Even if we stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, the CO2 that is already there will not immediately diminish. It will be there for decades to come, meaning that the higher global temperatures that we are already experiencing will also not diminish any time soon. And this means that the extreme weather events that we are now experiencing – floods, droughts, heatwaves, wild fires etc – are not going to diminish either. We therefore need to count on the world leaders at COP29 to agree measures to help us adapt to the changes in the climate that we have already caused – improved flood defences, developing new farming models, conserving water, expanding early weather warning systems, heat proofing buildings etc.
What is the difference between mitigation and adaptation?
“Climate change mitigation means avoiding and reducing emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to prevent the planet from warming to more extreme temperatures. Climate change adaptation means altering our behaviour, systems, and—in some cases—ways of life to protect our families, our economies, and the environment in which we live from the impacts of climate change. The more we reduce emissions right now, the easier it will be to adapt to the changes we can no longer avoid.” https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/what-s-the-difference-between-climate-change-mitigation-and-adaptation
When we talk about the House of Windsor, for example, we are talking about a family – a family that goes back many generations and which we anticipate will continue on for many more generations to come. Our first reading is also about the continuation of dynastic House, that of the House of David. It is a story of the forebears of David, significant for Jews for whom he is Israel’s greatest king, and significant for Christians for David himself is the forebear of Jesus. But the story is also subversive as Ruth, the mother, is not a member of the one of the tribes of Israel but is a Moabite.
The character of God is thus highlighted as being one who includes rather than excludes. The House of Israel is not exclusive but inclusive. This inclusivity is also the message of the gospels and of the Pauline letters. In writing to the community in Galatia, Paul reminds them that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.
Today is Remembrance Sunday when we remember those who gone before us as victims of war. We remember their sacrifice made in the hope of a better future, a future where all people may live together in peace. Naomi says to her daughter-in-law, Ruth, that she wishes to find security for her – and she does this by enabling Ruth to become part of her extended family. The more we can incorporate each other into one family, the greater will be the peace that we can enjoy.
Another word for house is home, a dwelling place but perhaps more importantly a place of belonging. So we may talk about our home town, or our homeland. In his encyclical Laudato Si, Pope Francis talks of the earth as being ‘our common home’. This is the one home we all share and for which we must all care, if it is to be a home for generations to come.
Today’s psalm reminds us that unless our deeds and actions are both inspired and guided by God, they will fail. It is God’s first command to us in the Garden of Eden. And the call to care for the earth, to care for the vulnerable and the needy, and to pursue justice for all, is the repeated refrain throughout the Bible. Only by so doing, can our common home, our global family, survive and flourish.
Next week many people with power and influence will gather in Azerbaijan for the global climate conference – COP29. If our common home is to be a place of safety and well-being, we need those people to act positively, speedily and effectively in cutting the use of fossil fuels, in transitioning to renewable energy, and in ensuring a just sharing of resources – and finances – for all our brothers and sisters, for all our House.
And then we too need to be willing to change our lifestyles, changing the way we use and share resources, so that together we can tackle the issues of climate change, biodiversity loss and social injustice. Typically we need to consider not flying; driving less and using public transport more; eating less meat and dairy and instead eating more locally produced fruit and vegetables, grains, pulses and nuts; replacing gas with electricity and using that economically; better insulating our homes; reusing and repairing what we already have in preference to the ‘buy, buy’ culture that advertisers promote; and in the words of Christian Aid, living more simply so that others may simply live.
Today’s gospel reading contrasts the different responses that Jesus observed in the ways people followed God’s ways. Some – and it would seem to have been those with wealth and positions of authority – who made token gestures: a biblical equivalent of green washing. Whilst others gave their all, allowing their whole live to be shaped by God’s will.
Let us pray that both we and those attending COP29 will be be from the second rather than the first camp. Let us pray that the wellbeing of our House, of our common home will be given priority over personal gain; that by allowing our actions to be guided by God, so that our labour will not be in vain.
Ruth 3:1-5; 4:13-17
Naomi her mother-in-law said to Ruth, “My daughter, I need to seek some security for you, so that it may be well with you. Now here is our kinsman Boaz, with whose young women you have been working. See, he is winnowing barley tonight at the threshing floor. Now wash and anoint yourself, and put on your best clothes and go down to the threshing floor; but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking. When he lies down, observe the place where he lies; then, go and uncover his feet and lie down; and he will tell you what to do.” She said to her, “All that you tell me I will do.”
So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. When they came together, the Lord made her conceive, and she bore a son. Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without next-of-kin; and may his name be renowned in Israel! He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age; for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has borne him.” Then Naomi took the child and laid him in her bosom, and became his nurse. The women of the neighbourhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.” They named him Obed; he became the father of Jesse, the father of David.
Psalm 127
1 Unless the Lord builds the house, * their labour is in vain who build it.
2 Unless the Lord watches over the city, * in vain the watchman keeps his vigil.
3 It is in vain that you rise so early and go to bed so late; * vain, too, to eat the bread of toil, for he gives to his beloved sleep.
4 Children are a heritage from the Lord, * and the fruit of the womb is a gift.
5 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior * are the children of one’s youth.
6 Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them! * he shall not be put to shame when he contends with his enemies in the gate.
Hebrews 9:24-28
Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year after year with blood that is not his own; for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Mark 12:38-44
As Jesus taught, he said, “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honour at banquets! They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”
He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. Then he called his disciples and said to them, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.”
The National Trust is the UK’s largest conservation and environmental protection charity with between 6 and 7 million members and is custodian of just under 260,000 hectares of land. One of its two overarching strategic priorities is its ambition of reaching net zero emissions by 2030. It has already met its target of creating and restoring 25,000 ha of new wildlife habitats and is working towards 50% of Trust land being nature friendly, by 2025. It also aims to plant 20 million trees by 2030.(1)
Recognising the scale of the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, and that neither of these recognises boundaries in terms of either cause or effect, the National Trust collaborates with other bodies such as the RSPB and WWF. This trio has produced the The People’s Plan for Nature and the Save our Wild Isles campaign. The National Trust has joined many more groups in supporting events such as the Restore Nature Now March and the March for Clean Water.
Surely the National Trust can be said to be walking the talk?
And yes in so many ways they are, but to quote the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, we must do ‘everything, everywhere, all at once’ if we are to avert the worst of the climate and biodiversity crises.
So what about banking? Over recent years many organisations and individuals have looked at their financial arrangements and divested from fossil fuels – whether that is selling shares directly linked to oil and gas production or withdrawing from pension and investment funds that are reliant on returns generated through the production of fossil fuels. In 2019 the National Trust announced its decision to divest from fossil fuels to safeguard the long term future of the environment.
So what about banking?
Banks are essential to the ongoing production of fossil fuels. Their banking services enable companies, such as Shell and BP, to remain operational and able to continue to develop new oil and gas fields. The annual fossil fuel finance report for 2024, ‘Banking on Climate Chaos’,(2) shows that Barclays is still the eighth largest funder of fossil fuels globally and, once again, holds the number one slot in Europe. In 2023 Barclays supplied the fossil fuel industry with $24 billion.
Clearly who you bank with has an environmental impact element! For individuals several organisations exist – such as Make My Money Matter, Switch It Green and JustMoney (3) – to enable people to review their banking arrangements and to switch to a more environmentally friendly alternative. Other organisations such as Mothertree (4) offer the same service for both individuals, organisations and businesses. Most notably this past year both Christian Aid and Oxfam (organisations with complex banking needs) have dropped Barclays as their bank.
Yet Barclays is the National Trust’s bank.
Not surprisingly, there has been growing pressure on the National Trust to switch to a more environmentally friendly bank. Continuing to bank with Barclays does dint the National Trust’s credibility as a leading conservation and environmental protection charity.
Christian Climate Action has been actively campaigning on this issue for the last three years, attending the National Trust’s AGMs, writing to and talking with people inside the Trust’s organisation.
In July Christian Climate Action, along with other organisations, organised a week of action, targeting National Trust properties with banners and placards, banking-themed picnics, fancy dress, questionnaires, scoreboards, and an online petition calling on the Trust to ‘Drop Barclays’.(5) (Later we learnt that the staff and volunteers were pleasantly surprised at the engaging and friendly approach of the actions having previously experienced more aggressive tactics from other campaign groups).
This year’s National Trust’s AGM was held in Newcastle. A group of us from Christian Climate Action organised a pilgrimage -well equipped with flags, pennants and banners (and flapjack) – that set off from The Sill and walked along Hadrian’s Wall and via the Tyne Valley to Newcastle. On the way we happy band of pilgrims stopped off at National Trust sites – Housesteads Roman Fort, Cherryburn (Thomas Bewick’s birthplace) and the one room dwelling that had been Stephenson’s birthplace.
Up bright and early on the day of the AGM, the CCA pilgrims were joined by other climate activists standing outside the Civic Centre handing out leaflets about the Drop Barclays campaign – and about the equally important Climate and Nature (CAN) Bill campaign. (6) NT staff greeted us with smiles and a genuine interest in what we were doing.
Those who were members with tickets to go into the AGM, were able to have many face to face conversations with Trustees, Council members and members of the executive team, and to talk with them openly on issues related to the climate, environment and biodiversity loss. Altogether there were some 400 National Trust members attending in person, there were a further 3000 who took part on line – and when it came to questions and comments during the AGM, each contingent was able to participate equally. I was surprised that more people didn’t take part. I asked a question in the first Q and A session and thought that I would then have to sit on my hands thereafter to give space to others. But there was no rush of hands so I was able to make a further two comments in subsequent discussions.
There were only two points of contention. One concerned the system of Quick Votes – an issue which had been the basis of an unsuccessful resolution the previous year which was felt by a vocal minority to be undemocratic. The Quick Vote is an option where members chose to follow the position of the Trustees. It is a system used by many organisations with a large membership. It is only an option and members can mix and match the way they vote on the different issues. It does not stifle debate: anyone can still join in the debate regardless of which voting method they have chosen. As the use of the Quick Vote was not a resolution this year (the same topic can not be brought back until three years has elapsed) there was no vote on the matter.
The other issue that produced contentious debate was that of plant based foods. Some members asserted that the proposal forced them to eat food which was not of their choosing, whilst – as the resolution itself highlighted – felt that instead the proposal gave everyone choices about what they ate. Others were concerned about the impact on the Trust’s tenant farmers. The National Trust aims to use local produce and produce from their farms as much as possible – much of the flour used in their cafes comes from wheat grown on the Trust’s Wimpole Estate.
In all three member’s resolutions were proposed, discussed and voted on. One called for an increase of plant based foods in the National Trust’s cafes (from the current 40% to 50%). Another called for the strengthening of the National Trust’s response to climate and ecological emergency, and the third called for the National Trust to give its formal support to the Climate and Nature Bill. All three resolutions were passed with significant majorities – voting included votes cast before the AGM and those cast on the day whether in person or online. Whilst the Trustees are not obliged to adhere to the resolutions, they clearly show the Trustees what topics matter most to the Trust’s members.
I came away from the AGM feeling physically and emotionally drained. I felt taking part had been both important and, as it happened, highly productive. I felt that the pilgrimage had been a good preparation – walking along companions, walking through some of the wonderful landscapes and habitats that we wish to protect and enhance, meeting and sharing with local people, grappling with and overcoming tiredness, and creating the headspace to think clearly and prayerfully.
Our conversations with the National Trust will continue as we both applaud the many good things they do and press them to Drop Barclays.
(2) https://www.bankingonclimatechaos.org/ This report was a joint effort among Rainforest Action Network (RAN), BankTrack, Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development, Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), Oil Change International (OCI), Reclaim Finance, the Sierra Club, and Urgewald. The finance data was co-researched with significant contributions from Profundo.
A few weeks ago, whilst I and others were holding our weekly Earth Vigil outside Parliament, a passerby stopped to quiz us. In transpired that he was not interested in the wellbeing of the environment and rather wanted to justify his position by proving that we were hypocrites. His line was that we could not be taken seriously in calling for a rescinding of the Rosebank licence whilst possessing shoes, clothes, rucksacks etc made from plastics – ie oil. He would not listen to our response that we were constrained by a world that is still heavily embedded in using oil even as it transitions away from oil, such that there is not always a readily available non plastic alternative.
But what really incensed me was that I do try and do everything I can to live ecologically. I wear second hand clothes, darn my socks, patch my rucksack and my trainers, shop at a refill shop, avoid buying anything in a plastic wrapper, don’t fly, eat a vegan diet that includes wonky and unwanted fruit and vegetables, and beans and pulses grown in the UK.
I do do all I can to walk the talk!
And it’s not easy especially when you feel your are a minority of one. When we are away from our normal locality – and especially so when on holiday in Switzerland – it feels as if everyone else is saying, why are you so awkward? What difference can it make whether or not you eat a little cheese, eat a cake made with butter, an icecream made with milk? Will eating a croissant make any difference to the world? When I stay with family and they make a special dish just for me, I feel I awkward and think I must seem so very pedantic.
Or when others are discussing their past and future holidays, a quick (and let’s agree in the present tax regime, cheap) flight to Italy/ Turkey/Spain, or a leisurely holiday exploring Japan, Korea and Malaysia, or a winter trip to sunny Oz. Am I grouch or a kill joy because I won’t fly? And this is where I do feel guilty: am I being selfish, as I know my husband would love for us to travel the world?
So why is it important to tread this lonely path?
Firstly because unless someone starts, no one will ever start. I maybe the first not to fly amongst our friends but hopefully I won’t be the last.
Secondly because the more people take these steps the easier it will be for other to follow. If I always ask for a vegan cake when I’m buying a coffee, then hopefully in a few years time, vegan cakes will be the norm on cafes. Plant based milks are pretty much standard nowadays!
Thirdly because the more people are seen to be travelling by train not plane, or eating humous not cheese, or carrying a keep cup rather than using a single use throw away variety , the more normalised such behaviour becomes.
Fourth as such patterns of behaviour become normalised – even popular – so businesses and governments will change their thinking.
Fifthly because eventually the world could change for the better!
However I am not hopeful that any of this will happen fast enough to prevent the huge catastrophe that the climate crisis is brewing. And that makes it a very hard path to tread. I am making life awkward for myself and my husband and my friends and family with only a very small chance that it will make life better for them. But equally I know that not trying would be even more hurtful.
From the foreword to Ethical Consumer’s ‘Closing the Gap 2024’, “This report acknowledges the millions of small changes individuals are making which collectively yield bigger benefits. That can be tweaks to your diet or transport choices, reducing food waste or changing how you heat your home – there’s a cumulative power of many small actions!
“Another small action lies in the power we all hold to ask companies about their climate obligations. And if you’re not satisfied with their answers, you have the power to take your customers elsewhere.”
The United Nations Climate Change COP29 starts on 11th November in Baku, Azerbaijan. Like the Biodiversity COP, the discussions of this gathering of global delegates should be really important, but the fear is that, as with previous COPs, placatory words are easy, following through with both funding and actions is harder – but essential.
How can we as individuals make any impact?
Not everyone approves of the actions taken by groups such as Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil, but if nothing else their actions have lifted the profile of the climate crisis in the media.
What we can all do is talk about the crisis, engage our neighbours in the conversation and make the subject newsworthy.
Blue carbon is not just the carbon absorbed in the seas around our coasts. It is an ongoing process that encompasses oceans and deep seabeds. However scientists are concerned that the process is being adversely affected by rising temperatures.
“It begins each day at nightfall. As the light disappears, billions of zooplankton, crustaceans and other marine organisms rise to the ocean surface to feed on microscopic algae, returning to the depths at sunrise. The waste from this frenzy – Earth’s largest migration of creatures – sinks to the ocean floor, removing millions of tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere each year.
“This activity is one of thousands of natural processes that regulate the Earth’s climate. Together, the planet’s oceans, forests, soils and other natural carbon sinks absorb about half of all human emissions. But as the Earth heats up, scientists are increasingly concerned that those crucial processes are breaking down….
“Greenland’s glaciers and Arctic ice sheets are melting faster than expected, which is disrupting the Gulf Stream ocean current and slows the rate at which oceans absorb carbon. For the algae-eating zooplankton, melting sea ice is exposing them to more sunlight – a shift scientists say could keep them in the depths for longer, disrupting the vertical migration that stores carbon on the ocean floor.”
Existential means pertaining to existence – including relating to or affirming existence. When used as an adjective to describe a threat, it is used to mean a situation where continued existence is in question. For example, the threat of nuclear war can be described as an existential threat.
Is climate change an existential threat?
Rising global temperatures are a threat to human life. They are also a threat to the world’s flora and fauna. They are a threat to ice sheets and glaciers and so create the threat of rising sea levels. They are threat to weather patterns creating droughts, floods, heat domes, wildfires, storms etc – all of further increasing the threats to human and other life forms on earth. These threats to life – both present and future – have been widely and extensively studied by scientists across the world.
To quote from NASA’s website: “the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organisations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world.” https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
Further more “It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today’s civilisation.
“NASA Global Climate Change presents the state of scientific knowledge about climate change while highlighting the role NASA plays in better understanding our home planet. This effort includes citing multiple peer-reviewed studies from research groups across the world, illustrating the accuracy and consensus of research results (in this case, the scientific consensus on climate change) consistent with NASA’s scientific research portfolio.” https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/
In February 2021, David Attenborough in addressing the UN Security Council called climate change “the biggest threat to security that modern humans have ever faced”. He went in to say “If we continue on our current path, we will face the collapse of everything that gives us our security,” he said: food production, access to fresh water, habitable ambient temperature and ocean food chains. The poorest — those with the least security — are certain to suffer. “Our duty right now is surely to do all we can to help those in the most immediate danger.” https://press.un.org/en/2021/sc14445.doc.htm
It is not just scientists that term climate change as an existential threat, but renowned world organisations too.
In 2019, Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of UN Climate Change wrote, “Once a distant concern, climate change is now an existential threat and the greatest challenge facing this generation. It is abundantly clear that business as usual is no longer good enough. Rapid, deep and transformative hanger is needed throughout society – not only to reduce emissions and stabilise global temperatures, but to build a safer, healthier and more prosperous future for all.
“Our goals are clear and the science is non-negotiable. We must limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees and, on the road to doing so, achieve climate neutrality by 2050.This must be done urgently and cooperatively; a global project requiring the best efforts from all nations, all businesses and all people.” https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Climate_Action_Support_Trends_2019.pdf
In December 2020, five years after the signing of the Paris Agreement on climate change by world leaders at COP21 in 2015, the International Energy Agency reported:
“The Paris Agreement has been ratified by 189 of the 197 signatories ─ with scope for more to do so. Since the signing, governments, companies and citizens around the world have started to take action. Indeed, addressing this existential threat is the global challenge we face.
“This has meant a special responsibility for the IEA, which as the global energy authority has a mandate to promote energy security, economic development and environmental protection. Keeping the lights and heaters on, keeping transport moving, these are themselves critical dimensions of our economies and lives. And we have to make sure we can keep doing them in a sustainable way. Energy is not a problem – emissions are the problem.
“The IEA has looked at the energy sector’s impact on climate for more than a decade, and we have significantly ramped up our efforts in recent years under the leadership of Executive Director Dr Fatih Birol, with a focus on supporting countries in their transitions to clean energy. Energy systems that continue to worsen climate change are making all of us more vulnerable and less secure.”
Two years later in September 2022, the IEA reported:
““We are in the midst of the first truly global energy crisis, with devastating knock-on consequences across the world economy, especially in developing countries. Only by speeding up the transition to clean sustainable energy can we achieve lasting energy security,’’ said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. “Through international collaboration, we can make the transition quicker, cheaper and easier for everyone – on the back of faster innovation, greater economies of scale, bigger incentives to invest, level playing fields and benefits that are shared across all parts of society. Without this collaboration, the transition to net zero emissions will be much more challenging and could be delayed by decades.” https://www.iea.org/news/international-collaboration-gap-threatens-to-undermine-climate-progress-and-delay-net-zero-by-decades
The previous year in the IEA’s report Net Zero by 2050: a Road map for the Global Energy Sector, laid out how across the globe different sectors would need to change to meet the 2050 net zero emissions target, including ramping up renewable energy supplies such as solar and wind power. The Report highlighted the need to ensure fair energy costs for consumers, transitioning jobs to maintain employment opportunities, replacing the internal combustion engine with electric vehicles etc. At the same time it was equally forthright in stating that polluting energy sources would have to be phased out, referencing coal (to be phased out first) oil and gas – and the Report was clear:
No new oil and gas!
“Beyond projects already committed as of 2021, there are no new oil and gas fields approved for development in our pathway, and no new coal mines or mine extensions are required. The unwavering policy focus on climate change in the net zero pathway results in a sharp decline in fossil fuel demand, meaning that the focus for oil and gas producers switches entirely to output – and emissions reductions – from the operation of existing assets.” https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050
As time has passed – and despite both the promises and the actual actions taken by nations – the rate at which the climate is changing has not slowed but accelerated.
In October 2023 an international group of scientists wrote: “We are afraid of the uncharted territory that we have now entered.” Their writing in the journal Biosciences, was reported by the Forbes magazine: “As scientists, we are increasingly being asked to tell the public the truth about the crises we face in simple and direct terms. The truth is that we are shocked by the ferocity of the extreme weather events in 2023.”
In January 2024 the World Economic Forum produced its Global Risk Report.
“Nature and climate risks are getting the attention they deserve — that’s a positive first step in addressing some of the greatest challenges that we, as a global community, face. Just this week, scientists announced that temperatures in 2023 reached 1.48°C above preindustrial averages, with the 1.5°C threshold that takes the Earth into an unsafe operating space likely to be breached in the next 12 months.
“The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2024 named three key climate issues as critical challenges facing humanity: Extreme weather events, critical change to Earth systems — which is a new entrant this year — and biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse….
“There is no doubt that the challenge is great — it is perhaps the greatest challenge humanity has ever or will ever face. The good news: the solutions are available to us.
“The priority solution is faster emissions reduction and credible steps by all actors in our economic system to accelerate the speed and scale of a clean transition. Human emissions is the swiftest lever to postpone or avoid critical changes to Earth systems…
“Given the nature of the existential threat, it is essential to pair a realistic view of risks alongside hope and optimism. Too much focus on the risks will leave humans with a trauma response of fight, flight, freeze and fold – leading to ecoanxiety and climate grief. These responses induce inaction and serve to propel the risk rather than mitigate it. On the other hand, an overly optimistic view that is reliant on technological fixes further down the line is also unhelpful, as decision-makers kick the can down the proverbial road.
“What is needed is a mindset that recognises the full scale of the climate risk, whilst maintaining the optimism that we can and will respond in a way to avoid and mitigate the worst risks from occurring.”
Their report also noted: “The good news: the solutions are available to us. The priority solution is faster emissions reduction and credible steps by all actors in our economic system to accelerate the speed and scale of a clean transition. Human emissions is the swiftest lever to postpone or avoid critical changes to Earth systems.” https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/01/climate-risks-are-finally-front-and-centre-of-the-global-consciousness/
In July 2024 the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) produced its Global Foresight Report. This is a report that aims to understand and predict those things that can or will disrupt planetary health and human wellbeing. The Executive Summary provides the following insights.
“Through the process, it has become clear that the world is facing a different context than it faces even ten years ago. Some of the issues are the same, but the rapid rate of change combined with technological developments, more frequent and devastating disasters and an increasingly turbulent geopolitical landscape, has resulted in a new operating context, where any country can be thrown off course more easily and more often.
“The world is already on the verge of what may be termed ‘polycrisis’ – where global crises are not just amplifying and accelerating but also appear to be synchronising. The triple planetary crisis of climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste is feeding into human crises such as conflict for territory and resources, displacement and deteriorating health.
“The speed of change is staggering….
“The good news is that just as the impact of multiple crises is compounded when they are linked, so are the solutions …Key to a better future is a focus on inter generational equity and a new social contract reinforcing shared values that unite us rather than divide us. A new social contract would involve the global community pursuing transformative change across technological, economic and social factors and paradigms and collective goals.” https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/45915/English-Executive-Summary-Foresight-Report.pdf?sequence=8
For scientists and for those looking at the climate crisis from a global perspective, it is clear that climate change does present us with an existential threat. However looking at the responses from governments and business concerns – that is actual responses not just words and promises – climate change is not an existential threat. It is not even an urgent priority. Economic growth (measured by the unhelpful metric of gross domestic product), the exploiting of every last drop of oil and gas, increasing dividends, ensuring profits for banks, routes for airlines, roads for car drivers, and the maintenance of industrial farming and livestock production, all take precedence.
If global bodies are saying ‘existential threat’ but government and industry are saying ‘business as usual’ then we should not be surprised if most people think that the climate change is an important global issue but not an issue that should have any impact on their daily life. So governments and industries continue to say ‘Yes we will make change’ to the global bodies whilst continuing to say to the consumers ‘No don’t worry, we’ll delay these changes till a later date’.
One body that monitors the progress being taken by nations is the Climate Action Tracker.
“The Climate Action Tracker is an independent scientific project that tracks government climate action and measures it against the globally agreed Paris Agreement aim of “holding warming well below 2°C, and pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C.” https://climateactiontracker.org/
Their assessment shows that gap between where we should be and where we are.
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!
We have a climate crisis! Who is going to raise the alarm?
“Ground temperatures across great swathes of the ice sheets of Antarctica have soared an average of 10C above normal over the past month, in what has been described as a near record heatwave.”
“Shell’s half-year profits climb to £10.9bn after focusing on fossil fuels”
“Five Just Stop Oil protesters jailed for climbing gantries to block M25”
These are all headlines from the Guardian newspaper on 1st August 2024 (which coincidently was also Earth Overshoot Day marking the day on which we humans had consumed a full year’s worth of the earth’s regenerative resources and thereafter are consuming the resources of future generations).
I can’t be the only one to see here both cause and effect of the climate crisis, and the outrageous response to those brave enough to shout ‘Emergency!’?
How can we go on punishing people for telling the truth about the crisis whilst allowing those who are fuelling it to carry in making ever greater profits?
As early as the 19th century, scientists were exploring the way in which increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – such as carbon dioxide – could increase global temperatures, potentially altering the earth’s climate. (1)
As early as the 1970s Exxon knew of climate change and the contribution made by fossil fuel emissions. Indeed they even commissions scientists to investigate this phenomenon. (2)
Scientific evidence has continued to accrue showing not just the link between greenhouse gas emissions and increasing global temperatures, but also the sharp shape of the curve which demonstrates the speed with which this human-made change to the earth’s climate – and therefore environment – is happening.
The bar chart shows ‘Yearly temperature compared to the twentieth-century average from 1850–2023. Red bars mean warmer-than-average years; blue bars mean colder-than-average years. (line graph) Atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts: 1850-1958 from IAC, 1959-2023 from NOAA Global Monitoring Lab.’ It is a NOAA Climate.gov graph, adapted from original by Dr. Howard Diamond (NOAA ARL).(3)
In 2008 the UK Parliament passed the Climate Change Act which tasked the Secretary of State with reducing the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions by 100% by 2050 compared with those of 1990. The Act also established the Climate Change Committee to advise the government on the steps and targets needed to achieve this. (4) To date the government has managed to meet these targets but its policies – and the way we carry out transport, manufacturing, agricultural and other tasks such as insulating buildings – are not on track to meet the 2030 and 2050 targets.
In 2015 under the auspices of the United Nation’s Conference on Climate Change (COP21) the nations agreed a legally binding international treaty. Known as the Paris Agreement its aim is to collectively limit greenhouse gas emissions such that global temperatures increases should not exceed 2C and ideally stay below a 1.5C increase. (5) NB the increase in global temperatures for the period February 2023 to January 2024 exceeded 1.5C.
To implement the Paris Agreement, the UK government requires large businesses to create plans to show how they will transition to net zero by 2050. To enable this to happen, the government set up the Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). (6)(7)
Companies can be judged as to whether they are Paris compliant or not. This applies to both companies in the UK and across the world. There are independent organisations that keep track of the progress being made by companies whether that is at the planning stage or in implementing their plans. One such organisation is Carbon Tracker which has a particular focus on companies dealing in fossil fuels. (8)
Are fossil fuel companies transitioning away from the production of oil and gas towards a 2050 future of renewable energy? Are fossil fuel emissions being cut? Is less oil and gas being produced? No! And no! And no!
A report produced by Carbon Tracker in March 2024, concluded that of the 25 largest oil companies, none was on track to achieve either the 1.5C nor the less-than-2C warming targeted in the Paris Agreement. (9) This was startling but perhaps not unexpected. At COP28 in Dubai Antonio Gutierrez, the UN General Secretary, told world leaders that they “cannot save a burning planet with a fire hose of fossil fuels… The 1.5-degree limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels. Not reduce. Not abate.” (10)
This year, both BP and Shell have declared their intentions to cut back on green energy projects and rather focus on increasing what is still the more profitable (for shareholders if not for the world) oil and gas production.
From BP as they announces their second quarter results, “We are in action focusing, simplifying and growing the value of bp and have accomplished a lot in the past six months. We are high-grading our biofuels portfolio, including an agreement to take full ownership of bp Bunge. We are concentrating our strategy in hydrogen, including taking investment decisions on green hydrogen projects at our Castellón and Lingen refineries. We have also given the go-ahead to Kaskida, which will be our sixth production hub in the Gulf of Mexico, as we progress the development of new oil and gas resources.” (11)
For Shell, the Guardian reported that Sawan, the new chief executive, had ‘reversed a plan to reduce Shell’s oil and gas production by 1-2% a year in pursuit of higher profits. Instead the company would add 200,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day to its production in 2024 and by 2025 would start enough new fossil fuel projects to add half a million barrels a day.’ (12)
With all this increasing production of fossil fuels and resultant emissions, and increasing global temperatures, where – apart from the UN Secretary General – are the voices of outrage, the voices raising the alarm: WHY ARE WE STILL FACING THIS EXISTENTIAL HUMAN-MADE CLIMATE CRISIS?
The Green Tau 