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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
(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.
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.
Existential means pertaining to existence – including relating to or affirming existence. When used as an adjective to describe a threat, it is used to mean a situation where continued existence is in question. For example, the threat of nuclear war can be described as an existential threat.
Is climate change an existential threat?
Rising global temperatures are a threat to human life. They are also a threat to the world’s flora and fauna. They are a threat to ice sheets and glaciers and so create the threat of rising sea levels. They are threat to weather patterns creating droughts, floods, heat domes, wildfires, storms etc – all of further increasing the threats to human and other life forms on earth. These threats to life – both present and future – have been widely and extensively studied by scientists across the world.
To quote from NASA’s website: “the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organisations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world.” https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
Further more “It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today’s civilisation.
“NASA Global Climate Change presents the state of scientific knowledge about climate change while highlighting the role NASA plays in better understanding our home planet. This effort includes citing multiple peer-reviewed studies from research groups across the world, illustrating the accuracy and consensus of research results (in this case, the scientific consensus on climate change) consistent with NASA’s scientific research portfolio.” https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/
In February 2021, David Attenborough in addressing the UN Security Council called climate change “the biggest threat to security that modern humans have ever faced”. He went in to say “If we continue on our current path, we will face the collapse of everything that gives us our security,” he said: food production, access to fresh water, habitable ambient temperature and ocean food chains. The poorest — those with the least security — are certain to suffer. “Our duty right now is surely to do all we can to help those in the most immediate danger.” https://press.un.org/en/2021/sc14445.doc.htm
It is not just scientists that term climate change as an existential threat, but renowned world organisations too.
In 2019, Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of UN Climate Change wrote, “Once a distant concern, climate change is now an existential threat and the greatest challenge facing this generation. It is abundantly clear that business as usual is no longer good enough. Rapid, deep and transformative hanger is needed throughout society – not only to reduce emissions and stabilise global temperatures, but to build a safer, healthier and more prosperous future for all.
“Our goals are clear and the science is non-negotiable. We must limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees and, on the road to doing so, achieve climate neutrality by 2050.This must be done urgently and cooperatively; a global project requiring the best efforts from all nations, all businesses and all people.” https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Climate_Action_Support_Trends_2019.pdf
In December 2020, five years after the signing of the Paris Agreement on climate change by world leaders at COP21 in 2015, the International Energy Agency reported:
“The Paris Agreement has been ratified by 189 of the 197 signatories ─ with scope for more to do so. Since the signing, governments, companies and citizens around the world have started to take action. Indeed, addressing this existential threat is the global challenge we face.
“This has meant a special responsibility for the IEA, which as the global energy authority has a mandate to promote energy security, economic development and environmental protection. Keeping the lights and heaters on, keeping transport moving, these are themselves critical dimensions of our economies and lives. And we have to make sure we can keep doing them in a sustainable way. Energy is not a problem – emissions are the problem.
“The IEA has looked at the energy sector’s impact on climate for more than a decade, and we have significantly ramped up our efforts in recent years under the leadership of Executive Director Dr Fatih Birol, with a focus on supporting countries in their transitions to clean energy. Energy systems that continue to worsen climate change are making all of us more vulnerable and less secure.”
Two years later in September 2022, the IEA reported:
““We are in the midst of the first truly global energy crisis, with devastating knock-on consequences across the world economy, especially in developing countries. Only by speeding up the transition to clean sustainable energy can we achieve lasting energy security,’’ said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. “Through international collaboration, we can make the transition quicker, cheaper and easier for everyone – on the back of faster innovation, greater economies of scale, bigger incentives to invest, level playing fields and benefits that are shared across all parts of society. Without this collaboration, the transition to net zero emissions will be much more challenging and could be delayed by decades.” https://www.iea.org/news/international-collaboration-gap-threatens-to-undermine-climate-progress-and-delay-net-zero-by-decades
The previous year in the IEA’s report Net Zero by 2050: a Road map for the Global Energy Sector, laid out how across the globe different sectors would need to change to meet the 2050 net zero emissions target, including ramping up renewable energy supplies such as solar and wind power. The Report highlighted the need to ensure fair energy costs for consumers, transitioning jobs to maintain employment opportunities, replacing the internal combustion engine with electric vehicles etc. At the same time it was equally forthright in stating that polluting energy sources would have to be phased out, referencing coal (to be phased out first) oil and gas – and the Report was clear:
No new oil and gas!
“Beyond projects already committed as of 2021, there are no new oil and gas fields approved for development in our pathway, and no new coal mines or mine extensions are required. The unwavering policy focus on climate change in the net zero pathway results in a sharp decline in fossil fuel demand, meaning that the focus for oil and gas producers switches entirely to output – and emissions reductions – from the operation of existing assets.” https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050
As time has passed – and despite both the promises and the actual actions taken by nations – the rate at which the climate is changing has not slowed but accelerated.
In October 2023 an international group of scientists wrote: “We are afraid of the uncharted territory that we have now entered.” Their writing in the journal Biosciences, was reported by the Forbes magazine: “As scientists, we are increasingly being asked to tell the public the truth about the crises we face in simple and direct terms. The truth is that we are shocked by the ferocity of the extreme weather events in 2023.”
In January 2024 the World Economic Forum produced its Global Risk Report.
“Nature and climate risks are getting the attention they deserve — that’s a positive first step in addressing some of the greatest challenges that we, as a global community, face. Just this week, scientists announced that temperatures in 2023 reached 1.48°C above preindustrial averages, with the 1.5°C threshold that takes the Earth into an unsafe operating space likely to be breached in the next 12 months.
“The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2024 named three key climate issues as critical challenges facing humanity: Extreme weather events, critical change to Earth systems — which is a new entrant this year — and biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse….
“There is no doubt that the challenge is great — it is perhaps the greatest challenge humanity has ever or will ever face. The good news: the solutions are available to us.
“The priority solution is faster emissions reduction and credible steps by all actors in our economic system to accelerate the speed and scale of a clean transition. Human emissions is the swiftest lever to postpone or avoid critical changes to Earth systems…
“Given the nature of the existential threat, it is essential to pair a realistic view of risks alongside hope and optimism. Too much focus on the risks will leave humans with a trauma response of fight, flight, freeze and fold – leading to ecoanxiety and climate grief. These responses induce inaction and serve to propel the risk rather than mitigate it. On the other hand, an overly optimistic view that is reliant on technological fixes further down the line is also unhelpful, as decision-makers kick the can down the proverbial road.
“What is needed is a mindset that recognises the full scale of the climate risk, whilst maintaining the optimism that we can and will respond in a way to avoid and mitigate the worst risks from occurring.”
Their report also noted: “The good news: the solutions are available to us. The priority solution is faster emissions reduction and credible steps by all actors in our economic system to accelerate the speed and scale of a clean transition. Human emissions is the swiftest lever to postpone or avoid critical changes to Earth systems.” https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/01/climate-risks-are-finally-front-and-centre-of-the-global-consciousness/
In July 2024 the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) produced its Global Foresight Report. This is a report that aims to understand and predict those things that can or will disrupt planetary health and human wellbeing. The Executive Summary provides the following insights.
“Through the process, it has become clear that the world is facing a different context than it faces even ten years ago. Some of the issues are the same, but the rapid rate of change combined with technological developments, more frequent and devastating disasters and an increasingly turbulent geopolitical landscape, has resulted in a new operating context, where any country can be thrown off course more easily and more often.
“The world is already on the verge of what may be termed ‘polycrisis’ – where global crises are not just amplifying and accelerating but also appear to be synchronising. The triple planetary crisis of climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste is feeding into human crises such as conflict for territory and resources, displacement and deteriorating health.
“The speed of change is staggering….
“The good news is that just as the impact of multiple crises is compounded when they are linked, so are the solutions …Key to a better future is a focus on inter generational equity and a new social contract reinforcing shared values that unite us rather than divide us. A new social contract would involve the global community pursuing transformative change across technological, economic and social factors and paradigms and collective goals.” https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/45915/English-Executive-Summary-Foresight-Report.pdf?sequence=8
For scientists and for those looking at the climate crisis from a global perspective, it is clear that climate change does present us with an existential threat. However looking at the responses from governments and business concerns – that is actual responses not just words and promises – climate change is not an existential threat. It is not even an urgent priority. Economic growth (measured by the unhelpful metric of gross domestic product), the exploiting of every last drop of oil and gas, increasing dividends, ensuring profits for banks, routes for airlines, roads for car drivers, and the maintenance of industrial farming and livestock production, all take precedence.
If global bodies are saying ‘existential threat’ but government and industry are saying ‘business as usual’ then we should not be surprised if most people think that the climate change is an important global issue but not an issue that should have any impact on their daily life. So governments and industries continue to say ‘Yes we will make change’ to the global bodies whilst continuing to say to the consumers ‘No don’t worry, we’ll delay these changes till a later date’.
One body that monitors the progress being taken by nations is the Climate Action Tracker.
“The Climate Action Tracker is an independent scientific project that tracks government climate action and measures it against the globally agreed Paris Agreement aim of “holding warming well below 2°C, and pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C.” https://climateactiontracker.org/
Their assessment shows that gap between where we should be and where we are.
“Domestication should not be confused with taming. Taming is the conditioned behavioural modification of a wild-born animal when its natural avoidance of humans is reduced and it accepts the presence of humans, but domestication is the permanent genetic modification of a bred lineage that leads to an inherited predisposition toward humans.” (1)
Humans are not the only creatures to domesticate another living being. The leaf cutter ant is one example. It has domesticated specific fungi for food. (2)
But humans have been the most prolific in domesticating a variety of plants, birds and animals. Dogs were the first animals to join up with humans in the journey of domestication. They were followed some 10,000 to 20,000 years later by sheep, goats and cattle.
Cats and dogs, sheep and cattle, guinea pigs and hens, horses and rabbits, are some of the most popular domesticated creatures. There are 1.5 billion cattle, 1 billion pigs, 1 billion sheep and 26 billion hens in the world at any time (as some are of course bred to be killed). (3) Vis a vis pets there are 471 pet dogs and 373 pet cats (ie not wild or stray animals) (4)
Dogs often achieve the status of honorary member of the family. They have specially formulated food – both regular food for day to day nutrition and treats specially designed to mimic human treats such as chocolates, ice cream, beer, mince pies (Christmas time) and Easter eggs. They are given specially designed beds for sleeping and sometimes separate ones for day time use, and special ‘beds’ in cars. For the summer months they may have special mats that include a cooling element. Dogs can expect to have a wide range to toys and balls for their entertainment. They usually wear a collar, which again can be a design item, as well as a separate harness for a lead for walks. Walks may also involve the provision of one or more coats – warm ones, waterproofs etc – and maybe even boots. If they can’t walk far, they may also have a pram or a carrying bag or backpack in which to travel.
Some dogs get to ride in a basket on the front/ back of a bike. They may have special blankets to calm anxious moments such as during thunderstorms. Some dogs may be dressed in more than coats with frocks and shirts, neck scarves and fascinators.
Their owners will expect to take them anywhere they go – cafes and pubs, hotels and churches, on trains and planes, even in cinemas where they are special screenings. So far I don’t think dogs go to gyms or swimming pools – unless they are assistance dogs. Many venues will provide bowls of water and dog friendly snacks.
When they die, they will probably be ritually buried (or cremated) and possibly with a formal service in a pet cemetery too.
Could an animal receive more devoted attention than this? Why do we do this? Is it simply because they are domesticated animals? Or is it because they are animals that have been bred to be friendly and to look cute? This may well be part of the answer. Some scientists suggest that that dogs have shaped their attitudes to make friends with humans because they can see benefits in so doing. (5)
Why do we lavish such care and attention on dogs but not say on cows? Do we care less about cows because we don’t have a personal relationship with them? Is it because – unless we live in the countryside – we hardly ever see them? Is it because we don’t usually think about the animal when we drink milk or eat steak? Or if we do, the image of the animal is influenced by picture book images of dreamy cows, frolicking lambs and hens pecking away in green friends?
Recently there have been various of articles about cattle and the dairy and meat industry which might prompt us to want to take more interest in the welfare of farm animals and the impact they have on the environment.
Ethical Consumer reminds us that cattle raised for dairy or meat will be slaughtered before they achieve their full lifespan. Dairy calves maybe removed from their mothers within days of birth. And dairy cows are often bred to produce milk in quantities that is at the expense of their health. The industrial scale production means that many animals do not have access to fields or grass.(6, 7, 8)
Industrial agriculture can cause huge problems in terms of pollution to air and water from the faeces produced by the animals. (9)
Should we give up flying for the sake of the planet?
I recently took part in a radio show where this was the topic being discussed. I am someone who for the last 20 years (I think) has deliberately chosen – for environmental reasons – not to fly. The other panellist was a pilot for a charity that flies people and resources in and out of remote islands in Asia. Two extremes but actually we both agreed that there were some instances when flying was a good thing – such as providing medical support for people, which could be for remote islanders in the Pacific, islanders living off the coasts of Scotland or for medical emergencies where an air ambulance can rapidly transfer people to hospital. Equally flying might be a key way of getting resources, food and medicines to areas cut off from other modes of transport after natural and other disasters.
However such instances do not make up the bulk of air travel across the world, nor are they applicable to the majority of locations worldwide. Most flights are scheduled flights, mostly carrying passengers.
According to a report by the International Air Transport Association (IATA), in 2023, there were 36 million aircraft departures, conveying some 4497 million scheduled passengers plus cargo. Measured in terms of revenue, scheduled passengers generated $646 billion and cargo $138 billion. (1)
Aviation accounts for 2.5% of global CO₂ emissions. However its impact on global warming is even more because of the impact of planes at high altitude affecting the concentration of other atmospheric gases and pollutants. (2)
If 2.5% of global emissions seems small, we need to remember that these emissions come from just 10% of the world’s population – nine out ten people don’t fly and that is almost always because it is an unaffordable luxury.
Yet air travel is predicted to continue to increase – ISTA predicts a 3.8% increase in passenger numbers every year, resulting in 4 billion extra passenger journeys by 2043. (1) Is this sensible – indeed justifiable – given the impact that this would have on the amount of carbon held in the atmosphere and its impact on accelerating the rise in global temperatures and the impact of that on daily life for most people?
Even if planes become more efficient in burning fuel, and even if sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) becomes a reality at scale, can the airline industry increase flights and at the same time reducing emissions? Not so according to the predictions of the consultants Bain and Company:-
“We estimate that the airline industry’s current decarbonisation measures will result in a net 3.4% increase in its global CO2 emissions by 2030 vs. 2019 levels. This is based on the outlook that a 23% reduction in CO2 emissions per RPK (thanks to fleet renewal and sustainable aviation fuel usage) would be more than offset by a 36% increase in global RPK [revenue passenger kilometres – the number of paying passengers multiplied by the total distance traveled]. It would require an additional carbon tax equivalent to 5% of average ticket prices worldwide in order for the industry to maintain its 2019 C02 emissions volume in 2030, according to our forecast.” (3)
The conclusion must then be that the 10% of us who do fly, should think twice about doing so. We should stop flying to safeguard our own future, to safe guard the future of the next generation, and to safeguard the lives of the 90% who are not even contributing to the problem. As Christians we have the command that we should love our neighbour as ourself which includes each and every neighbour on the other side of the world who does or doesn’t fly. And caring for our neighbour will include conserving aviation fuel for those planes and helicopters providing emergency aid and access for those remote and inaccessible places
Of course our worry is that while we may make the sacrifice of not flying, no one else will and therefore our actions will not have any safeguarding affect! That is a good reason to sign the Flight Free Pledge (4) to generate a groundswell of people committed to not flying. It also becomes a good reason to talk about not flying, to create then social norm that flying is the exception not the norm, to expound the advantages of travelling instead by train – comfort, legroom, no congested airport lounges, less stress, seeing more of the countryside, sleepers for night travel, on board restaurants…
The other concern is cost. Whilst air travel is prohibitively expensive for most people, train travel can be equally prohibitive. Governments across the world need to be encouraged to impose taxes and operation rules to restrict air travel and to make train travel more affordable. To do so will be cost effective if it enables us to bring down emissions and properly tackle the climate crisis.
Yes absolutely we should give up flying to save the planet!
Over the last few weeks I have made a grand tour of England and Wales, visiting iconic National Trust sites. Ours is still a green and pleasant land, from St Michael’s Mount in the south west to Newcastle’s Souter Lighthouse in the northeast; from Windermere in the northwest to Box Hill in the south east, from Worms Head on the Gower Peninsula in the west to Kinder Scout in the middle. It is green and pleasant because people care passionately about the environment!
This is not to say that there isn’t room for improvement – uniform green fields full of grazing sheep may in reality be products of monoculture, and placid waters may mask life-damaging pollutants.
One of the greatest threats to our green and pleasant land is climate change. Rocketing temperatures in the oceans are fuelling a wet and windy summer here and across Northern Europe. Flooding and tree damage, poor harvests and dwindling numbers of butterflies is one of the many consequences. Late autumns and early springs upset the breeding patterns of birds, and the flowering cycles of plants. Intermittent heat waves stress many plants and animals, and increase the risk of wild fires.
And yes, generally, people do care and do want a sustainable, green, accessible, biodiverse rich environment in which to live. The National Trust is one of the bigger organisations that is making that a reality. And we know we must do all we can to limit the output of carbon dioxide to keep climate change in check. And again the National Trust is addressing this specific issue with a target of net zero by 2030.
We know we need fossil fuel companies to cut back their output and transition to renewables. We know we need pension funds, insurers and banks to use their financial power to press for faster change.
So why then does the National Trust – the nation’s largest conservation charity – still bank with Barclays, the biggest funder of fossil fuels in Europe?
This week there is a week of action, coordinated by Christian Climate Action, which aims to press the National Trust to go that one more step, to become that bit greener, by switching from Barclays to a bank that is fully aligned with the National Trust’s environmental credentials.
The actions at various National Trust sites across the country with banners and placards – possibly even with visits by Peter Rabbit -will be peaceful and friendly, inviting people to learn more about banking with Barclays is an issue and inviting them to sign a petition asking the National Trust to drop Barclays – something which other charities, such as Oxfam and Christian Aid, have already done.
The Green Tau 