“They are protesting on the wrong streets, in the wrong city – the wrong country” Andrea Leadsom, London Evening Standard, 10 October 2019
It would be fair to say that Mrs Leadsom is not a fan of Extinction Rebellion. Our Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy thinks ER has inflicted “untold disruption” on Londoners’ lives. Their demand for a 2025 net zero target “risks destroying the economy and threatens jobs of hard-working people while doing precious little to tackle a global problem”. And all this is unfair and misdirected, because, she asserts, we in the UK have cut our carbon emissions by 42% since 1990; will “wipe out our contribution to climate change” by 2050; and have a government that has gone “further and faster than any other developed nation” to reduce its GHG impact.
The facts
Let’s consider these claims in turn. Firstly, the 42%. The Committee on Climate Change has a number of measures of emissions, which vary depending on treatment of imports, international shipping and aviation, emissions from biomass, contribution from citizens living abroad, and other factors. Their most commonly used measure ignores all of the above, and concentrates solely on emissions (except from biomass) actually produced in Britain and northern Ireland.
If we include imports, expats, international shipping and aviation, we arrive at a UK consumption measure of carbon emissions. This measure is less popular, because it does not look so good. The CCC’s most up-to-date statistics for this measure cover the timeframe 1997-2016. Over this period, the reduction is less than 10%. Furthermore, the total emissions are around 800 MtCO2e, compared with 500 MtCO2e as commonly reported for 2017 on the island production basis. The difference of 300 MtCO2e is mainly due to emissions associated with the production and transportation of stuff we buy from overseas. About 30-40 MtCO2e is international aviation, which however does not include the warming from non-CO2 effects of flying, that by general scientific agreement contribute about half the warming impact of aviation globally to date. None of the CCC’s measures include that.
This brings us to the next point: “wiping out our contribution to climate change by 2050”. Assuming we continue to import the same amount of stuff (let alone increase it as we strive to meet the net-zero target), then it’s quite possible we could reach our target but still be living unsustainably. As far as I can tell from my research, the prevailing view amongst climate scientists seems to be that 3 tCO2e per person per annum globally is roughly what we need to aim for. Pro rata, that’s about 200 MtCO2e for the British population, which is about two-thirds of the amount currently embodied in our imports from abroad.
Finally, let’s consider “further and faster”. Mrs Leadsom says that the UK has a proud record in global leadership “as anyone who has looked up the facts will know”. Well, I have looked up the facts, and I don’t know. Her comment seems to be based on the new law of net zero by 2050. Leaving aside the issue about “net” discussed above, there are two problems with claiming this shows global leadership: action and timing. Regarding action, the CCC made the following statement in its progress report dated July 2019: “since June 2018, Government has delivered only 1 of 25 critical policies needed to get emissions reductions back on track”. Regarding timing, many scientists consider 2050 too late, particularly if we drag our feet (as the evidence cited by the CCC suggests we have done thus far) until nearer the deadline. Ironically, a professor from Sheffield University made exactly this point in the letters column next to Mrs Leadsom’s article.
Let’s agree that the new law is highly welcomed and a step in the right direction. Let’s not pretend that we’re better than other nations because of it. And let’s not patronise and insult members of Extinction Rebellion, some of whom know quite a lot about climate breakdown.
The feelings
I am sure that many politicians are sincere and are doing their best; and I have no reason to exclude Mrs Leadsom from this grouping. What does not help, though, is a culture that is increasingly silo-ed in terms of news and outlook. Within each silo, its members reaffirm each other’s opinion. Its choice of what to read or watch, and whom to listen to, becomes increasingly rigid. Whether it’s Democrats vs Republicans in the US, Brexiteers vs Remainers in the UK, Extinction Rebellion vs its critics, attitudes seem to be hardening and tolerance is on the wane. With the internet and social media, there is a burgeoning volume of “evidence” to support any particular point-of-view, and an increasing strain on disciplined thought not be become drawn into one camp or another.
Those of us who have lived our lives avoiding conflict are culpable. We cannot continue to survive by just paying attention to those with whom we agree, and ignoring the dingbats with opposing viewpoints. There was never a better time for getting less comfortable and challenging the inhabitants of other silos – respectfully, patiently, thoughtfully, firmly. We might even discover that not all of them are dingbats.
This isn’t easy for some of us. James O’Brien, a radio presenter on talk station LBC and author of “How To Be Right”, puts it like this: to engage with and argue with someone who has a very different viewpoint is to show them respect. I, for one, need to learn that respect.