Category: Green Tau weekly

Green Tau: issue 103

Reshaping how we can talk positively about the climate crisis – part 3:  Transport 

March 2025

How can we talk about the climate crisis in a way that sounds encouraging?

The climate crisis is an existential threat which is certainly not good news. Its causes and impact are diverse and numerous such that it is hard to pin down ‘This is the cause’ or ‘This is the solution’. It is hard to quantify ‘This is how it will effect you’ and ‘This will be the time table.’ 

All this makes it difficult to find a way of talking to people about the crisis and how we might respond.

So here are some thoughts that might help.

Clean Air

Switching from fossil fuels to clean energy* to power road vehicles reduces the amount of pollution that goes into the air we breathe. The pollution from petrol and diesel vehicles includes carbon monoxide, particulate matter and nitrogen oxide and is released into the environment predominately in places where people living, where people are working, where they go to school, where they are simply walking by. Air pollution causes  28,000 and 36,000 early deaths each year in the UK (figures for 2018). Sustrans estimates that road transport is responsible for 80% of roadside NO2 pollution which is where the legal limits are being broken. (1) 

With the growing use of electric vehicles air pollution has fallen …. And without admissions to hospital

In London progressive policies have been put in place to reduce road congestion and more specifically to reduce the air pollution from road vehicles, with the most recent being the expansion of the ultra low emissions zone (ULEZ) to cover all London boroughs in August 2023. Since then pollution from road vehicles across the wool of London has been reduce by 27%. (2) This should lead to a reduction in premature deaths.

Another component of air pollution caused by road vehicles is the fine particulate matter that comes from brake blocks, tyres and even the tarmac. These particles are formed through friction whether that is the brakes slowing the vehicle or the tyres rubbing against the road. Such pollution is known as Non-Exhaust Emissions or NEE. In its report on NNE Defra observed that currently there is no legislation in place to limit this source of air pollution but highlighted possible ways in which such pollution could be reduced, vis:  “The Most effective mitigation strategies for NEE are to reduce the overall volume of traffic, lower the speed where traffic is free-flowing (eg trunk roads and motorways), and promote driving behaviour that rescues braking and higher-speed cornering.”(3)  

As well as ULEZ, London has also benefitted from the widespread introduction of a reduced speed limit for vehicles – from 30 to 20 mph. “An evaluation of 20mph zones in London, carried out by Imperial College, showed slowing traffic had no net negative impact on exhaust emissions. However, in 20mph zones vehicles moved more smoothly, with fewer accelerations and decelerations, than in 30mph zones. This smoother driving style reduces particulate emissions from tyre and brake wear – which still represents a significant cause of air pollution from zero-emission vehicles.” (4)

Switching to electric vehicles, introducing low emissions zones and reduced speed limits, are all contributing to reducing the air pollution that causes so many premature deaths as well as reducing carbon emissions.

Wellbeing 

Active travel includes walking and cycling, and in many cases can replace short car journeys. It can also be combined with the use of public transport (walking to the bus stop or the station) and so replace other longer car journeys. Reducing car journeys reduce carbon emissions and/ or – in terms of electric vehicles – the load on the electric grid. Switching to active travel however also produced significant health benefits (and thus savings for the NHS). 

The Health Foundation notes that “Almost 1,800 early deaths per year could be prevented if activity levels for walking and cycling were to match the most active regions in England.” (5) The most active region was London where people walked and cycled an average of 1.2 miles per day. The Department of Transport estimates that inactivity costs the NHS “up to £1 billion each year, with additional indirect costs of £8.2 billion…” The exercise gained through active travel also has benefits for mental wellbeing. 

The Department for Transport also reports the following further positive benefits of active travel – 

“Increasing active travel will reduce road congestion, particularly at peak times, leading to increased productivity and improved movement of goods and services. Sustrans estimates that congestion costs £10 billion per year in 2009 in urban areas, and that this cost could rise to £22 billion by 2025. Living Streets’ Pedestrian Pound report outlined a range of economic benefits of walking, including that well-planned walking improvements can lead to a 40% increasein shopping footfall.” (6)

Active travel by reducing the amount of road traffic and so reducing air pollution and road congestion, makes for pleasanter local environments – which in itself boosts our sense of wellbeing. . 

*eg electricity produced from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar 

  1. https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/policy-positions/our-position-on-improving-air-quality/

(2) https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-london-boroughs-biggest-reductions-air-pollution-b1215765.html

(3)  https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1907101151_20190709_Non_Exhaust_Emissions_typeset_Final.pdf

(4) https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/20mph-speed-limit-and-air-pollution

(5) https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/transport/active-travel/health-benefits-of-walking-and-cycling-preventable-early

(6) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/active-travel-local-authority-toolkit/active-travel-local-authority-toolkit

Green Tau: issue 102

Reshaping how we can talk positively about the climate crisis – part 2:  Buildings 

February 2025

How can we talk about the climate crisis in a way that sounds encouraging?

The climate crisis is an existential threat which is certainly not good news. Its causes and impact are diverse and numerous such that it is hard to pin down ‘This is the cause’ and ‘This is the solution’. It is hard to quantify ‘This is how it will effect you’ and ‘This will be the time table.’ 

All this makes it difficult to find a way of talking to people about the crisis and how we might respond.

So here are some thoughts that might help.

Warmer – and cooler – homes!

Improved insulation for domestic and other buildings makes them more comfortable for occupants and reduces the costs of heating/ cooling. Studies show that all houses built before 1990, and 75% of those built before 2010, have inadequate insulation which means that both the country will struggle to reach net zero and occupiers will either be paying unnecessarily high heating bills and/ or living in cold damp conditions. For January 2023 the Resolution Foundation estimated that “families in energy-inefficient homes will be facing monthly gas bills £231 higher than those who live in equivalent homes that already meet the Government’s efficiency target (EPC C).” https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/cutting-back-to-keep-warm/

Ensuring all buildings – not just domestic ones, but office buildings, schools, prisons, hospitals etc – will benefit occupants (making their environment comfortable and healthy) and reduce running costs.

Well insulated buildings offer all year round comfort and benefit everyone.

https://www.constructioncarbon.com/articles/how-well-insulated-are-british-homes

Sustainable buildings

Buildings themselves can contribute to a better environment for us all. Installing solar panels on roofs and elsewhere – eg over car and cycle parks, on top of bus shelters etc – can boost energy production and provide locally based energy without the need for substations and long distance power lines. They can also be a source of local community income. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65626371

Installing water butts, grey water systems, SUDs (surface urban drainage) that absorb rainfall, are all easy ways of reducing flooding and pollution risks. Such things are most economically included at the design stage but can still justifiably be added as a retrofit. https://www.susdrain.org/

https://www.meristemdesign.co.uk/product/suds-planters/

New buildings can be designed with over hanging eves and recessed windows to increase shading against summer heat and also helping to shelter the building from heavy rain and wind. Retrospectively verandas and sun shades can be added or plants trained up the sides of buildings and across pergolas to create a similar outcome. https://www.solinear.co.uk/the-ultimate-guide-to-external-solar-shading-solutions-in-the-uk/

Trees can be planted nearby to provide shade from the sun, cooling via respiration from their leaves,  and at the same time reducing flooding risks as their leaves and roots slow the flow of water and increase absorption in the earth beneath. 

https://friendsoftheearth.uk/climate/cooling-effect-trees-and-green-spaces-cities
Plant trees to help protect London from climate change flood risk

Sustainable buildings are also ones that have a long life. Keeping buildings in good repair prolongs their life, creates employment and ensures that the buildings remain comfortable and safe for their occupants. 

Buildings designed and maintained for sustainability provide comfortable, safe and healthy places, and

Green Tau reflection

The Psychology of Peace

14th February 2025

The other week I went to the Imperial War Museum to see their exhibition ‘War and the Mind’ which was exploring the psychology that prompts people to go to war, the psychological impact on both combatants and noncombatants, how army leaders maintain moral, ditto for civilians in war zones, how people try and look after their own mental well-being etc. Towards the end of the exhibition one display focused on how the UK government set out to persuade British people to reshape their view of German people (distinguishing between war criminals and the ordinary person) and to understand the need to provide both jobs for the German populace and an education for the children so that they wouldn’t behave as their forebears had. 

This struck me as so important. We can’t make peace until we see the other as someone of equal value as ourselves, until see the other as our neighbour to be loved. There can be no place in peace for revenge or hostile discrimination. Yet even in the UK there are still people willing to make jokes about Germans referencing the war, to make jokes that are predicated on the British being some sort of superior victor – or a British Bulldog. 

Such attitudes then filter into other areas of life – that Britain is obviously a world leader in any and every field of endeavour, that we have nothing to learn from others, that we have no need to cooperate with anyone else, that the way we do things must be the best – the only – way.

This blinkered view that can only see self as right and everyone else as wrong, is repeated in other nations and other conflicts around the world. Can there be peace in Gaza until everyone sees the other as a brother or sister? Can there be global cooperation and agreement until everyone sees the good in everyone else? 

So the question is how do we change we think and act both as individuals and as communities and nations?

Green Tau: 102

31st January 2025

Why protesting about protest is important!

 Over a thousand people sat in the road outside the Royal Courts of Justice to protest at the deliberate  diminution of the right to protest in the UK. Inside the Courts an appeal was being heard brought by 16 climate protesters challenging the severity of the sentences they had been given. 

As we sat in silence on the road in three orderly lines back to back, police offices walked up and down the lines, stopping to address individuals asking them to move. ‘We recognise your right to protest but this is a live road’. ‘What can we do to make you move?’ ‘Please move to the designated protest area in between the church of St Clement Dane and the court house’. ‘A section 14 notice may be imposed on this section of road and then we may arrest you’. ‘You might spend hours in a police cell.’ 

This was a silent vigil so most chose not to respond to the police. Instead maintaining the silence with eyes downcast, we resolutely continued to sit in the road.

Yes we were blocking the road. Yes we were preventing vehicles from using that section. Why? Because – yes – this was a protest. And what is a protest if it does not cause some degree of disruption? 

The reason for any protest is to raise awareness – to draw people’s attention – to an issue in order to effect change. This the protest was about the failure of the system to allow justifiable and reasonable protest. 

Over the last few years the right to protest has been has been crushed and demonised by the government through new laws, by judges through punitive interpretation of laws and sentencing guidelines, and by corporate interests through their ability to drop quiet words into significant ears, and their ability to afford the cost of legal actions and injunctions.

Where once walking peacefully along a street was considered a valid means of protest, it is now designated as ‘public nuisance’. Where once sitting and blocking a road was considered a valid means of protest, it is now designated as a ‘disruption of national infrastructure’.  Have we reached a situation where you can only protest by staying quietly on the pavement, well away from anyone or anything you might disrupt? 

Protest is meant to disrupt. It is meant to irritate. It is there to draw attention to a situation that needs to change. Yes, protest has to be proportionate. Yes, protest has to target the appropriate audiences. Yes, protest has to be based on valid claims. 

The climate crisis is the biggest existential crisis that we humans have ever faced. A delayed car journey diminishes into insignificance compared with the potential loss of life of millions of people. 

The climate crisis has no favourites, it can and will continue to affect us all. There is no audience that can argue that it doesn’t threaten them.

The climate crisis is a scientifically hypothesised, modelled and proven crisis. There is no valid data that proves otherwise.

And yet since the rise of Extinction Rebellion in 2018, and subsequent groups such as Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil, governments, judges and the Criminal Prosecution Service have gone out of their way in refuting that the actions being taking by these groups represents genuine protest.

Protesting about the right to protest is vitally important in an era when we face not only the existential crisis of climate change but also the threat of oppressive right wing politics that is beginning to dominate the world.

Green Tau: issue 101

Reshaping how we can talk positively about the climate crisis – part 1: energy security 

10th January 2025

How can we talk about the climate crisis in a way that sounds encouraging?

The climate crisis is an existential threat which is certainly not good news. Its causes and impact are diverse and numerous such that it is hard to pin down ‘This is the cause’ and ‘This is the solution’. It is hard to quantify ‘This is how it will effect you’ and ‘This will be the time table.’ 

All this makes it difficult to find a way of talking to people about the crisis and how we might respond.

So here are some thoughts that might help.

Energy security. 

1. At the outbreak of war between Russia and Ukraine we were worried that we would not have enough energy (ie oil and gas from Russia) to keep power stations and industries running. There was a fear that the lights might go out. There is always going to be a energy security risk when we are reliant on an imported fuel. Despite what the government may suggest, the oil and gas supplies in the North Sea are insufficient to meet current needs, and the business arrangement is such that any North Sea oil and gas we use, has to be bought in the international market at the going rate. There are no special deals for UK customers. How much better then if we could obtain all our energy from home produced renewable sources – wind, solar, tidal. That surely would be a better definition of secure energy. 

Any projects that involve increasing our renewable energy capacity are good news stories. This includes not just wind turbines and solar panels, but also the grid infrastructure need to distribute the energy. 

For more info – https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/sustainable/sites/bartlett_sustainable/files/isr_141123_energy_security_-_a_sustainable_strategy_for_the_uk.pdf

2. Community energy projects enable communities to invest in and benefit from local energy production be that a wind turbine or turbines, solar panels on community rooves, or hydro power from a river or tide. New legislation is being introduced that would enable communities to benefit directly from selling their energy (under existing rules communities – and individuals – have to seek to one of the electricity producers). Community energy projects can give local populations greater energy security and to benefit directly from cheaper energy bills – this may be the compensating factor that outweighs local reluctance to the expansion of wind farms etc.

For more info – (re rural communities) https://www.cpre.org.uk/discover/why-we-love-community-energy/

(re urban communities) https://www.communityenergy.london/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Cities-and-Community-Energy-in-England-FINAL-combined.pdf

3. There is a counter argument that renewable energy doesn’t provide security because we could have a run of windless, sunless days (which do happen as we have seen recently). Batteries are the obvious answer,  combined with price tariffs that encourage consumers to use less when generation is low, and to use – or store – energy when generation is high. These will need to be used in conjunction with ‘large scale electricity storage’ which would involve using excess power to create hydrogen which  would then be stored in salt mines. (For more details see https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/large-scale-electricity-storage/large-scale-electricity-storage-policy-briefing.pdf)

Improvements in battery technology are good news stories. Batteries also give individual households as well as business units, schools, hospitals etc immediate energy security. There are genuine concerns about the environmental and social costs of some of the minerals needed to make batteries. Current research is developing a sodium battery that uses salt, which is widely available, rather than rare  and expensive lithium. 

For more info – https://www.field.energy/views/energy-security-how-battery-storage-helps-keep-the-lights-on

Energy costs

Energy security is linked to energy costs. If energy costs are so high as to preclude people being able to afford it, then their energy supply is not secure. The outbreak of war between Russia and Ukraine triggered a rapid rise in the cost of energy initially rising by around 40%, 130% and 180% for oil, coal and gas. The prices of these fossil fuels are determined by global commodity markets so everyone is susceptible to the prices hikes. Renewable energies on the other hand reflect local factors – although the cost and availability of key materials such as steel,  will have an impact on the building of, for example, new wind turbines, and the relative prices charged for renewable energy and fossil fuels will impact investment decisions.

By and large renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel energy – although currently in the UK a levy is charged on energy costs to cover the cost of transitioning to renewable energy, and (bizarrely) this adds more to the cost of electricity that it does to gas (16% of the final price of electricity and 5.5% of the final price of gas). https://www.nesta.org.uk/household-energy-bills-green-levies/

Going on into the future renewable energy will continue to fall in real terms whilst the cost of fossil energy will rise. By offering affordable energy, renewables will continue to offer energy security.

Green Tau: issue 100

14th December 2024

How we can make a just transition? Agriculture and land use

Approximately 12% (58MtCO2 as of 2020) of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions come from farming but of that 10% more than half is methane from livestock and a further 30% is nitrous oxides from fertilisers (1). As the UK moves to a net zero economy, it is obvious that emissions from agriculture need to be reduced – the Climate Change Committee’s target is 21 MtCO2 by 2050. (Agriculture – including deliberate none cultivation of the land – offers opportunities to increase natural carbon absorption which should more than offset this remaining 21Mt of CO2).

The Climate Change Committee which draws up carbon budgets and roadmaps to advise the Government as to the means by which net zero targets can be achieved, recommended in its 2020 report Land use: Policies for a Net Zero UK, the following policy proposals:

  • Increase tree planting – increasing UK forestry cover from 13% to at least 17% by 2050 by planting around 30,000 hectares (90 – 120 million trees) of broadleaf and conifer woodland each year.
  • Encourage low-carbon farming practices – such as ‘controlled-release’ fertilisers, improving livestock health and slurry acidification.
  • Restore peatlands – restoring at least 50% of upland peat and 25% of lowland peat.
  • Encourage bioenergy crops – expanding UK energy crops to around 23,000 hectares each year.
  • Reduce food waste and consumption of the most carbon-intensive foods – reduce the 13.6 million tonnes of food waste produced annually by 20% and the consumption of beef, lamb and dairy by at least 20% per person, well within current healthy eating guidelines. (2)

In the summer of this year, 2024, the Climate Change Committee’s report on progress found that reducing emissions from agriculture and land use had slowed and that ‘total emissions from agriculture have not significantly decreased since 2008’! (3) Commenting on the Report, ADAS  notes “A key CCC recommendation is that  tree planting and peatland restoration must be accelerated. Under the CCC pathways to net zero, tree planting must be scaled up in the 2020s in order for abatement (carbon sequestration and storage) to be sufficient to meet later carbon budgets and reach net zero by 2050. This will require a doubling of current rates to get as close as possible to the targets of 30,000ha of new woodland creation per year by 2025 and 32,000ha of peatland restoration a year by 2026.” (4) As regards reducing livestock levels, whilst figures previously showed a decline, this seems to have plateaued, suggesting further focus here is needed. 

Whether through converting more arable or grass lands to woodland, restoring peatlands or by reducing livestock numbers, the farming world is going to have to face ongoing change. 

The demands of climate change, go beyond just reducing carbon emissions, and include further action in protecting land, properties and lifestyles from the impacts of increasingly adverse weather conditions and rising sea levels. Again referencing the latest CCC report ADAS notes “This latest CCC report comes after the wettest 18 months on record in England. Farmers and land managers have been among the most affected with thousands of acres of farmland flooded, crop yields down and harvesting delayed, as well as knock-on impacts into this season and likely longer-term.

“The impacts of this record rainfall highlight the urgent need to adapt to the physical risks of climate change, to avoid more costly and less effective adaptations further down the line. The CCC reports that currently the UK’s Third National Adaption programme (NAP3) lacks the ambition and pace to address the scale of climate risks we are already experiencing in the UK”. (6)

Under the terms of the Climate Change Act 2008 the UK is required to produce ‘national adaptation plans’ setting out how the government will protect the country from the impacts of climate change by   constructing flood defences, developing green spaces, cultivating drought-resistant crops, and building resilient infrastructure etc. NAP3 covers the period 2023 to 2028. To date most commentators note that the provisions made by NAP3 are inadequate, but clearly they will impact on the farming world whether through more farmland suffering the adverse consequences of droughts and floods, or through changing agricultural practices and changes to land use – eg restoring water meadows, planting more woodland and re-setting peatlands.

At the same time as the need to address climate change by transitioning to net zero, the UK also needs to address biodiversity loss which is another issue linked with the need for change in agricultural practices. As regards England (other parts of the UK have their own policies) the Parliament has noted that “the Environment Act 2021 … set legally binding biodiversity targets ….:

  • to reduce the risk of species going extinct in 2042, compared with 2022
  • to create or restore 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitats by 2042
  • to ensure overall species abundance is increasing rather than decreasing by 2030, and increases by 10% by 2042, compared with 2030”(5)

These are in addition to the UK’s commitment to meet the international Convention on Biological Diversity’s ‘30 by 30 target’ – vis achieving effective conservation and management of at least 30% of land and sea by 2030.

Again these are targets which are going to impact the farming world, through adopting less intensive farming techniques, and through the restoration – and expansion of – hedgerows, ponds, woods, peatlands and meadows etc. 

Not all these changes are going to be self financing. It is possible that less intensive farming by reducing the amount – and therefore cost –  of inputs such as fertilisers, may be cost neutral, but in most cases less intensive farming will only be financially viable if the end product can be sold to,the customer at an enhanced price.  But weather restoring a pond in a field or rewetting peatland will be self financing is perhaps more doubtful. On the other hand the benefit to us as a whole will be significant – so may be we need to work out how we put a value on that benefit and how we work out who pays and how. 

It seems to me that we need a conversation that allows farmers and consumers to explore what the options are and how the transition to  climate and biodiversity friendly farming can be achieved. If farms are going to have less livestock, are we consumers going to eat less meat? If crops are grown less intensively, are we consumers willing to pay more? And is the government going to ensure that wages and benefits increase commensurately? If farmers are to convert grazing land to woodlands, are we as tax payers, willing to pay for loss of income? Might we instead see the cost as the cost of protecting our homes from flooding? Might those with the resources (financial and volunteering capacity) be willing to purchase farmland with the aim of rewilding it? Will the government provide funds to encourage new rural industries that would provide employment and maintain or reinvigorate rural communities? 

We certainly need to have these conversations urgently to ensure both a just transition and to protect our climate and environment for the wellbeing of current and future generations to come. The next five years look as if they are increasingly going to be when decisive action (not just plans) happens.

  1. https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/carbon-footprints-food-and-farming
  2. https://www.theccc.org.uk/2020/01/23/major-shift-in-uk-land-use-needed-to-deliver-net-zero-emissions/

(3) https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/progress-in-reducing-emissions-2024-report-to-parliament/

(4)  https://adas.co.uk/news/credible-plans-and-actions-urgently-needed-to-decarbonise-uk-agriculture-sector/

(5) https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/biodiversity-loss-uk-international-obligations/

(6) https://adas.co.uk/news/credible-plans-and-actions-urgently-needed-to-decarbonise-uk-agriculture-sector/

Green Tau: issue 99

9th December 2024

How we can make a just transition?

Globally we know we have to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 – at the latest – if we are to curb the inexorable rise in temperatures, the associated increase in extreme weather events and any of the various tipping ecological points that would accelerate this process.

Here in the UK our government has set a target of reducing emissions by 68% (compared with 1990 values) by 2030 and by 81% by 2035 and ultimately by 100% by 2050.

To achieve these targets we need to reduce sharply our use of fossil fuels to heat our buildings (including cooling in the summer), to run our transport systems (vehicles, trains, airplanes etc), to generate electricity, and in various industrial processes such as making steel. 

Such changes will impact is all. For householders it will include having to add more insulation to their homes and replacing gas boilers with electrically based heating. And for tenants, hopefully such alterations will be carried out by their landlords. For commercial and institutional buildings there will equally be the need to replace gas with electric heating and cooling systems, as well as upgrading thermal insulation. Such buildings may well have the scope to install solar panels and batteries so that they can generate their own electricity. The managers of such buildings may also want to reflect on how staff, users and customers travel to and from their premises to enable these to become more sustainable in their use of energy.

For car drivers it will be switching to electric cars or, even better, switching to public transport and active travel. For delivery drivers it will be switching to cycles for small, local loads and electric vehicles for larger ones. For the railway it will be investing in further electrification of the rail network and potentially developing battery units for short, smaller capacity branch lines. For airlines it must mean reducing the number of flights as there really is no green alternative to aviation fuel, although for short flights serving outlying islands battery planes may be a developmental opportunity. 

For the energy sector, it will include continuing to develop and expand renewable energy sources (solar, wind and tidal) to provide all the extra green electricity that will be needed by other sectors, and to provide the necessary infrastructure to support that and to enable individual households, businesses and communities to develop their own generation capacity. 

For industrial processes it will be switching to new methods of production such as using electric arc furnaces for steel making and for cement production developing new chemical formulations that avoid releasing large amounts of CO2. 

These changes will also have impacts on jobs with some people needing to retrain for new careers – for example oil rig workers retraining to build and maintain offshore wind turbines, car workers might switch to building public transport rolling stock, airline staff might switch to working in the rail industry,  blast furnace workers might retrain as installers of heat pumps and thermal insulation, or switch to manufacturing double glazing units, solar panels, and wind turbines etc. 

These changes will need considerable financial investment, which must mean shifting money  currently invested in supporting carbon intensive industries and projects, to these low carbon sustainable alternatives. And this will mean a shift in thinking by those who work in the financial markets – bankers, financiers, investment managers, pensions and insurance fund managers, etc. 

These changes will also need government support, both in terms of legislation that will deliberately shift markets in the right direction, and in terms of subsidies, switching these away from carbon intensive industries and towards the green alternatives. And this will be a key role in achieving the carbon emission targets. Our capitalistic economic system is not well equipped to create the change we need. It is not well equipped to reflect the risks and damage caused by carbon intensive industries and products. Nor is it well equipped to ensure that those responsible for the damage already caused should pay for all necessary remedial and restorative action. 

Earlier this week – 5th December – Shell and Equinor announced a plan to combine their operations in the North Sea to more effectively extract the remaining oil and gas reserves for ‘decades’ to come! This would ensure their continuing profit levels and in particular share dividends. How can it be economic to extract more carbon emitting oil and gas over those very same decades when we as a nation – and globally – are struggling to reduce our carbon emissions to net zero? 

And how can it be that our government will provide subsidies to these oil companies to enable them to develop these projects? It is calculated that with tax breaks and subsidies, the UK could pay upward of 90p in the pound for the cost of developing the Rosebank oil field. 

And how can it be that these oil companies can talk about – and use this in their advertising – that they are maintaining the UK’s energy security, and that they are keeping homes warm –  and neglecting to point out that the cost of what they provide is at an increasing to customers and the environment – as if only gas and oil could achieve energy security? 

What we need for a just transition is:

  •  proactive action taken by the government to create and safeguard a transition via legislation that is fair to the working population, that is fair to householders, and that ensures a level and consistent playing field for businesses
  • Proactive action taken by the government to redirect subsidies so that they support and enhance the transition to renewables and ensure that the price to the consumer is affordable in the short term. (In the long term re-newables will be cheaper)
  • Proactive action by the financial world to shift finances from the old carbon intensive industries to the growing low carbon, sustainable ones
  • Proactive action by companies and organisations to ensure their operations are shifting at pace to achieve net zero.

A key part in this transition can be found in the Climate and Nature Bill – the CAN Bill – which is a private member’s bill that is currently making its way through Parliament. We can show our support for this via the Zero Hours web page and by asking our individuals MPs to back the bill when it comes for its second reading on 24th January – https://www.zerohour.uk/climate-and-nature-bill/

For more information 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/dec/05/shell-and-equinor-to-merge-uk-north-sea-oil-and-gas-assets?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/equinor-shell-form-jointly-owned-oil-gas-producer-britain-2024-12-05/
https://www.stopcambo.org.uk/updates/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-rosebank-oil-field
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2022/energy-security-in-energy-transitions

Green Tau: issue 98

Walking the Talk

24th November 2024

A few weeks ago, whilst I and others were holding our weekly Earth Vigil outside Parliament, a passerby stopped to quiz us. In transpired that he was not interested in the wellbeing of the environment and rather wanted to justify his position by proving that we were hypocrites. 

His line was that we could not be taken seriously in calling for a rescinding of the Rosebank licence whilst possessing shoes, clothes, rucksacks etc made from plastics/ ie oil. He would not listen to our response that we were constrained by what one could buy in a world that is still heavily embedded in using oil. Even as our economies transitions away from oil, it is still going to take a while before sufficient alternatives take over from plastic. As one person interjected, “When Edison was designing the lightbulb he had to rely on candle light!” (Or possibly gas). 

But what really incensed me was that I do try and do everything I can to live ecologically. I wear second hand clothes, darn my socks, patch my rucksack and my trainers, shop at a refill shop, avoid buying anything in a plastic wrapper, don’t fly, eat a vegan diet that includes wonky and unwanted fruit and vegetables, source beans and pulses grown in the UK. And flour for my bread is milled in a proper windmill in Cambridgeshire!

I do do all I can to walk the talk! 

And it’s not easy especially when you feel your are a minority of one. When we are away from our normal locality – and especially so when on holiday in Switzerland (we go by train) – it feels as if everyone else is saying, why are you so awkward?  What difference can it make whether or not you eat a little cheese, eat a cake made with butter, an ice cream made with milk? Will eating a croissant make any difference to the world? 

When I stay with family and they make a special dish just for me, I feel I awkward and think I must seem very pedantic.

Or when others are discussing their past and future holidays, a quick (and let’s agree in the present tax regime, cheap) flight to Italy/ Turkey/Spain, or a leisurely holiday exploring Japan, Korea and Malaysia, or a winter trip to sunny Oz. Am I grouch or a kill joy because I won’t fly? And this is where I do feel guilty: am I being really selfish as I know my husband would love for us to travel the world?

So why is it important to tread this lonely path? 

Firstly because unless someone starts, no one will ever start. I maybe the first not to fly amongst our friends but hopefully I won’t be the last.

Secondly because the more people take these steps the easier it will be for other to follow. If I always ask for a vegan cake when I’m buying a coffee, then hopefully in a few years time, vegan cakes will be the norm on cafes. Plant based milks are pretty much standard nowadays! (But why then current trend of charging extra?)

Thirdly because the more people are seen to be travelling by train not plane, or eating humous not cheese, or carrying a keep cup rather than using a single use throw away cup, the more normal such behaviour becomes.

Fourth as such patterns of behaviour become normalised – even popular – so businesses and governments will change their thinking. 

Fifthly because eventually the world could change for the better! 

Yet I am not hopeful that any of this will happen fast enough to prevent the huge catastrophe that the climate crisis is forming. And that makes it a very hard path to tread. I am making life awkward for myself and my husband and my friends and family with only a very small chance that it will make life better for them.  But equally I know that not trying would be even more hurtful. 

And finally, yes I do it because it makes me feel just a little bit better; that I am at least doing something rather than nothing.

Green Tau Issue 97

3rd November 2024

Is the National Trust Walking the Talk?

The National Trust is the UK’s largest conservation and environmental protection charity with between 6 and 7 million members and is custodian of just under 260,000 hectares of land. One of its two overarching strategic priorities is its ambition of reaching net zero emissions by 2030. It has already met its target of creating and restoring 25,000 ha of new wildlife habitats and is working towards 50% of Trust land being nature friendly, by 2025. It also aims to plant 20 million trees by 2030.(1)

Recognising the scale of  the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, and that neither of these recognises boundaries in terms of either cause or effect, the National Trust collaborates with other bodies such as the RSPB and WWF. This trio has produced the  The People’s Plan for Nature and the Save our Wild Isles campaign. The National Trust has joined many more groups in supporting events such as the Restore Nature Now March and the March for Clean Water.

Surely the National Trust can be said to be walking the talk? 

And yes in so many ways they are, but to quote the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, we must do ‘everything, everywhere, all at once’ if we are to avert the worst of the climate and biodiversity crises. 

So what about banking? Over recent years many organisations and individuals have looked at their financial arrangements and divested from fossil fuels – whether that is selling shares directly linked to oil and gas production or withdrawing from pension and investment funds that are reliant on returns generated through the production of fossil fuels. In 2019 the National Trust announced its decision to divest from fossil fuels to safeguard the long term future of the environment. 

So what about banking?

Banks are essential to the ongoing production of fossil fuels. Their banking services enable companies, such as Shell and BP, to remain operational and able to continue to develop new oil and gas fields. The annual fossil fuel finance report for 2024, ‘Banking on Climate Chaos’,(2) shows that  Barclays is still the eighth largest funder of fossil fuels globally and, once again, holds the number one slot in Europe. In 2023 Barclays supplied the fossil fuel industry with $24 billion. 

Clearly who you bank with has an environmental impact element! For individuals several organisations exist – such as Make My Money Matter, Switch It Green and JustMoney (3) –  to enable people to review their banking arrangements and to switch to a more environmentally friendly alternative. Other organisations such as Mothertree (4) offer the same service for both individuals, organisations and businesses. Most notably this past year both Christian Aid and Oxfam (organisations with complex banking needs) have dropped Barclays as their bank. 

Yet Barclays is the National Trust’s bank. 

Not surprisingly, there has been growing pressure on the National Trust to switch to a more environmentally friendly bank. Continuing to bank with Barclays does dint the National Trust’s credibility as a leading conservation and environmental protection charity.

Christian Climate Action has been actively campaigning on this issue for the last three years, attending the National Trust’s AGMs, writing to and talking with people inside the Trust’s organisation. 

In July Christian Climate Action, along with other organisations, organised a week of action, targeting National Trust properties with banners and placards, banking-themed picnics, fancy dress, questionnaires, scoreboards, and an online petition calling on the Trust to ‘Drop Barclays’.(5) (Later we learnt that the staff and volunteers were pleasantly surprised at the engaging and friendly approach of the actions having previously experienced more aggressive tactics from other campaign groups).

This year’s National Trust’s AGM was held in Newcastle. A group of us from Christian Climate Action organised a pilgrimage -well equipped with flags, pennants and banners (and flapjack) – that set off from The Sill and walked along Hadrian’s  Wall and via the Tyne Valley to Newcastle. On the way we happy band of pilgrims stopped off at National Trust sites – Housesteads Roman Fort, Cherryburn (Thomas Bewick’s birthplace) and the one room dwelling that had been Stephenson’s birthplace.

Up bright and early on the day of the AGM, the CCA pilgrims were joined by other climate activists standing outside the Civic Centre handing out leaflets about the Drop Barclays campaign – and about the equally important Climate and Nature (CAN) Bill campaign. (6) NT staff greeted us with smiles and a genuine interest in what we were doing. 

Those who were members with tickets to go into the AGM, were able to have many face to face conversations with Trustees, Council members and members of the executive team, and to talk with them openly on issues related to the climate, environment and biodiversity loss. Altogether there were some 400 National Trust members attending in person, there were a further 3000 who took part on line – and when it came to questions and comments during the AGM, each contingent was able to participate equally. I was surprised that more people didn’t take part. I asked a question in the first Q and A session and thought that I would then have to sit on my hands thereafter to give space to others. But there was no rush of hands so I was able to make a further two comments in subsequent discussions. 

There were only two points of contention. One concerned the system of Quick Votes – an issue which had been the basis of an unsuccessful resolution the previous year which was felt by a vocal minority to be undemocratic. The Quick Vote is an option where members chose to follow the position of the Trustees. It is a system used by many organisations with a large membership. It is only an option and members can mix and match the way they vote on the different issues.  It does not stifle debate: anyone can still join in the debate regardless of which voting method they have chosen. As the use of the Quick Vote was not a resolution this year (the same topic can not be brought back until three years has elapsed) there was no vote on the matter.

The other issue that produced contentious debate was that of plant based foods. Some members asserted that the proposal forced them to eat food which was not of their choosing, whilst – as  the resolution itself highlighted – felt that instead the proposal gave everyone choices about what they ate. Others were concerned about the impact on the Trust’s tenant farmers. The National Trust aims to use local produce and produce from their farms as much as possible – much of the flour used in their cafes comes from wheat grown on the Trust’s Wimpole Estate. 

In all three member’s resolutions were proposed, discussed and voted on. One called for an increase of plant based foods in the National Trust’s cafes (from the current 40% to 50%). Another called for the strengthening of the National Trust’s response to climate and ecological emergency, and the third called for the National Trust to give its formal support to the Climate and Nature Bill. All three resolutions were passed with significant majorities – voting included votes cast before the AGM and those cast on the day whether in person or online. Whilst the Trustees are not obliged to adhere to the resolutions, they clearly show the Trustees what topics matter most to the Trust’s members.  

I came away from the AGM feeling physically and emotionally drained. I felt taking part had been both important and, as it happened, highly productive. I felt that the pilgrimage had been a good preparation – walking along companions, walking through some of the wonderful landscapes and habitats that we wish to protect and enhance, meeting and sharing with local people, grappling with and overcoming tiredness, and creating the headspace to think clearly and prayerfully. 

Our conversations with the National Trust will continue as we both applaud the many good things they do and  press them to Drop Barclays.

  1. https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/who-we-are/annual-reports

(2) https://www.bankingonclimatechaos.org/ This report was a joint effort among Rainforest Action Network (RAN), BankTrack, Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development, Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), Oil Change International (OCI), Reclaim Finance, the Sierra Club, and Urgewald. The finance data was co-researched with significant contributions from Profundo.

(3) https://makemymoneymatter.co.uk/; https://www.switchit.green/; https://justmoney.org.uk/the-big-bank-switch/

(4) https://www.mymothertree.com/

(5) https://christianclimateaction.org/2024/06/08/week-of-action-urging-national-trust-to-drop-barclays/

(6) https://www.zerohour.uk/

Green Tau: issue 96

Walking the Talk

28th October 2024

A few weeks ago, whilst I and others were holding our weekly Earth Vigil outside Parliament, a passerby stopped to quiz us. In transpired that he was not interested in the wellbeing of the environment and rather wanted to justify his position by proving that we were hypocrites. His line was that we could not be taken seriously in calling for a rescinding of the Rosebank licence whilst possessing shoes, clothes, rucksacks etc made from plastics – ie oil. He would not listen to our response that we were constrained by a world that is still heavily embedded in using oil even as it transitions away from oil, such that there is not always a readily available non plastic alternative.

But what really incensed me was that I do try and do everything I can to live ecologically. I wear second hand clothes, darn my socks, patch my rucksack and my trainers, shop at a refill shop, avoid buying anything in a plastic wrapper, don’t fly, eat a vegan diet that includes wonky and unwanted fruit and vegetables, and beans and pulses grown in the UK. 

I do do all I can to walk the talk! 

And it’s not easy especially when you feel your are a minority of one. When we are away from our normal locality – and especially so when on holiday in Switzerland – it feels as if everyone else is saying, why are you so awkward?  What difference can it make whether or not you eat a little cheese, eat a cake made with butter, an icecream made with milk? Will eating a croissant make any difference to the world? When I stay with family and they make a special dish just for me, I feel I awkward and think I must seem so very pedantic.

Or when others are discussing their past and future holidays, a quick (and let’s agree in the present tax regime, cheap) flight to Italy/ Turkey/Spain, or a leisurely holiday exploring Japan, Korea and Malaysia, or a winter trip to sunny Oz. Am I grouch or a kill joy because I won’t fly? And this is where I do feel guilty: am I being selfish, as I know my husband would love for us to travel the world?

So why is it important to tread this lonely path? 

Firstly because unless someone starts, no one will ever start. I maybe the first not to fly amongst our friends but hopefully I won’t be the last.

Secondly because the more people take these steps the easier it will be for other to follow. If I always ask for a vegan cake when I’m buying a coffee, then hopefully in a few years time, vegan cakes will be the norm on cafes. Plant based milks are pretty much standard nowadays! 

Thirdly because the more people are seen to be travelling by train not plane, or eating humous not cheese, or carrying a keep cup rather than using a single use throw away variety , the more normalised such behaviour becomes.

Fourth as such patterns of behaviour become normalised – even popular – so businesses and governments will change their thinking. 

Fifthly because eventually the world could change for the better! 

However I am not hopeful that any of this will happen fast enough to prevent the huge catastrophe that the climate crisis is brewing. And that makes it a very hard path to tread. I am making life awkward for myself and my husband and my friends and family with only a very small chance that it will make life better for them.  But equally I know that not trying would be even more hurtful.