On 25 June 2020, a day when the temperature reached 38 degrees C in Siberia, the UK Committee on Climate Change published its latest progress report to parliament. The thrust of the report is that much more urgency is needed in greening our economy in order to meet carbon reduction targets.
The report places particular emphasis on greener transport, heating and energy supply. We need to be building much more low carbon electricity generation capacity, installing heat pumps (that use that green electricity), replacing petrol cars with electric vehicles (ditto), improving building insulation, substituting hydrogen for methane, …
All of which sounds great – but what about our lifestyle? Here the report is much more cautious. In a small number of places (pages 34 and 182 in particular), there is a tentative suggestion that perhaps we should reduce consumer demand and waste. There are a few euphemistic mentions of a “healthier diet”.
It seems to be very difficult for a public body like the CCC to propose that we alter the way that we live: buy less stuff, reduce travel, eat less meat and dairy, and so on. It is as though our lifestyle is sacrosanct, that to suggest we reconsider it is “playing politics” or preaching. And, with remarkable speed, anyone who dares to make such a recommendation will be accused of not understanding how the common man/woman lives, or not understanding basic economics (the old “jobs depend on shopping” chestnut).
Our Prime Minister recently suggested that we go out and “shop with confidence” for the sake of the economy. His exhortation is reminiscent of Keynes’ counter-cyclical recommendations for spending during the Great Depression in the 1930s. There is, though, one big difference with the 1930s, which is what we know now about climate change and its causation by human activity. So let’s spend money by all means: on home insulation, investing in renewable energy, a greener diet; or, for those who can afford it, a flight-free holiday or an electric vehicle perhaps. We need to re-build, but not the same house as before.
In the Guardian newspaper’s report on the Siberian heatwave, a sub-editor snuck in the term “climate breakdown” instead of “climate change”, much to the disgust of some individuals, including the author herself. According to these people, “climate breakdown” is emotive and unscientific.
Emotive, I would agree with. Unscientific? Well “breakdown” is vague, but then so is “change”. The former may not be universally appropriate but the latter is insipid. There is something to be said for a description that conveys a sense of urgency. And what is really rather worryingly unscientific is to assume we can continue with our sacrosanct way of life and rely on technology (much of it nascent, unproven and/or non-existent) and green jobs on their own to protect the biosphere and our future. At the risk of incurring the wrath of those who cannot abide change, bodies like the CCC, and individuals like you and me, need to be bold in calling for and implementing a gentler way of life.