Rye News is apolitical, and to give fair representation to all parties we invited representatives from each to write an article, weekly in rotation. We have heard from Sally-Ann Hart (Conservative) Helena Dollimore (Labour) Guy Harris (Liberal Democrat) and this week it’s the turn of Dominic Manning on behalf of the Green Party. Editor
It’s easy to get all doom and gloom about the climate. The good news is that there are now very few people who ignore the science. The vast majority of us know there’s a problem and want to see action.
But while the deniers have moved to the margins we’re now faced with another tribe – the delayers. Rishi Sunak’s recent U-turn on the climate is a masterclass in different ways of dodging doing something – anything.
The first tactic is to say “someone else should do something first”.
This excuse was all over the PM’s speech. It paints a picture of the UK being weakened by taking action faster than other nations, who will take advantage of us. And yet there are loads of benefits from policies that leave us stronger in the face of climate change, that make us more resilient and that provide local employment. The UK sits on the renewables equivalent of the Middle East oil fields. We could have been, we could still be, a world leader in green technology, but thirteen years of governments twiddling their thumbs is throwing away our competitive advantage, and our future prosperity.
Then there’s blaming the situation on everyone other than us. We’ve been burning fossil fuels longer than most. Our nation was the first to industrialise, all powered by coal. We should be the leader in moving beyond fossil fuels. The Conservatives have often talked us up as a world leader – but when there’s a real opportunity to bring the world with us they’ve bottled it.
Then there’s putting all the responsibility on you and me rather than the big corporations. The world’s 100 largest companies are responsible for 75% of greenhouse gases. Yes we need to act as individuals but governments can make things happen faster and take the burden off regular people by making the multinationals take action.
Rishi was also very keen on solutions that minimise disruption for your average citizen. Great, but that then achieves nothing.
There was a lot of ‘technological optimism’; focusing on current and future technologies to solve climate change. Take the government’s ‘Jet Zero’ policy, which relies entirely on unproven or non-existent technologies and ‘sustainable’ future fuels rather than better alternatives to flying. He may as well sell us flying saucers. It’s just another way of kicking the can down the road and dodging the responsibilities of leadership.
The PM’s speech was full of big claims and little action, telling everyone that we are world leaders, that we are working towards an ambitious target. The UK’s target may appear ambitious, but he’s ducking taking responsible and meaningful action now. There has been international condemnation of the UK’s U-turn on climate policy because people rightly fear that foot-draggers will just say “we’re following the UK on this”.
Then there’s the old “but fossil fuels are becoming more efficient” line. It’s like listening to a drug addict talk about how their habit is just fine. Oil is as filthy as it ever was, as is coal. It’s just another way of Rishi sticking his head in the sand.
One thing that stands out is that the Conservatives are all for threatening people with big sticks – if they’re immigrants or protestors. They’ll lock people up just for holding up a sign outside a court reminding jurors of their legal rights. But when it comes to the climate it’s all carrot and no stick. prime minister Sunak invented imaginary ‘sticks’ on the spot; a meat tax, enforced car pooling or seven recycling bins. If he gets seven recycling bins it’ll only be because he’s got seven houses. He acts as though if there are no disincentives for planet-destroying behaviour somehow people will just choose to do the right thing. He takes an extreme opposite approach with law and order. It almost makes you believe he really doesn’t care about the future of the planet.
But then Rishi is all about talking up the downsides.
He wants everyone (oil companies included) to feel comfortable with change: “We can adopt a more pragmatic, proportionate and realistic approach to meeting net zero.” That’s like lying on the sofa instead of fixing the hole in the roof, or perhaps reclining in a comfy seat on a private jet, in Rishi’s case.
‘Appeal to well-being’ is stating that abandoning fossil fuels is abandoning the poor. It states that growth has pulled billions of people out of poverty. But this is absolutely no longer true for late stage capitalism, which increasingly only benefits the wealthiest. Wealth inequality is on the rise, not only between nations, but within nations. No one in the UK is more out of touch with reality than our PM. He doesn’t need to worry about potholes or train strikes, when all he needs to decide is whether to travel by helicopter or private jet. He has no idea what the impact of the climate will be like on those of us who can’t afford £500 loafers. If the climate breaks down it’ll be the least well off who’ll pay the most.
So when he questions why hard-working families should pay for the transition to a low-carbon economy, what he’s really doing is dodging the question of why the government is doing nothing to help them. Take this as a for instance: in the last decade Conservative governments have slashed funding for home insulation by 90%. It’s left us with needlessly higher energy bills, higher carbon emissions and fewer jobs in the green economy. It’s not Rishi’s family that’ll be cold this winter.
The only argument that Mr Sunak didn’t resort to is to say “It’s too late. We’re all doomed so we might as well party”. Of course the government needs to give the impression that matters are under control, when the reality is that there is precious little evidence to suggest it is either able or willing to take the bold action needed.
He may be arguing for delay but he’s still in denial. The result will be the same. Do nothing. Perhaps he hopes he can buy his way out of the consequences.
Our challenge as individuals is not to let a waste of space like Rishi Sunak get in our way. He may be content to do nothing but we don’t have to be. We can seize back our future. It is through action that optimism is born.
Image Credits: William F. Lamb, Giulio Mattioli, Sebastian Levi, J. Timmons Roberts, Stuart Capstick, Felix Creutzig, Jan C. Minx, Finn Müller-Hansen, Trevor Culhane, Julia K. Steinberger (2020). "Discourses of climate delay". Global Sustainability 3 (e17): 2. DOI:10.1017/sus.2020.13. "Fig. 1. A typology of climate delay discourses." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_typology_of_climate_delay_discourses.png Creative commons 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.
Great commentary Dom and I’m glad you didn’t pull any punches. Now is the time for harsh reality and paying the price for our previous mistakes. As you say let’s build optimism through action. I for one am with you and see many others stepping up too. Now is the time to act.
Climate change is real – and has been for about 4.5 billion years since the earth came into being. However, ice core records (and other records) show that we are at a record low, yes low, in terms of C02 levels on the planet. We also know from those records that the Roman period and middle ages period saw average temperature far higher than we have now. We went into a cold phase (called the little ice age) in the 1300’s and are emerging from that phase, so it is likely that temperatures should be rising. However, remember the 1970’s when the prediction by scientist was that we were plunging into a new ice age – how fickle all this is. What the records don’t show is a direct correlation between C02 and temperature, and I believe there is not a single scientific paper out there which conclusively demonstrates a direct correlation. C02 helps our plants grow, simple biology as I recall from school, and shows why our King speaking to his plants helps them grow, as of course we exhale C02. But C02 has some how become the demon to blame for climate change. Reducing C02 is likely to have no little effect on the climate, but will reduce greening which is surely what we don’t want? There is currently a very large consensus of eminent scientists who believe we are headed in completely the wrong direction with climate change strategy. I personally believe that this period of history will be seen as the greatest mistake humankind has ever made. It has become a political issue, and that is a serious problem, and in many cases it has become a secular religion, and that is even a greater problem. The climate is changing (naturally) and if temperatures do indeed continue to slowly rise (0.1 degree per decade), we need to focus all our resources on adaptation – air conditioning etc. One thing is for sure, we will definitely need oil and gas for many many years to come, likely into the next century. So I think we are seeing scientific reality emerging rather than denial.
For anyone who wants to know how serious the current situation is (and who thinks Wikipedia is generally reliable) here are a couple of links.
The first is a very detailed account of atmospheric CO2 and contains the following:
“The current global average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 421 ppm as of May 2022 (0.04%). This is an increase of 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to the mid-18th century.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
The second link refers to the last time on this planet that atmospheric CO2 was at the same level as today- about 400 million years ago during the Pliocene era.
It contains the following:
“Carbon dioxide concentration during the Middle Pliocene has been estimated at around 400 ppm
… global average temperature in the mid-Pliocene was 2–3 °C higher than today….global sea level 25 meters higher”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene_climate#Mid-Pliocene_and_future_climate
We cannot afford to continue to deny, or delay.
Earths temperatures have indeed changed over millennia – This is due to changes in orbital shape, axis tilt, and axis precession and shorter-term sunspot influences.
On top of that, methane venting and volcanic activity have released greenhouse gases causing dramatic and devastating impacts – Over our planet’s history you can map the impacts of continental tectonic changes in energy distribution, impacting trans-global temperatures.
But the physics of green house gases (including CO2) trapping energy has been known for the last 164 years. The predicted energy gains are confirmed by measurements. This causes effects on global surface temperature, sea temperatures, ice extent and more.
The evidence is here: Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)
By adding energy to the atmosphere we get more extreme weather events, and at an increased regularity. This has been predicted, and the predictions are now observed.
So the science about the negative impacts of our human industrialisation matches the observations in our climate, and the resulting devastating impacts on our planet’s biosphere.
Every major science body in the world now agrees with these facts.
The problem now is how to change how we live and evolve as a species for our own benefit – We need to use our intelligence and resilience to change the systems that incentivise politicians to delay taking actions to avert further damage to our precious planet.
Thank you Claire for your clear and informed response to the letter above. Thank heavens that climate deniers are also on the going extinct list. We cannot afford to continue to deny, or delay. Anyone not actively contributing to solutions is complicit and in the challenges we pass on to future generations.
Well said Richard,and the late David Bellamy on his views on Climate Change, but of course those in denial,forget the cost to us all, to change the systems that are at present,which is woefully understainable at the present time.
“Rye News is apolitical” (not interested in politics) but is now including regular articles by politicians! Four has been enough! More than enough!
One politician would like us to believe that everything is fine, so that she can be re-elected. Three are trying to persuade us that everything is not fine, so that they or their candidates can be elected.
Could Rye News please limit this sort of content to short periods immediately preceding elections? Also, could Rye News moderate comments that are blatantly political (mainly from the usual suspects and often lengthy)
Much of life is political, DA. We all live in a political world — be it paying taxes, obeying laws, deciding what sort of country we wish to live in. Censoring ‘political’ comments is something authoritarian regimes do, not democratic societies.
Claire’s reply to the earlier misleading comment denying CO2’s impact on global heating is spot on, thanks Claire. The link between CO2 level and global temperature is undeniable. Between mass manufacturing (the Industrial Revolution) starting in 1771 with the invention of the spinning jenny and 2021, humanity injected 2.4 trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, increasing temperatures by 1.2C and creating more extreme weather events. Proven research on CO2’s climate impact goes back to Eunice Foote in 1856, followed by John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius, Guy Callendar, Gilbert Plass, Roger Revelle, Charles Keeling, Glenn Seaborg and James Hansen (1988), to name a few.
I’m tempted to contact the Institution of Engineering and Technology to confirm that Mr Williams is a bonafide Fellow. Even if he is, the Institution may wish to know that one of its Fellows has stated that the records don’t show a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature (when they DO show this).
As a political comment — arguing that the current government is delaying action on climate change — Dominic Manning’s article is a fair and honest opinion. I’d agree that we probably don’t want too many articles by political parties. If you run one, then you have to run articles by all the other parties, for the sake of fairness. Closer to the general election would be acceptable, of course.
Rishi is quite right in delaying climate change, with the cost estimated at 4.5 trillion, that works out at £6,000 per household over the next 27 years, not much to the naysayers that are in denial,but huge costs to most individuals on low wages,especially in this neck of the woods.
Please be more accurate with your use of language and your facts, and reveal your information sources where possible. Sunak is not ‘delaying climate change’, which is impossible. For purely political reasons (an election next year), he simply extended the time that people can buy new petrol and diesel vehicles to 2035 and will allow people to replace their gas boilers with heat pumps when they wish, rather than setting a specific deadline. Sale of second-hand petrol and diesel vehicles will still be allowed after 2035.
Your figure of £4.5 trillion appears to derive from the right-wing think tank Civitas, which Wikipedia says is “opposed to green regulations, to legislation designed to reduce climate change, and to greater reliance on renewable energy”. The Civitas pamphlet which mentioned the incorrect £4.5 trillion figure was criticised for containing multiple errors and Civitas later withdrew it from its website, citing “factual errors” that had been included in it (these included confusing megawatt capacity with megawatt hours and billions with trillions). The erroneous report was uncritically taken up by several publications such as the Daily Mail, which mentioned the incorrect £6,000 figure.
The truth is that the cost of NOT responding to climate change will be far more expensive than taking measures to mitigate it. The government’s official advisor, the Climate Change Committee, has estimated that reaching net zero will require net investments of £1.4 trillion by 2050. As there will be savings in lower fuel bills of £1.1 trillion, the net cost to the UK will in fact be around £0.3 trillion.
The London School of Economics estimated last year that damages from climate change could cost the UK 3.3% of its GDP by 2050, up from 1.1% in 2022. UK GDP last year was apparently over £2.2 trillion, which suggests climate change damages currently cost us about £24 billion a year. The IPCC estimates that climate change mitigation measures to keep temperature to a 2C rise by 2050 may cost between 1.3% and 2.7% of global GDP by that date. Not doing anything will mean climate change-related damage costing many times this amount.
Renewables in many cases are already cheaper than fossil fuels for energy generation. Green technology is improving at speed and the unit cost of items like heat pumps, solar panels and electric vehicles will go down as more competition develops.
Once again, I urge those who comment on the Rye News forum to check their sources and not to disseminate inaccurate and misleading information about climate change and other important issues. Thank you.
How parochial the original article and responses to it seem to be. The UK is responsible for a very small fraction of the human activity which is driving climate change globally. China and India between them, for example, will continue down a fossil fuel path of significantly increased CO2 emissions way beyond any target arbitrarily chosen by politicians in this country. What is the point of deliberately impoverishing our population, of narrowing its prospects, of reducing its standard of living, of taking away a measure of the personal freedoms so hard-won in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries simply to satisfy the climate-change puritans? I am not suggesting inaction – far from it – but there are responses to our current challenges such as a concentration on technological solutions that may be far more helpful than the rush to “Thou shalt not” so much in favour amongst the metrapolitan elite.
Geoff, your comments are textbook climate delayism, ticking about half the discourses for delay. For some reason – maybe you are reluctant to inform yourself on the matter – you don’t see climate change as an existential threat. For the most part, the victims of climate change are not the metropolitan elite. If you want to find out more about the science and climate delayism, see this article: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/discourses-of-climate-delay/7B11B722E3E3454BB6212378E32985A7
Your phrase ‘I am not suggesting inaction – far from it – but…’ is highly indicative of delayism and therefore denial. If that is not true, what action are you taking, may I ask?
I’m not sure what personal freedoms ‘Geoff’ thinks are being taken away from him. The freedom to pollute our rivers and seas maybe, or the freedom to fill our towns and citiies with noxious traffic fumes? Green techologies are creating well-paid, secure jobs, so I’m not sure where ‘reduced standards of living’ come into it either.
Not sure where reduced standards of living come into it? Really?? If thats the case I can only assume that your ivory tower is not powered by gas or electricity.
I pay less for green energy through Octopus than I would through a non-renewable company. Your point?
John P, please do check my academic, and professional status out. I can enlighten you to the fact that there are many Fellows of scientific institutions who do not simple follow the UN mono-narrative. I reiterate, the proxy data going back millions of years (ice cores etc) does not clearly show that C02 is driving temperature. Many scientists in fact argue the contrary – that temperature is driving C02 levels, lagging by a 100 years or so. I repeat, there is no scientific paper which conclusively proves C02 is the ‘bad guy.’ C02 is indeed a greenhouse gas, but a very tiny portion of our atmosphere at 0.04%, of which humans contribute a total of 4% of that 0.04%. Green house gases trap heat from escaping from the earth and collectively are responsible for heating, which is fortunate, as without that trapping effect, the planet would be too cold to inhabit. In terms of climate change, the planet is heating right now at 0.1 degree per decade. So why is C02 seen as the bad guy? Simply, the IPCC climate models apply multiplying factors on C02, which they call positive feedback, to greatly amplify the effect C02 really has. However their models have been shown to be hopelessly overheated year after year, as previous predictions have met the reality of measured temperatures. We need to stop polluting the planet for sure, but that is not achieved by the elimination of C02 which will have a terrible impact in the long run in terms of food production and general greening. Below 150 ppm plants start to die. We are currently at a historic low (in terms of looking back millions of years) of around 421 ppm. Finally, let me suggest readers of this column take a look at the letter published recently (11th October 23) in the Telegraph newspaper, by an eminent Emeritus Professor at the University of Cambridge, and (John P please note) a fellow of a number of engineering and scientific institutions. Professor Michael Kelly lays out in great detail the folly of attempting to achieve net zero. Professor Kelly at the end of his letter also has something pointed to say about the science and engineering institutions. Yes, there are numerous academic who are speaking out against current climate thinking.
Hello Richard Williams CEng,FICE,FIET
I have indeed been attempting to check out your academic and professional status. The Engineering Council says: ‘We would need more information ie. membership number or date of birth, as we have over 20 registrants named Richard Williams with the CEng title.’ The Engineering Council’s guidance on sustainability is here: https://www.engc.org.uk/sustainability
I am still awaiting replies from the Institution of Engineering and Technology and from the Institution of Civil Engineers. I strongly suspect there are quite a lot of Fellows with your name too. The IET view on climate change is here: https://www.theiet.org/impact-society/sustainability-and-climate-change/ and the ICE view is here: https://www.ice.org.uk/engineering-resources/briefing-sheets/six-ways-for-civil-engineers-to-act-on-climate-change and https://www.ice.org.uk/engineering-resources/knowledge-programmes/ice-and-decarbonisation
As a leading academic, it must be very frustrating for you to share a name with so many other engineers, as your voice cannot be distinguished from theirs.
It seems to me that your views are totally at odds with the letters behind your name, which you are so keen on Rye News readers to notice. I can also put lots of letters behind my name if I wish, but feel confident and secure in what I am saying without the need to do so. I also know in the three years following the Paris Agreement, the five largest publicly-traded oil and gas majors (ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP and Total) have invested over $1Bn of shareholder funds on misleading climate-related branding and lobbying. Of course, I’m not saying you are receiving any of this money. But I am curious to know your motives.
So here is what I suggest, Richard Williams CEng,FICE,FIET. You provide Rye News with your membership numbers for EC, ICE and IET, or you provide your date of birth, whichever you prefer. And, you and I have a meeting in Rye sometime soon – next week is fine by me – to talk these things over. You can invite a few of your numerous academic friends, if you wish. Rye News can have a reporter attending, and we’ll have an honest and lively debate. I’m sure you will be happy for this to happen. It’s always good to put a face to a name, don’t you agree?
Being angry and threatening is bad for the blood pressure Dominic. Also, it detracts from the message.
For your information the Institution of Civil Engineers has approximately 95,000 members, of which about 40,000 are chartered engineers. There are only just over 5000 fellows. Fellowship is the highest grade of membership, providing recognition of engineers who have made an outstanding contribution to civil engineering and society. It is not easy to become a Fellow of ICE.
ICE Fellows are very experienced, thoughtful and practical. Their views are worthy of consideration even if they do not align with your views (or mine).
The ICE has an easy to use online “find an engineer”. There are two Richard Williams listed as Fellows, one in London and one in south east England.
My view, for what it is worth, is that the first paragraph of your article is good. The following paragraphs are increasingly about party politics. By paragraph 11 it degenerates into personal attacks. We should be pleased that talented people (of all political persuasions) can make progress in our country. Derogatory reference to someone’s success or their choice of shoes is unnecessary and unpleasant.
I’m never quite sure what the intent of these contrarian interventions is, and as a father, whose kids are already going to be impacted by climate change, I’m never that impressed either… It’s orthodox scientific opinion that climate change has been hastened since the Industrial Revolution, and CO2 is central to that. Moreover, nobody’s suggesting CO2 be ‘eliminated’… Whilst people certainly need to be supported to make the transition during a cost of living crisis, to prevaricate or to engage in slightly indulgent casuistical debates, would seem to me to be placing a very high stake on a minority conjecture.
Finally, correct me if I’m wrong, but Prof. Kelly is not saying ‘climate change isn’t a thing’ (quite the opposite), he’s saying the transition to Net Zero is going to be extremely costly and challenging – which is true, but it’s an entirely unrelated theme.
As requested, Rye News contacted Richard Williams to verify his credentials. Mr Williams responded and has produced certification to prove his proffessional qualifications which as Editor I accept as being bonafide and genuine. In good faith he has also offered to produce further proof if required but we are satisfied with what we have received from him.
The link between CO2 level and global temperature is undeniable. I wonder why contrarians continue to contest the overwhelming scientific facts? Do they get some pleasure from this? The Institute of Engineering and Technology supports net zero and for a leading member to deny carbon dioxide’s impact reflects badly on the institution. I’m sure the IET and other engineering bodies would be happy to give their views on CO2’s role in climate change. Mr Williams needs to accept the empirical evidence, which I’m sure Dominic can give him. The fact that Earth had higher CO2 levels millions of years ago is neither here nor there, save for the fact that the planet was much hotter when this gas was more prevalent. As I sit here with 75mph winds raging outside my window and a fence panel blown over, the impact of global heating and CO2 is clear to me. The key issue is the effect that global heating will have on human existence and civilisation, our ability to grow crops, to survive frequent flooding, droughts, wildfires, species extinction and so on. We are in an ecological and existential crisis right now. The Earth will survive, but humans may not. All countries will ultimately pay the price for fossil fuel use.
Agreed. In 1964 or 19655 the Director of the research station where I worked called the staff together and gave a talk on the implications of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere: that is, the likelihood of climatic warming, extent of course then unknown. This was long before it became a general concern and it seemed to me something for the remote future. I certainly didn’t think it would happen my lifetime and to such drastic and dramatic effect. Given there is a clear mechanism, that the effect of rising CO2 is predictable, and was indeed predicted, and that warming and other allied impacts can be seen to be happening, climatic warming and its human causation seem undeniable.