Counting on … day 315

21st September 2022

Despite understandings made at last year’s COP26 to reduce the carbon emissions – halving them by 2030 and achieving net zero by 2050 – the UK government is preparing to approve the Rosebank oil field – the biggest undeveloped oil field in the North Sea. If these two seem totally irreconcilable to you, do sign this petition:- https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/stoprosebank/?link_id=11&can_id=a3029987c1ac6171de26390e6aabf63f&source=email-thats-a-wrap-stopjackdaw-week-of-action-2&email_referrer=email_1671196&email_subject=we-have-a-new-fight-on-our-hands-_-stoprosebank

Counting on …day  306 

12th September 2022

Another interesting article relating to the investments strategies of financial institutions focuses on those which are in eating in the development of North Sea oil and gas fields, such as Cambo and Jackdaw – https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/money-finance/what-does-cambo-oil-field-have-do-our-banking-choices

The thought that our money is being used to potentially develop these new oil and gas fields is devastating and suggests that both these institutions and our government are not serious in their commitment to reducing green house gases.

https://www.stopcambo.org.uk/updates/oil-gas-licensing

 Counting on …day 273

11th August 2022

The effects of the climate crisis could be as dire as that of nuclear war which has prompted various parliamentarians, cities, faith groups, academics, scientists, charities and NGOs to call for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty:- 

Prevent the proliferation of coal, oil and gas by ending all new exploration and production; 

Phase-out existing production of fossil fuels in line with the 1.5C global climate goal; and 

Fast-track real solutions and a just transition for every worker, community and country.

You can endorse this as an individual or as a group, church,  company or business – https://fossilfueltreaty.org/#endorse

Green Tau issue 47

10th August 2022 

Loss and Damage

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere acts as an insulator, keeping in the warmth of the sun that is radiated back by the earth. We see a similar affect when clouds act as an insulator. Under a clear night in the winter temperatures will plummet as the radiant heat escapes overnight. Whilst a cloudy night will maintain the temperature at a higher level as cloud cover keeps in more of the heat. Unlike cloud which can dissipate as quickly as it appears, atmospheric carbon dioxide stays put – unless it is absorbed by plants (on land) or by phytoplankton (in oceans).

The latest IPCC report suggests that for every 1000 billion of CO2 emitted temperatures will rise by approximately 0.45C. Since 1850 2500 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide have been released into the atmosphere, and global temperatures have risen by about 1.2C between 1850 and 2020.

These carbon emissions come primarily from the burning of fossil fuels and (to a lesser but still significant extent) making cement. The other notable contributor is change of land use. Where forests have been felled, the loss of CO2 absorbing capacity leads to a measurable increase in emissions. 

Considering cumulative carbon emissions (from fossil fuels, cement and changes in land use) since 1850 the USA has been the largest emitter, accounting for 20% of global emissions. The US is followed by China 11%, Russia 7%, Brazil 5%, Indonesia 4% (both these nations have seen significant deforestation), Germany 3.5%, India 3.4%, United Kingdom 3%,  Japan 2.7% and Canada 2.6%.  The distribution changes when emissions are calculated per capita for each national. Canada is now in top place, followed by the USA, Estonia (which has been heavily reliant on oil sands for energy), Australia, Trinidad and Tobago (having large oil, gas and chemical industries), Russia, Kazakhstan, United Kingdom (8th), Germany and Belgium. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change/ 

Another way of looking at the distribution of carbon emissions across the globe, is to compare them with wealth. It was the early industrialisation of many European and North American countries that enabled them to become some of the wealthiest nations.  The richest half of the wealthiest nations account for 86% of the current annual CO2 emissions. Of the remaining nations, the very poorest, representing 9% of the global population account for just 0.5% of CO2 emissions. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

The very poorest nations that account for the most minimal CO2 emissions, are Burundi, Somalia, Mozambique, Madagascar, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Central African Republic, Liberia and Niger. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poorest-countries-in-the-world. These are countries which already face difficult situations and are highly vulnerable to the extremes of drought and floods. For them the effects of climate change will come sooner and with greater intensity than nations with more amenable climates. Their poverty makes them particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change as they have limited resources with which to either mitigate or adapt. For example  there may be limited funding to build reservoirs and water distribution networks, weather warning systems, food stocks, search and rescue services etc, and limited resources to rebuild when disasters strike.

Another vulnerable group are the Small Islands Developing States which includes low-lying atoll nations in the Pacific like Kiribati and the Marshall Islands, which are only about six feet above sea level. The rising global temperatures that are already locked in mean that ice at both Poles will (as is  already beginning) melt, with a subsequent rises in sea levels, threatening the future existence of some of these islands.

It is clearly apparent that there is great inequality and injustice in the realm of climate change. Those who have contributed most are often the best able to insulate themselves from its effects, whilst those who contributed least are often doubly disadvantaged. 

Human-induced climate change is causing dangerous and widespread disruption in nature and affecting the lives of billions of people around the world, despite efforts to reduce the risks. People and ecosystems least able to cope are being hardest hit, said scientists in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, 8th February 2022

To address this scenario, wealthy nations at the Copenhagen climate summit (COP25) in 2009,  agreed to provide $100 billion annually by 2020 to help developing countries adapt to climate change and transition to clean, renewable energy like wind and solar. This agreement was reiterated at COP 26 in 2022. It is still a promise that has yet to be met. To date the best year was 2020 when $83.3 bn was raised. Increasing finance for countries worst hit by climate impacts is therefore one of the key goals of Cop27 in Egypt. 

In addition to funding to help the most vulnerable nations to adapt to climate change, a call was made at COP26 for a “Loss and Damage” fund. These are funds that would compensate the worst affected and disadvantaged nations for damage caused by climate change. Like an insurance fund, it would compensate those who accrue loss and damage through events for which they are not responsible. However the developing countries’ proposal for a finance facility to address loss and damage was rejected in favour of a three-year Glasgow Dialogue to discuss funding arrangements – https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621382/bp-fair-finance-loss-and-damage-070622-en.pdf

Who should pay into this fund? Those nations who have contributed most to the climate crisis and those best able to pay. And what of the fossil fuel companies? Certainly taxation and in the current market, further windfall taxes should enable governments to obtain the necessary finance. 

In 2020-21 UN humanitarian appeals to address emergencies arising from climate change topped $20 bn.  Meanwhile the top 25 oil and gas companies generated $205 billion in profits – https://www.accountable.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/20220307-UPDATED-Oil-And-Gas-2021-Profits-1.pdf And at the same time, these fossil fuel companies were – and continue – receiving government subsidies. The campaign group Paid to Pollute analysed OECD date showing that between 2016 and 2020 companies received £9.9 billion in tax reliefs for new exploration and production and £3.7 billion in payments towards decommissioning costs.

Thursday 22 September is Loss and Damage Action Day – an international day to stand in solidarity with those living with the worst impacts of climate breakdown, and to call on rich countries and big polluters to pay compensation. 

  • Join Green Christian’s morning prayer event – register on the Green Christian website.
  • Join Make Polluters Pay’s social media action – follow @MakePolluterPay and @FFTCnetwork for details.
  • Hold a vigil for loss and damage. This is a powerful way to publicly show solidarity with those at the sharp end of climate breakdown. A guide to holding an interfaith vigil is available to download (below). More resources are available on the Make Cop Count website, including a leaflet to hand out and placards to display.
  • For more information,- https://ctbi.org.uk/loss-and-damage-action-day-22-sept-2022/

Counting on … day 271

9th August 2022

I don’t generally watch much television but have just watched the BBC’s series Big Oil v the world. I  had not realised how little I knew about the power of big oil companies to influence the world’s future. When we talk about about the capacity of humanity to cause climate change, we are shocked and  stunned. It seems we should be doubly shocked at our human capacity to create a deadly future for ourselves.

It is worth watching so as to be more fully informed and hopefully, be more committed to take preventative and mitigating action. If we can count on humans to cause this crisis, we must have the belief that humans have the capacity to reverse it. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0cgqlv1/big-oil-v-the-world-series-1-1-denial

The Green Tau: issue 46

System Change?

4th August 2022

Steam Punk is based on the scenario of an alternative history in which steam power, steam engines and hand cranked machines reigned supreme, preventing the development of electrical power and the petrol engine. Might there be scope for Cycle Punk, an alternative history in which peddle power dominates with pedal powered kettles and mobile phones as well as the straightforward two wheel mode of transport?

The way economies and societies work -a product of convenience, economies of scale and inertia – is such that a preferred system will prevail whether that is the energy system, transport system, voting system, or  communications system. The systems or products that are not adopted are not necessarily a worse choice, just different as was the case between VHS and Betamax for video recorders. But once a system is established it is hard to change, because everything is geared to it, business and society have bought into it, lifestyles are built around it, and investment perpetuates it as the safe bet.

In the UK we have favoured a transport system based on private cars over one based on public cars, buses and trains. Our infrastructure favours the former. Our lifestyles have been shaped by the former. Our businesses are geared to the former. Our investment is predicated on its continuation. To change the system would need radical change in all these areas. 

Our energy system is based on the use of cheap fossil fuels. Our agricultural system is based on the production of cheap food, especially cheap animal products. Our manufacturing system is based in the use of cheap labour – as is our hospitality sector. Our investment system on the other hand is based on maximising profits for the few. 

The size and scale of such systems prevent us from seeing or experiencing anything different. Their market share precludes new entrants with alternative ideas. The systems prevent the use of better, more appropriate technologies.

In the UK fuel bills are rising out of all proportion to the cost of production, yet swopping to an alternative system seems nigh impossible. For people struggling financially, there is no spare cash to replace a gas boiler with a heat pump. There is no spare cash to install double glazing and reduce dependency on central heating. There is no comprehensive public transport network to remove reliance on the private car. There is insufficient investment in alternative energy and the odds are increasingly stacked against such investments as the return on fossil fuel investment sky rockets as fuel prices – but not costs – continue to rise.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo drawing on the power of the River Congo has the capacity to generate 100,00MW of hydro electric power compared with its existing capacity of 2792MW (https://www.usaid.gov/powerafrica/democratic-republic-congo). Yet this requires investment. The DRC is a nation struggling to meet the needs of its people, and the government is currently auctioning fossil fuel rights to explore and extract oil from under its rainforests, a move that will generate money now rather than longer term pay back of hydro power.

Africa as a whole has great potential for the generation of solar power, and which if provided via small scale projects can provide electricity to areas far removed from the grid. Yet whilst solar power has still to be developed in countries such as Algeria, Angola, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria and Tanzania (https://commodityinside.com/reports/solar-energy-market-in-africa/) the big oil companies are developing new oil and gas fields in Angola, South Africa, Ghana, Gabon, Egypt, Namibia and Kenya. 

Understanding that we are to a greater or lesser extent trapped in a system lets us be realistic about our situation, our predicament. It also helps us understand what will be needed to bring about change. 

Changes in government policy to favour the new system and tax changes and rules  to discourage the old.

Changes in global policies as advocated by the World Bank, the UN etc.

Changes in investment strategies and business plans.

Developments in new technology.

Changes in public opinion that will support all these. 

This is where we come in. We can, even in small ways, be the trigger or the irritant that initiates and propels change. We can make a difference – by talking with friends and neighbours, by loving as if we were already part of the new system, by campaigning, by pressing businesses and politicians, by voting with our money, by investing and by pestering those institutions investing on our behalf, by supporting charities, by standing up. As Christians we are well suited to this. We have that calling to be different, to be countercultural, to be willing to go the extra mile, to act for the wellbeing of the other.

The global system of slavery did come to an end when public opinion had changed. They did it then. We can do it now. 

Green Tau: issue 42

Bomb Scare! 

24th May 2022

The term carbon bomb has been widely used in climate circles for the past decade to describe large fossil fuel projects or other big sources of carbon, but more recently has been given a more specific definition: projects capable of pumping at least 1bn tonnes of CO2 emissions over their lifetimes. 

To put this figure in context, just before Covid, annual CO2 emissions peaked at about 36bn tonnes.

The IPCC report on Mitigation of Climate Change published on 4 April, specifies that emissions should peak no later then 2025 and be reduced by 43% by 2030 if we are to contain climate change and  global heating at tolerably safe level. If that peak in 2025 is, say, 40bn tonnes, then globally we would need to be reducing carbon emissions by 4bn tonnes per year. 

The International Energy Agency has already stated that the existing oil, gas and coal fields already in operation will provide all that is necessary to meet our demands for fossil fuels. In other words, if we are to meet our emissions  reduction targets there is no need to open up new fields.  This surely begs the question why anyone is investing money in expanding fossil fuel extraction or in exploring new fields?  In part it may the fear of being the first to opt out – will they be exposed to risk? Will they loose out on profits? If everyone moved together it would be safer and fairer. 

A recent report by the Guardian estimates that the current expansion plans of the fossil fuel industry includes 195 carbon bombs, and that the dozen biggest oil companies are on track to spend $103m a day for the rest of the decade exploiting new fields of oil and gas that cannot be burned if global heating is to be limited to well under 2C. These companies – and those investing in them – are betting that by 2030 governments will not have achieved the 43% reduction in emissions and will still be in the market to buy oil and gas. If their bet wins the world temperatures will have risen by more than 2C and we will all be suffering the worst impacts of the climate crisis. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/18/carbon-bombs-inside-the-20-may-guardian-weekly

On the other hand what could $103m a day achieve if it were invested in renewable energy? How many wind farms? How many tidal energy schemes? How many solar panels on buildings? How many heat pumps? What could it achieve if invested in climate adaptation projects? How many buildings could be insulated (against heat as well as the cold)? How many trees could be planted to absorb water and lower temperatures? How many efficient public transport schemes? How many new farming techniques, new varieties of seeds, and advanced weather ?

Counting on …day 160 

22nd April 2022

We are enmeshed in a economy fuelled by fossil fuel industries that are

reluctant – indeed highly resistant- to change. If change does not happen, we and the world will suffer increasingly the effects of the climate crisis. BP,  one such fossil fuel company, has been a sponsor of the British Museum for many years. Despite on going public opposition  and despite the move of most of other institutions away from fossil fuel sponsorship, the British Museum is currently negotiating with BP for a further five year deal. This weekend ‘BP or not BP’ will be continuing its campaign to dissuade the British Museum.   Find out more from their web site https://bp-or-not-bp.org/news/ 

or sign their petition https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/the-british-museum-must-not-to-renew-its-sponsorship-deal-with-bp

Here is a piece from their Facebook page: 

“Why is BP sponsorship such a big deal? 

BP doesn’t sponsor cultural institutions out of the goodness of its heart. Its philanthropic image is a carefully curated marketing scheme, designed to distract from its appalling environmental and human rights record, its decades of funding brutal autocrats (including Vladamir Putin) and its huge contribution to climate change.

From covering up oil spills which harm oceans and animals, to dodgy deals with dictators and warmongers, BP has done it all. The company’s history is inseparable from colonial oppression and its endless quest for fossil fuels has wreaked international havoc for more than 80 years.

This sponsorship deal at the British Museum doesn’t just give BP a false veneer of respectability. It allows the company to use this publicly funded space to throw fancy events, schmooze with UK government officials, and cosy up to representatives of fossil-fuelled regimes from Egypt to Azerbaijan to – yes – Russia.”

 Counting on …. Day 119

11th March 2022

The crisis in Ukraine has highlighted our dependency on oil and gas, whilst at the same time the IPCC is again highlighting the urgent need to rapidly reduce our carbon emissions. This is the time to cut back on our use of fuel for heating homes and water, and for driving cars. We can also contribute by cutting back on flights and imported goods, rather aiming to shop locally.