The soundbite “think globally, act locally” is attributed to the Scottish town planner Patrick Geddes, whose 1915 book entitled Cities in Evolution was built on the idea of working with the ‘whole environment’ in town planning. But the phrase appears to have been used in the context of actual environmental matters only within the last 50 years. Its relative modernity is symptomatic of the fact that, when it comes to climate breakdown, global thinking is at an early stage. Instead, we have national thinking: nations compete to demonstrate that they themselves are not to blame and others (usually China) are the main source of the problem.
This tendency goes beyond politics and infects scholarly analysis. A case in point is the recent report by the UK Committee on Climate Change (CCC), entitled “Net Zero: The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming”, published in May 2019. The report considers practical ways of reducing carbon emissions right across the economy, so that the UK’s contribution to global warming is ‘net zero’ by 2050. These practical steps, which are recommended for the UK government and citizens to follow, are true to the spirit of “act locally”, but the mindset of the supporting analysis is national rather than global.
To be fair, the report is very good in many ways. It is a comprehensive assessment of how greenhouse gases are produced in Britain. It outlines actions that could be taken by individuals, corporations and government to reduce these emissions; and estimates numerically both their efficacy and cost. The tone is matter-of-fact and non-judgemental; the authors make practical proposals without claiming to have all the answers. The report is not afraid to include lifestyle suggestions that are unpopular (e.g. “minimise flying”, “eat a healthy diet, for example with less beef, lamb and dairy”). And it takes a long-term perspective that reaches beyond short-term political claim and counter-claim.
And yet – there is still a sense that the CCC is not being entirely honest with itself or with us. Despite its Chairman’s claim that the report is the “most thorough assessment my Committee could compile”, there are a few questionable assumptions which a yet more thorough assessment might have addressed. If it thought globally.
Carbon leakage – past and forgotten
The most important of these assumptions is the starting point: the report comments that our GHG emissions in 2017 were 503 MtCO2e. That figure relates to greenhouse gases produced in the United Kingdom. It is the most important figure in the report, because all of the actions that are proposed are measured against it; ‘net zero by 2050’ means, in this report, that in the year 2050 we will have implemented changes so that our net emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will be 503 MtCO2e less than they were in 2017.
Why is that a problem? It is a problem because the figure of 503 MtCO2e does not take account of any GHG emissions related to stuff that we imported into the UK in 2017. Food produced in the EU or South America, cars produced in Germany or Japan, jeans from the US, computers assembled in China, the transport of these items to the UK … all of this involved the emissions of GHG. If these emissions were attributed to the UK, the total figure is likely to have been at least 800 MtCO2e in 2017. BEIS and the CCC themselves estimate the figure was 847 MtCO2e in 2015, the most recent year for which they provide data on a ‘consumption basis’ on their own website. Therefore, ‘net zero by 2050’ actually means that if we achieve it we’ll still be responsible, on a consumption basis, for at least 300 MtCO2e per annum. A considerable reduction, yes, but not exactly ‘net zero’.
Somewhat ironically, the authors comment in Chapter 4: Industry that it’s crucial the policy framework does not drive British industry overseas, which would not help global emissions and be damaging to the British economy. Such ‘carbon leakage’ is to be avoided in future. Very good – but what about all the carbon leakage that has already happened, to the extent that the British economy is now largely a services economy with relatively little dependency on industrial output? Why should that be ignored completely?
Here’s an analogy. You are invited to a party with lots of guests. After a while, after most of the guests have left, the host makes an announcement: “Hi everyone. I’ve thought of a good game to encourage you all to stay!”
Perhaps it is easier to inspire action if one is economical with the truth about reaching the target – a bit like the leader of a mountain climb saying “I can see the top” when the summit is still out of sight. Maybe, although such a strategy belongs to a political campaign rather than to a scientific technical report.
Non-CO2 effects in aviation – future and excluded
Another issue with the CCC report is treatment of aviation. The report claims that aviation now accounts for 7% of the UK’s carbon footprint. This ignores ‘non-CO2 effects’, which are ways in which aviation contributes to global warming apart from the CO2 emissions emitted by the aircraft. The CCC admits that the prevailing consensus is that non-CO2 effects account for around half of the total global warming past and present that can be attributed to flying. On that basis, perhaps a figure closer to 14% would be more representative of aviation’s contribution.
This is a complex and poorly understood area. But the approach of the Paris Agreement, accepted internationally and adopted in the CCC report, is simply to omit non-CO2 effects from aviation statistics. It would be more honest to use a central estimate of their impact, even if that estimate is highly uncertain. (The Paris Agreement, incidentally, does not include any target for reducing aviation emissions.)
The CCC comments that the non-CO2 effects are variable by location, whereas CO2 effects are uniform in the atmosphere. Again, that is a poor reason to exclude them from consideration in the statistics. In so doing, the CCC and the broader international community are underplaying the impact that aviation appears to be having with respect to climate breakdown.
The CCC has an opportunity to break with convention and to report GHG emissions on a consumption basis by preference. They could also challenge the myopic convention whereby up to half of aviation’s impact goes unrecorded. Were they to take either or both of these opportunities, they really would be showing evidence of thinking globally.