Friday, December 07, 2018

Water - and COP24

Find the podcast on iTunes https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-sustainable-futures-report/id313473372?mt=2, Stitcher, Spotify, SoundCloud or via www,susbiz.biz

Hello
Hello and welcome to the Sustainable Futures Report. I'm Anthony Day and this is the edition for Friday, 7th November 2018.

This week I wanted to make water my theme. We’ll come to that, but the big news of course is COP24. It's the annual United Nations climate change conference held this year in Katowice, Poland. It's ironic that as the conference opened President Macron of France, faced by the increasing violence of the gilets jaunes protests, agreed to suspend the planned increase in diesel prices which were intended to protect the planet by reducing demand and reducing emissions.
COP24
Meanwhile, the opening keynote speaker was television naturalist Sir David Attenborough whose message was widely reported.
“Right now,” he said, “we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale. Our greatest threat in thousands of years.
Climate Change. 
“If we don’t take action the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.” 
He went on to explain, 
“At this crucial moment, the United Nations has invited the world’s people to have their voice heard, by giving them a seat. The People’s Seat; giving everyone the opportunity to join us here today, virtually, and speak directly to you the decision makers….. 
“…The world’s people have spoken. Their message is clear. Time is running out.
“They want you, the decision makers, to act now. They are behind you, along with civil society represented here today. 

“Supporting you in making tough decisions but also willing to make sacrifices in their daily lives. 
“The People have spoken. Leaders of the world, you must lead. The continuation of our civilisations and the natural world upon which we depend, is in your hands.”
Try ActNow.bot
He explained the UN’s ActNow.bot. This is an interactive app based on Messenger and when you click on the Get Started button it comes back with this personalised message:
“Anthony, you have the power to tackle climate change. Small changes can make a big difference if we all work together. The United Nations has identified 10 key actions that you can take in your daily life and record here. Our collective actions from around the globe will be presented to world leaders at the UN Climate Summit in September 2019.”
The 10 actions, with detailed explanation of each, are:
Eat meat-free meals, turn the lights off, drive less, use energy saving light bulbs, refill and re-use, have a 5-minute shower, buy local produce, bring your own bag, unplug, recycle. 
Simple enough, and small enough individually, but if we all do it there is vast strength in vast numbers. Not sure that I will go back to the site to record all my actions, though. Will people do that?
The People’s Seat
The People's Seat which Attenborough mentioned is a new UN campaign that will allow people from around the world to watch and have their voices heard during the climate summit COP24 which is now on. To do that you tweet using hashtag #takeyourseat. This use of Twitter along with the ActNow.bot on Messenger is presumably aimed at a younger demographic. Apparently the campaign has been running for a while and if you google People’s Seat you’ll find messages about climate change from all over the world. 
The conference continues until next Friday 14th December, so I’ll comment on it again after that.
Sponsor
Oh, by the way, Katowice, where the conference is being held, is in the heart of Polish mining country. JSW, a majority state-owned corporation and the European Union's largest producer of high-quality coking coal is one of the major sponsors of COP24.



Water
Let’s talk about water.
Water is one of the main issues of sustainability. Clean water part of the United Nations sustainable development goals. It's crucial to life and it's bound up in so many ways in the cause and effects of climate change.
Today I want to look again at how water affects us all. From the polar ice caps to the thermohaline circulation and the Gulf Stream; from floods to droughts to mudslides.
Polar ice 
First, let’s look at the poles. At both the North and South poles there are major masses of ice. The principal difference is that most of the Arctic ice is floating on the sea, so that if it melted it would not change sea levels. This is similar to the ice cube in your gin and tonic which may melt but won't cause your drink to overflow the glass. There is a significant amount of ice covering the Greenland landmass, and this would add 7 metres to sea level if it melted. 
In the Antarctic the ice sits on land. The Antarctic icecap contains about 90 percent of the world's ice and 70 percent of the world’s fresh water. Antarctica is covered with ice at an average of 2,150 metres thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 metres. 
Ice Loss
We talk constantly about global warming, so how likely is it that this ice will melt? Stuff, a magazine based in New Zealand, warns that Polar ice sheets may 'collapse' even if global warming is limited to the Paris Agreement target of 2℃. It quotes an article in Nature Climate Change which predicts that the threshold for irreversible ice loss in both Greenland and Antarctica is somewhere between 1.5 and 2C global mean warming. 
We're already at a bit more than 1C warming.
Professor Christina Hulbe, from the University of Otago School of Surveying, said the work had "one clear message: we are very close to triggering irreversible change in Earth's polar ice sheets”.
Faster Melting
In June this year, analysis showed that the rate of melting in Antarctica had tripled since 2012. Associate Professor Rob McKay, from Victoria University of Wellington's Antarctic Research Centre, said after the tipping points were reached at each polar ice sheet, "retreat potentially becomes unstoppable”. The more we overshoot the 1.5C target, the more rapid this accelerated ice sheet melt will be, but it won't happen overnight. It’s expected to take hundreds or thousands of years. 
Rising Tides
No grounds for complacency. As long as Antarctic ice is melting, or just slipping off into the sea as icebergs, sea levels are rising.
The National Geographic reports that the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 3.2 millimetres a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years. Even 32mm per decade doesn’t sound a lot, and it isn’t very much in calm conditions. However, let’s take an example.
Let’s assume that the Thames Estuary has an area of about 700km2. That’s 700,000,000m2. If the sea level rises by 32mm in 10 years that’s an extra 22m tonnes of water. When there’s a storm surge or a high wind driving up the river that’s an extra 22m tonnes of water pushing against the Thames Barrier or flooding into coastal towns. Now consider how much more water there will be across the oceans of the world as sea levels rise. The total area of global oceans is about 360mkm2. You can do the maths.
Things could be much worse. NASA predicts that sea levels could rise by 65cm by the end of the century and says that that could be a conservative estimate. It seems that the difference is accounted for by the expansion of water as the world warms, and by differences in modelling techniques. Ice-melt prediction is a relatively young science. Some researchers believe that the Greenland Ice sheet will completely melt by 2100, releasing enough water to submerge London. And if that happens many other cities and countries will be affected as well.
Wet Feet?
According to the US ocean service, in the United States, almost 40 percent of the population lives in relatively high-population-density coastal areas, where sea level plays a role in flooding, shoreline erosion, and hazards from storms. Globally, eight of the world's 10 largest cities are near a coast. The UK Climate Projections report, issued last month by the Met Office, warns that the most serious consequences for the UK will be increased flooding. Environment Minister Michael Gove (at the time of writing) says that flood defences can only go so far, and some areas will have to be permanently evacuated.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/science/108548669/polar-ice-sheets-may-collapse-even-if-global-warming-is-limited
https://physicsworld.com/a/thinner-arctic-sea-ice-could-mask-long-term-climate-trends/


The Oceans
The water in the oceans is in constant flux. There are local currents driven by the wind but there is a much larger flow called the thermohaline circulation. The North Atlantic current, including the Gulf Stream, flows from the Caribbean to the northeast above Scandinavia. As it reaches the higher, colder latitudes it begins to freeze, and as the ice forms the salt in the water is left behind, making it denser. Denser water sinks to the bottom of the ocean and begins to flow south across the ocean bed. On the surface, more water is drawn in to replace the water that has sunk. This is the start of the thermohaline circulation: thermo, relating to the heat and haline, meaning saltiness.
Slowing Down
Forbes Magazine reports on the work of researchers at the Swire Institute of Marine Science and the University of Hong Kong. They studied sediment and fossils off the coast of Canada to reconstruct ocean circulation in the past and to compare it with where it is today. The team, which published its findings in Geophysical Research Letters, found a dramatic weakening of ocean circulation during the last century. The concern is that increasing numbers of icebergs flowing off Greenland are changing the salinity of the water and effectively creating a freshwater cap. This is slowing down the sinking process, which in turn slows down the current, and could eventually block it. 
Why does this matter?
The clue is in the thermo bit. The current crossing the Atlantic is bringing warm water, which affects the climate. It’s the reason why winters in London are much milder than those in New York, even though London is 11 degrees of latitude further north. A slowing of the current could perhaps have been the cause of the Little Ice Age in Europe. This period, lasting from around 1300 to 1850 AD marked bitter cold conditions, famine, drought, and widespread population decline. Nobody can say for sure. Equally nobody can say when or whether it will happen again. If you believe in the precautionary principle, it’s another strong argument to take every measure to attempt to keep global warming down to 1.5℃ or less.
More to come
There’s an awful lot more about water. I haven’t discussed clouds, or floods, or droughts, or drinking water or sewage, but I’m going to leave those topics for another time.

There is a vast amount of information on the web and you’ll find a selection of links on the blog at www.sustainablefutures.report .







And in other news…
G78
I got a press release this week from the Group of 78 (G78) which apparently is a non-governmental organization, founded in 1981, dedicated to the promotion of a progressive foreign policy based on principles of sustainable peace, justice, and global survival in the face of contemporary challenges. Its report Meeting the Climate Challenge: Accelerating the Transition to a Post-Carbon World, G78 Conference Report and Policy Recommendations, is the outcome of a policy conference held in Ottawa September 28-29.
Anyone can become a member of G78 and the number refers to the 78 Canadians who originally set up the organisation. 
The report and the press release call for stronger international actions to avert catastrophic climate change. G78 hopes that international leaders and decision-makers will commit to such actions at the UN’s COP24, which is currently in session. I hope so too, and I’ll report on that in the Sustainable Futures Report for 21st December.
https://group78.org           
CO2 Up
 Action is certainly needed. The BBC reports that CO2 is sharply up in 2018 due to the use of cars and coal. China is boosting the use of coal to drive its economy. In other areas, including the UK, gas prices have risen making coal more competitive for generating electricity. In the UK the chancellor froze fuel duty for the 9th year in a row recently. Cars are getting bigger and drivers have little concern for fuel economy or emissions levels. They can perhaps be forgiven for being sceptical about all this after the diesel-gate scandal - the deliberate modification of cars to defeat emissions tests. Meanwhile, as I said at the beginning, President Macron’s attempt at cutting fossil fuel use by raising prices led to two weeks of riots in the streets across France and he’s had to back down. 
We live in difficult times!
And finally…
That's it for another week.
Thanks for listening and thanks to my patrons for all their support. You can find out about being a patron at patreon.com/SFR. 
Patron Iain Duke got in touch and suggested I should look at the conflict between development and ecological footprint reduction. Thanks, Iain, I’ve got that down for early next year. And if you’ve got any ideas or opinions on that please share. I’m on mail@anthony-day.com.
Next week I’m going to have a look at all the topics I’ve covered in 2018 and see whether there are any significant updates you should know about. On 21st December I’ll look at what happened at COP24 and I’ll also talk about the Carrington Event. Could it happen again?
That’s it for this week.
I’m Anthony Day.

That was the Sustainable Futures Report.

Posted by at No comments:

Friday, November 30, 2018

All the Lovely People

Find the podcast on iTunes https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-sustainable-futures-report/id313473372?mt=2, Stitcher, Spotify, SoundCloud or via www,susbiz.biz

My Dilemma

I have a dilemma. I have a choice between meeting my deadline for a new Sustainable Futures Report every week and providing you with in-depth analysis of the topics that I cover. Inevitably most of my coverage is superficial, but I certainly can't afford to trivialise these very important issues. This week I'm looking at population, and like many other sustainability issues it is broad, deep and complicated. Today's episode therefore will take a top level view, but if it's something you'd like me to go into in more detail, or if you can contribute your knowledge and ideas to the debate, please get back to me. It’s mail@anthony-day.com  as always.
Yes, I’m Anthony Day with your Sustainable Futures Report for Friday the 30th of November. Less than a month to the Christmas consumer-fest. Welcome and thank you all for listening.
Population
Population. It's another elephant in the room. We know we need to do something about it. We know we need to do something about plastic. We’ve had dire warnings from the IPCC of the very present dangers from climate change, and we know we need to do something about that. But many people are concerned about family, housing, jobs, the cost of living and declining public services. Do we really have to worry about population as well? It’s the perennial question: “What can we do?” At the very least we should all have an opinion. Governments have a role in this. We need to hold them to account.
Numbers
Let’s talk about numbers. First of all I'd like to draw your attention to a website. It’s http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/. Just have a look at it and watch world population growing before your eyes. I remember that when I was at University there was a slogan going around: “Whatever your cause it’s a lost cause unless we limit population.”  At that time, world population was around 3.5 billion. Now it’s almost up to 7.7 billion; more than double. It’s actually trebled in my lifetime. These figures are based on UN statistics, and on the website there’s a lot more detail than just the absolute numbers. The first thing you can see is that the birthrate exceeds the death rate, and as long as that continues then population will continue to grow. It's currently growing at about 1.09% per annum globally, and while that rate of increase is slowing, it's still a rate of increase. United Nations estimates that world population will reach 8 billion by 2023, 10 billion by 2056 and exceed 11 billion by 2100. These are estimates within a wide range. At least this slowing growth rate means that it will take 200 years for the population to double again - if that were feasible.
Developed Countries
Looking at the Worldometer website you can see that developed countries like the US, UK, France, Germany and Italy have birth rates of between 1.4 and 2 children per woman, which is replacement level or less. The populations of these countries, apart from Italy, are still growing, even after adjusting for migration. The average growth rate for these five is less than 0.4% per annum. If the birth rate is below the replacement rate but population net of migration is still growing, the only conclusion must be that this growth occurs because people are living longer in these countries. 
Developing Countries
Compare this with some developing countries. I’ve chosen Nigeria, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Populations here are all growing, at an average rate of 1.9%, compared with less than 0.4%. China is the lowest, growing at 0.39%, but the rest are growing from just over 1% to 3.3%. The average number of children per woman in the developed world is 1.7, but in these developing countries it is 3.5, with the DRC at 6.4. 
(Sorry about all these figures. You can find them on the blog, and the source is the UN via the Worldometers site.)
It’s interesting to see a reverse correlation between the birthrate and the median age of the population. In most cases, the lower the median age, the higher the birthrate. For the developed countries within my sample, with an average birthrate of 1.7, the median age is 42 years. For the developing country sample with an average birthrate of 3.5, the median age is 26. In the DRC with the birthrate of 6.4, the median age is only 17.
Health and Longevity
Increased longevity is one factor in increasing world population. As developing countries develop and healthcare improves, longevity will increase here as well. Infant mortality and the survival of babies beyond their first year will also improve. In the short term this may give a boost to population, but studies have shown that once people are confident that their children are likely to survive their families get smaller.
What’s the problem?
As population grows, what’s the problem? The campaign group Population Matters tells us simply that:
 “Our population has become so large that the earth cannot cope.” 
As there are more mouths to feed there is more pressure on the land to produce food. There is more pressure on resources to provide the goods and services that an increased population demands. One of the most significant pressures comes not just from absolute numbers but from the expectations of world citizens. According to the OECD the size of the “global middle class” will increase from 1.8 billion in 2009 to 3.2 billion by 2020 and 4.9 billion by 2030. These are the people who expect to drive cars, have a refrigerator and a television and to carry a mobile phone. Many want to eat a Western diet. Population Matters estimates that we are already using 1.7 times the total output of the earth, in terms of food and resources. We are using it faster than it can be replaced, and in some cases we are causing damage that can never be undone. It’s unsustainable.
What’s the Solution?
The solution, according to them, is smaller families, even in Western countries where population is beginning to decline. It’s a very hard sell. As they say on the website, 
“To have or not to have children is a fundamental human right that everyone should be free to exercise without judgment or criticism.” 
It’s also a human right that only a small part of the population can exercise at a given time. 
An Academic View (or two)
I’ve commented on the work of Kim Nicholas and Seth Wynes in the past. They calculated that having a child increased your carbon footprint by a massive 60 tonnes per annum and was much more serious than driving a car or travelling by air. As Professor Karl Coplan said on the Sustainable Futures Report for 22nd September 2017, 
“I think that actually disserves the climate cause because people outside the climate movement look at that and say; oh my God, these climate activists, they are telling us that we should just stop having children.” 
At the time they published their work, Nicholas and Wynes were widely criticised for misinterpreting the papers on which their analysis was based. Unfortunately their conclusions have been widely shared - including by Transform, the journal of IEMA. I asked Nicholas and Wynes for an interview back in 2017 but they said they were not giving interviews, at least not to me.
Family Planning
Population Matters is promoting family planning in developing countries. The US of course has now withdrawn funding from its own work in this field. Will family planning have a sufficient effect in time?
Population Matters justifies its call for smaller families in developed countries on the grounds that these children will have a far larger impact than children in poor countries. For example, they estimate that a child in the UK will have 70 times the impact on the planet that a child in Nigeria will have. You can't argue with that, so the whole debate comes back to the use of resources and the creation of waste and emissions, and indeed the campaign urges everyone to cut back. There are many ways which we can enjoy our current lifestyle with a much lower use of resources and with less pollution. We can help developing countries to use these techniques and raise their standard of living in a sustainable way. But for all this to happen we need politicians to take a lead, to take a long-term view, to control those corporations damaging the planet for short-term profit by things like destroying forests, polluting the seas and burning coal. In my view we all have to have an opinion. We each have to do what we can to ensure that our individual lifestyles minimise our impact on the planet. We have to share our ideas and demand that governments act.
And you?
What do you think we could or should do about population?


In Other News…

News from Canada. 
Rex Murphy writing in the National  Post says “Lewis Carroll (you know, the one who wrote Alice in Wonderland) is alive and well, and writing Canada’s energy policy.”
Murphy is concerned that the nation is not making full use of its energy resources and of course this turns to a great extent on the dispute between Alberta and British Columbia. As I have previously reported, Alberta has vast reserves of oil from its tar sands deposits and wants to export them through the Port of Vancouver. Vancouver is in British Columbia and the province of British Columbia does not wish to permit pipelines to cross its territory. Among other things, environmentalists are very concerned about the prospect of large numbers of oil tankers making their way along the hazardous passage from the port to the open sea, particularly in winter.  
Murphy says: 
“Until there are pipelines (plural) built and oil flowing to international markets there should be no talk of the so-call carbon tax — the energy tax. Until the crazed circumstance of the blockade on Alberta energy is resolved, all talk of “reducing carbon emissions” and the pretence of meeting our Paris “commitments” should be shelved. Fix the home front first, and then if some wish to attend to the dubious goals of planetary salvation, let them at it.”
This is clearly not someone who has read the IPCC report, or if he has, he doesn’t believe it. I think it was St Augustine who prayed, “Oh Lord, make me pure - but not yet.” 
OK Mr Murphy, let’s cut emissions, but not yet. Oh dear, it’s too late.
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Earlier this month the U.S. Global Change Research Program produced its Fourth National Climate Assessment. It states: 
“Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States, presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth.” 
It goes on to explain the many ways in which the nation will be affected, from the economy to water, to health, to agriculture, to tourism.
The report says that the economic impact of climate change would be devastating. Questioned on this, President Trump said, “I don’t believe it.”
Brazil
A footnote to last week’s episode. An official report from Brazil says that deforestation in the Amazon in the 12 months to July 2018 was the worst for 10 years. Environment Minister Edson Duarte said illegal logging and an upsurge in organised crime was to blame. 
On 1st January president-elect Jair Bolsonaro will take office, and is expected to have a much more relaxed attitude to the protection of the rainforest.
France in Yellow
In France, the yellow vest or gilets jaunes protest continues across the nation. What started as a protest against increased fuel prices has developed into a demonstration against low incomes and the high cost of living. It continues across the whole country. President Macron introduced the price increases as a measure to reduce carbon emissions. So far he is standing firm and has not blinked yet.

Microplastics
More news about micro plastics. A report from the Royal Society has found that these particles can change the behaviour of certain shellfish which absorb them. They no longer recognise threats and become easy prey for crabs, leading to an imbalance in the food chain. According to Paul Morozzo, of Greenpeace, “we’re dumping an extra truckload of risk into the sea every 60 seconds.” 
I was also intrigued to see a comment in the article which said that micro plastics are now even found in honey. I can't imagine how bees come into contact with micro plastics, except perhaps through the water which they pick up from puddles and ponds.
Extreme Weather
More extreme weather, this time from Australia. The BBC reports that Sydney has experienced its wettest November day since 1984. 91mm of rain fell in 90 minutes, and high winds and flash flooding led to two deaths. 8,000 homes and businesses lost power. Airports were closed and vehicles crashed.
While the storm was intense, it was highly localised. Other parts of the state in the grip of drought got no rain at all.
Juliana
In the US the Juliana case rumbles on but the Pacific Standard asks whether it will ever get to court. The government has continually blocked it, but has not succeeded in getting it dismissed. A date for trial is still to be set.
Meanwhile in Canada a similar case has emerged. ENvironnement JEUnesse (ENJEU),[that’s a French pun] a Quebec-based environmental education group, announced this week that it had applied for authorization for a class action suit on behalf of all the citizens of Quebec under the age of 35. It challenges the Canadian government for insufficient action on climate change. Like the Juliana case, it is expected to take several years to play out.
Nuclear Power
You remember that nuclear power station at Hinkley C? There is news from Flamanville where another nuclear plant is being built to the same design. It’s way over budget and years behind time and one of the key issues in the delay has been questions over the integrity of the castings of the reactor vessel. There were concerns that the metal contained too much carbon and would therefore not have sufficient strength. After extensive investigations which have taken years, the nuclear inspectorate in France has authorised the plant to begin operation. Now environmentalists, including Greenpeace France, have filed a lawsuit to block this authorisation.
Although Hinkley C will use the same design as Flamanville, the castings for the reactor vessel have not yet been produced and there is no suggestion that they will have the same problems as those at the French site. Experience is a wonderful teacher. Well, it is in many cases. The experience of Flamanville and a similar site in Finland being massively over budget and years behind schedule seems to have been overlooked when Hinkley C was reviewed in 2016.


And finally…
COP 24, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, is taking place in Katowice in Poland. Preliminary events have begun and the Official Opening Ceremony takes place next Monday 3rd November. COP21 in 2015 was where the Paris Climate Change Agreement was negotiated. It will be interesting to see what comes out of COP24. I’ll keep you posted.
And that’s it…
Yes, it's the end of another episode of the Sustainable Futures Report. Thanks again for listening and, if you are, thanks for being a patron. If you're not well you can find out about it at patreon.com/SFR. It's December next week and we are getting increasingly close to Christmas. There will be at least two, and probably three more episodes before the end of the year, although after that I’m planning a break until the middle of January.
I'm always open to feedback and in particular I'd be interested in your comments on what I said today about population. Like all the topics which I address, it is a vast subject and I've only scratched the surface. If you have opinions or expertise on any aspect of this or indeed on any aspect of sustainability, I'm always keen to hear from you. Drop me a note at mail@anthony-day.com. 
Yes, that's it.
I'm Anthony Day.
That was the Sustainable Futures Report. 

Until next time.

Posted by at No comments:

Friday, November 23, 2018

Climate of Apathy

Find the podcast on iTunes https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-sustainable-futures-report/id313473372?mt=2, Stitcher, Spotify, SoundCloud or via www,susbiz.biz

Hello



Yes it's Friday
Yes I’m Anthony Day
Yes it's the Sustainable Futures Report for Friday the 23rd of November.
More listeners
Thank you all for listening. September's figures were more than twice those for August; October was 40% up on that and November is steaming ahead. This podcast is available on iTunes and all major podcast platforms. The text with links to all my sources is at www.sustainablefutures.report . I've been doing it on and off now for over 10 years and have settled in to a weekly pattern. I have to say that I may miss a couple of weeks over Christmas but I expect you'll have other things on your mind.
At this point I'd like to especially thank my patrons who contribute monthly to my costs in producing and hosting the Sustainable Futures Report. If you'd like to join their number I'll give details at the end. 
Valued listeners
It really wouldn’t be worth doing this without knowing that Catherine, Eric, Fred, Iain, Imogen, John, Kasper, Manda, Mark, Michael, Per-Mattias, Richard, Shane, Shelagh, Tom and Tomas, along with many others are all out there listening.
This Week
As promised, this week’s episode is about climate change - by far the most important issue facing us now, although it's far from the forefront of politics and it doesn’t seem to excite the media very much. I talk about what we should do. What the Climate Change Commission suggests we should do. What Extinction Rebellion (who they?) demands we should do. What the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change wants us to do. And there’s a reminder from the IPCC of what will happen if we don’t do anything, or don’t do it quickly enough. There are some notes on coal, oil and wind, and bad news from the Amazon. There’s news from France that people may not think that what’s good for the climate is good for them.
Climate Action or Apathy?

I've quoted from George Monbiot, the Guardian columnist, many times and a recent article of his has stimulated a lot of the research put into this episode. I strongly recommend you read it and as always there is a link on the blog.
The article starts with reporting a press conference held by Extinction Rebellion, continues to confusion at a prestigious institution and concludes that we need to change the political system to save the world.
Extinction Rebellion
Extinction Rebellion is a new green pressure group. It has three simple demands:
  1. The Government must tell the truth about the climate and wider ecological emergency, reverse inconsistent policies and work alongside the media to communicate with citizens.
  2. The Government must enact legally binding policy measures to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025 and to reduce consumption levels.
  3. A national Citizen’s Assembly to oversee the changes, as part of creating a democracy fit for purpose.
On its Facebook site it says:
“We are calling for a meeting with the government and will use non-violent civil disobedience to make our voices heard. It is time to defend life on this planet. Extinction Rebellion will achieve its demands if we cause economic disruption which brings the authorities to the negotiating table.”
You’ll remember that 700,000 people marched in London recently in protest against the plans to leave the European Union. Extinction Rebellion made the national headlines, albeit in a small away, from a protest involving only 6000 people. 
Civil Disobedience
The difference is that they are committed to civil disobedience. They sat down in the road and blocked five bridges across the Thames on Saturday morning, causing serious traffic disruption. Extinction Rebellion promises more disruption in future. It is no surprise that 84 of their number were arrested. It shows their passion and their commitment but there is certainly a degree of naïveté in believing that the government can be browbeaten into taking the action that they want. Yes, we do need to take radical action and we need to take it more rapidly than we seem to be doing at the moment, even to achieve our current less-demanding targets. Yes, we do need to change the government’s outlook and to get it to revise its priorities, but no action can be taken without the consent of the people. I am certainly not suggesting a referendum on the issue, but the truth is that unless the people understand what is going on and the urgency of action then government can do nothing. 
Gilets jaunes
This is demonstrated by the unrest in France this last weekend. The gilets jaunes protest which took place across the country with motorists clad in yellow emergency tabards ended in violence and a sad fatality. The protest was against a 23% rise in fuel duty implemented over the last year. Such a rise hits the cost of living for many ordinary people, but such a rise is essential to depress demand, to encourage reduced use of fossil fuel and to reduce carbon emissions. Will President Macron blink?
Get it right!
A footnote to the Extinction Rebellion story. If nothing else, Extinction Rebellion must do something about its website. It’s very amateur. There are two videos. I'm sure that the first one is very important and worthy, but it is 50 minutes long, which is about 49 minutes and 45 seconds longer than the attention span of the average site visitor. The second video looks as though it was made by Dave Spart in his bedroom (if you read Private Eye you’ll know who I mean). It is unutterably boring. Who was it who said that it's the medium that is the message?
What do you believe?
Cognitive dissonance is believing passionately in one thing and enthusiastically arguing the opposite. There's a lot of it about on the political scene at the moment. Monbiot quotes an event at the Institute of Public Policy Research where it was generally agreed that continued economic growth was incompatible with sustaining the Earth’s systems. On the same day, the same institute announced a major new economics prize for “ambitious proposals to achieve a step-change improvement in the growth rate”. 
Monbiot says,
“Two tasks need to be performed simultaneously: throwing ourselves at the possibility of averting collapse, as Extinction Rebellion is doing, slight though this possibility may appear; and preparing ourselves for the likely failure of these efforts, terrifying as this prospect is. Both tasks require a complete revision of our relationship with the living planet.
“Because we cannot save ourselves without contesting oligarchic control, the fight for democracy and justice and the fight against environmental breakdown are one and the same. Do not allow those who have caused this crisis to define the limits of political action. Do not allow those whose magical thinking got us into this mess to tell us what can and cannot be done.”
Green or Red?
It’s hard to disagree, although someone has commented on the Sustainable Futures Report saying that it’s “Green, but increasingly Red”. I make no apology. If we can avoid the catastrophe of climate change we should take every action we need to do so. We should secure our lifestyles but we should never do it at the expense of other people in more vulnerable areas of the world. We should share our renewable and low carbon technologies with them, and help them improve their lives.

Do what?
The question always remains, in practical terms what can you or I do? It's tempting to think that every little helps as the supermarket says, particularly as it's quite easy to do more than a lot of other people. And it's also easy to think  - Didn’t the IPCC say we had 12 years to go? So is it all right to put things off until say 2028 or 2029? 
What the IPCC said
Actually the IPCC Summary for Policymakers doesn’t say 12 years anywhere - I’ve searched the document. It talks about a range of targets for 2030, which is 12 years off, and examines four pathways or scenarios. It says, 
“Pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot show clear emission reductions by 2030. All but one show a decline in global greenhouse gas emissions to below 35 GtCO2eq yr in 2030.” 
In the best case scenario that’s a reduction of co2 emissions by 58%, rising to 93% by 2050. (All these figures are in relation to 2010 levels.) Such reductions cannot be achieved overnight, so the time for action is now. The best case scenario is based on a reduction in energy demand of 15% by 2030 and by 32% by 2050. The world is going to have to use energy much more efficiently, especially in the face of rising populations. In addition there must be major displacement of fossil fuels by renewables, and significant reduction of co2 emissions from agriculture. All scenarios rely on at least a doubling of nuclear power by 2050 which may be difficult to achieve for technical as well as social reasons. (Remember, this is for the whole world, not just the UK.) Some scenarios involve increased afforestation; others employ carbon capture and storage, and the various elements - nuclear, renewables, fossil fuels, agriculture - are adjusted in proportion. The clear implication is no, we cannot wait. The proposals do not involve new technology: we have what we need already. This sort of major infrastructure change takes time, so we need to start now. 
Yes, what can we do?
What can we do? Well the ordinary person in the street can help educate public opinion. It’s not a simple task, and recent UK political events have shown that some people will stick to entrenched and irrational beliefs even when presented with facts. In fact, straight presentation of facts can often make people more defiant. We need to drip-feed facts, without specifically presenting them as counter-arguments to other people’s beliefs. For example, heat pumps can heat homes for less cost with a lower carbon footprint. Tell the environmentalists that it will save the planet. Tell the sceptics that they are saving money.
Wildfire and Climate Change
Public opinion has to support this internationally. The wildfires in California that I’ve reported on previously continue to claim more casualties: 79 at the last count with around 1,000 people believed missing, although hopefully most of these are just lost and out of touch with families and friends. Heavy rains have finally come and are starting to douse the fires. Unfortunately, residents are now warned of floods and mudslides.
2018 has been the most destructive wildfire season on record for California. President Trump does not believe that climate change is involved, but he is out of step with an increasing number of Americans. More and more cities and states are committed to working within the Paris Agreement targets.


UKHACC
In the UK there’s another new climate pressure group. It’s the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change. It’s not militant like Extinction Rebellion, but it’s equally concerned about its objectives. It says,
“The UK Health Alliance on Climate Change brings together doctors, nurses and other health professionals to advocate for responses to climate change that protect and promote public health.”
At the end of October it published a report:  MOVING BEYOND THE AIR QUALITY CRISIS: Realising the health benefits of acting on air pollution
It’s another example of gentle persuasion. Tell the environmentalists that it’s good for the planet. Tell the sceptics that it’s good for their health.
 http://www.ukhealthalliance.org
CCC and land management
Also in the UK, the Committee on Climate Change has just issued two reports about ensuring that our land use supports reduced emissions. The one is about using the land as a more effective carbon store. The other is about the role of biomass in low-emission energy generation. 
The first report criticises the Common Agricultural Policy and says, 
“New land-use policy must promote radically different uses of UK land to support deeper emissions reductions and improve resilience to climate change impacts. This includes increased tree planting, improved forest management, restoration of peatlands, and shifts to low-carbon farming practices, which improve soil and water quality. These will help to reduce flood risk and improve the condition of semi-natural habitats such as woodlands and wetlands.”
Biomass
The biomass report calls for the trebling of tree planting by 2030, with an increasing rate thereafter. It also states that the rules governing the supply of sustainable sources of biomass for energy need to be improved. The whole carbon lifecycle of biomass fuels must be monitored so that it is net carbon zero, and all biomass energy plants should incorporate Carbon Capture and Storage.
The implication is that there will be less livestock farming in future.

Compare this with the news from Brazil.
Jair Bolsonaro was elected as president of Brazil at the end of October. Some have called him ultra-right-wing and more dangerous than Donald Trump. Others say he’s a neo-fascist, a racist, misogynistic and homophobic. He celebrates Brazil’s past military dictatorship and is on record as saying that they should have killed 30,000 more people. He has suggested that extra-judicial killings will be tolerated, in the manner of President Duterte of the Philippines. Already vigilantes and unofficial militias roam the country; enforcing, oppressing and extorting.
Jair Bolsonaro is closely allied with business and the elite, and it’s his responsibility to safeguard the Amazon rainforest. It’s the largest forest in the world, a major carbon sink and source of much of the oxygen we breathe. 
Marxist Plot
Ernesto Araújo, his new foreign minister, believes climate change is part of a plot by “cultural Marxists” to stifle western economies and promote the growth of China. In a blog post he described climate science as a “dogma” which ignored “evidence” showing the opposite of rising temperatures and greater concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Bolsonaro remains intent on opening up the Amazon to the farmers, miners and construction companies that supported his campaign.
His pick as agriculture minister is the head of the farming lobby, Tereza Cristina Dias, who conservationists have nicknamed the “Muse of Poison” due to her enthusiastic support for relaxing controls on agro-toxins. There are plans to merge the environmental ministry into her own.
Nearly 30 years ago the country was the host of the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro which laid the foundations of international efforts to recognise and combat man-made climate change.
Brazilian diplomats were also instrumental in forging the Paris Agreement in 2015.
Times have clearly changed dramatically. Can we rely on the international community to put pressure on Brazil to protect the Amazon? It’s been suggested that the country has not followed Donald Trump in withdrawing from the Paris Agreement because it fears it could lose valuable European markets, so maybe there’s pressure that works. Having said that, Bolsonaro is currently president-elect. He doesn’t take office until 1st January next, when that pressure may prove not to be enough. 
Extensive logging of the Amazon rainforest will be a global crisis. Once the tree cover is gone the rains wash away the thin layer of soil. The forest can never be put back.

In other news…
Wind
The owners of the Kirkby Moor wind farm in Cumbria, Northern England, are fighting with the planners for a 10-year extension to the farm’s original 25-year life. The local council has issued a closure notice after councillors voted to disregard the advice of planning officers. There has been a strong campaign by local residents who oppose the farm on amenity grounds. They also point out that permission to build such a farm would not be given today under current legislation.
Owners of the site point out that they produce clean, green energy, support the local community fund and provide support in money and in kind to the Mountain Rescue team.
If the farm is allowed to continue, its carbon footprint per kWh, based on the original construction, will surely be significantly less.
A public enquiry will start on 22nd January. 


Electricity
The European Union has ruled that the UK's backup power subsidies are an illegal state subsidy. As I understand it, these are payments to generators to keep standby power stations in readiness to meet winter peaks. The situation is not very clear. The ruling has come from the European Court of Justice and reportedly came as a surprise to all concerned. Generating companies expressed dismay at a significant loss of revenue, but the minister stated that this would in no way threaten the security of winter supplies.
That leaves me wondering whether the generators will maintain standby stations for nothing, or whether there was no problem in the first place.
Either way, we won’t have to worry about that ofter Brexit on 29th March. Not about that, anyway.

Schadenfreude Alert!
The Trump Administration has relaxed Obama-era restrictions on drilling for oil in polar regions, but Hilcorp Energy, eagerly preparing to extract 70,000 barrels a day, has hit a snag. As a result of warming there’s not enough sea-ice for them to establish their infrastructure. Now what can possibly have caused that?




Well that’s it for this week.
I’m Anthony Day and that was the Sustainable Futures Report.
Before I go, many thanks to you for listening, and if you are, thanks again for being a patron. If you’re not, check out www.patreon.com/sfr. 
Either way, there will be another Sustainable Futures Report next week and meanwhile all the scripts and all the links are on the blog at www.sustainablefutures.report. 
I’m Anthony Day.

Bye for now.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)