The Green Tau – Page 4 – The Green Tau

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.

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.

Green Tau: issue 95

27th September 2024

Is climate change an existential threat?

What does ‘existential’ mean?

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.”

https://www.iea.org/commentaries/as-we-mark-the-paris-agreement-s-5th-anniversary-we-continue-to-expand-our-work-on-energy-and-climate

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.

Green Tau: issue 94

30th August 2024

Domesticated animals – are they all equal?

“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)

(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_dog has a section on socialisation vis a vis the domestication process

(6) https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/food-drink/shopping-guide/ethical-milk-brands

(7) https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/food-drink/dairy-milk-assurance-schemes

(8) https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/food-drink/dairy-animal-rights

(9) https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/10-things-you-should-know-about-industrial-farming

Green Tau: Issue 93

21st August 2024

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!

Green Tau: issue 91

An even greener National Trust?

29th July 2024

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.

Green Tau Reflection

11th July 2024
The Slug and Leper

Like many gardeners this year, I have found my garden overrun by copious numbers of slugs – and curiously it is slugs rather than snails. In previous years I have sought to protect vulnerable plants such as seedlings and strawberries with coffee grounds, egg shells, and mussel shells etc – all to no avail.

Last year’s dry spring meant I had a good crop of strawberries and I was keen to enjoy these home grown fruits again this year. So I gritted my teeth – or maybe I girded my loins – but each day I went out with two bowls. Into the first I put ripe strawberries and into the second slugs. (I used one hand for strawberries and the other for the slugs). The strawberries I took to the kitchen; the slugs I tipped out into the compost heap in the front garden.

Slugs are not actually slimy. Nor are they squishy. Rather they are solid and muscular and on the underside look a bit like the sole of a foot. After picking up the first few, I have come to see them in a different light. They are fellow creatures who share my love of strawberries. When I see them gliding across the path, I admire the graceful ease with which they move. When I watch their delicate feelers probing the air, I admire their cautious curiosity. When I observe their colour, I notice the different shades of brown and black and the patterns – striations the length of their body, or in the case of leopard slugs, contrasting patches. I have shared this delight with my husband, who too now looks at slugs with interest.

It is interesting – maybe surprising – that when we get to know that which we previously despised or from which we recoiled, that our feelings change to a more friendly, loving disposition. This reminds me of the story of St Francis who as a young man was revolted by the sight of lepers. Yet one day inspired by Christ’s love, he kissed and embraced a leper, and found in him a brother.

Green Tau: Issue 90

24th May 2024

Profits part 2

Having written about what profits are and whether they are per se good, I have come across some news stories which point to the moral downside of pursuing profits.

Medicines

Is the profit motive a good way of determining which new medicines to develop or for which diseases to seek a cure? Should it be necessary to make a profit – as opposed to covering costs – in order to develop a medicine that will relieve suffering and/ or enable someone to live a more normal life?

And when a medicine has been developed, is it appropriate to sell it at a profit, knowing that this may be put it out of the reach of people whose health might otherwise be improved? Is it appropriate to charge a license fee for would be manufacturers in less affluent parts of the world?

Of course there is a cost in researching and developing new medicines and treatments – but how is that best paid for? Future profits or through taxation, allowing research to be seen as public service for the common good?

– https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/16/imagine-getting-life-saving-drugs-to-sick-people-without-relying-on-big-pharma-we-may-have-found-a-way?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Supermarkets

Supermarkets typically promote their business as selling best value foods – either as very cheap foods or as affordable but quality foods. But how benefits most from these low prices or who pays the cost of cheap food?

To ensure low prices, supermarkets utilise the benefits of economies of scale. This can exclude small traders from selling produce to them. It can cause particular complications for farmers if they struggle to grow enough of their crop that is of the right size, at the right time and in the right quantity. Failure may mean loosing the whole supermarket order: no sale, no payment.

Another way of ensuring low prices is to cut costs, especially labour costs which can mean cutting back on hourly rates or hours worked or staffing levels. This is usually to the detriment of the low paid workers rather than higher grade staff.

But where supermarkets are in fact primarily focused on profits, prices will be no lower than needed enough to maintain sales at levels that maximise profit. In this example profits rose by 159% whilst sales rose by just 7.4%.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/14/tesco-ceo-near-10m-pay-a-slap-in-the-face-for-struggling-workers-union-says?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Oil profits

Shell, like many oil companies has repeatedly made record profits – enhanced in part by the war between Russia and Ukraine. As consumers were forced to pay more and more for their energy bills, the government introduced a 35% windfall tax to recoup some of the unearned profits. The policy however allowed the oil companies to offset this tax to the tune of 91p for every pound they invested in fossil fuel extraction projects in the UK.

In 2023 Shell made profits of £22.3 billion and paid in tax £1.1 billion, including £240 million in relation to the windfall tax. This was the first time Shell had paid any taxes since 2017. As well as offsetting losses, Shell has also offset against tax, costs incurred in decommissioning North Sea platforms – a task that has yet to be completed, leaving many parts of the infrastructure leaking poisonous chemicals into the sea.

The profits that Shell makes does not benefit its consumers, nor UK citizens, nor the environment – only shareholders (which still includes various pension and investment funds) and board members.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60295177

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/02/shell-unveils-new-35bn-share-buy-back-after-higher-profits-than-expected?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The super rich

Whilst most people in the UK have seen their annual income fall in real terms, a select few have seen their income and wealth continue to rise. Typically these were people who inherited or otherwise could access money. People with money can buy property rather than renting, and can then gain from rising property values. At the same time this has the effect of raising property prices out of the re@ch of many people. People with money find that proportionately the things they buy – luxury items – do not rise as fast in price as basic items. The inflation rate for basic foods has been consistently higher than for more upmarket items. It is a true saying that ‘money begets money’.

The unequal spread of money distorts markets – shopping streets in affluent areas continue to thrive whilst in deprived areas, more and more shops have closed.

The Guardian reported “The richest 350 individuals and families together hold a combined wealth of £795bn – a sum larger than the annual GDP of Poland. Priya Sahni-Nicholas, a co-executive director of the Equality Trust, a charity that campaigns for the creation of a fairer society, said the list “demonstrates the obscene extent of inequality” in the UK. “Billionaire wealth is up by more than 1,000% since 1990 at a very real cost to us all,” she said. “This rich list is built off record bill increases, massive price hikes for essentials, an endless shortage of decent homes, and huge investment in fossil fuels.

“To make progress on these crises we must tackle inequality. The super-rich have spent centuries diverting wealth into their hands, making our democracy less responsive to people’s needs and damaging our communities. The result is we are poorer, sicker, less productive, unhappier, more polarised, and less trusting.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/17/british-asylum-housing-tycoon-breaks-into-sunday-times-rich-list?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Green Tau: Issue 89

Profit, cost and loss

10th May 2024

Maximising profits seems to be the name of the game, the chief goal of businesses, educational establishments, public services, governments etc. But what are profits and are they intrinsically good?

What is profit?

A profit is an advantage or benefit, or more specifically a financial gain. The word’s meaning comes from the Latin ‘profectus’ meaning growth, advance, increase, success or progress. From this there comes the idea that to profit is to benefit.

In business terms profit may be understood as:-

Gross profit = revenue from selling a product or service less costs of materials used in producing it.

Operating profit = gross profits less operating costs such as of labour, machinery, depreciation, rent and utilities.

Net profit = operating profit less all other costs such as taxes and interest payments.

Who benefits from the profit?

The business owner who can simply pocket the lot.
The business owner as a return on his/ her investment – possibly a risky investment.
The business if the owner reinvests the profit in the business. Such investment could upgrade the business’s resources, infrastructure, and/or workforce, and so improve productivity.
The shareholders if the profit is shared as a dividend.
The employees if the profit is shared as a bonus.
The country may benefit if tax is paid on the profit.

The company and its shareholders may also benefit in other ways. Increasing profits can increase the value of the company’s shares which benefits the share holders (if they choose to sell) and increase the value of the company. The latter can benefit the company if the owner wished to sell or, conversely, protect the company if the owner wished to avoid being bought out. It can also benefit the company by making it easier for it to obtain finance for its operations. Maintaining and indeed improving profits also safeguards the jobs of the senior members of staff.

But are higher profits always better?

Increased profits may not be better for the consumers who may be contributing to these profits through paying higher prices. Last summer UK supermarkets were accused of ‘greed-flation’ as they reported significant profits whilst food price increases peaked at nearly 20%.

Increased profits may not be better for employees who may face redundancies and pay cuts in order to maintain profits. Labour costs are often the first things a business tries to reduce to improve profitability.

Increased profits may not be better for the environment, if more damaging processes and trading practices are used to reduce costs and increase profits. Some companies transfer operations to other countries where there are lower environmental protection standards – or where there is cheaper labour and/ or lower welfare requirements.

Increased profits may not be better for the environment if they also increase pollution. Increasing oil production leads to more flaring and more oil leaks damaging the environment. Increasing profits through sales of more takeaway meals, increases the use of single use plastic and the pollution it causes.

Increased profits may not be better for the environment if the increase comes from the increased production of a product that is intrinsically damaging – whether that is carbon producing fossil fuels, or muck and methane producing cattle/ chickens etc.

All the above will also have adverse effects on the local community either though increased local unemployment or through increased pollution. Local communities can also be affected if the increase in profits arises from increases in production leading to increases in delivery traffic.

If the increase in profits only, or disproportionately, benefits those on high incomes, that can increase environmental damage as those on high incomes tend to have lifestyles with a higher carbon and environmental footprint. It can increase social inequalities that undermine social cohesion and wellbeing. It can create inequalities in power, resulting in the community/ society/ economy being shaped to suit those with most money – further disadvantaging the low paid and unemployed.

The increase in profits may not benefit the host country if the company can arrange its affairs so that its tax is paid elsewhere – probably at a lower rate.

Do markets prevent excess profits?

According to pure economic theory the movement of the market will prevent excess profits being made. For if a business makes more profits than expected, other companies will enter the market and such competition will continue until profits return to the normal level. In reality markets are not perfect. It can be hard for new or small firms to enter especially of the start up costs are large – eg in the oil industry, in supermarket chains etc.

It maybe that a company holds an effective monopoly – rivals to ‘X’ cannot offer their customers the same audience base. Ditto for an online market trying to compete with Amazon.

Information is not perfect. Many consumers may not know that Starbucks does not pay a fair proportion of taxes in the UK, that Shell is not paying for the safe dismantling of its disused oil pipelines, allowing them to leak toxic chemicals into the North Sea, or that their supermarket chicken has come from a factory farm that is polluting the River Wye. If customers knew these facts would they be as willing for pay for the products that generate profits for multi national companies? Sadly it maybe that many customers have a low income that prevents them making other choices.

Does profit have to be the over riding priority?

No, other business models exist.

Charities and not for profit businesses operate in the basis that the prime objective is to pursue the mission of the organisation, and if profits arise, they are to be used to support that. eg The National Trust, the Big Issue, The Peabody Housing Association.
Social enterprises which aim to promote, encourage, and make social change. Any profits are reinvested in the enterprise. eg Belu who sell bottled water who donate their profit to Water Aid. Clean For Good is a London based cleaning company that promotes fair and ethical employment of cleaning staff; profits are shared between reinvested, cleaning staff and shareholders (charitable bodies such as the Parish of St Andrew’s in the Wardrobe, CMS, and the Centre for Theology & Community.
Cooperatives are companies owned and controlled by its members so as to meet their shared needs. eg Suma is a workers’ cooperative – its business is owned and run by its employees who then share equally in the profits. Energy 4 All helps develop community owned renewable energy projects. Members receive a fair return on their investment from the sale of green electricity but at a level that is capped so that the balance of the profits can support the community fund enabling more such projects.
Mutuals are companies which are owned by their customers, who share in the profits. eg Scottish Friendly which is a finance services provider whose profits are reinvested in the business. NFU Mutual which is an insurance company for the farming industry. It has 900,000 members and any profits made are shared between them.
Impact businesses have two ‘bottom lines’, one being profitably and the other a dedicated issue that could be social, environmental etc. eg Octopus Energy aims both to be profitable and to make the renewable energy transition faster and cheaper for its customers. Hey Girls sells period products using a buy-one-give-one model to end period poverty and improve period health.
B-corps are impact businesses that have been certified by B Lab – a world wide certification body – as meeting specific target levels vis a vis their social impact. eg The Guardian is a B Corp with a commitment to using its profits to support carbon neutral policies, reporting on climate change and, for example, not accepting advertising from fossil fuel extractors. OddBox takes fruit and vegetables that would otherwise go for waste – because they are too many or too few in number, the wrong shape or otherwise unwanted by retailers – and sells them via a veg box scheme.
Credit Unions are community-based financial organisations where profits are used to support local initiatives or are repaid to members. Members may have to qualify by living in a certain area or working within a certain industry or for a specific employer. Members are often encouraged to save money with the Credit Union before applying for a loan.
Community share schemes allow people to invest in a local scheme via ‘withdrawable shares’ – these cannot be sold, traded or transferred, and whilst the share holder may receive interest on their investment, no dividend is paid. All members have an equal vote in shaping the policy of the company. Members can withdraw their share – but only if the company has the funds to buy them back. Community share schemes are used for to support nurseries, pubs, local transport schemes and preserved railways etc.

There are many ways of running businesses that benefit society in ways other than purely financial. These are the truly ‘profitable’ businesses!

Green Tau issue 88

10th April 2024

The law, juries and justice

In the UK laws are made by Parliament. The Parliamentary process should involve in-depth scrutiny and widespread consultation with those likely to be affected to ensure that laws are both fair and effective.

(I use the word ‘should’ because the reality at the moment is that often such scrutiny is lacking. The following comes from a Legal Action Group report: “Speaking at the annual Bingham Lecture, Lord Judge, who now sits in the House of Lords, observed that parliament produces around 3,000 pages of primary legislation a year, along with 12–13,000 pages of secondary legislation. Disturbingly, he expressed doubts about how much of this was even ‘read, just read’ by parliamentarians, ‘let alone scrutinised’.” https://www.lag.org.uk/article/201782/parliamentary-scrutiny-of-our-legislation-is-being-lost-to-misused-executive-power)

Once passed, the laws are enforced by the legal system, including the courts where the interpretation of the law can be explored.

The English legal system is renowned for it jury trials – trials where the defendant’s guilt or innocence is determined by twelve of their fellow citizens. The jury hears the evidence, for and against, and then retires to deliberate amongst themselves as to whether or not they think that the defendant is or is not guilty. At the outset each witness, including the defendant, swear that they will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This ensures that the jury has all the relevant evidence.

The role of the judge is to make sure that the case is conducted in accordance with the law. They use their knowledges and experience in interpreting the law, elucidating for the court what they believe the law says or means. The judge can also determine which evidence is relevant to the case and can therefore be heard in court. When the evidence has been heard, the jury – not the judge – gives the verdict of guilty or not guilty. In this way the democratic process is brought to bear upon the legal system: it is the decision of twelve randomly chosen fellow citizens who determine whether or naturally a law has been broken by the defendant. Having heard the juries’ verdict, the judge – of the defendant has been found guilty -determines the sentence that concludes the case. Again this is done within the guideline laid down by law.

Judges have to be impartial ensuring that everyone – defendants, witnesses and jurors, are treated equally and fairly.

Jurors too have to be impartial and must make their decisions about the case purely on the basis of the evidence that they hear whilst in court. They must not look for information elsewhere – be that via the internet, the media, friends or family etc. Rather they must only discuss the evidence they hear in court with – and only when all twelve are present – their fellow jurors. They must determine on each count whether or not the defendant is guilty or not guilty. Their decision must be one that reflects their joint thinking. Their decision is one of conscience based on the evidence that they have heard. Jurors do not – and indeed must not – explain what they discussed and how they have reached their decision.

At The Old Bailey there is a plaque beating the following text:

“Near this site William Penn and William Mead were tried in 1670 for preaching to an unlawful assembly in Grace Church Street. This tablet commemorates the courage and endurance of the jury, Thos Vere, Edward Bushell and ten others who refused to give a verdict against them although locked up without food for two nights and were fined for their final verdict of not guilty. The case of these jurymen was reviewed on a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the opinion of the Court which established”The Right of Juries” to give their verdict according to their convictions.”

It concerns a trial in which the jury was not willing to find the defendants, William Penn and William Mead, guilty. The judge then ruled that the jury must find defendants guilty. When they refused, the judge had them locked up without food and water for two days. When they still would not find the defendants guilty, the judge fined the jury members. Those who refused to pay were imprisoned. Edward Bushell appealed to a higher court that he was being unlawfully imprisoned. The Chief Justice released him and declared that jurors could only be punished if they behaved improperly and not because they came to a decision that did not suit the judge or appeared contri to the evidence.

This right that juries should convict according to their conscience is now the subject of debate, following the arrest of Trudi Warner – for holding up a placard bearing that same inscription as depicted on the plaque inside The Old Bailey – for contempt of court.

Not surprisingly there has been a strong reaction to this and a group called Defend Our Juries has been coordinating actions outside Crown Courts (where jury cases are heard) where individuals have become human billboards, sitting in silence outside the court holding a replica sign summarising the words from the Old Bailey.

For more information about these issues – https://defendourjuries.org/