How to begin what may be a one-off, or may be the first of a series of such articles? Where am I coming from, and what’s this all about? Whilst my previous writings in Sofia establish some activist/Green Party credentials(*) I do not want this piece or its possible successors to be seen as speaking for any one political party or another. For climate change, and our responses – as individuals, communities and the wider world – the theme of this piece, should not be a partisan affair. Indeed, I suggest, the problems that we all face are made worse where one faction seeks almost to score points against another. The problem is a worldwide one. We in the UK, for example, should endeavour to reduce carbon emissions as much as possible as our contribution to a global solution, without making excuses for side-stepping the issue – proclaiming that ‘We already do so much better than them’ and so on.
For me, side-stepping, backtracking even, at the highest level is not just petty, but selfish and risky. It appears to me that both our own main political parties, (and so we as a nation), are gradually tweaking or even rowing back on previous targets, each party in their own way perhaps seeking an easily won popularity that might retain or win them power, as the case may be. Selfish – and playing with the risk that we shall fall way behind in meeting our own future targets, let alone those of the collective world. So, we have had public spats, party against party, about pollution charges (good or bad?); subsidies for electric cars or charging points (good or bad?). We have had licences granted for massive future oil extraction which seem strongly counter-intuitive (created by one party, opposed by some in politics but sanctioned by the ‘opposition’!) and so on. Nuclear power is heralded by a number of players as an essential stop-gap, but is an extremely costly and long-term solution which engenders threats of a different and more indestructible pollution. Wind farms, offshore or onshore, solar panels and tidal generators are all treated as ping-pong balls, bouncing back and forth in popularity. For me, any of these last three would be better options than the above.
I have always seen carbon offsets as a cynical solution – a crime almost: covering one’s own extremes by token gestures or trade-offs which scratch the surface but detract not a bit from the global doom with which some threaten us. Forget the token gestures, cut the carbon. Instead of coyly seeking to compensate for the two or three sun-seeking flights abroad each year which some of us may take we should be taking just one, one every two years maybe, and gradually weaning ourselves off non-business flying altogether. The cost to the climate would be far less were we to travel by train, whenever possible, and this can be achieved collectively and by far more persons, thanks to the Channel Tunnel, to most parts of the European continent and beyond. My own Grand Tour (Sofia 125) was accomplished with not a plane in sight, and afforded far more sights, sounds and memories than the two-hour flight from London to Florence could ever have.
As to what is happening in my own neck of the woods, the far North, I attended a public meeting recently, an update by the campaign group opposed to the proposed North East Incinerator. (First visited in Sofia 139.) It seems to be going ahead, notwithstanding the costs it will have for the wider community; the financial costs to the budgets of those Councils buying into it, paying for it. What becomes of the services they may have to cut to provide the funding? There are also the health costs to the communities within which it will be sited (due to polluting exhaust smoke etc.) and the crippling effect it could have on re-cycling alternatives. Councils will be less keen to champion and facilitate the latter – needing instead to find rubbish to fuel the incinerator – rubbish which will include the kind of waste that will increase the pollution still further.
Recent nationally and locally managed schemes (not least the now notorious HS2) suggest that construction costs on the above will be exceeded by the time completion is achieved, and could double? (As a former Quantity Surveyor myself I just do not see how one could spend £350 million even, on a single industrial plant, essentially a large boiler house!). With even higher capital costs to recoup what will be the effect upon the finances of the rest of the local economy? How can this still be going ahead? The Outline Planning Approvals have been given. Only a very sound case against it will now prevail. Perhaps the worst case scenario is that this gets built and begins to operate. The second worst is that the scheme is abandoned once the £300 million has been half spent – money totally wasted which could have stayed within the region, enhancing existing services, recycling included. Possibly, the best is immediate cancellation, at the design stage, whilst the monies lost could still be relatively small.
Large scale projects such as the above, nationwide or worldwide may, sadly, be the make or break issues. However, we all have it in our power to act in good conscience as individuals, responsibly and appropriately, to conserve and, where possible, to renew resources – for the common good. Whilst many will not do the ‘right thing’, let the rest of us avoid the ‘We already do so much.’ We all have some measure of free will, so at a personal level, we can avoid paving over our front gardens, thus helping the eco-system – we can re-cycle as many materials as possible, we can champion a world in which goods are repaired rather than replaced, we can embrace the move towards electric cars, we could make more use of public transport, cycling, walking. And if we must have cars then let’s share them.
Councils have a responsibility to provide improved and/or additional bus services, particularly in rural areas, if the rest of us, hardened car-users in some cases, are to be persuaded to abandon our trusty gas-guzzling steeds, or even electric. In facilitating the widespread move to electric vehicles this must not just encompass electric buses but establish many more publicly available charging points for cars. If need be, they should be given extra funding by Central Government so as to be able to do this.
Climate change is one of those ‘What did you do in the War?’ type questions. It is said, with good cause, that we owe it to future generations to act responsibly, to slow down and, if possible, reverse the seemingly irreversible slide into world destruction. World destruction may seem an overly-dramatic forecast, but to some authors and activists, such as the redoubtable Greta Thunberg (arrested as I write this for her part in a ‘Stop Oil’ protest!), it is not. Most of us as we read this can take some relief from the fact that we survived Covid relatively unscathed – a worldwide crisis which killed nearly seven million people, 230,000 in the UK alone. But the potentially devastating effects of climate change will be less easy to counter; certainly there’s not the possible quick fix of an injection or two. Climate change, if not appropriately countered, could see the deaths, directly or indirectly, of billions. As this all kicks in we shall be challenged by our grandchildren, rightly: ‘What did you do about Climate Change, Granddad – plant a few extra trees and just got on with life?’
Whether we have particular political or religious beliefs and allegiances or none, we should lay all that aside. As noted, this should never be about us and them; everywhere, and everyone is ‘us’!
* Vote Catching (Sofia 120). Talking Rubbish; Recycling (Sofia 139). Book Review The Climate Book (Sofia 149)