The Green Tau – Page 7 – The Green Tau

Green Tau: issue 83

Oil, profits and how to bring about change

14th November 2023

Following on from last week’s Green Tau, it seems that Shell – and other oil and gas companies – have no intention of cutting back on the amount of fossil fuels that they plan to extract and sell. If this becomes a reality, then the planet faces a grim future with rising temperatures and increasingly violent weather patterns that will make large parts of the earth uninhabitable.

Is there anything that can be done to deflect and reverse this scenario? At present so many systems seem designed to perpetuate the profitability and financial attractiveness of fossil fuels.

For example, most buildings are heated via gas fired boilers, most vehicles are powered by petrol. Swopping to a different system of heating and powering vehicles is expensive, with the need for investment in new distribution networks, new manufacturing plants, newly trained staff both to make and maintain the new equipment – plus, of course, the need for customers to have sufficient resources to make the switch.

Whilst at the same time, oil and gas companies are huge, having grown over many decades into international corporations, dominating our economies and therefore command great influence in the financial worlds – far more so than say a new, still small renewables company.

There is also the inertia that comes from years practice. Customers, financiers, governments etc have been used to working with the oil and gas industry for so long, that change feels counter intuitive and difficult. The longer we have done something one way, the harder it is for us to imagine there being any other way.

Nevertheless there are ways of changing the system.

Government Action –

1. Remove government subsidies. Many governments, not just here in the UK, subsidise the fossil fuel industries, in part to keep their own economies competitive. But these subsidies are large and distort the market price of fossil energy. Recently 25,000 plus climate protestors in the Netherlands blockaded a motor way for ten days to persuade their government to review its continued payment of subsidies to the Dutch fossil fuel industry. (This is something we too should campaign for).

2. Increase subsidies to support renewable energy and so tip the markets away from fossil fuels. If governments can be persuaded to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, it would be appropriate to equally ask that that money be diverted to both subsidise renewables, and to support those in our society who are suffering from fuel poverty.

3. Enforce stringent windfall taxes to recoup the money that the fossil fuel industry earns purely because of war and other global uncertainties. These events, because they lead to higher prices for oil and gas but have no effect on the cost of production, enable companies to receive increased profits at zero cost. Such windfall tax revenues should then be used to reimburse those vulnerable communities that have lost most because of the climate crisis.

4. Ban advertising for fossil fuels. Over recent years cigarette advertising has been banned to encourage consumers to make more healthy choices and to reduce the cost to the NHS of the health issues caused by cigarette smoke. Fossil fuels cause even more damage to health and an even greater costs to society as jobs, homes, infrastructure, farming etc suffer from the adverse effects of the climate crisis.

5. By the same logic there should be a ban preventing fossil fuel companies from sponsoring sporting and cultural events. Such sponsorship has the additional concern that it portrays the sponsors as worthy upholders of what we value as a society – where as in fact their businesses are destroying what we hold dear.

6. Agree and impose a global tax on aviation fuel. At present aviation fuel – unlike petrol and diesel is not taxed. It would be too easy for airlines to avoid the tax if introduced state by state, by refuelling at airports where no tax was imposed.

7. Pro-active government advertising to encourage consumers to reduce consumption of fossil fuels. Plus Government support to enable consumers to switch to green energy suppliers, to replace gas boilers with heat pumps, to replace car journeys with active travel (walking, cycling) or with public transport etc.

8. Government legislation to ban internal flights where railways can provide the same connections. The EU is already gradually introducing legislation to achieve this in Europe.

9. Pro active messaging from the government to show that they are committed to a speedy switch to renewable energy – certainty on the direction and speed of travel is important for the financial markets and those investing in green technologies.

10. Legislation to require all businesses and organisations to have a net zero transition plan that encompasses scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. Government support, to enable small concerns to undertake this, would be necessary.

Businesses and organisations

1. Pro-actively engaging in drawing up and implementing net zero transition plans to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels and their green house gas emissions.

2. Refusing to promote or advertise fossil fuels companies and products. The Guardian newspaper for example does not carry adverts for airlines.

3. Cutting ties with companies that support the fossil fuel industries, such as banks, and insurance companies.

4. Supporting, developing and/or investing in renewable energy and zero carbon products. Seeking out alternative materials that can substitute for fossil fuels.

5. Giving support to activist groups seeking to persuade more reluctant organisations to adopt climate friendly policies.

Consumers

1.Wherever we can (depending on our financial position) to opt not to buy fossil fuel products – eg by switching to green energy suppliers, reducing petrol consumption by, for example, walking or cycling, using public transport, car sharing, using an electric car, by not flying, by replacing boilers with heat pumps etc, and by cutting back or avoiding products made from oil – such as plastics but also vinyl products, polyester etc. (For a comprehensive and amazing list see https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/11/f68/Products%20Made%20From%20Oil%20and%20Natural%20Gas%20Infographic.pdf)

2. Use our voting power to elect a government that is pro the wellbeing of the climate and environment and anti the damaging actions of the fossil fuel industry. This applies to local as well as national elections. In between elections, email your representatives if you feel they are not sufficiently supporting the well-being of the environment.

3. Target all companies with ties to the fossil fuel industry such as banking and insurance, to urge them to cut their ties and support instead the renewable energy sector.

4. We can as individuals and as campaign groups be vocal in telling the truth about emissions from the fossil fuel industry and so counter their green washing.

5. Switch our bank, pensions, insurance etc to companies who are not supporting the fossil fuel industry.

Green Tau issue 82

Oil, Profits and the need for change

3rd November 2023

Yesterday Shell announced their interim profits of £5.1bn for the period July to September. This was up on the previous quarter but down compared with this quarter last year when their profits were over £7bn.

According to a report made by Reuters, in order to compete with its fellow oil producers, Shell will be aiming to increase its dividend by 20% and to make overall payouts of between 35-40% of its cash flow. To this end the new CEO Wael Sawan aims to maintain Shell’s oil output at 1.5 million barrels per day. While this is less than the 2.6 million bpd produced in 1998, Sawan’s plan is to maintain this 1.5 million bpd until 2030! With oil prices again rising due to the conflict in the Middle East, increasing profits and dividends seem secure – and Sawan has said that shifting to a low-carbon economy cannot come at the expense of profits. (1)

The Guardian has reported that Shell plans to invest $40 billion in oil and gas production between now and 2035, and between $10bn and $15bn in “low-carbon” products including biofuels and carbon capture. (2) Carbon capture is important to Shell as it aims to reduce its carbon emissions between now and 2050. However it must be noted that Shell only includes scope 1 and 2 emissions in these targets – ie they intend to reduce the emissions arising from the production of oil and gas, with for example carbon capture being used to offset emissions they cannot remove. What is not covered in Shell’s net zero aspirations are the emissions released by the oil and gas once they have been sold and used – scope 3 emissions. Other oil companies do the same, each competing to claim whose oil is least carbon intensive or greenest!

In 2022 Shell’s scope 1 and 2 emissions were 58 million tonnes CO2e, but its scope 1,2 and 3 emissions were in the region of 1.6 billion tonnes CO2e. Global emissions for CO2e are about 40 billion tonnes of which fossil fuels contribute about 37 billion tonnes. There is no getting away from the fact that fossil fuels are drivers of climate change. And equally that companies like Shell have no intention of phasing out oil from their business plans.

Meanwhile the International Energy Agency ( IEA) has said that if we are to achieve our net zero emissions by 2050 there must be no more development of new oil or gas. There is already enough fossil fuels available from the existing sites for the world’s economies to use as they transition to net zero.

However oil and gas typically produces a return of 10-20% whilst renewables only yield 5-8%. Our lifestyles are still deeply dependent on the oil economy and often it seems simpler to pay more for the fuel than to readjust tey way we live and work. Equally it would seem that the markets cannot reflect in their prices the risk and/ or cost of a climate catastrophe. Surely then it is time for the markets to be regulated for the benefit of everyone. Such regulations would need to be clear, precise and universal to be effective. Individual nations are unlikely to make such regulations in isolation. Hence the need for regulatory agreements to be reached at, for example, COP28.

It is also important that the nations at COP28 agree to a sharp and complete phasing out of fossil fuels. The agreement will need to clearly define when and how fossil fuel production is to be reduced to zero. It will effect some countries more than others – especially those who have previously become dependant on oil money. It will affect jobs, both those directly employed in the extraction of fossil fuels, and those employed in the processing of this raw material. It will also affect investment markets, potentially reduce the amount of funds accruing to pension funds, insurance companies etc. Ensuring a smooth and fair transition is important.

The IMF reports, “The end of oil thus makes economic transformation imperative. Oil-rich countries must diversify to become resilient to the changes in energy markets. An appropriate governance framework to manage proceeds from oil in good and bad times has always been important to fostering economic diversification. But with stranded assets a new risk, radical shifts in governance in oil-dependent economies are urgent. Dubai, for example, facing the depletion of its oil reserves, transformed itself into a global trade hub. Countries and businesses reliant on these markets must formulate policies to address this transformation, including the development of renewable energy.” (Arezki 2020) (4)

What does not and will not help, is prolonging the viability of oil companies. In particular the use of government subsidies should be withdrawn universally. Instead windfall taxes should be levied to fund reparations to communities disproportionately affected by climate change.

Last year Ethical Consumer reported “Currently, the UK’s tax regime makes it the most profitable country in the world to develop big offshore oil and gas projects. Most spending on oil and gas exploration can be offset against tax, as it is classified as ‘research and development’. Almost all spending on new fields can be offset in the first year of development, and companies can claim tax relief for decommissioning offshore installations. Since the Paris Agreement, the government has provided £13.6 billion in subsidies to the UK oil and gas industry. From 2016 to 2020 companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, including £15 million of direct grants for exploration, and £3.7 billion in payments towards decommissioning costs.” (4)

From research commissioned by the Liberal Democrats, the Guardian reported that since 2015, whilst renewable energy received £60bn in subsidies, fossil fuel companies received close to £80bn. (5) No wonder the investment returns on fossil fuels exceeds that from renewables!

And in 2022, Energy Voice reported that “Shell received net rebates of over $121 million (£92m) from the UK government last year, the largest total from any country in which it operates. In total, Shell received rebates of more than $131m (£100m) from HM Revenue and Customs, according to its latest Payments to Governments report, released Tuesday. This was offset by fee payments to regulators, including more than $10.5m (£8m) to the Oil and Gas Authority (now the North Sea Transition Authority), and over $120,000 (£91,000) to the Crown Estate Scotland.” (6) Is the UK government actively paying oil companies to damage our climate?!

The IEA reports “‘The IEA has long advocated removing or at least reducing fossil fuel subsidies because they distort markets, send the wrong price signals to users, widen fiscal deficits in developing economies, and discourage the adoption of cleaner renewable energies. Their expansion is particularly worrying at a time when we should be redoubling efforts to cut wasteful consumption and accelerate clean energy transitions. Reforming prices is a political challenge, but it is also economically and environmentally vital.” (7)

The overarching aim of the climate COPs is to limit the extent of climate change and its impact on the world. To this end numerous agreements have been made since COP21 in Paris in 2015, to reduce net emissions to zero by 2050. This scientists thought would keep global temperature increases below 1.5C. However it now seems that with emissions still rising, we may pass this threshold much sooner. Samantha Burgess, the deputy director of the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), noted that September 2023 would be one for the record books. “This extreme month has pushed 2023 into the dubious honour of first place – on track to be the warmest year and around 1.4°C above pre-industrial average temperatures.” (8)

The failure of governments and oil companies to phase down the production of fossil fuels is surely morally if not criminally wrong? In the next Green Tau I will be looking at campaigns and actions that aim to address this.

(1) – https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shell-pivots-back-oil-win-over-investors-sources-2023-06-09/

(2) – https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/14/shell-drops-target-to-cut-oil-production-as-ceo-guns-for-higher-profits?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

(3) – https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2021/06/the-future-of-oil-arezki-and-nysveen.htm

(4) – https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/energy/paid-pollute-fossil-fuel-subsidies-uk-what-you-need-know

(5) – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/09/fossil-fuels-more-support-uk-than-renewables-since-2015

(6) – https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/400886/uk-government-hands-shell-more-than-92m-in-2021/

(7) – https://www.iea.org/reports/oil-2021

(8) – https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1141937

Green Tau: issue 83

20th October 2023

Oily Money and Uganda

In 2006 oil was discovered in Uganda. Total ( French oil company) and CNOOC (Chinese oil company) bought the rights to extract this crude oil. However there has been considerable objection on many grounds. One of the key objections to the project is the statement issued by the International Energy Agency two years ago, that, to keep within the agreed net zero carbon emissions targets, no new oil and gas fields should be opened. This oil field is likely to produce over its lifetime 1.4 bn barrels – approximately equivalent to what France would consume in two years: not huge but not insignificant either – and would emit some 34 million tonnes of CO2 a year.

Another objection to the scheme is the threat to the environment. The oil field lies under both Lake Albert and the adjacent Murchinson Falls National Park, both of which are key areas maintaining important ecological habitats and in particular those of migratory fauna. Already test drilling has led to pollution of the lake, affecting fish stocks.

Once extracted, the plan is to heat the crude oil to 50C (to ensure it flows) and despatch it via a 900 mile pipeline through Uganda and Tanzania to a refinery at port of Tanga on the India Ocean. The pipeline could carry one 800 million barrels of oil a year. The East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline – EACOP – is a joint project comprising Total who have a 62% share, CNOOC with an 8% share, and TPDC (Tanzanian) and UNOC (Ugandan) each with a 15% share.

A further objection centres around the local people who have, and are being, forcibly removed from the land – both in the vicinity of the proposed oil field and along the route of the pipeline. So far some 60,000 Ugandan farmers and householders have been displaced. Often poor, their land used for growing food had been key in preventing extreme deprivation. Whilst they have received some financial compensation, it has often been inadequate and frequently taken 4 years to materialise.

The original construction timetable was for work to start in 2016 and to be completed within 3 years, but opposition has continued to delayed this. The project has, for example, been condemned by the European Parliament. As of August this year, the proposed start date is now 2024.

Total and CNOOC still need to raise $3 bn to finance the pipeline. Two banks, Standard Bank and ICBC, are still potential funders for the pipeline. Eight other international banks have declined to confirm their willingness, whilst twenty six (including Barclays and Deutsche Bank) have declined outright – https://www.stopeacop.net/banks-checklist.

In addition the project needs to underwriten by insurers. Whikst seven, including Lloyds of London and Chaucer, have not yet ruled out providing insurance, but a further twenty three insurers (including Zurich and Ava) have declined. https://www.stopeacop.net/insurers-checklist

Many campaign groups – Money Rebellion, Coal Action Network, Stop Eacop, Extinction Rebellion, Christian Climate Action, Stop Rosebank, and Just Stop Oil, are involved in opposing EACOP and most recently by targeting the would-be financiers of the project.

Oil projects, like this one in Uganda, are often presented as a way for poor countries to grow their economies and improve the wellbeing of their citizens. But in reality most of the money goes to the larger, overseas investors, and the number of local jobs created is small. The following abridge article on some of the economic alternatives comes from the StopEAOP web site.

“For example, Uganda’s tourism industry accounts for about 7% of the country’s gross domestic product and provides over 600,000 jobs. In contrast, EACOP is expected to create only 200-300 permanent jobs. Despite being a major economic sector and job creator in Uganda, tourism is often overlooked or underestimated, with only about 0.4 percent of the government budget allocated to it….The agriculture sector employs more people than any other sector: it is the backbone of the economy and fuels the country. Yet the small farmers who make this vital industry work are neglected. Support for the sector accounts for just under 3 percent of the government’s budget, yet the sector generates nearly 25 percent of the gross domestic product. There is a real opportunity to increase economic strength and resilience by investing in and supporting small-scale sustainable agriculture … Sustainable industries like renewable energy and electric transportation are already well established in the region, but with increased support from international investors, the sector has incredible potential [wind, solar, hydro and geothermal] … The clean energy sector will also benefit the agriculture sector, as decentralised renewable energy deployment can increase yields and incomes for small-scale farmers by improving solar irrigation and electrifying other agricultural activities such as cold storage and processing. In addition, investments in the clean energy sector create a significant number of permanent jobs in the manufacturing sector. For example, Kiira Motors, a state-owned vehicle manufacturer, will employ 14,000 Ugandans to produce 5,000 electric buses and other vehicles per year.” https://www.stopeacop.net/beyond-oil

Another concern is that poor countries like Uganda, often take on increased foreign debts in the expectation that future oil revenues will repay the interest, but delays in getting to the production stage can increase the debt burden and extra costs an reduce the returns, all increasing the country’s ongoing debt problem. Uganda spends more than 50% of its GDP financing foreign loans.

To read more about how debt is affecting wellbeing in Uganda read this Amnesty International report – https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2023/09/building-resilience-public-debt-management-and-health-financing-in-ugand/

Debt Justice is leading the campaign, alongside other charities, to cancel the unfair burden of debt being borne by countries such as Uganda – https://debtjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Debt-fossil-fuel-trap-report-2023.pdf

Green Tau issue 82

10th October 2023

“No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!”

“No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!”- the catch phrase from one of the Monty Python sketches. At bizarre moments in innocent situations the red clothed members of the Spanish Inquisition would suddenly leap out ejaculating “No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!”

The same is true of the climate crisis. No one expects the climate crisis to interrupt their daily life. Yet it does. A sudden torrential storm, a flash flood, an unseasonal heat wave, a spark and a forest fire destroys a town.

No one expected storm Daniel to devastate the farm land of Thessaly, or to inundate the town of Derna in Libya. No one expected a storm to kill 11 in the Western Cape. Olive farmers in Spain did not expect heat waves and droughts to devastate 2/3 of their harvest. Holiday makers on Rhodes did not expect to be surrounded by wild fires. No one expected that wildfires would still be burning in Alberta in October. No one expected more than a month’s rainfall in 36 hours causing flooding across communities as far apart as Greenock and Aviemore.

Do we think of these extreme weather events as freak events that won’t be repeated? Do we see them as things that happen elsewhere in the world but not here? Do we see them as something that would never happen to me?

If we don’t expect them, then we are as unlikely to plan for them. That perhaps is too easily the situation in which we and our politicians find ourselves. And so we all carry on as if such extreme weather events will never happen to us and that our lives will not be disrupted.

How you rate the risk of the likelihood of an extreme weather event probably depends on how much you know about the climate crisis. The more you know, the more you will have come to understand that the risks are high, and are growing each year that we allow carbon emissions to expand. The science is clear.

It is less easy to predict is when and where these extreme events will happen, but the effects will be significant. Herein is the problem. How does one convey the degree of risk, the degree of disruption that the climate crisis will cause of one cannot be specific about time and place?

This is why some groups, such as Just Stop Oil, choose actions that will disrupt daily life now. The disruption is a taster on a very small scale of the disruption we, the public, will face when we are the focus of an extreme weather event. Groups like Just Stop Oil are warning us that the climate crisis will cause massive disruption far worse than a 15 minute road delay road or interrupted theatre performance, and that we are doing nothing at the appropriate scale to prevent it.

We should be demanding that serious action be taken now by the government, by big businesses, by investors. We should be embracing and calling for the carbon budgets and strategies recommended by the Climate Change Committee to be implemented at once and at speed.

For the CCC report of the government’s current progress in meeting tey current Carbon budget, see – https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Progress-in-reducing-UK-emissions-2023-Report-to-Parliament-1.pdf

For the CCC’s budget for 2033-37 (ie the period for which we should be planning now – https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Policies-for-the-Sixth-Carbon-Budget-and-Net-Zero.pdf

For a further article on understanding net zero targets see – https://greentau.org/2023/05/30/green-tau-issue-70/

Green Tau: issue 81

Oil and Money – a slippery mix

5th October 2023

In 2019 the Oil & Money conference was renamed the Energy Intelligence Forum. Reuters at the time reported “One of the world’s leading oil and gas conferences, Oil & Money, will change its name to the Energy Intelligence Forum to reflect the world’s shift to cleaner energy in the fight against climate change, its organisers said on Tuesday.”

The Forum in relation to its remit says “We are proud that the conference has been a platform for open and unbiased debate for the energy industry since 1979, …The world needs energy, but the energy industry must find ways to meet those needs in a more sustainable way. The mission of the Energy Intelligence Forum will be to provide a place where energy leaders can come together to debate, collaborate and find low-carbon solutions for the world’s energy challenges.” (1)

However looking at their web site for this year’s conference, whilst one of the main issues being addressed is the effect of climate change on the energy business, it is not with a view to finding low carbon solutions. Rather the objective would seem to be maintaining the profitability of those supplying fossil fuels. Speakers are almost universally from the oil industry or have close links.

Some of the particular topics of discussion includes the following agenda items (my numbering):

i. “Climate Divisions and COP – Can The World Move Forward Together (and What Happens If It Doesn’t?)

“The Western world has driven much of the climate agenda to date, but will a more assertive East and Global South change the debate? Is the COP process still relevant or has technology and country-level policy come to the fore? Who will pay for the transition and how?”

ii. “Building the Future- Constructing Tomorrow’s Energy System Today

“How will the world construct an energy system that can deliver reliable, affordable and clean energy in the next 30 years? What might look the same and what will have to evolve as we think about energy sources as varied as fossil fuels, renewables and nuclear power? Is there enough industrial capacity and raw materials to realise our grand ambitions?”

iii. “The Changing Face of ESG* – Will Net Zero Remain the Standard?

“How are public and private capital looking at exposure to carbon, and what does this mean for companies in the energy business? Will “net zero” remain the touchstone for climate-focused investors or will it be replaced by other metrics? How will ideas about sustainable approaches to investment change, as we move through a rocky energy transition?”

(*ESG – environmental, social and governance)

iv. “Winning Energy Strategies – How Best to Navigate Climate, Supply Security and Shareholder Returns

“How can oil and gas companies best navigate the competing priorities of supply security, transition, shareholder demands and portfolio limits? Can companies move faster through the transition than consumers? Should they get more involved in shifting demand? What do shareholders and stakeholders want from incumbent energy players?”

v.“The Geopolitics of the New Energy Economy – The emerging contests, opportunities and risks of the low-carbon transition

“The low-carbon transition is reshaping global geopolitics as nations jostle for position in the energy economy. How will tensions between the US and China, and between producers and consumers, play out? Will demand for minerals, metals and other materials create new tensions? What happens to countries that are left behind? What other sources of instability could arise, like migration?” (2)

These are all important topics which ought to be discussed with a broad spectrum of participants including those from the fields of renewable energy, climate science and biodiversity, as well as participants from across the globe. It is important to consider the role and importance of non-western countries in determining the climate agenda. Especially so when we are considering who is going to pay for the costs of transitioning. Climate justice campaigners have long called for the greater burden to be born by the richer countries both to reimburse those most affected by the adverse affects of the crisis and to create a level playing field for the future.

‘Constructing tomorrow’s energy system today’ is what all countries should have been doing for the last 50 years. Here governments have been most remiss leaving these decisions to those in the industry with the most power (the fossil fuel producers) rather than evening out the power balance to enable smaller, newer, renewable producers to have a viable voice. Too often governments have only listened to the voices of the big oil producers rather than listening to climate scientists and those developing alternative energies.

It is important that ‘net zero’ remains the standard for that is the only coherent target that provides a pathway to reducing carbon emissions to a safer level. It must remain a constant, unchangeable standard if it is both to be effective vis a vis the climate crisis, and to provide fairness and stability in a global economy where everyone is looking for the competitive edge. We have just recently seen in the UK that, arbitrarily and at short notice, changing the cut off date for ending the production of cars with petrol engines, is as destabilising for manufacturers as it is for customers – and thus also for investors. Equally we have seen that when the government does not gear its energy subsidies towards net zero, that we end up, in the UK certainly, with government money further subsidising new oil whilst failing to boost wind farm construction.

‘Can companies move faster through the transition than consumers?’ One hopes so, otherwise we consumers are forced to buy unsustainable products. In fact companies are not always keeping up with customers – and again this may be due to lack of government support or encouragement. Recently it has been reported that the cost of insuring electric vehicles has rocketed because the infrastructure for the repair of damaged vehicles and batteries is not yet to scale. This means that the costs for repairs are higher and therefore the cost of insurance cover too is higher. In the area of solar panels and heat pumps, the rate of manufacture and supply is way behind customer demand. Many customers have a long wait or are forced into buying a less climate friendly alternative. In an ideal world energy companies would be pioneering and investing in these industries. Octopus Energy – which is in the business of selling rather than producing energy – by comparison, is currently promoting the sale of domestic heat pumps, starting from £500 for a complete installation.

Where fossil fuel companies are gambling – and perhaps their gamble looks safe given the power of the companies and the lack of government intervention – is that they are continuing to invest heavily in new oil and gas projects where the fuel won’t come on line for 5 to 10 years and for which the pay back period is going to be even longer. Will there still be a strong market for fossil fuels in 20 or 30 years time? Worryingly for the environment, they, at present, seem to be successfully making that case with shareholders that that will be so.

The Geopolitics of the low-carbon transition is relevant not just with regard to fossil fuels, but also in the growing markets for minerals such as lithium and cobalt for the manufacture of batteries. This gives countries with these raw materials the opportunities for increased wealth or more likely, increased exploitation. Just as large oil companies have been able to manipulate and control supply and demand for fossil fuels, so equally powerful mineral companies are able to so the same. Invariably this is at the expense of the environment and of the local workforce and of the rights of indigenous people. The size of the multi national companies and their control over what are becoming key raw materials, seems to prevent any effective global policing of welfare, environmental and safety standards.

And as the agenda blurb suggests, there is a real risk that the shift in geopolitics will lead to conflict between countries or between rival groups within countries. On the last day of the conference one agenda item in particular highlights the close link between the power of large industries, economic power and conflict.

“The New Geopolitics – The Messy Shift Toward a Multipolar World and the New Middle East

“How has the conflict in Ukraine accelerated the geopolitical and economic shifts away from a unipolar world and toward a multipolar order? What does the rise of China mean for US dominance? How will large emerging countries like Saudi Arabia, India and Brazil assert their own independent path, while balancing their traditional alliances. What does this mean for energy companies and commodities which flourished over the past 20 years of steady globalisation?” (2)

Should such self serving conferences as the Energy Intelligence Forum be held without reference to or inclusion of other groups representing the interests of the environment, sustainable development, fair trade, and global well being? The decisions made at the Forum will potentially have major impact on the lives of everyone – and everything – in the world.

A final word from Laudate Deum, Pope Francis’s most recent encyclical, paragraph 23:

“It is chilling to realise that the capacities expanded by technology “have given those with the knowledge and especially the economic resources to use them, an impressive dominance over the whole of humanity and the entire world. Never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely, particularly when we consider how it is currently being used… In whose hands does all this power lie, or will it eventually end up? It is extremely risky for a small part of humanity to have it”. [Laudate Si 104: AAS 107 (2015), 888-889.]”

(1)https://www.energyintel.com/0000017b-8742-d2d1-affb-f74a076d0001

(2) https://www.energyintelligenceforum.com/2023/agenda

A Tale of Two Futures

Talk given at Climate Fair, Norwich: 30th September 2023

Earlier this year in my blog – the greentau – I imagined what the future might be like. By 2033 we should be at least half way to net zero.

Will we have been successful? What will have changed? What will daily life be like?

The first tale.

In many ways life in 2033 is not that different from how it is in 2023.

I still live in the same house, with the same husband and even the same – now rather elderly – cat.

We have recently replaced the solar panels on our roof and are now not just self sufficient for energy but regularly put electricity back into the grid.

Talking of solar panels, every house in our street now has them, as does the local school and our church – and as you have probably guessed, very few buildings have gas boilers now-a-days.

Other changes in our street include more trees, which provide welcome shade during heat waves,

and fewer cars. Some families have hung into their old electric cars but most journeys are now made by cycle or public transport.

We have a fully integrated national train and bus service that runs on the Swiss-style pulse model, and all communities of 300 + people have an hourly bus service throughout the day, alongside which many rural areas also benefit from a demand responsive minibus service. All town centres are now traffic free and all main roads have dedicated cycle tracks wide enough for cargo and family bikes.

All bus services are free and for rail travel half price rail cards are popular, especially with families as children travel free.

The increase in cycling has made us fitter and healthier and eased the burden on the NHS. You will be pleased to hear that we do still have a national health service! There were some dodgy moments when it looked like the system might collapse, but with the influence of a people’s assembly, the whole health and welfare system has being overhauled. There is a focus on preventative care and long term investment – improving the health of children (physical, mental and educational) will have profound benefits for our society and save money but the savings may take 20 to 30 years to kick in.

It has been surprising how much addressing the climate crisis has simultaneously improved people’s wellbeing. All school and institutional meals are now plant based, and I hope you are not surprised to hear that meat-free dishes now comprise over 50% of all restaurant menus. Vegan cooking is now mainstream although at the time the All Vegan Bake Off series in 2024 seemed radical. The change in our diets has not only improved our health but has changed the appearance of the rural landscape – much more leafy!

The UK is now self sufficient in wheat, and an increasing area of land is used for growing fruits and vegetables. There has been a horticultural revolution with small robots and drones undertaking many of the back breaking tasks, and with more glasshouses and hydroponic irrigation, growing seasons have been extended whilst at the same time reducing the demand for water. Work in this sector is now well paid and popular.

Orchards have multiplied and now encompass new fruits such as olives and pistachios, peaches and almonds, and are often intercropped with shade loving plants. The increase in tree cover is, perhaps the biggest change that you would notice. Not only have we seen orchards expand, but many areas have been rewilded with wide hedgerows, copses and new woodlands. The latest nature report has shown an increase in biodiversity in the UK. It is a revival that required dedication and persistence, but is now reaping rewards. Nightingales can often be heard – but not necessarily in Berkeley Square! – and a new generation of children are listening out for the cuckoos in spring. Walks and trips to wildlife hides are increasingly popular as there is so much to see!

The High Street is still our main shopping area but it does look more attractive with trees and well-stocked planters. If you want a few herbs, it’s a case of pick your own. With fewer cars, there is less demand for car parking. Many car parks have been transformed into green spaces and recreation grounds, with features as diverse as climbing walls and outdoor chessboards. These planted areas double up as SuDS – sustainable drainage systems – absorbing excess water during spells of heavy rain.

There are new shops in the High Street, such as Splash – a bike-wash and coffee shop where customers enjoy coffee and cake whilst their bike is cleaned, oiled and pumped up. There’s a branch of Repairs are Us, where virtuallly any domestic item can be repaired. And next to the charity shop, there’s Tailor Tricks where they will readjust or alter any misfitting clothes. At the other end of the market, we have made to measure fashion outlets such ‘Just for Me’. Video loops show the latest catwalk fashions, whilst on the shelves fabric swatches and accessories entice you to try something new. Interactive screens show you how you would look in these new clothes, and once you have made your choice, the workshop sets to and within a few days – sometimes just hours – your made to measure outfit is ready to wear!

Of course there are more cycle shops – and more cycle accessory shops. The pet shops are thriving too as we are increasingly aware of the value of pets for our mental wellbeing. Another growth area has been in indoor plants as we increasingly enjoy filling our homes with living things – and just as dog walking was a growing business in the 20s, so now there is a growth in companies offering plant care services. No more half dead plants lurking on windowsills when you return from holiday!

Most high streets now have their own coffee roastery, micro brewery, bakery and plant based delicatessen. Cheeses and ice creams made from nuts are a popular indulgence. Across the country local authorities have made a real effort to promote localism with preferential rates for local businesses. Localism boosts local employment opportunities, improves community cohesion, shortens supply chains, reduces transport and commuting costs, and provide more reliable services during extreme weather events.

Ten years on things have changed but it is not a totally different world nor is it a life lacking in comfort. If anything we have a healthier and happier lives.

That’s the positive story. Keep it in mind as I read the second of my two tales.

In many ways life in 2033 is not that different from in 2023. I still live in the same house, with the same husband and even the same – now rather elderly – cat.

We had hoped to replace our equally elderly solar panels, but production of these is so limited that there is an 18 month waiting list. Similarly we are still waiting to upgrade our storage batteries. Like many people we still have to rely on our gas boiler for heating but this is expensive and as far as possible we opt instead for extra layers of clothing. I have finally persuaded Paul to wear leggings under his trousers – assuring him that they are not long john’s in another guise!

What you will notice on the streets is the sparsity of combustion engines – not because they have been phased out but because they are now too expensive to run. Instead many people use secondhand electric cars, which is fine until they break down, blocking the road. Of course for those with money, there are always new electric cars, and like the old petrol models, each new range is bigger, wider and heavier than the last. The roads are just as congested as before and parking is at even more of a premium. With congested roads and a lack of investment in public transport and cycling infrastructure, average journey times are increasing! This is prompting some people to return to home working – which was not part of the government’s plan!

Due to a lack of investment in renewable energy, electricity costs are continuing to escalate and power outages are frequent for those who cannot afford the guaranteed 24/7 tariffs.

In many part of the country – both urban and rural – there are homes which are no longer connected to the grid, as their occupants cannot afford the unit costs or the standing charges. Instead such households use candles for lighting and camping stoves for a minimal amount of cooking. Heating is by body heat only, helped by fleece onesies, duvets and layers of jumpers.

Schools open early and close late so that children can

be some where warm,
get a hot meal (the government was forced into providing all primary pupils with free school lunches in 2024), and
have lighting by which to do their homework, and power to recharge their laptops.

As energy prices have risen so has the cost of travel. The government has been forced to provide low paid workers (not just those on a minimum wage but teachers and nurses too) with free bus passes to enable them to get to work! This was first introduced in London by Sadiq Khan in 2024.

People no longer travel as frequently or as far as we did in 2023.

Health and social care continues to be an issue. We now have a two tier health service: as good as you can afford if you can go private; second rate if you rely on the NHS. Life expectancy rates continue to drop. For those in the most deprived areas, male life expectancy is now 69 years, and for females 75 years. However even for those in the least deprived areas, life expectancy has plateaued at 83 and 86 years respectively. Major factors here are the high cost of living that makes good food and warm homes a luxury, on top of which are the adverse affects of the weather. We regularly have heat waves in the summer when temperatures exceed 44C. These can last from just a few days to extended periods of a fortnight or more. And they usually end with a cataclysmic downpour. High temperatures, particularly when they combine with high night time temperatures, have continued to cause fatalities amongst the young, the elderly, and those with underlying health issues. It is not unusual for excess deaths during the summer months to number more than 100 people a day.

Flooding is a recurring problem. It is not just from short spells of torrential rain which come summer and winter alike, but also from rising sea levels. A sea level rise of 15cm doesn’t sound much but when that is added to a high tide, and strong winds, which effectively heap up the waves, which are then funnelled into river estuaries, it can be experienced as 75cm. The increasing frequency and height of flooding in Norfolk, has seen the permanent closure of the railway line to Lowestoft, and many homes locally have become uninsurable.

Floods and heatwaves are not only affect human life but also wildlife, pets, livestock and crops. Some farmers have stopped growing potatoes because the summers are too dry. Whilst others have switched from growing wheat to growing drought resistant sorghum and millet instead. Sugar beet too is increasingly hard to grow.

And everyone is noticing the rising cost in food prices and food shortages. It is not just the UK that is facing difficulties. The climate crisis is affecting crops across the world. Coffee is no longer grown in Kenya and Ethiopia, sheep are no longer farmed in Australia and wheat no longer comes from the American prairies.

The climate crisis is felt not just in rising food prices but also in conflict and migration. The war in Ukraine may have prompted a reassessment of gas supplies, but not of water. Since then we have seen conflict along the length of the Tigris and the Euphrates, and the Nile, as nations previously reliant on these waters compete to control this valuable resource. Similar conflicts are also taking place along the Congo river where they are compounded by the desire to protect the oil now coming on tap from that same region. All these areas of water shortages and armed conflict have produced an ever growing flow of people into Europe. Most aspire to reach Northern Europe where water security appears more certain.

The UK is now a much more divided nation. On the one extreme, there are those who have no regular income, and who are reliant on food banks, second hand clothes and warm hubs. For them, home is usually a single room, with no provision of either kitchen or bathroom, as these have become luxuries – people’s cooked meals come from soup kitchens, and their laundering and washing happens in the equivalent wash and shower hub at the local amenity centre. It feels as if we are returning to the Victorian model of boarding houses and public baths.

At the other end of the spectrum, are those with jobs and investment incomes who can afford what ever they want and who can live lives completely separated from any crisis. In between is a spectrum of those who can afford food, and/ or accommodation, and /or heating, and/ or transport, and/or leisure activities. Some of us can afford most of these, but some struggle to afford just one.

There is an ever increasing number of people who are choosing to forgo parenthood just so that they can afford to live.

Yet we are still asking ourselves, if there is, perhaps, just enough time to keep global temperatures

below a 3C increase. It seems to be human nature to always have hope despite the odds!

Two very different but equally possible futures.

I have done a lot of speaking!

While I catch my breath, have a chat with your neighbour.

What are makes you most hopeful about the future?

What worries you most about the future?

Have about 5 minutes and then if you wish, we can here back from different people?

Do we have a choice about our future?

Changing the way we live our daily lives and changing the way businesses and governments respond to the climate crisis can be as challenging as stopping and turning round an ocean liner. Making choices about our own daily lives is possibly the easier part – in so far as there are things in my control that I can change. I can choose to turn the thermostat down; I can buy electricity from a green supplier; I can choose not to fly; I can choose to stick to a vegan diet etc.

But these on their own won’t reduce the cost of energy; they won’t alter oil companies investment plant; they won’t transform the public transport system; they won’t revolutionise farming practices; they won’t systematically insulate every home; or rewild flood plains.

My own individual actions will not prevent rising global temperatures. To transition as a nation and globally, we need businesses, large organisations, trade bodies and government draw up plans, to implement policies and to legislate for change.

I am here on behalf of Christian Climate Action which is a nation-wide community of climate activists. We not only come from different parts of the country, we also come from different denominations.

Whilst in our own ways (depending on circumstances and opportunities) we have all responded to the climate crisis by making changes to our individual lifestyles, what unites us is the awareness that that in itself is not enough. That what we need to do, is to press for systemic change in the way businesses and organisations are run, in the way that local and national authorities respond to the emergency, and in the way that money is invested.

We are motivated by God’s call that we should care for the earth,

that we should love our neighbours,

that we should speak the truth and call out injustice.

We are inspired by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Following the examples of Jesus and the prophets, we carry out acts of public witness, non violent protest and civil disobedience, seeking to advance the values of the kingdom of God.

Recently I had ago at composing a concise descriptor for Climate activism and concluded that the aim of climate activism is ‘A just transition to a fossil free future.’

So as a Christian Climate activist, what actions have I taken?

Some are regular actions, repeated week after week in the hope that, like a constant drip of water can erode stone, they will effect change. So every Wednesday I kneel with a banner outside Shell’s London headquarters. This silent vigil reflects my concern for the environment and the damage that Shell continues to cause through the production and promotion of fossil fuels. I hope that as well as bringing the power of prayer to the situation, that my presence will prick the conscience of Shell employees arriving for work and of passers-by.

I spend a further two hours with other CCA supporters outside Parliament. Again our witness is one of silent prayer and presence. As we sit or kneel, we are passed by a constant stream of people going back and forth for work, tourists, school children and students (visiting parliament), the occasional member of the clergy and the occasional member of Parliament. Wednesday is a busy day as it is Prime Minister’s Questions and various other protest groups also gather – anti brexiters, activists for Armenian, rights, anti ULEZ campaigners, people protesting on behalf of lack of school funding, and so on.

On Ash Wednesday I took part in a progressive act of worship, with lament and ashing, along the streets in and around Parliament Square. Our lament was against the Government’s decision to approve the West Cumbrian Coal Mine.

A few days later, as an act of penitence, I knelt before the altar in Southwark Cathedral. My son cut off my hair and my husband read out a statement that decried the church’s continuing investment in and profiting from fossil fuels. This was part of a weekend of cathedral actions organised by CCA across the country in Catholic and Anglican dioceses which had not them divested from fossil fuels.

With a happier heart I went in July to support CCA’s presence at General Synod when the Church of England’s National Investment Body affirmed their decision to divest from fossil fuels. Southwark diocese, and many others, followed suit.

Together with CCA and XR I joined a day of action with members of an indigenous community from Sarawak who were protesting the destruction of their forest heritage.

For the Big One in April, CCA with other faith groups organised a ‘No Faith in Fossil Fuels’ service at St John’s Waterloo where I was a steward – the attendance was twice the capacity of the church and afterwards a 1000 strong band of pilgrims marched to Parliament Square. Over the weekend CCA maintain a faith hub opposite Westminster Abbey with daily worship, prayers and communion – all out on the street.

I have twice taken action outside the ExCel centre, for Shell’s AGM and for the bi annual Arms Fair.

Earlier this month I led a walk of prayer along the Thames as part of a CCA weekend of pilgrimages for the planet.

Last Saturday I was a protest of one in my local high street, marking Loss and Damage Day.

Next month I will be kneeling in prayer with CCA outside the Oil and Money Conference and in November I will taking action with CCA in Swindon to persuade the National Trust to drop Barclays as it bank. Barclays is one of the largest European investors in fossil fuels and that surely is at odds with the National Trust status as a protector of the natural environment!

The actions I take are ones that

a) aim to persuade those in positions to authority and influence to adopt climate friendly practices,

b) stand up for the rights of those adversely affected by climate change,

c) that pricks the conscience of passers-by prompting them to take notice

and d) speak truthfully of our human failing to live according to God’s kingdom.

I’m going to pause now and invite you to talk with your neighbour about which actions to tackle the climate crisis you feel are most effective, and then, what actions you yourself would be willing to undertake.

Have about 5 minutes and then if you wish, we can hear back from different people?

Does anyone have any questions?

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today on behalf of CCA.

Green Tau issue 80

Restore Nature Now! How?

29th September 2023

The annual State of Nature report was issued 27th September, revealing that 1 in 6 species in the UK is threatened with extinction. On average the abundance of land and freshwater species in England has declined by 32% since 1970.

The National Biodiversity network noted: “The State of Nature report also found that out of the assessed habitats which are important for wildlife, only one in seven (14%) were found to be in a good condition and only one in fourteen (7%) woodlands and a quarter (25%) of peatlands were assessed to be in a good ecological state. Due to habitat damage from fishing gear, none of the seafloor around the UK was found in good condition…Despite recent moves towards more nature-friendly land and sea use, as yet only a fifth of farmland is now in agri-environment schemes with only some of that helping nature, just 44% of woodland is certified as sustainably managed and only half of fish stocks are sustainably harvested. While all three measures have improved markedly over the past 20 years, there is still a very long way to go.” (1)

Beccy Speight, the RSPB’s chief executive, said: “The UK’s wildlife is better studied than in any other country in the world and what the data tells us should make us sit up and listen. What is clear is that progress to protect our species and habitats has not been sufficient and yet we know we urgently need to restore nature to tackle the climate crisis and build resilience.

“We know that conservation works and how to restore ecosystems and save species. We need to move far faster as a society towards nature-friendly land and sea use, otherwise the UK’s nature and wider environment will continue to decline and degrade, with huge implications for our own way of life. It’s only through working together that we can help nature recover.” (2)

The Soil Association’s head of Farming Policy Gareth Morgan yesterday said: “It is deeply concerning to see this detailed report on the state of nature in the UK but sadly it does not come as a huge shock. Farmland makes up 70% of Britain and we can’t fix the decline in nature without a transformation in food and farming. Many farmers are working with nature and many more are keen to do so. But we remain too dependent on over-intensive, chemical-reliant methods such as industrial livestock systems fed on imported soy. The evidence shows some success for recovery in small protected areas but we cannot ignore what happens in the rest of our countryside where we need a renewed focus on producing good food in harmony with nature.” (3)

Just as switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources will be key to achieving net zero for carbon emissions, so it would seem that switching from what might be termed industrial farming to regenerative farming will be key to achieving the restoration of nature.

(1) https://nbn.org.uk/news/state-of-nature-2023/

(2) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/27/species-risk-extinction-great-britain-wildlife-state-of-nature-report?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

(3)https://www.soilassociation.org/news/2023/september/27/state-of-nature-we-can-save-wildlife-by-transforming-farming/

Previous issues of Green Tau have explored biodiversity –

The Green Tau: issue 19

The Green Tau: issue 20

Green Tau: issue 21

Green Tau issue 79: Loss and Damage

22nd September 2023

What is ‘Loss and Damage’?

Christian Aid provides the following definition:

“Loss and damage’ is a term used in UN climate talks to refer to the consequences of climate change that go beyond what people can adapt to. Like when extreme droughts turn farmland into dust. The climate crisis is affecting vulnerable communities around the world. People are losing their homes and their livelihoods right now.

“Some of the loss and damage that’s occurring can be measured in economic terms, such as impacts on farming or tourism – but the loss of lives or the trauma of having to migrate from your ancestral home is much harder to quantify, and even more devastating.

“’ We can’t adapt to the loss of our cultures, the loss of our identities, the loss of our histories. We can’t adapt to extinction or to starvation. We cannot adapt to loss and damage.’ – Vanessa Nakate (2022)” (1b) Vanessa Nakate is a Ugandan climate activist who was appointed a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador in 2022.

Data from Christian Aid suggests that for the year 2022, extreme climate events in South Africa (flooding), Pakistan (flooding), the Caribbean(tropical cyclone) and Brazil (drought) caused damage costing in excess of $15.5 billion (1). In addition there were ‘smaller’ climate events plus the ongoing year by year degradation of farming and industrial output in many countries. Christian Aid’s 2022 report, ‘The Cost to Africa’, “suggests GDP per capita in African states is 13.6% lower than if there had been no global heating between 1991 and 2010. This trend is predicted to continue. If governments globally meet their target of limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, by 2100 the average hit to GDP in African states will be 34%. If we do not meet our targets and keep on current trends, it could be a hit of 64%.” (2)

Western nations have not been exempt from costly extreme climate events. In 2022 drought and storms in Europe, floods in Australia and hurricane Ian in the USA caused in excess of $130 billion of damage (1). It should be noted that as western nations have more and higher quality infrastructure, the cost of any physical damage is always going to be high, whilst at the same time more will be covered by insurance policies.

What is particularly unjust, is that the climate change causing all these extreme weather events arises largely from the carbon emissions of the the highly industrialised countries, but inflicts most damage on the poorest least responsible countries. A report in the Guardian notes “The entire continent of Africa is responsible for less than 4% of historic global emissions, yet African people are bearing the brunt of the climate crisis”. (3) This injustice is compounded because these two groups of nations are not facing the climate crisis from a level playing field. “When Germany experienced terrible flooding in 2021, the government was able to instantly mobilise €30bn (£26bn) to pay to rebuild the towns and infrastructure that had been decimated by the flood. In contrast, Pakistan has had to rely on an UN emergency appeal that is only 34% funded. Mozambique was forced to take out an IMF loan to help pay for recovery following Cyclone Idai in 2019, pushing the country further into debt distress”. (3)

Christian Aid’s Africa Advisor Joab Okanda, based in Kenya, explains: ‘The roads that we’re building from borrowed loans are being washed away and we have to repay these loans, our people are having to endure austerity measures because our government has to rebuild schools and roads, people are going to bed hungry.'(2)

For some years there has been a call for the establishment of a Loss and Damage fund to cover the costs being incurred by the most vulnerable nations. In November 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference COP27 made a breakthrough agreement to provide a “loss and damage” fund for those vulnerable countries hit hardest by climate disasters. Governments then agreed to establish a ‘transitional committee’ to make recommendations on how this new fund would operate and how it would be funded. Their recommendations will be brought to COP28 for approval.

What is the likely size of this proposed Loss and Damage fund?

Research carried out by Christian Aid (and used by the Government in their research briefing ‘Climate Change: “Loss and Damage” Fund’) estimates that “the UK should provide 3.5% of the total global effort in addition to reaching net zero domestically…Applying this percentage to the forecast loss and damages costs in 2030 equates to $10bn at the lower bound of $290bn or $20bn at the upper bound of $580bn ….’ (4)

Of course what the total cost of damage is in 2030 will to some extent depend on how rapidly, how assiduously, all governments and companies, work towards rescuing their carbon emissions. The current IPCC target is that we should have at least halved our emissions by 2030. Hence the inclusion in Christian Aid’s report that the UK also needs to achieve its net zero targets.

What might the Loss and Damage fund pay for?

Christian Aid suggests: the fund could provide money:

towards rebuilding homes flattened by floods or cyclones
to enable people to relocate when rising sea levels make it impossible to stay where they are
for people who can no longer farm (because the rains have stopped in consecutive years) to retrain and secure alternative livelihoods
to rebuild roads and bridges without having to take out expensive loans” (5)

The last point is a reminder that money that goes into the Loss and Damage fund should not be existing money that has simply been re-labelled. Vulnerable countries may well be receiving money from other funds/ loans/ financing deals with which to build new road, new roads, sea walls etc as part of enabling the development of such countries. Such development funds are not the same as loss and damage funds. The latter is very specifically there to fund rebuilding or retraining or relocating projects where infrastructure and resources have been damaged by extreme climate events. It also important that money paid out through the Loss and Damage fund, is paid in the form of a grant and not a loan. (If our home was flooded, we would not expect our insurers to loan us the cost of repairs!)

Christian Aid highlights another possible area of confusion, that of “the difference between loss and damage finance and international climate finance”

“International climate finance (ICF) is intended to support countries to transition to low carbon economies and to adapt to climate impacts. It is often associated with the target to mobilise $100 billion a year for developing countries. Whereas the calls for loss and damage financing are related to the irreversible costs of climate impacts, beyond what can be adapted to”. (5)

How might the UK Government finance its contribution to the Loss and Damage fund?

It is unlikely that this will come from existing funds. The Government has already been criticised for failing to make $300m (£260m) of promised climate finance payments. The UK missed its September 2022 deadline to provide $288m to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and failed to fulfil a separate $20.6m pledge to the adaptation fund (6). Since then the government has drawn up plans to drop the UK’s flagship £11.6bn climate and nature funding pledge (7).

More realistically, the Government will need to find new sources of finance – ie through taxation.

Christian Aid suggests three options.

A national net wealth tax: a rate of 0.5% levied on wealth in excess of £1m could raise £15bn
A permanent tax on the profits of fossil fuel production could also raise £15bn
A combination of an air passenger levy (eg a frequent flyer tax) and an expansion of the Emissions Trading Scheme levy and/or Financial Transactions tax or of the Energy Profits levy could likewise raise £15bn. (8)

All three options would place the burden on those who pollute, even option 1, for it is well documented that those who are wealthiest have the largest carbon footprints. (9) This approach is reflected in the theme of this year’s Loss and Damage Day, 23rd September, “Make Polluters Pay”.

1 (https://www.christianaid.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-12/counting-the-cost-2022.pdf

(1b) https://www.christianaid.org.uk/get-involved/campaigns/climate-change/loss-and-damage-faqs

2 (https://www.christianaid.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-09/caid-loss-and-damage-briefing-september-2023.pdf)

3 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/08/rich-countries-climate-crisis-cop27-africa-loss-and-damage?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

4 https://www.christianaid.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-05/the-loss-and-damage-fund_may-2023.pdf

5 https://www.christianaid.org.uk/get-involved/campaigns/climate-change/loss-and-damage-faqs

6 https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/nov/01/uk-criticised-for-failing-to-pay-300m-in-promised-climate-funds-ahead-of-cop27?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

7 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/04/revealed-uk-plans-to-drop-flagship-climate-pledge-rishi-sunak?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

8 https://www.christianaid.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-05/the-loss-and-damage-fund_may-2023.pdf

9 for example re the UK see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/01/polluting-elite-enormous-carbon-dioxide-emissions-gap-between-poorest-autonomy-study?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

For a reflection on last year’s lectionary readings that tie in with the theme of Loss and Damage see – https://greentau.org/2022/09/18/proper-20/

Green Tau: issue 78

13th September 2023

Is peace simply the opposite of war?

Recently I took part in a peace vigil outside the DSEI arms fair being held at London’s ExCel centre. Setting aside for a moment the morals of using weapons, there is something deeply uncomfortable about the idea of an arms fair: the idea that just as one can a book fair, or an Ideal Homes exhibition, or a horticultural show, one can have a ‘jolly day out’ walking round stands full of weapons, admiring staged demonstrations, picking up samples and goody bags, whilst enjoying alcoholic and other beverages. There is equally something very disturbing about people making profits out of buying and selling products designed to inflict fear, maim and kill.

But on the other hand are weapons a necessary evil, things that do have at some point to be bought and sold? Would we have wanted the Ukrainians to be weaponless when the Russians invaded? Perhaps weapons are a necessary evil if we want peace not war?

The following is not based on academic research, but simply a reflection of wha has been going through my mind.

Is peace the opposite of war or vice versa? I think that peace is the opposite of war but that the reverse proposition is flawed. Peace is not simply an absence of war. It is far more.

Peace is justice and equality.

Peace is freedom.

Peace is contentment and fulfilment.

Peace is about the individual and the community.

Peace is about the present and the future.

This is a rigorous set of imperatives to meet. But does peace exist anywhere in the world? Here in the UK we are not at war, but do we enjoy the peace described above? I think not.

Justice is unevenly delivered. For those with money to pay for lawyers and the cost of court cases, there can be justice. Indeed for those with money to serve injunctions, injustice can be perpetuated. Justice is uneven delivered depending on one’s colour, race or faith. Activists seeking the right to protest can find their actions constrained by injunctions served on them by big corporations and institutions – and to compound the injustice, may then be billed for the injunction!

Equality is patchy – again depending on your wealth. The more you have, the more the system will work in your favour. If you can afford to go to a good school (whether by living in the right catchment area or paying fees) you will get better qualifications and better employment opportunities. If you can afford a better house – especially one you own rather than rent – you will be healthier, learn better and again have better employment opportunities. If you are homeless, the chances of being as healthy, of getting good qualifications and a job are much less. If you grow up in a household with two parents, if you grow up in a household where everyone is literate, if you grow up in a household where everyone has a job, then you too will have better educational outcomes and better employment opportunities. Then there are postcode lotteries that affect your access to schools and health care. There are geographical north-south divides that shape your opportunities.

Freedom often depends upon access to money. To be free to travel, you need to be able to pay for transport. To be free to take a holiday you need a higher enough wage – and/ or holiday pay – to cover your costs of living whilst on holiday. To be free to change career, you need sufficient money to cover re-training costs plus what is need to cover living costs whilst you study. To be free to live where ever you want, you need sufficient funds to match the great variation of costs across the country, from region to region, area to area.

Contentment and fulfilment will vary from person to person, and some may find them for a very low outlay, but for others the cost may be prohibitive. One may find fulfilment in hillwalking, but another in skiing. Neither ambition is inherently better but the latter may financially be unobtainable. If one’s contentment depends upon swimming, fulfilment may depend upon whether your local authority still runs to swimming pools or whether your local water company keeps your rivers clean.

Because of the inequalities so far highlighted, you can see that some individuals in the UK may achieve lives of relative peace, but that as a community, our achievements are limited.

Again, sadly, whilst we may have relative peace for now, the ongoing likelihood of such peace is in the balance. With underfunded health, social care and educational provision, the inequalities of access becoming increasingly dependent on money, seems likely to increase. And with the lack of investment in renewable energy, energy efficient infrastructure and in infrastructure (including things such as tree planting) to mitigate the effects of the already changing climate, many people’s hope for future contentment also looks bleak. Such is the state of peace in the UK. But what about more vulnerable countries?

What about Mali where rival militias tax or destroy rural communities? And where climate change is causing the loss of agriculture land with the expansion of the Sahara?

What about North and South Sudan and Uganda where control of the water in the Sudd wetlands and the White Nile, is leading to disagreement and conflict?

What about Pakistan where climate change is both melting glaciers and intensifying the wet and dry seasons, making agriculture less viable, and where rising sea levels are reducing the amount of available farm land? With limited opportunities to make a future at home, where can these farmers and their families go to seek a fulfilled life? Seeking refugee in Europe is increasingly difficult.

What about the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the race to mine copper and cobalt to make batteries, is driving many local people off their land, whilst at the same time polluting land and water supplies?

Across the world there are many instances where one can see that peace is not present. These are potential hotspots which could lead to internal or cross border warfare. My contention is that if the money that would be spent on the wars that are likely to erupt, was instead spent on removing the obstacles to peace, we would not need to be investing in the arms trade. Where war is already happening, I do see that a different response is needed, but that is still needs to be one that establishes peace on both sides of the conflict.

I can well imagine that rather than building up resources for future war, building up the resources for peace would be financially cheaper. This peace building would involve establishing justice and systems of maintaining justice – both internally within countries and between them. It would involve removing existing inequalities and rebalancing fairly access to resources and opportunities. It would involve valuing contentment and fulfilment as more important than GDP. It would involve valuing equally the needs of individuals and the needs of communities.

Not an easy task but one that is biblically mandated, perhaps, as in this passage from Micah.

And many nations shall come and say:
‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
    to the house of the God of Jacob;
that he may teach us his ways
    and that we may walk in his paths.’
For out of Zion shall go forth instruction,
    and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

He shall judge between many peoples,
    and shall arbitrate between strong nations far away;
they shall beat their swords into ploughshares,
    and their spears into pruning-hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
    neither shall they learn war any more;

but they shall all sit under their own vines and under their own fig trees,
and no one shall make them afraid;
for the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken.

For all the peoples walk,
each in the name of its god,
but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God
for ever and ever. Micah 4:2-5

Here there is justice, for God arbitrates between nations and between peoples. Here there is equality such that everyone can sit under their own vines and their own fig trees. Here freedom is suggested for weapons have been turned into gardening tools, and no one makes anyone afraid. Here is (religious) freedom where people walk with their own gods. Here is contentment and fulfilment for all are taught the ways of God.

Green Tau: issue 77

7th September 2023

“Behold how good it is to dwell together in unity.” Ps 133:1

Recently I was sitting outside Parliament as part of the weekly Earth Vigil, praying for the wellbeing of the earth, for wisdom and discernment for those in positions of authority, and relief for those who are suffering. Parliament Square is a regular place of protest – especially on Wednesdays when PMQs takes place. Some protestors come weekly, others sporadically, and their concerns range from the welfare of women in Iran, victims of oppression in Armenia, lack of finance for special educational needs, anti – Brexit complaints, justice for fathers… This particular week the noisiest protest group were the Anti ULEZ campaigners. They came whistles and truck horns, an air raid siren, loud hailers, and – on the streets – a succession of old non ULEZ compliant vehicles which were driven noisily round and round Parliament Square. As well as being physically noisy, they carried placards which were visually ‘noisy’ calling named individuals as liar and rats, or claiming that Sadiq Khan had blood on his hands. They spoke of the toxic air lies and the death of democracy. They declared ‘Our roads, our freedom’.

Clearly a significant group of people felt aggrieved by the extension to the ULEZ boundary. How can this situation be remedied if we are to ‘live together in unity’? And what about the competing demands – rights – of those who suffer from the adverse effects of air pollution? Or of the need to reduce carbon emissions to forestall the worsening effects of climate change? Or what about the difficulties faced by those who cannot afford private transport and must rely on public transport? Who is standing up for their needs – their rights?

Dialogue has to be one way forward: being able to listen to the other and in return presenting a well constructed counter argument. And hopefully finding some areas of overlap, adjustment or compromise. (Although we may this hard if we are convinced that we are right).

In this instance, would the aim of the dialogue be to encourage the anti-ULEZ campaigners to see that there are other interests to take into account? Ie those with health issues, the young and the elderly who are more vulnerable to air pollution – and that taxpayers and society bears the cost of poor health caused by air pollution. (A study carried out in 2020 calculated cost of air pollution in London to be £10.32 billion a year. The research quantified the monetary value of premature death, hospital treatment, lost working days and other health costs caused by particulate matter, ozone and nitrogen dioxide. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/21/london-the-worst-city-in-europe-for-health-costs-from-air-pollution)

Would another area of discussion be to explore the use of private vehicles as part of an integrated transport scheme that would benefit more people? Here do I need to learn more about people’s dependency on private vehicles, the advantages this opportunity gives them, and, if this dependency were to change, how they could best be supported and what alternatives they would be seeking?

And likewise a discussion to explore how private vehicles and an integrated transport scheme can tackle the climate crisis, together with an exploration of how the increasing change in the climate is – and will increasingly continue – affecting people’s lives?

And might there be scope for discussing how decisions are made and how our political system could be improved?

Notes to self:

How easily can people get to my local hospitals by public transport/ active travel?

Ditto dental and GP surgeries

Ditto churches, crematoria and cemeteries

How easily can people get to local shops and supermarkets by public transport/ active travel? Do shops offer delivery services?

How easily can people get to local parks, recreation centres, swimming pools, green and blue spaces by public transport/ active travel? What about theatres and cinemas, and local visitor destinations – and is this true late into the evening too?

How easily can people get to local school, colleges, places of learning and libraries by public’s transport/ active travel?

How easily can people get to local places of employment by public transport/ active travel? And is this true late at night and early in the morning? How do people who work in the public transport sector get to work?

What facilities or provision would help tradespeople moving between jobs, or for carers moving between clients? Do we expect midwives to revert back to bicycles or should we see provision of an electric car for them as part of the local infrastructure?

If all these come back with positives for my locality, is the same true of other areas or do I live in a well-serviced area?

I live in an urban area but how would these questions play out in a rural setting?

If I am setting up an event or meeting, do I consider ease of access as an important criteria?