activities,” said Greg Lascelles, partner at the law firm Hausfeld and leader of the legal team. (2)
The Philippines Commission on Human Rights spent 7 years investigating the impact of anthropogenic climate change on the people of the Philippines in response to an initial petition made by survivors of Typhoon Haiyan in 2013. Published in 2022 their report concluded “that the world’s most polluting companies are morally and legally liable for the impacts of the climate crisis because they have engaged in wilful obfuscation of climate science and obstructed efforts towards a global transition to clean energy.” (3)
Only last month did ten thousand people take part in a march through central London for the Make Them Pay rally, calling for action to make polluters pay. Both Christian Climate Action and Green Christian were there as part of the faith block. The case being brought by the survivors of Typhoon Odette is one of a now growing number of legal actions being taken against fossil fuel giants, as campaigners press for climate justice. This case is being supported by various groups including Uplift, Greenpeace, Fossil Free London and Christian Climate Action. Last Thursday Fossil Free London lined up blue boiler-suited activists in front of Shell’s headquarters and, with flags and banners and songs, launched their support for the Typhoon Odette claimants. Whilst the claimants would have liked to address us directly, their request for visas had been turned down, so instead we listened to a recorded message.
If you wish to support this case, you can find out more here, including a petition:-
This morning Wild Card handed both a petition with 122,000 signatures and an open letter signed by nearly 50 high profile individuals and organisations, including, Green Party leader Zack Polanski, former Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, former chair of the IPBES and IPCC Sir Robert T Watson, Green Christian and Christian Climate Action, to Sarah Mullally the soon to be arch bishop of Canterbury . The petition took the form of a beautiful crafted paper model of the Ark, covered all the names, and which was carried aloft (by dignitaries that included Chris Packham and Helen Burnett who both made eloquent addresses) accompanied by an eagle, a beaver and a salmon, a whole host of flags and banners and well wishers wearing an assortment of decorative hats and tokens of the natural world.
The petition and the letter asked the Church Commissioners undertake to rewild 30% of the land that they currently steward on behalf of the Church corporate. (1) This land totals 108,000 acres of land (the equivalent of 60,000 football pitches) and that is separate from land owned by individual parishes and dioceses (which interestingly is an almost equivalent amount).
The United Kingdom is one of the most nature depleted nations in the world. Recognising the extent of this and its adverse impact on our wellbeing, the UK government has joined with others in 2022 in signing up to the international Global Biodiversity Framework (2), undertaking to restore and protect 30% of land and sea by 2030. Currently only 2.83% (3) of land in England meets the desired nature-rich standard so there is clearly a lot of ground yet to be covered in the next four years! The area of land under the control of the Church Commissioners makes the Church part of the 1% that owns 50% of the land in the UK.
Wild Card is raising awareness about the necessity of rewilding – the natural environment is our life-supply system providing us with fertile soils, pollinators, fresh air, clean water, carbon capture and flood protection, as well as enabling food production and medicines, mental wellbeing and recreation – and calling on major landowners to step up to the mark and and rewild – restore and protect for nature – 30% of their land.
Surely the Church as a Christian organisation, with the God-given commands to cherish and protect the Earth and to love our neighbours, should be at the forefront of this campaign and leading by example?
Sadly no one at St Paul’s Cathedral would receive the Ark nor allow its entry into that place of worship. Instead a phalanx of security personal ensured that no one trespassed onto the steps of that august building.
In the story of Noah and his Ark you may notice all sorts of things but the bit that always bugs me is that Noah’s wife doesn’t get a name……………
So, let’s start this morning by celebrating loud and clear what a delight it is to be addressing Sarah Mullaly first ever woman to hold the post of the Archbishop of Canterbury
At the helm as the Archbishop of Canterbury , she will become our very own 21st century Noah and inherits a precious ship that must not sink.
We pray that she will not be overwhelmed by the floods that threaten us, but that instead, she will read the signs of the times and have the courage to save the biodiversity of this land – that she will do all she can to advocate for wilding church land and to act as a bulwark against the biodiversity and nature crisis of our times
Bishop Sarah’s first words to a waiting world were so encouraging –
‘ In the apparent chaos which surrounds us, in the midst of such profound global uncertainty, the possibility of healing lies in acts of kindness and love.’
Our hope this morning is that it will be kindness and love for our ‘other than human’ kin that will move Bishop Sarah to do all that she can to steer and shepherd us through these times,
to lead the church with the urgency of Noah building the ark,
and to act now to use church land for healing, regeneration and restoration.
How amazing would it be if the Church of England, through pressure on the Church Commissioners, could be the dove that bears the olive branch of hope, setting a tide change for other major land holders to wild their land.
Bishop Sarah also said ……..
‘In parishes across this nation, I see faithful clergy and congregations worshipping God and loving their neighbours.’
In my tiny little parish, we have a church yard where we are trying, through careful land management to bring back species of flora and fauna lost to the Surrey Hills.
We have created a wildlife corridor the length of the boundary wall between us and the neighbouring agricultural land.
In our small way we are seeking to restore, and so, I call upon on our new Archbishop to join us on our journey of messy churchyards and No Mow Mays to let nature do it’s healing even when it doesn’t look tidy??? Even when it doesn’t fit the financial portfolio to do so.
Imagine 200/108,000 acres of wonderful untidiness and what that could do – could church, like the ark be a beacon of hope to a world in crisis ?
Today we implore Bishop Sarah to include in her new vocation, the vanishing wildlife of our precious land,
And I say this directly to her, “as the first female Archbishop of Canterbury unlike Noah’s wife you will have a powerful voice with which to advocate for all species and you do not even need to build an Ark !”
In this role you have the power to guide and shepherd the Church Commissioners and the broader Church to recognise that ecological collapse and climate crisis are intertwined issues that need to be addressed with the urgency of Noah.
In the words of the recent vision statement from Christian Climate Action we appeal for the Church of England, to find its courage, cease doing harm and return to its roots, to Stop Crucifying Creation and to be a place of resurrection.
The church commissioners could cease doing harm by simply dedicating one third of their land to biodiversity restoration , yes, this would take courage but it would represent a return to the roots of a radical living out of the faith that honours all things and sees all creation as sacred. Today, as a lover of God’s creation and member of her clergy I want to thank Bishop Sarah for her words in Canterbury cathedral:
‘Hope’, she said, ‘is made of the infinite love of God, who breathed life into creation and said it was good’
That goodness now lies precariously close to collapse , can she give us back that hope and be the Noah we need to steer our ark through the biodiversity crisis towards that moment when we can, once again, see in the distance the dove bearing an olive branch?
“Plastic is a useful everyday item but has grown to become a global problem. Every year the world produces over 460 million tonnes of plastic, 90% of which pollutes almost all areas of our planet, it can be found at the bottom of the ocean, and on our tallest mountains. This pollution can cause harm to habitats and wildlife, impact livelihoods of people around the globe, and carries growing risks to human health. At the current rate, global plastic pollution could triple by 2040 unless we act now” – a quote from WWF. (1)
Could the answer be ‘more recycling’?
Yet last week an article in the Guardian reported that “in the past two years 21 plastic recycling and processing factories across the UK have shut down due to the scale of exports, the cheap price of virgin plastic and an influx of cheap plastic from Asia, according to data gathered by industry insiders.” (2) The UK now exports 600,000 tonnes of used plastic – making it the third largest in the world. Rather than being recycled within the UK, this plastic ends up in countries with neither the infrastructure nor the legal safety constraints to ensure that it is recycled without injuring either the environment or the local populace. The plastic is typically either burnt or allowed to build up in huge waste heaps where it invariably finds its way into rivers and oceans. Much of the UK’s plastic waste is exported to Turkey where, the Guardian reported two people are crushed, ripped, or burned to death in this work every month.
A combination of legislation to end the export plastics waste and taxes to discourage the use of virgin instead of recycled plastic is clearly needed. Rather than letting them close, recycling facilities should be seems as essential parts of the UK’s infrastructure: “If we were to stop exporting plastic waste, and we were to meet our increased recycling target of a 65% recycling rate for municipal waste by 2035, we would need to build 40 new factories across the UK – 20 of them would be sorting facilities and 20 would be processing facilities turning the material back into products,” said an industry source.
Or could the answer be ‘make less plastic’?
Earlier this year, an international gathering sought to agree a global plastics treaty. Work on this treaty began back in 2022 when growing scientific evidence highlighted the risks posed to humans (and other living organisms) by the toxic chemicals that can leach out of plastic as it breaks down. The ambition was not merely to ensure higher levels of recycling, but to to curb in absolute terms the amount of plastic produced globally each year. Plastic production had risen from 2 million tonnes in 1950 to 475 tonnes in 2022. However the treaty was successfully opposed by the large oil-producing nations and members of trade associations representing plastic producers. (3)
What if plastic pollution is a health problem too?
This week there was another newspaper article this time reporting on the spread of plastic into our bodies. “Microplastics have been found almost everywhere: in blood, placentas, lungs – even the human brain. One study estimated our cerebral organs alone may contain 5g of the stuff, or roughly a teaspoon.” (4)
What are micro plastics and where do they come from?
Microplastics are fragments of plastic that is between 1 nanometer and 5 millimetres wide. They come from two main sources:-
plastics specifically manufactured as microbeads which are added to face ashes, shower bells and other personal care products – they make the liquid both smooth and sufficiently thick that it does run off like water. Think of the difference say between an antiseptic hand spray and an antiseptic hand-gel. These are known as primary microplastics.
Plastic particles that derive from the disintegration of larger plastic items – eg plastic film and wrapping, takeaway containers, synthetic clothes , care tyres, paints and plastic turf etc.. These plastic particles may be shed as drinking from plastic bottles and take away cups (more plastic is shed when heat is present such as with hot drinks or microwaved food), from wearing and washing clothes, from friction between roads and tyres etc. These are known as secondary microplastics. (5)
Both types of microplastic can pass into water systems, can be present in the air we breathe, and can pass into the food chain and so into the food we eat. Microplastics are to be found all over the world – from the hops of mountains to the depths of the oceans and everywhere in between.
Nanoplastics are even smaller – less than 1,000 nanometers in diameter, or 100 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. They are small enough to slip through the walls of the cells in our bodies and can be found in our blood, lungs, brains, bones, the placenta and breast milk. (6)
Do these pieces of plastic harmful?
We don’t yet know whether having such buts of plastic in our bodies is good for us (unlikely), neutral or harmful. Nor do we know whether there is a limit below which they are not harmful but above which they might be. It is possible that they may aggravate complaints such as asthma, dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancers etc. (7) The issue is further complicated as plastics contain toxins such as bisphenols (BPA), alkyphenols, and phthalates and dioxins etc, which are also thus passing into our bodies.
It is not just human bodies that maybe adversely affected. Micro and nanoplastics are already known to be adversely impacting the health wild life – eg damaging the gut biomes of seabirds, increasing the number of pathogens present and reducing antibiotic resistance. (8)
Should we panic?
No. We don’t yet know enough to know how dangerous, or not, micro and nanoplastics are. We don’t know whether or not our bodies have a way of eliminating such particles from our bodies. And realistically there is no way we can avoid ingesting these particles given their presence in very part of the environment.
In many instances using plastics can be lifesaving with benefits outweighing the – as yet unclear – disadvantages. For example the use of plastic syringes to give vaccines, plastic pipes to provide clean drinking water, plastic bags for collecting blood donations, waterproofing coats that keep us warm and dry.
But we could cut back on our use of plastic
We can reduce our exposure to plastic particles by reducing the amount of unnecessary plastic we have around us and by adjusting how we use those plastics. For example we might use a reusable water bottle and a reusable cup when out and about (and often cafes give discounts when you bring your own take away cup). You might use glass or metal dishes for storing food and wax wraps or foil instead of cling film. You might use wooden spoons and chopping boards rather than plastic one; metal colanders and metal washing up bowls etc. Equally you might avoid body care products with microbeads and use solid or liquid alternatives. You could try a milk delivery service and get milk in glass bottles rather than plastic cartons. And following that line of thought, you may have a local refill store that allows you to buy various food ingredients and household items without the need for lots of plastic packaging.
However we should remember that not everyone can afford the plastic alternatives – a metal drinks bottle can cost more that a plastic one. A sliced loaf in a plastic bag will be cheaper than it paper wrapped alternative.
What about changing the system?
If we are going to be fair for everyone and everything – wildlife, ecosystems, future generations, then the whole system needs to be changed.
Nations need to agree on a workable plastics treaty that will cut the amount of plastic produced. The plastics industry needs to develop alternative safe and sustainable substitutes. Governments need to implement a combination of legislation, taxation and investment to ensure that the changes needed do actually happen.
We can advocate for change by supporting groups like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, and we can raise awareness about the issue by talking with others – particularly if they are intrigued about the efforts we are making to reduce our use of plastic!
A frequent comment addressed to activists is, that rather than disrupting the public by walking down a road or blockading an oil refinery, they should use the ballot box to effect the change they want to see. But is that possible? Does our democracy pay attention to us as citizens?
I frequently write to my MP about issues such as the CAN Bill and the Rosebank oil field, asking her to support the former and oppose the latter. But mine is only a small voice amongst many, and even though in principal she does support the CAN Bill, that has not been enough to see the Bill pass into law – it was widely opposed by the Labour Party.
Many people voted for the Labour Party in 2024 and the party won a substantial majority. In their manifesto Labour’s biggest spending commitment was to be an additional £23.7bn for green measures (a figure already cut back from an earlier promise of £28bn a year). Once in government that sum has been cut back again and again. For example the £13.2bn to be spent on upgrading the nation’s homes will now include £5bn of loans nor grants. And of the £8bn pledged for GB Energy, £2.5bn is in now going into Great British Nuclear (conveniently renamed GB Energy – Nuclear). (1) Manifesto promises are not binding: they may suggest the sort of things the party will pursue when in power but that is all. As individual voters our only remedy is to write to our MP or the relevant minister and ask that they adhere to their promises – or to take protest action! Otherwise we just have to wait another five years and hope the then government will be better at delivering on its promises.
So who does influence government policy?
Think tanks
Think tanks “are open organisations, built around a permanent base of researchers or experts, whose mission, on the one hand, is to develop analyses, summaries and ideas on an objective basis with a view to inform the conduct of private or public strategies in the general interest; on the other hand, to actively debate issues within their field of competence.” (2) Think tanks may be funded by private or charitable donations or from government funds. Some are transparent about their funding, others less so. Some are aligned to particular political parties, others are apolitical.
Based on research for the period 2015-2021, Overton identified the following as possibly the top ten think tanks cited in government policy documents. (3)
However there are caveats. Does measuring which think tank is most cited in government documents a good indicator of their ability to influence government policy? Some areas of policy making generates a higher proportion of publicly available documents – eg public health and welfare, whilst others – such as defence – do not. And you can’t count the number of citations in a document you can’t access. There will also be think tanks that have considerable influence but don’t produce reports that are cited. Not present in Overton’s list are think tanks such as the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Institute yet thwir ideas featured large during Liz Truss’s short term as prime minister.(4) One of the questions around the more extreme right wing think tanks is the source of their funds and to what extent their research is influenced by wealthy individuals. (5)
Certainly think tanks do influence government policy but they are not accountable to the ballot box.
Economists
Economists and economic theories certainly influence government policy making, either because the respective political party has grown up with a particular economic tradition or because its current leader and/ chancellor has a favourite economic model. Most think tanks will include economic analysis too. NB If you have read Kate Raworth’s book on Doughnut Economics, you may well question the value of much other advice that comes from traditional and neo-liberal economists.
Scientists
Scientists do advise governments especially in the area of climate change and biodiversity loss – eg members of the Climate Change Committee – and areas of health such as we saw during Covid when the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, who was directly advising the government. However, as Whitty later reported, his advice was then adjusted by the political agenda: “… he had been personally sceptical about making covid vaccination a condition of employment for some healthcare staff in England. He said that the policy was “100% a political decision” that was essentially about balancing two risks and rights against one another: “the risk to the person who is being cared for versus the risk to the individual that their right to essentially not have a medical procedure, or lose their job, is protected.” As a doctor, he argued that there was “a big difference” between a “professional responsibility” to protect patients from giving them communicable diseases, including vaccinating staff, and “legally mandating it so that you lose your job if not.”” (6)
Scientists who contribute to the work of the Climate Change Committee face similar problems. Their role is to present the scientific facts and suggest policies that will meet the demands of net zero but they cannot require government to follow a particular course of action. Whilst the CCC has repeatedly cautioned against expanding airports in the UK, because of their significant adverse impact on carbon reduction targets, they have not been asked to assess the carbon emissions arising from building additional ways at Heathrow and Gatwick, despite government announcements that these expansions would take place. (7)
Political advisers and civil servants
“Civil servants are government employees responsible for implementing and executing public policies… [setting] guidelines and regulations to address societal concerns… Civil servants possess valuable knowledge and experience necessary for the formulation and implementation of policies…They bridge the gap between elected officials and the implementation of policies, providing continuity and expertise throughout political transitions. Furthermore, civil servants provide valuable insights into the practical implications of potential policy changes, considering the administrative capacity, budgetary constraints, and legal framework.” (8)
Political advisers (known as special advisers or ‘spads’) are political appointees. Special advisers are appointed to provide a particular skill or fill a particular role on a short term basis. The appointment may be short term and, since they are appointed by the relevant minister loose their appointment when that minister leaves office. They are not bound by the same rules of impartiality as civil servants – however various codes of practice now exist regulate the powers they can exert. (9) Special advisers can significantly influence government policy -for better or worse. This following commentary comes from the New Statesman:-
“Dominic Cummings made Boris Johnson. Against all odds, he won him the 2016 EU referendum. He finagled a 2019 general election for Johnson when parliamentary opposition to Brexit was making a second referendum look increasingly likely. He won him that election by “flipping” scores of traditional Labour seats. It was a Faustian bargain. To achieve all that Johnson – formerly a liberal-minded, immigrant-supporting, pro-business mayor of London – had to sell his soul by lying, fanning xenophobia, fomenting ugly nationalism, undermining democratic institutions and embracing a crude and shameless populism. Cummings had no scruples about how he won.” (10)
As with think tanks, special advisers also have no accountability to the electorate.
Lobbyists
“Lobbying is the process of trying to persuade the government, or a political party, to change their policies. The term originates from the lobby of the House of Commons where you could go to try and persuade your MP to adopt a certain position. Lobbying is an important part of the British political process and is sometimes very controversial.” (11)
Lobbying takes two forms – in-house lobbying where charities, corporations or other organisations employ full-time lobbyists, and outsourced where similar groups will employ an outside firm of lobbyists to act on their behalf.
Historically lobbying was unregulated – it was equated with free speech – but the Lobbying Act (2014) does imposes some restrictions. However (!) these only apply to individuals or firms acting on the behalf of a third party whilst in-house lobbyists are not included. Some £2bn a year is spent on lobbying and the feedback from big businesses and other organisations such as the NFU, is that it works. Governments do adapt their policies in response to successful lobbying. (12) (NB Do watch this illustrative video clip about lobbying – https://youtu.be/04BlQh4du5I?si=bItDobvoZ3N40JJC)
An investigation by Global Witness revealed an increasing number of meetings between fossil fuel representatives and government ministers. “UK government ministers met with representatives from the oil and gas sector at least 343 times in 2023, according to Global Witness analysis of data collected by Transparency International UK.That’s equivalent to 1.4 meetings per working day of the year and marks an increase from the 330 meetings held in 2022.” (13)
Over this period 2022 and 2023 the UK’s reliance on fossil fuels led to rising fuel prices, increasing fuel poverty and rising profits for oil companies, yet the government consistently back-tracked on its climate commitments ! (14)
For those with money, lobbying is an effective tool to change government policy. An yet again it has no accountability to the ballot box.
Unions
Unions were established to improve their members working conditions and pay through lobbying their employers – and through nonviolent direct action such as striking. With increasing amounts of legislation surrounding employment rights and the powers of unions, unions are another group who lobby government to influence policy. In the autumn of 2024 a new bill – The Employment Rights Bill – was introduced, repealing and replacing the Trade Union Act 2016 which had been the latest development in restricting union powers. This Bill should receive Royal Assent and become law this autumn.
The following commentary from the TUC shows how think tanks and reports from economists, can influence government policy. “The move comes in the wake of growing evidence that a strong union workplace presence is good for workers and for the economy. Voices that previously promoted deregulation, such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, have noted the benefits of collective bargaining for productivity, industrial change, equality and employment. A recent Cambridge University study of labour laws over the last 50 years found that strong employee representation laws consistently led to higher employment. Laws that protected rights to take industrial action meanwhile appeared to contribute to higher unemployment, productivity and to workers getting a higher share of national income. Likewise a NIESR study found that a strong union presence boosted productivity.” (15)
Unions do have power to influence government policy, and whilst not being accountable to voters generally, are accountable to their own members. Maybe groups such as environmentalists and climate activists should form the equivalent of a union to increase the power of their voice.
Public Opinion and the Media
Public opinion, according to Wikipedia, is “the collective opinion on a specific topic or voting intention relevant to society. It is the people’s views on matters affecting them.”
Public opinion is assessed through surveys and opinion polls. Professor Kuha professor in LSE’s Department of Statistics and an expert in survey methodology describes opinion polls as “a survey of public opinion from a particular sample group, and as such can be useful in informing politicians about the views of specific groups of people. In practice, pollsters need to balance the cost of polling a large sample against the reduction in sampling error, and so a typical compromise for political pollsters is to use a sample size of 1,000-10,000 respondents” and that “polls act as a feedback mechanism which could affect parties’ policy choices, whereas nearer to an election, they are feedback mechanism on how the campaign is going”. (16)
This suggests that, depending on who carries out the opinion poll (are they impartial or do they represent a certain viewpoint or position), what questions are asked and which sample group is surveyed, a degree of bias may appear in the poll. This article from YouGov explores some of the issues around the phrasing of survey questions (17)
Furthermore that bias may then serve to feed what underlies the initial bias. This feedback loop is often triggered by selective reporting by media outlets. This article from the Conversation, notes that the “traditional media selects which polls to emphasise from a large pool of results. Sometimes outlets do this with an eye to make interesting news or pander to the expectations of the public. The latter means that journalists may decide not to publish a poll showing an unexpected result, for example, even if they believe it to be true, out of concern that readers might see them as less credible.” (18)
Immigration is currently seen as a key public concern. Prior to the EU referendum concern about migration peaked as a top issue for 56% of respondents. Following the referendum this dropped steadily from 48% of respondents to just 6% in April 2020. Since then that figure has again been rising reaching 38% in October 2024. The Migration Observatory however also noted that “During this period, immigration has been prominent in the news, with record net migration figures hitting the headlines as well as irregular immigration and the issue of housing asylum seekers featuring large in the political agenda.” (19)
In response to this shift in public opinion, the current government and a number of small rightwing parties have shifted their policies to ones less sympathetic towards migrants. It would that public opinion polls and media interest can influence government policy. The opposite is also true.
21st April of this year (Environment Day) a global journalism collaboration – Covering Climate Now – released the results of a world wide survey to assess people’s responses to the climate crisis, revealing that, surprisingly, 89% of respondents were concerned and want their governments to take stronger climate action. From this they have launched the 89 Percent Project which seeks to explore why there is such a silent majority. (20) The Project will be releasing more findings later this month – but, nevertheless, it is not a issue that has made much headway in the media and nor has it made any impact (so far) on government policy in the UK.
Conclusion
Who gets to influence government policy? Those with the biggest lobbying budgets! Those who can get the attention of the media! Individual citizens can only hope to influence government policy if they can band together as a large, strong, well advised and vocal lobbying group.
This is not to undervalue the importance of voting at elections because each party does have at least mind a set of ideas it will implement if they are in power.
“Seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly before your God” Micah 6:8
This has been a strange week. Last Sunday we went to Golders Green to sit shiva with the family of our son’s partner – their grandmother had died. It was lovely to be included in this family gathering, and to share in the prayers led by the rabbi. All our faiths are rooted in God and God’s word.
Yesterday we were worshipping with Christians for Palestine at the Bloomsbury Baptist Church before joining the Palestine Solidarity March. On the altar were three things – a sculpture of a violinist made from decommissioned weapons; a photo of Christ in the Rubble – the nativity scene created in the the Evangelical Lutheran Christmas Church in Bethlehem; and a coloured woodcut of Christ breaking an AK47 across his knees. In lieu of a sermon we watched a short film produced by Christian Aid entitles the Lord’s Prayer – Just Peace Reflection (1) in which we saw the demolition of people’s homes, water supplies and livelihoods by the Israeli forces, and heard the long suffering laments of members of the Palestinian community.
The March ended in Whitehall where speeches were given. One speaker was a British surgeon who volunteers some of his time working in hospitals in Gaza. He spoke of the many boys who they treated for bullet wounds. The Israeli soldiers shoot them as they collect food and water. This daily practice has become a game – one day the soldiers aim for the head or neck. Another day it will be the chest. Another day legs. Another day testicles.
It is hard to understand how a nation can inflict such cruelty on civilians living within their borders.
It is equally hard to understand how the UK government can wring it’s hands about the suffering and yet continue to supply Israel with arms and military support, continue to trade with them and enter into new deals with their arms manufacturers.
It is hard to understand how people can carry on their daily lives without expressing concern or anger about this continuing genocide. I know we all need to continue to live each day as it comes, to fulfil the demands of work, to attend to household chores, to love and care for our loved ones – and carry the burden of other issues such as the climate crisis, the war in Ukraine, the civil war in Yemen, the plight of refugees etc – but many of these are linked by the failure of governments and businesses to focus on justice and truth rather than popularity and profits.
Yesterday’s Palestinian Solidarity March was overshadowed by the Lift the Ban action in Parliament Square, demanding that the de-proscription of Palestine Action.
Palestine Action is a campaign group that uses nonviolent direct action to challenge the continued manufacture in this country of weapons by Elbit (an Israeli owned arms company) for use against Palestinian people – against men, women, boys and girls and babies. You can surely understand the outrage anyone would feel about such weaponry being manufactured here in the UK. Nonviolent action can be the last resort when governments ignore the issue – and rather continue to facilitate such companies. Nonviolent action can include blocking roads and access into manufacturing sites. It can include spraying paint. It can include breaking windows. It can include breaking machinery. Nonviolent action does not aim to injure or kill people. Nonviolent action is not terrorism.
Yet Palestine Action has been proscribed by Parliament as a terrorist organisation. (This was set before Parliament as part of a package in which a total of three groups were to be proscribed – Maniacs Murder Cult, Palestine Action and the Russian Imperial Movement. There was no option of voting on each individual case. A full list of proscribed organisations can be found on the Government website (2) where you can read a brief description of each one. Palestine Action stands out as lacking any intention of injuring or killing people. Further information can be found at, for example, Amnesty International –https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-banning-palestine-action-disturbing-legal-overreach-uk-government-amnesty).
The legality of the proscription of Palestine Action is due to be reassessed as of a Judicial Review in November. In the meantime Defend our Juries has taken on challenging the proscription. There is a genuine concern that if Palestine Action is proscribed as a terror organisation, that other organisations using nonviolent direct action will also be targeted and that the right to free speech and protest will be curtailed even more than at present. Democracies depend on free speech and the right to protest.
Since the proscription of Palestine Action, thousands of people have taken action, risking arrest, to question to legitimacy and morality of this course of action by the government. They have each sat quietly holding a sign that says ‘I oppose genocide; I support Palestine Action.’ And has been noted by the press, the majority have been older people – some well into their 80s.
Yesterday some 1500 people sat in Parliament Square holding such placards. They were surrounded by well wishers and supporters ready to witness to what was happening. Those familiar with Parliament Square will know that those sat on the grass will have been under the gaze of the statues of Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and Millicent Fawcett, all civil rights activists. A large scale police operation has been put in place to enable to police to arrest and take away these peaceful protestors. Areas around d Parliament Square were cordoned off for the initial processing before arrestees were pit in police vans and driven to various police stations around London. The process was slow and tedious because of the sheer number of people willing to oppose the ban on Palestine Action. Individuals were still being arrested one by one as dark fell – most of those taking action remained sat in place once the police had begun making arrests, rather than simply opting to walk away.
Outside the cordon a team of volunteers was there to encourage those being placed in police vans – an acknowledgment of their bravery in standing up for justice. A further team of volunteers took their places outside police stations (once it was known were the arrestees had been taken) waiting there through the night to welcome each arrestee as they were released on bail, providing them with phones to call loved ones, giving them food and warm drinks, big hugs where needed, and advice and help to get back to their homes.
Images courtesy of Jonathan Sterling.
So where does this leave those of us whose personal or family circumstances do not make the risk of arrest an option, or those those of us who were regrettably ignorant about the plight of Palestinian people, or ignorant of the threat to civil liberties?
Where does this leave those of us who do not want to stand by and do nothing? Do we want to be citizens of a nation whose government continues to sell arms to Israel, that continues to hold back on imposing sanctions against Israel, that continues to enter into trade deals with those perpetrating genocide?
Where does this leave those of us whose feel helpless in the face of the ongoing suffering and abuse?
As Christians, our ongoing response will include prayer. Prayers for peace, for justice, for reconciliation. Prayers for the perpetrators as well as the victims – including those still being held hostage and their families – and for all those who find themselves sucked into this tragedy.
We can sign up for emails with news, information and prayers from people on the ground, such as Embrace the Middle East – https://embraceme.org/
Even Friends of the Earth has produced a statement on the issue.
We can write to our MP asking for action. We can write to the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister Minister asking for action and express our grave concerns.
The rising temperatures we are now witnessing cone not just from the CO2 currently being emitted but also the accumulation of CO2 over the centuries. Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for anywhere between 300 and 1000 years, constantly acting as a blanket keeping in the sun’s warmth. For humans and the environment that best suits us, the ideal amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is between 280 and 350 parts per million (ppm). That was the level prior to the industrial revolution when we began significantly increasing the emission of carbon dioxide beyond the Earth systems capacity to absorb the extra CO2. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere now stand at 425 ppm, reflecting the continued and increasing emission of CO2.
Countries that industrialised first have been contributing to this problem for some 175+ years. Newly industrialised countries for a shorter time span. The amount produced by countries in both scenarios varies reflecting degrees of heavy industry, levels of consumer consumption, dependency on fossil as opposed to alternative fuels etc. Each country can be judged to have a ‘climate debt’ according to how much carbon dioxide it has cumulatively contributed towards global warming since industrialisation. The debt can be costed in terms of what proportion of the negative costs of climate change – its adverse effects on health, the cost of adverse weather events, etc.
According to the IMF’s report, Settling the Climate Debt (2023) “It can be argued that each global citizen has an equal right to an environment unaffected by climate change. This implies that countries with high climate debt because of their high emissions should compensate countries that have caused less damage to the environment.” (1) And clearly if countries fail to curb their emissions, that debt will be constantly increasing.
The report also attempts to put figures to show the scale of the debt. “Climate debt can be estimated based on actual and projected emissions and the social cost of carbon, which measures the economic damage per ton of CO2 emissions. We find climate debt to be extremely large—some $59 trillion over 1959–2018 (Chart 1)—and projected to increase by another $80 trillion during 2019–35. The size of each country’s climate debt reflects both the size of its economy (which is positively correlated with emissions) and how intensively it uses fossil fuels (thus generating emissions) for every dollar of economic output. The composition of energy use (for example, heavy use of coal) has an impact as well. As of 2018, the largest contributors were the United States ($14 trillion), China ($10 trillion), and Russia ($5 trillion). Beginning in 2018, developing economies will account for a larger share of climate debt, given their relatively higher economic growth.”
These figures are large. The report notes “Climate debt is substantial relative to government debt; in G20 countries, it is about 81 percent of GDP, compared with average general government debt of 88 percent of GDP in 2020.” Perhaps for this reason, the report does not suggest ways in which this debt might realistically be repaid to those who have suffered the impact of climate change – and perhaps that was not the purpose of the report.
Rather the report goes onto explore how countries through their Nationally Determined Contributions, mandated by the Paris Agreement, are in fact reducing their emissions and thus reducing the ongoing rate at which their climate debt is accumulating. The IMF feels hesitant about asking countries both to reduce their emissions (which does come with a cost implication in the short term at least) and asking them to repay their climate debt. The report surmised that “Instead, advanced economies may need to focus on reducing emissions over a longer time period or aggressively compensating developing economies for the damage caused by climate change, including through more generous climate financing.”
However the report does conclude: “Climate debt from CO2 emissions is large and unevenly spread across the world’s economies. The size of the debt—and its disparity among countries—portends contentious discussions on countries’ fair burden in slowing climate change and the level of assistance to developing economies to compensate for these differences.
“Climate debt per capita is projected to be much higher in advanced than in developing economies, even under full implementation of NDCs by G20 countries. This implies that advanced economies may need to make additional efforts to achieve fair burden sharing in the fight against climate change.”
So whilst there is no clear strategy as to how the climate debt should be repaid – and continue to be paid as the impact of our emissions continues – at least there is the acknowledgement that the current situation between those who contributed most to the climate crisis and those who suffer the most, is unfair.
Last week I was in eastern Switzerland. The alpine meadows were full of a rich diversity of flowers, butterflies of all colours & sizes, bees, beetles, and grass hoppers. It was wonderful! But then I pondered, was this a normal amount of insect life that simply highlighted the lack back at home? Checking out via the internet, it seems that Switzerland like the UK, is witnessing a sharp decline in biodiversity including insects, due to issues such as urban expansion, intensified farming and climate change. (1)
We tend to assume that we see is normal because why wouldn’t it be? Our perception of normal is generally based on our own experience, culture and what we read in the press.
When I was a child, buddleia bushes were nick-named butterfly bushes because their flowers attracted so many butterflies. In comparison when I look at our garden now, I’m saddened by the lack of butterflies – you can count them on one hand. However for my children that number of butterflies is normal: they have not known it otherwise.
Similarly as a child, I remember having to clean the car windscreen of a thick grease of dead insects – especially after a long journey – simply because there were so many flying insects around. My children have not had that experience, and for them, the current – small – number of insects is normal.
This experience of what is normal is termed the ‘shifting baseline syndrome’. It doesn’t just affect our assessment of normal levels of butterflies, but also our assessment of ‘normal’ temperatures – summers were on average cooler in the past, but we have become acclimatised to hotter summers and now 26C is not perceived as that hot, and 30C isn’t seen as a cause for concern.
The shifting baseline syndrome also affects our understanding of roads and cars. (2) We perceive having a car – or two – as normal, and that being able to drive anywhere and everywhere is not just normal but a right. We don’t remember the past when not everyone had cars, when most people relied on public transport, and when you could even use the railway to move your household contents! (3)
Another well known syndrome is that of the ‘boiling frog’. Because the water only warms slowly, the frog being a cold blooded creature doesn’t react to the grow in heat until it is too late. Until that point each degree of warming doesn’t signal a warning to the frog. Humans seem to react to climate change in the same way: we accept each degree of warming as either a pleasure or a mere inconvenience without any sense of the danger signals we should be responding to. Climate change is dangerous. It leads to life-threatening floods and heatwaves, life-threatening storms, poor harvests, food shortages, droughts, conflicts and mass migration.
If we don’t see the scale of the changes around us, and don’t perceive the risks we face, we are not going to take appropriate action to either protect ourselves or to prevent the worst from happening.
The Green Tau 