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?
Do people in our generation know that there had been prophets amongst us?
Who are prophets? Prophets are people who speak up for God’s desire for social justice both in our own communities and globally, and for God’s call that we should care for and ensure the flourishing of the earth’s environment. I would include in this category of prophets groups like Extinction Rebellion, Christian Climate Action, Greenpeace and Just Stop Oil. But like Ezekiel, I think people often choose not to hear what the prophets are saying – the truth can be uncomfortable.
Whether we are a prophets or not, we still need, I think, to ‘look with the eyes of a servant’ – that is to look with focused attention – to see what God wants us to do and to know how God wants us to live. For this we need to a patient, trusting relationship with God. One in which we read the scriptures, look at nature (the second book of scripture), listen in our hearts, and look at the state of the world around us. We should do this with humility and openness, not assuming that we know the answers nor assuming that our discerning will make us rich and powerful. If we thus pay attention, we will learn what it is that God wants and hopes for us, both as individuals and as communities.
I firmly believe God asks us to honour all that is divine by honouring and respecting all creation, and to care for and enable the flourishing of all creation – and that that includes the people in our own families and communities, the people in our own country, and the people in all other parts of the world. And further that God calls us to honour and care not just for our fellow human beings but everything that lives – birds and insects, fish and mammals, trees and plants, rivers and oceans, and even things like glaciers and icecaps.
And this is something we are patently not doing. 10 people died as a result of floods in the Alps this last fortnight. 100s of pilgrims undertaking the Haj in Mecca have died from excess heat. 10,000s of people have died in the ongoing conflict in Gaza.Many more are dying unnoticed in the intertribal conflict in Sudan. Many are starving in the refugee camps in Chad. Entire islands have been overwhelmed by hurricane Beryl in the Carribean.
Record temperatures are again being recorded in the southern Mediterranean, the Indian sub continent and across North America. Drought and excess heat are devastating wildlife as well as livestock and crops. Rising temperatures and receding glaciers are decimating native alpine plants. Increased use of pesticides and herbicides and diminishing natural habitats are depleting the numbers of songbirds and insects. Ocean bed trawling and pollution are contributing to the sharp decline in fish stocks and sea birds.
The continued expansion of oil and gas production is accelerating climate breakdown. The continued widespread production and consumption of beef, chicken and other animal based food, is likewise contributing to climate breakdown, deforestation and biodiversity decline – as well as diverting large tracts of land to feed the rich few at the expense of the greater proportion of the global population. We eat our western meat based diet at the expense of our brothers and sisters in other parts of the world who suffer hunger and malnutrition.
Such observations are disconcerting, unsettling and frequently ignored. We do not lift our eyes to God, to see what God sees. We do not open our ears to hear what God hears. We do not open our hearts to love as God loves. Yet often the problems we would encounter are not the fault of individuals but of the cultures and systems of which we are a part.
Should we then, as a church, call on our communities to repent of the systems and cultures and the ways of living, that are causing social injustice and climate change and biodiversity loss? As well as calling for repentance, do we also need to share a vision for how we can ensure social justice – both making up for past injustices and creating a just society going forwards? A vision of how we can tackle climate breakdown, living different lifestyles that cause less pollution and sharing resources more equitably? A vision of how we can make good the loss of biodiversity and ensure the flourishing of the natural environment of which we humans are a part?
Yes, I think we do. Just as Jesus commissioned his disciples to be prophetic – calling for repentance and preaching the good news – and to share the reality of the kingdom of God – healing the sick and casting aside all that destroys wellbeing. And to do this through the power and wisdom of God.
As individuals and as the church we need to pay attention and learn about the state of the environment locally and globally, about the well being – or not – of wildlife and about the wellbeing – or not – of humankind, bearing in mind that there should be justice for all. In honouring God, we need to envisage what changes and what work God requires to firmly establish God’s rule – God’s way of living – here on earth. In repenting, we need to heal the wounds and injustices we humans have caused, and to lead new, reformed lives, changing the culture in which we live.
Let’s start today!
Ezekiel 2:1-5
The Lord said to me: O mortal, stand up on your feet, and I will speak with you. And when he spoke to me, a spirit entered into me and set me on my feet; and I heard him speaking to me. He said to me, Mortal, I am sending you to the people of Israel, to a nation of rebels who have rebelled against me; they and their ancestors have transgressed against me to this very day. The descendants are impudent and stubborn. I am sending you to them, and you shall say to them, “Thus says the Lord God.” Whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house), they shall know that there has been a prophet among them.
Psalm 123
1 To you I lift up my eyes, * to you enthroned in the heavens.
2 As the eyes of servants look to the hand of their masters, * and the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress,
3 So our eyes look to the Lord our God, * until he show us his mercy.
4 Have mercy upon us, O Lord, have mercy, * for we have had more than enough of contempt,
5 Too much of the scorn of the indolent rich, * and of the derision of the proud.
2 Corinthians 12:2-10
I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows. And I know that such a person—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows— was caught up into Paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat. On behalf of such a one I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses. But if I wish to boast, I will not be a fool, for I will be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think better of me than what is seen in me or heard from me, even considering the exceptional character of the revelations. Therefore, to keep me from being too elated, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I appealed to the Lord about this, that it would leave me, but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.” So, I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities for the sake of Christ; for whenever I am weak, then I am strong.
Mark 6:1-13
Jesus came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offence at him. Then Jesus said to them, “Prophets are not without honour, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house.” And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief.
Then he went about among the villages teaching. He called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. He ordered them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics. He said to them, “Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave the place. If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.” So they went out and proclaimed that all should repent. They cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them.
“A carbon tax is a tax levied on the carbon emissions from producing goods and services. Carbon taxes are intended to make visible the hidden social costs of carbon emissions. They are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by essentially increasing the price of fossil fuels. This both decreases demand for goods and services that produce high emissions and incentivises making them less carbon-intensive.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax
Many definitions of a carbon tax say it is designed to address the social cost of carbon emissions which is interesting. There is certainly a social cost in terms of threats to the stability of social systems, but the carbon tax (surely?) should aim to tackled those threats -physical ones arising from adverse weather and rising sea levels, and economic ones rising from the adverse affects of climate change on growing crops, ensuring a healthy work force and protecting commercial buildings from damage.
The aim of a carbon tax should be to reduce and ultimately curtail the use of fossil fuels, whilst at the same time encouraging the development and use of alternative renewable energy. There will be a transition period as rapid changes cannot be made overnight.
For example, to make transport systems free of fossil fuels, needs the development and delivery of sufficient electric vehicles, associated charging points and a proportionate increase in renewable energy supplies. It might also need to develop a wider spread, more frequent and affordable public transport system as a means of making best use of the resources needed to make both vehicles and batteries. A carbon tax would be too blunt an instrument to achieve all these changes unless supported by legislation outlining the changes needed, and by grants and subsides to enable smaller and more vulnerable businesses and customers to make the transition.
The climate crisis and insurance companies intersect at three main points.
Climate risks: the risks that insurance companies guard against will include the growing risks associated with extreme adverse weather events. More intense and more frequent floods, wildfires, storms, mud- and landslips will lead to increases in damage to lives and properties. In the short term insurance companies will bear the loss; in the longer term premiums will rise but not necessarily profits.
Underwriting fossil fuel projects: fossil fuel projects – drilling wells, building pipelines, opening mines – need insurance companies who will underwrite the risk of undertaking the project. Ironically these are the very projects that cause climate change and the consequential extreme weather damage for which the insurance companies have to pay out.
Of course insurance companies can be the hero of the day by not underwriting fossil fuel projects and so preventing them from going ahead.
Investing in climate positive or climate negative: to ensure they have sufficient funds to pay out for insurance claims, insurance companies invest the premiums they receive to generate a return. In the past many insurance companies have invested in the fossil fuel industry. This again can be an ironic choice with their fossil fuel investments adding to the climate crisis and thus the size and number of insurance claims being made.
Of course, insurance companies do not have to invest in fossil fuels; there are many other investment opportunities in the renewable energy industry, where profits can be made without damaging the environment.
From 26th February, across the globe, climate activities took part in the week long ‘Insure our Futures’ campaign. The campaign reached out to numerous insurance companies – and groups such as Lloyds of London – inviting them to be the superheroes we need by committing to ensure their company policies exclude the fossil fuel projects that are devastating the world. The campaign was highly creative with dance and song, music and marches and symbolic actions such as forming a human chain around Lloyds of London. Other activists peacefully occupied the offices of key insurance companies whilst passing on information to their staff about the risks of insuring destructive projects such as the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).
I took part in one such occupation. Eight of us calmly walked into the foyer of 88 Leadenhall Street which houses the offices of Probitas 1492. We sat quietly on the floor such that we were visible to those coming in and out – but not blocking their passage. We remained there for five hours, praying, singing, reading poems, and hearing once again the speech given by Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary General, in which he spoke of the urgency of tackling the climate crisis using the famous words that we must now act to do ‘everything, everywhere, all at once.’
Throughout our stay the receptionist and the security staff we polite and pleasant – afterwards we gave them a box of chocolates as a thank you. The police presence (a pair of officers) was also polite: our action was not a criminal offence.
Another wet morning as I walk across Westminster Bridge. The night shift report that it has only been raining a few hours and that they are all relatively dry. Vanessa and I settle into their seats, draping our ponchos strategically to keep as much dry as possible.
Rain isn’t all bad – Brethren Seagulls are again enjoying a delicious breakfast as they peck their way across the grass.
I stay an hour before moving on to Shell where it’s just as wet! This is my regular Wednesday slot and I receive encouraging greetings and acknowledgements. The ‘F*ck Shell’ from a cyclist is emphatic.
Back to Parliament and where before there were just two vigilers, now there is half a dozen. Likewise the footfall has increased. As tourists gather around the statues in Parliament Square, their umbrellas form an undulating sea of colour.
School children and students on the other hand are less concerned about the rain and walk passed bareheaded. They are seem bemused by our presence. The words from a World War I poem go through my mind: ‘For your tomorrow we gave our today.’ What can we give or do now to ensure a liveable future for this next generation? Our efforts sometimes seem so futile in face of what is coming. On the other side of London, my daughter is on trial with 4 other women for breaking the glass of the offices of JPMorgan Chase in an attempt to give the bank a wake up call about the urgent and catastrophic nature of the climate crisis.
But we are faced not just by a climate crisis: we have a biodiversity crisis, an ecological crisis, and a justice crisis. We need to change the way we live as humans. We cannot go on as greedy beings (mainly those of us in the global north) consuming resources at an annual rate that needs one and three quarter worlds to be sustainable.
We need to change our aspirations and priorities. We need to work together, to collaborate. Does the answer lie with the world faiths? Is this where we should find the teachings and the impetus to create a different and better way of living together as human beings?
Heavenly Parent, may your kingdom come, your will be done.
The rain is not a disincentive. Our numbers continue to swell and soon there are maybe two dozen people plus two beautifully behaved dogs. It is no just tourists and school parties walking by. There are more and more activists – maybe first time activists – with kefir scarves or Palestinian flag and badges, heading for the Cromwell entrance. They are going to Green Card their MPs and use this democratic right to impress upon Parliament the urgent and pressing need for a ceasefire in Gaza. Here is an overwhelming crisis of justice.
The world – people, animals, plants, birds, economies, agriculture, water supplies etc – is already suffering from the effects of climate change and this is a crisis that will continue to grow (exponentially) unless action is taken. The major contributor of the greenhouse gases cause this, is fossil fuels.
The IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report (2023) states “Limiting human-caused global warming requires net zero CO2 emissions. Cumulative carbon emissions until the time of reaching net-zero CO2 emissions and the level of greenhouse gas emission reductions this decade largely determine whether warming can be limited to 1.5°C or 2°C (high confidence). Projected CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure without additional abatement would exceed the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C (50%) (high confidence)”. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/resources/spm-headline-statements/
In other words, our current production levels and use of fossil fuels will, cumulatively (because they build up and remaining in the atmosphere for generations), cause global temperatures rises in excess of 1.5C. (In 2023 the global temperature rise was 1.2C above the average for NASA’s baseline period (1951-1980))
The IPPC’s report goes on to to say “Finance, technology and international cooperation are critical enablers for accelerated climate action. If climate goals are to be achieved, both adaptation and mitigation financing would need to increase many-fold. There is sufficient global capital to close the global investment gaps but there are barriers to redirect capital to climate action.”
Finance is key but it will only be effective if it is targeting projects that reduce emissions. One would expect therefore to be seeing an ongoing g and rapid transfer of money away from fossil fuel projects and into the support of renewable energy. Yet in January 2023 Reuters reported “The share of bank finance going to renewable energy rather than fossil fuels has little changed in six years, raising questions about how fast lenders are pushing energy clients to become greener, according to research published Tuesday. Since 2016 renewable energy has taken 7% of a total $2.5 trillion in bank loans and bond underwriting for energy activities, according to a report commissioned by environmental groups including Sierra Club and Fair Finance International.” https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/bank-funding-renewables-stagnates-vs-oil-gas-report-2023-01-24/
A report, Banking on Climate Chaos, records that fossil fuel financing from the world’s 60 largest banks reached $5.5 trillion in the six years since the Paris Agreement, 2015, and 2022. Of these JP Morgan, the worst bank overall, financed $39 billion in 2022, so totalling $434 billion between 2016 – 2022. Top rating amongst the European banks was Barclays, which took seventh place in the league table, having $190.5 billion over the time frame.
Barclays provides finance to numerous oil companies including Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron, Total, and Equinor. This is finance that supports both existing and new projects. Yet there is no space in the world’s carbon budgets for this continuing increase in emissions. “Potential emissions from fossil fuels already in production or under construction – the wells already drills or being drilled – already takes the world well past 2C of global warming… world cannot afford any fossil fuel expansion…” https://www.bankingonclimatechaos.org/
Not surprisingly a number of climate concerned groups are pushing for change – both of banks that they stop financing the fossil fuel industry, and of customers that they stop using these highly destructive banks.
It is often argued that moving one’s money out of Barclays will have no impact as it will merely be replaced by money from elsewhere. I’m not sure that that can always be true – there must at some point be a finite sum of money to be banked. But turning it round, the money you move can then be invested by a greener bank to support renewable energy and other beneficial projects – and this indeed might be money they would otherwise not get. And don’t worry of the amount you are banking with is small: for every £ deposited, banks will lend a multiple amount. Even if that multiplier was only 2 it would double the financial contribution that you money makes to green investments.
Here in the UK Make My Money Matter is calling on individuals to “green their money” as well as encouraging students and alumni to call on their universities to switch to sustainable banks – https://makemymoneymatter.co.uk/
Just Money offers another perspective on the issue, this time from a Christian view point, and has advice and resources for churches and charities wishing to switch to green banking.
And it is not just charities that are being asks to reconsider their banking arrangements. The same ask is being made of churches and dioceses. Christians are called to care for creation and to love their neighbour – which are actually overlapping vocations – and switching to a bank that does not pursue profit through the financing of fossil fuels, is one of the easier steps they can take!
Support campaigns that mitigate the climate crisis
We know many of the causes of the climate crisis and by addressing these, we can reduce the scale and impact of the climate crisis. However such mitigation is not always popular when they threaten vested interests. Solutions are possible but sometimes it is necessary to campaign to win over government support and to give a voice to marginalised groups.
The biggest contribution to the climate crisis comes from the fossil fuel industry and the burning of its products. Traditionally the fossil fuel industry has produced huge profits for investors, with no obligation to make recompense for the pollution caused. They are multi national organisations which exert great pressure on governments and the public through lobbying and advertising.
Nevertheless campaign groups are able to affect change in the practices of fossil fuel companies that benefit the climate.
Climate Action Network explains how they “successfully stopped the Cambo oil field by making Shell pull out of the project. No one act alone stopped this project. From direct action to legal pressure, political lobbying to media scrutiny, local community outreach to online actions – every act added up to force the industry to face a ‘death knell’ for fossil fuel extraction in the North Sea. And we can do it again.”
Now they are continuing to campaign against the government’s decision to approve the development of the Rosebank oil field – You can support the case by adding your name here.
I am part of Christian Climate Action and regularly campaign against companies, projects and practices that contribute to the climate crisis – https://christianclimateaction.org/
You can also be a campaigner by joining groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the RSPB.
The Green Tau 