“Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages”, Samuel Johnson 1758

In recent days, Extinction Rebellion has been demonstrating in London, calling for urgent action to avoid climate disaster.  Most of the media coverage has been unsympathetic, arguing that Extinction Rebellion has been putting a strain on police resources and inconveniencing millions of people who are trying to earn a living.  A much-repeated statistic has been from the department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS): since 1990, Britain’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have fallen by 44%.  In other words: Britain is making good progress without your interference, Extinction Rebellion, so stop your self-indulgent protest and go back to work.

Certainly a reduction of emissions by nearly half since the commonly used benchmark year of 1990 would be good progress.  But is it true?  Well, it depends how you measure it, and this measure leaves a lot to be desired.

Import dependency

The UK imports most of the goods that we buy.  We even import nearly half of the food that we eat.  And imports have grown since 1990, as we have closed much of our remaining manufacturing industry.  This is an important point, because the standard way of measuring our GHG emissions is to consider what we produce rather than what we consume.  So if we import beef from Argentina, cotton jeans from the United States, or computer hardware assembled in China, the impact on our emissions, as normally measured, is precisely zero. 

The standard reporting is irresponsible, quite literally, even if we abjure the pejorative overtones: we are assuming no responsibility in our measurements for the environmental impact of the stuff that we import.

Though you have to look a bit deeper to find it, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) does also report our greenhouse emissions on a consumption basis.  Or rather, they almost do: even the consumption statistics ignore international aviation, which is inserted as a row with no data in their published spreadsheets.  Subject to that significant omission, the CCC publishes consumption-based statistics as far back as 1997.  What do these figures show?  They show that Britain’s GHG emissions were 878 MtCO2e in 1997 and 847 MtCO2e in 2015, the last year of published data available.  That is a reduction of under 4%, which is a lot less impressive than 44%. 

But, as I say, you need to dig a little to find the data.  CCC have a different way of presenting the trend in consumption-based emissions.  In their FAQ section, see https://www.theccc.org.uk/faqs/, they state: “the UK carbon footprint was 19% lower in 2015 than in 2007”.  Er, why 2007?  Because 2007 shows the highest level of reported consumption-based emissions in the historical record.  If CCC picked any other year against which to measure progress, the reduction would be less impressive.  Since 1997, 4% reduction.  Since 2000, 7% reduction.  Since 2010, 5% reduction … The CCC is meant to be an independent body advising the government on climate change.  Picking statistics that show progress in the best light possible is hardly consistent with proclaimed independence, quite apart from being bad science.

The truth would appear to be that – ignoring international aviation but otherwise putting our trust in government statistics – we have reduced our national GHG emissions by 4% over the timespan of data published by government, i.e. 1997-2015.  International aviation now adds an additional 5-10% to our total – the exact figure depends how you measure it – and its growth since 1997 means that the overall reduction has been minimal at best.

Setting in context

But does that matter?  Aren’t British emissions swamped by those polluting 1.3 billion Chinese?  Again, it depends how you look at it.  On a consumption basis, we are now responsible for 13 tCO2e per capita, using the government’s aviation-ignoring statistics.  China?  I am not sure the data exists on a consumption basis, but on a production basis the Chinese emit 7-9 tCO2e per capita depending on your source.  Given that China is a major net exporter, that means the average Chinese person is responsible for less than that, say around 5-6 tCO2e, or about half the average Brit.

And how much is sustainable?  On a global basis, it’s been estimated humanity needs to get down to 2-3 tCO2e per person to avoid climate catastrophe.  So we have a long way to go, and the evidence – once you strip away the unfortunate political spin that BEIS and the CCC put on their data – is that progress to date has been limited.

Some of the media coverage of the Extinction Rebellion’s demonstrations feels a little bit unfair.  After all, what is more important: having our daily commute disrupted for a day or two, or increasing awareness of the need for immediate action to save future generations?  We laud David Attenborough (no less self-publicising) for saying the same thing.  

We are not at war, yet, over climate breakdown, but the debate is becoming more confrontational.  As the government in its defensiveness publishes highly misleading statistics, and supposedly independent bodies like the Committee on Climate Change become politicised, there is a risk that truth will be amongst the first victims of impending fire.