I get to do some strange things working for Oxfam. Last week I watched as an average family; mum, dad and son sat around with their dinners on their laps staring at the TV. Glasses of coke and wine sat on the table with the bowl of fruit. Then the bananas decided to float off and a turtle swam past.

I was in the Sea Life Aquarium on London’s South Bank. We were here to mark the fact that we’re now 100 days away from the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen Denmark, one of the most important meetings in human history.

At this meeting world leaders need to agree a fair and safe deal that prevents catastrophic climate change. For this to happen we need Western leaders to accept their country’s historic responsibility for climate change and do two things.

They have to take a lead in agreeing to slash carbon emissions by 40% by 2020. Then they need to earmark $150 billion a year to help poor countries adapt to the impact of climate change and reduce their own emissions. Poor countries are already feeling the effects of climate change but without a deal this December then 50 years of development gains will be lost.

Sea levels are predicted to rise anywhere from 5 metres upwards over the next couple of centuries. The most conservative estimates would wipe out most coastal cities – including London – and would change all of human life dramatically.

To make these very serious points we assembled a front room, dumped it into a tank full of sting rays, turtles and sharks and then got 3 people down there while assembled media took pictures and filmed. This was possibly the quirkiest depiction of some future apocalypse that I’ve ever seen.

It’s far from doom and gloom. We’ve got 100 days left before Copenhagen and in that time we all need to do or bit to make sure that our leaders do everything that they can to make the right deal. In the UK there will be lots of lobbying, petitions and a big demonstration were a “blue wave” descends on London.

A lot can be achieved in 100 days. We must make sure that our leaders know that t Copenhagen is our big chance to save the planet and the people who live on it.

By Ian Sullivan

In December this year, global leaders will meet in Copenhagen to agree the way forward on one of the biggest challenges facing our generation – climate change.

While this meeting is a crucial step in the global fight against climate change, it is certainly not the only step which needs to be taken. In addition to the international agreement we entreat our political leaders to negotiate, we need to band together as a global community to take real and local action starting right now.

The International Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 found that unless we take action now we could potentially be facing:

• by 2020 – 60 % of our Great Barrier Reef will be bleached
• by 2050 – 50 % of agricultural lands in Latin America are likely to suffer desertification and salinisation
• by 2080 – between 25 – 40 % of mammal species in national parks and sub-Saharan Africa will become endangered

And unless we take action globally islands such as Tuvalu will be told within the myths and legends of future generations.

The solution is in our hands and we need to act now.

Sixteen years ago Clean Up the World www.cleanuptheworld.org, a global environmental campaign formed in partnership with the United Nations Environment Programme was born. Since then we have actively inspired and empowered people from all across the globe to take environmental action. It has since grown to engage an estimated 35 million individuals in over 120 countries, all heeding the call for urgent action.

Those 35 million people know every one of us has a duty to preserve and protect the environment in which we are just temporary occupants.

They understand that if we are to leave our children and grandchildren an intact ecological, social and economic system the one cannot be achieved without the other.

That 35 million want action, they know we need government action, but they also know they hold the power in their own hands – the power to influence change. It’s the power of grassroots, community-based action.

Come the weekend of the 18-20 September, Clean Up the World participants from all across the globe will simultaneously take that grassroots action as part of the Clean Up the World Weekend. Actions such as tree planting, local clean ups, education campaigns, and water conservation projects.

It never ceases to amaze me just how passionate people are about protecting our environment and the lengths people are willing to go to protect it for our future generations. It is those people that will make the difference our environment needs.

Article by Ian Kiernan AO

Reading through the various reports on climate change and environmental damage it can sometimes seem as though the problems we face are insurmountable. That, despite the hard work of environmental campaigners and those concerned with fair trade and green issues, we are merely forestalling inevitable environmental collapse.

As the overdue realisation dawns on governments around the world, particularly those with most to lose because of dense populations perilously exposed to sea level rises, there is a clamour for ‘quick fix’ solutions. Everything from geo-engineering to devices in space designed to block out sunlight.

Whilst well-intentioned, these efforts overlook a far more fundamental problem. This problem can be expressed in a simple, single statement: There are too many people on the Earth, consuming too many resources.

In other words, our impact on the environment can be broadly expressed as follows:

Number of people x Per capita resource consumption

Stabilisation of the global population and a reduction in per capita resource consumption will, in combination, do more to mitigate environmental damage than anything else. The Pareto principle of directing most effort into that which produces the greatest result has never been more important, whilst political prevaricating and drawn-out discussions on relatively minor issues serve only as a distraction.

An effective solution must address both population growth and resource consumption together. There is little point in trying to reduce per capita resource consumption with a surging population as the total impact on the environment will continue to rise.

Politically, however, that is what is happening. Governments regard the subject of population stabilisation as almost taboo. A no-go area not up for debate. Almost immediately, there are accusations of totalitarianism and coercion in reducing family sizes.

Yet, it doesn’t have to be like that. Empowerment and better education of women in developing countries is known to have a downward impact on birth rates. The Obama administration’s progress in encouraging family planning in the US and more broadly within the UN will have a positive longer-term impact. There is so much that can be done and without recourse to totalitarian policies.

However, the size of the problem should not be underestimated. For example, China’s population is still growing now despite the policy of one child per couple having been in place for many years. There is an inherent time lag involved. On top of that there are likely to be greater food shortages and displacement of large populations as climate change impacts upon agriculture in low lying areas, coupled with desertification of areas where deforestation has taken place. This will inevitably compound the problems of migration.

Environmental organisations need to avoid focusing almost explicitly on reducing per capita resource consumption whilst neglecting the other side of the equation; population growth. Global environmental strategies can only be truly effective when addressing both sides of the coin.

Gary Robertshaw

The Green Providers Directory

www.search-for-me.co.uk

Reading through some scientific papers recently I was struck by the many, well-intentioned ideas for tackling climate change. These included solar arrays in space beaming back microwave energy to Earth, burying charcoal, pumping iron into the oceans and various ingenious devices designed to block out the sun’s rays.

Whilst not questioning the need to seek new and innovative ideas to halt climate change, I couldn’t help but thinking that they were missing a more fundamental point. That is, they assume that we can carry on as we are and that technology will somehow get us out of our self-created mess. The reality is that it can’t – it’s like trying to build a perpetual motion machine. The planet’s capacity to provide for an unsustainably large and growing population of increasingly consumptive people is inherently limited. Beyond this point no amount of technology can fix the problem. That’s not an opinion from a ‘green-minded’ person – it’s a statement of fact.

Ironically, the solutions are already at hand and require no complex science or new technology. However, like an alcoholic who wants to give up drinking, it firstly requires a recognition that a problem exists. Analogously, governments need to understand that our volatile, oil-dependent capitalist structures cannot survive in the longer-term. Depletion of fossil fuels, increasing consumption and competition for scarce resources will inevitably lead to conflict and market collapse at some point in the future.

A shift towards a more sustainable economy, greater energy efficiency and investment in renewable energy would not only introduce greater stability into the markets but would also create many new jobs opportunities in the ‘green’ sector and spin-off businesses. This process of change does, however, need to be accelerated with meaningful investment and a genuine commitment as progress remains slow. To put that in perspective, today less than 2% of the UK’s energy comes from renewable energy sources. We are jostling with Malta and Luxembourg for the accolade of being bottom of the EU league table. The UK has potentially the largest offshore wind resource in the world. Some estimates put this at enough to power the UK several times over (source: Friends of the Earth).

Next, the global population needs to be stabilised. The Earth simply cannot support over 10 billion people without something giving. Whilst populations in some European countries are actually declining, this is being offset by large increases in countries such as India and Nigeria. This is an often ignored and politically sensitive aspect of sustainability policy yet it is one of the most significant problems we face, requiring a co-ordinated, global approach to the problem.

What we need is not more science fiction type technology but a sober, concerted effort to tackle the core issues in a pragmatic and effective manner.

Gary Robertshaw
The Green Providers Directory

Dirty Old Coal is back on the agenda. Due to public and goverments’ panic around soaring oil prices (which seem to be on the decline again), there are plans the world over for more coal-fired power plants: India has plans to build another 73 coal plants in the next 10 years. There are plans to build over 150 new coal plants in the US in the next few years and my understanding is that China, Germany and the UK all have coal plants somewhere in the pipeline.

The world seem to be divided today between those who wants to go 150 years back and those advocating to invest all our resources in developing green and clean energy technologies. After reading few articles on this topic I must admit I’m rather confused. Coal has a high potential in future energy supply, only once new technology to reduce CO2-emissions from coal combustion will become economically viable. But currently they aren’t and the fact of the matter is that 40% of the global carbon dioxide emissions are due to coal.

If you want to read more on this subject you should read the debate between George Monbiot and Arthur Scargill few months back in the Guardian. The EU Energy Policy Blog also written some illuminating facts about the future of coal-based energy.

The reason for this lengthy introduction is a new Greenpeace campaign. Inspiring, engaging environmental campaigns are difficult to pull out. Especially these days, when the economic meltdown is contributing to the already short and fatigued attention span of the general public in relation to green issues you have to produce something that will stand out and cut through and I think that Greenpeace have managed to pull a nifty little campaign called….CoalFinger:

The campaign is topical and full of funny moments and the microsite is nicely designed with clear, plain English articulation of the problem.

Well done Greenpeace.

Here I pose a hypothetical question: would it be ethical to burn fossil fuels if it didn’t cause climate change? Supposing that the scientific consensus turns out to be wrong. That the warming we are currently experiencing is actually part of a natural cycle unconnected with the billions of tonnes of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere by humans. Would that mean that the continued use of oil, coal and gas would be justified?

I believe that there is a strong, moral argument against the continued burning of fossil fuels even if it didn’t cause climate change. What is the basis of this belief?

Firstly, the rate of fossil fuel use is increasing year-on-year as demand from economies such as those of India and China grows. In tandem, many experts predict that we are close to (or have already exceeded) peak production of fossil fuels. Simple economics shows that increased demand and decreased supply equals increased prices. In my view, this situation will inevitably lead to further conflict as countries vie for an increasingly scarce resource. And even if we weren’t already at peak production then the conflict situation will only have been at best postponed.

Secondly, increased demand for fossil fuels is leading to encroachment into, and destruction of, natural habitats such as those in Alaska and Africa. Even offshore oil drilling is now firmly on the agenda in the US (depending on the outcome of the election). The result will be further degradation of forests, wildlife and natural habitats to feed a growing oil addication.

Thirdly, and probably the most obvious yet most overlooked point, fossil fuels are fundamentally a finite resource. It really doesn’t matter whether we are at peak production or not – fossil fuels will ultimately run out and an alternative will be needed. Talk of ‘it won’t be in my lifetime’ or ‘it will be way in the future’ is really just apathy and denial from people who lack vision. Global economies cannot simply be switched from one energy source to another – it takes many years, even generations, to make the transition. The pragmatic approach is to start the shift now from our reliance on fossil fuels to renewable and sustainable energy sources.

Finally, economies which rely on fossil fuels are becoming increasingly vulnerable. Recent events have shown that increases in oil prices can destabilise markets and send inflation soaring. Longer-term stability and economic growth cannot be sustained in economies which are heavily oil-dependent – a point now begrudgingly accepted by politicians.

Of course, if the burning of fossil fuels is a major cause of global warming as most scientists now believe, then the preceding points simply add weight to an already compelling argument!

…First female US Vice-President?

“I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country,” she said. Bring it on I thought, this is America’s first possible female Vice President. Sarah Palin’s gusto image invoked a warm glow in my soul. Don’t be deceived, this Alaskan coined herself the pitbull with lipstick for a reason.

You may be thinking why you should care about what the British, or for that matter any other country, think who you vote for. Well unfortunately for the rest of us, American policy influences so much of the world. I hate the fact that any country in the world has so much power. But that’s the legacy that World War II has given us.

I hope that those that were brave enough to start the new world in the name of freedom, democracy, trust and liberty can see the light of day, and vote with their heads and their hearts. The world desparately needs leadership styles we haven’t seen since the likes of the Second World War, to tackle issues just as important: Climate Change, Poverty and Energy Crises.

“We must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas.

More than half the people of the world are living in conditions approaching misery. Their food is inadequate. They are victims of disease. Their economic life is primitive and stagnant. Their poverty is a handicap and a threat both to them and to more prosperous areas.” Not my words, but those of former President Harry Truman and call me skeptical but I don’t think he’d like Sarah Palin.

Green isn’t a dirty word – It’s an opportunity. An opportunity to bring the world together, to unite to solve common goals, to change the way we make a living for the better. In many ways, the problems we now face require the embodiment of the American spirit. Which lets face it, is the reason we used to love America in the first place.

You can be a hunter, a fisherman and a member of the National Rifle Association and still be green. Many professional hunters, kill for food in a sustainable manner. Some may say it’s cruel, but at the end of the day if you are a meat eater you can’t deny that this free range method is better than factory farming. Some hunters even seek to conserve the environment to maximise the quality of game, take the British Association of Shooting and Conservation as an example. Unlike economists these people already recognise the importance of all parts of the ecosystem.

Palin couldn’t give a hoot about Green Issues. Check out some of her environmental credentials:

1. Has supported oil drilling in some of the most ecologically sensitive areas in Alaska – The Trail, 29 Aug 2008
2. Sued the ‘Bush Administration over its decision last week to place the animal under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, claiming that climate models predicting the continued loss of sea ice – the main habitat of polar bears – are unreliable.’ – The Times, 23 May 2008
3. Has oppposed protections for salmon from mining contamination. On the Issues, Aug 2008
4. Doesn’t attribute Climate Change to being man made. Time 1 Sep 2008

So forget the consensus from 1000’s of scientists, forget what the Pentagon have said about the threat of climate change, just forget all that climate change mumbo jumbo. Palin knows best, and she’s on her way. (Apparently!)

“I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country,” but she can only really do this if she wakes up to climate change.

Ironically Governor Sarah Palin’s official website for Alaska has just declared that it’s Energy Efficiency month. Call me cynical but I can’t help but wonder if that’s political spin, or a genuine concern.

Why not drop Governor Palin a line and make this thing called democracy work for you?

Perhaps you’d like to tell her how much you know about climate change? Or maybe just throw her a few wise words.

governor@gov.state.ak.us

But whatever you do, just vote in a good pair of good leaders this time. Whoever they are.

There is a misguided perception in some quarters that the looming energy crisis in the UK can only be solved if we accept that environmental damage is inevitable.

The argument goes something like this; if we rely on fuel imports then we are forever at the mercy of foreign governments. If we re-open the coal mines we can become self-sufficient but our carbon emissions will start to increase. If we take the nuclear option then we are left with the legacy of dangerous radioactive waste. The argument usually then goes on to claim that renewables are well-intentioned but will never provide enough energy to meet all our needs.

There is some truth in this latter point but only if we continue with our current high levels of energy consumption and gross inefficiency. A determined and courageous policy of large-scale investment in renewables coupled with energy-efficiency measures (e.g. legislation to compel manufacturers to remove stand-by buttons from appliances, banning patio heaters and standard light bulbs, etc…) could lead us to a truly sustainable future. It is a vision but an achievable vision.

In a field by my parents’ house in Norfolk, my dad has planted 600 trees. Those trees will one day grow into a wood that my children will play in as they grow up. By planting those trees, my dad is being a good grandfather, even before his grandchildren are born, and I can’t help thinking a similar principle should apply around climate change.

While the impacts of a warming planet will be huge in our lifetime, they’ll affect our children even more. I don’t believe it’ll be enough to teach my children well and to earn enough money to put food on the table if climate change brings chaos to the world they grow up in. I don’t think we can build walls high enough to protect our children from the world outside so if we want to protect them, we have to protect that world.

It has been said that the next generation will be the first in human history whose standard of living is actually worse than the generation which came before them. Doesn’t look like we’re doing a very good job for our children so far, does it?

But I still think this link between what we do now and the world our children inherit offers an opportunity for everyone who is concerned about climate change. I think there’s only one thing which people love more than themselves – and that’s their children. If we can make the fight against climate change a matter of duty to our children, we can carry far more people with us than we do right now.

That’s why I’ve been trying to get people in their 20s and 30s to take more action on climate change, both taking small steps in their own lives and asking the Government to do more as well. Persuading people to take these steps is often an uphill struggle but I’m driven on by the knowledge that one day, if we don’t do something, my children will ask me why I didn’t do more to protect their futures when I had the chance.

I recently received a letter from a sceptic who claimed that the link between carbon emissions and climate change was a hoax, and that warming and cooling were part of a natural cycle that had always occurred throughout the Earth’s history. The scientific research linking the change in global temperatures to man-made emissions was apparently bogus and ‘most people’ intuitively knew that.

This is not a lone voice. Speaking to people generally, my experience is that of a stubborn and persistent belief that climate change is a cyclical phenomenon unrelated to human activity. For example, I have frequently heard stories that the Earth has had ice ages and very warm spells in the distant past long before humans had evolved, and that solar and volcanic activity have more impact on the climate than man. Often, these views are not backed up by scientific evidence, but instead are perpetuated by word of mouth almost to the point that they are regarded as established fact.

Whilst it is certainly true that all the preceding phenomena affect the climate and that there are natural variations in the Earth’s climate over time, these views are misleading and dangerous for several reasons.

Firstly, it gives intuition precedence over scientific evidence. This situation is made deliberately worse by large corporations with vested interests in encouraging doubt and disagreement surrounding the debate on made-made climate change. In actuality, there is now a widespread consensus amongst the scientific community and environmental researchers that human activity is the chief cause of current global warming. The climate is changing much faster than the very long timeframes over which previous changes occurred and there is a strong correlation between the recent changes and man-made emissions.

I have often seen a parallel between this situation and that of the tobacco industry when research first suggested that smoking may cause lung cancer. The tobacco industry dismissed the claims as erroneous and suppressed its own research, while smokers themselves reassured each other that the scientific evidence was wrong. It was only after the scientific evidence became overwhelming that the link between smoking and lung cancer came to be accepted, but the intuitive misconception that smoking does not damage health still persists amongst some people today. In tandem, the tobacco industry still seeks to deny that its products are addictive and injurious to health. The oil industry is pursuing a similar strategy with respect to climate change.

Secondly, what happens when the oil runs out? There is no ‘plan B’. Many experts believe that we have passed the point of peak oil production and that steadily increasing oil prices are inevitable as demand from the Chinese and Indian economies grows. Fundamentally, oil is a finite commodity and whether you accept that climate change is linked to man-made emissions or not, alternative energy sources are going to be needed at some point in the future if we are to sustain our economies.

Finally, is it not also intuitive to believe that pumping out billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere and clearing millions of hectares of rainforest each year might just be causing some damage to the planet? It seems to me that denial and apathy must be overcome before there can be widespread acceptance that human actions are having a harmful effect on the planet. It could well be a slow process.

Dr Gary Robertshaw – The Green Providers Directory