Net zero walking?

I was lucky to be invited to spend a day walking in the Lake District recently. This was a day in the Langdales with a scramble up Wetherlam from Fell Foot and Greenburn and then a more leisurely walk and another scramble to the top of Swirl How. From Swirl How, we walked along West Side Edge before dropping down again to Greenburn Beck to complete the circular walk. We were a party of four. The weather was fine but with a bit of low cloud and occasional sunny spells. There had been some rain in the week leading up to the walk.

Why am I giving this background information?

At Foggy Outline we are currently working hard on developing some learning around the topic of net zero. How can we, as a small business, move towards net zero greenhouse gas emissions and what are the impacts of each of the activities we undertake as a business? And, using this information about our own transformation, how can we help others to work towards their own net zero goals? It was from this perspective that I found myself spending some of the day thinking about the environmental impact of hill walking as an activity.

The first issue was the impact of even a small number of walkers on the landscape. As there had been some rain in days before our walk, the soil was damp. Because we began climbing quite steeply, many of our steps dragged at the grass cover and sometimes created divots. Some of the stones we stepped on, we inadvertently dislodged, again revealing bare soil beneath. Soil, without the stabilising effect of grass or the protective cover of stones and scree is potentially prone to erosion.

When you take a broader overview of this type of damage and look at some of the well-used paths in the hills, you realise the impact of multiple walkers. Even in a small group, we each took a slightly different route, despite following the broad direction of the path. When you look back at the paths down some of the slopes, they can be several metres wide and with erosion gullies caused by heavy rainfall.

I realise this is a significant issue for our National Parks and other protected landscapes. The authorities in the Lake District, and closer to home in the Yorkshire Dales, are working hard to balance the need for access with the damage caused by this access.

Repair work

We came across an example of this where about half a dozen people were working on repairing a piece of badly eroded path at Swirl Hawse, between Wetherlam and Swirl How. They were excavating by hand and placing stones to stabilise the path. The stones were being carried up the slope from a large pile that had been deposited for the purpose. This all raises several questions:

• How was this stockpile of stone carried to the location?  Helicopter?

• How did all the personnel travel to the site?  Hopefully they shared their road transport and walked from their parking space but they will have used fossil fuels in travelling from their base to the construction site

• They were using plastic trugs to carry the material around the site

• I am guessing they will have been provided with clothing and equipment by the National Park, all of which has an impact

This relatively simple activity of repairing an eroded path contributes to climate breakdown.

Clothing and equipment

Beyond the impact on the landscape, we were all well equipped for a day in the high hills with base layer, fleece or similar, a weatherproof outer layer, walking shorts or trousers, backpacks, walking socks and boots. Most of my equipment is several years old but most of it is made from “technical fabrics”. That is, they are manufactured fabrics made, for the most part, from fossil-fuel derivatives. My base layer is polyester and was manufactured in Cambodia and my wind stopper jacket was made in China. My boots have leather uppers but synthetic soles, also made from fossil-fuel derivatives.

Similar comments can be made about the other items of clothing, my backpack and water bottle.

Travel

I do not live in the Lake District and had to drive to our meeting point. My journey was the shortest of the four walkers but even I had a 100 mile round trip. My fellow walkers were having a longer stay in the area but their four day break accumulated something in excess of 1,200 miles (2 cars, each with a 600 mile round trip).

Walking in the countryside is an important activity and we should all do more of it and encourage others to do it too! But even this beneficial activity has significant environmental impacts and can lead to significant emissions of greenhouse gases.

What, then, could we do to reduce or, more importantly, eliminate these emissions?

Probably the best thing we could have done was to stay at home and walk from our respective front doors. But had we done that, the Lake District would have foregone the tourist income derived from our visit. My companions spent money at the local pub and in shops and cafes during their longer stay. The Lake District and other destinations rely heavily on tourism to sustain the local economy and without it, we could argue that there would be even less employment and opportunity in these areas. But that’s a discussion for another time.

Had we all stayed at home, we would also have missed out on the benefits of getting together and enjoying the experience collectively. Another significant change we could have made to reduce the impact of our visit to the Lake District would have been to find alternative modes of transport with lower impacts.

But, as anyone who has tried to reach a remote destination using public transport will know, this is not easy. Friends from London who stayed in Grasmere recently did manage to travel by train from Euston to Windermere via Oxenholme and then by bus from Windermere to Grasmere. While the main line is electrified, the branches are not. From last year, the train operator has been trialling hybrid trains with back-up batteries. The buses still run on diesel. So even the most committed users of public transport will still emit greenhouse gases in reaching their destination.

When thinking about replacing our clothing and other equipment, we need to consider its impact and to select items that are manufactured sustainably. Perhaps we should choose manufacturers who will take back our used clothing and equipment for dismantling and remanufacture?

Challenges of achieving net zero

But even when we have done all these things, there will still be emissions of greenhouse gases associated with this simple act of walking in the hills. When this experience is translated to the more complex activities that arise from running a business, you begin to realise how difficult it is going to be to reach zero emissions.

If you are interested in the concept of net zero and the challenges of achieving it as an individual or business, we have just launched a series of short videos on YouTube which will follow the path our micro-business takes as we work towards becoming net zero.

You may also have picked up that we are also working to develop and deliver a net zero course for decision-makers in small businesses. The aim of the course is to provide background on reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases but to go beyond this to provide practical support as more of us make a commitment to net zero. We will provide updates on this here as our ideas develop.

You can also be reassured that, despite this train of thought developing as I walked, we did have a good day! And its clear from the way these ideas developed that, as David Hieatt keeps reminding us, taking time away from the screen and being involved in the natural world is really beneficial. 

Other days out are planned!

COP26: Aftermath

Aftermath: “the period that follows an unpleasant event …, and the effects that it causes.”

It is now just over two weeks since COP26 ended. Most reports agree that it was a failure, but with a few minor positive outcomes. Not a complete failure, but not too far off. Nothing that was agreed will help us to avoid a temperature increase of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels – we are not yet in a position to “keep 1.5 alive”.

Six long years ago, the Paris Agreement committed world leaders to limiting global heating to 2 degrees with the aim or desire to keep it below 1.5. Yet still emissions of carbon dioxide continue to rise. We are already in the position where global average temperatures have risen by around 1.1 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Nationally Determined Contributions were a mechanism devised in Paris to recognise the common but differentiated responsibilities of all countries across the world, allowing each government to commit to the level of emission reductions they were able to achieve. But the pledges made in the approach to COP26 and during the conference are insufficient to prevent significant additional global heating and if this is the best that can be attained, we are locked in to exceeding 2 degrees.

What was and was not agreed?

Highlights of COP26 were:

• 137 world leaders committed to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030, covering 91% of the world’s forests

• More than 100 countries signed up to the Global Methane Pledge to reduce global methane emissions by 30% by 2030. This includes six of the world’s top 10 methane emitters and equates to a potential of 46% of global methane emissions

But:

• There was no agreement to phase out fossil fuel use or even to end the production and use of coal

• The finance to help developing nations mitigate the effects of climate breakdown was not forthcoming

• There was no agreement on loss or damage although more pledges were made

• The Chinese government did not come up with any new pledges and although the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, did commit to net zero emissions, it will not be before 2070!

Despite hosting the summit, the UK government did not agree to block the development of a new coal mine in Cumbria or to rescind the agreement to fund the Cambo oil field and the US President, within days of the end of the summit, granted new concessions for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Empty promises

I have avoided writing anything about the outcome of COP26 until now because the feelings of loss, disappointment, betrayal, anger and frustration were too raw at the end of the conference. If you have read any of the previous posts in this short series, you will be aware that many expectations of the COP were low, but that did not prevent me from experiencing all those feelings in the aftermath of the conference. We experienced 14 days of rousing and heartfelt speeches and positive words but ultimately we came away with empty pledges and promises.

What now?

So what happens next?  With the benefit of hindsight, it was clear there was not going to be any “road to Damascus” moments with so many parties involved. The reality is that, for you and me, for the scientists, NGOs, activists and teachers the work goes on.

At Foggy Outline, we are going to continue with our mission to encourage environmental literacy by getting as many people as possible learning about climate breakdown and all the other associated environmental crises we face. Our next course is nearly ready to go live and others are in the pipeline. We have begun the initial planning for a more ambitious blended learning programme for small businesses in the early summer of 2022.  This will focus on the concept of net zero. We will help small business owners to understand:

• what net zero means

• the implications for their business

• what small businesses have to do to achieve this (or some other, potentially more realistic and meaningful) goal

Courses

We will tell you more about the new courses as soon as we can but in the meantime, if you are uncertain what you should be doing in the aftermath of COP26, you could have a look at our existing courses on Udemy.

If you are reading this post, you probably understand the concept of climate breakdown and our first course, “What do we mean by climate breakdown?” may be a bit basic but the next in the series, “What can we do about Climate Breakdown?” sets out some actions for all of us as individuals. It also begins to look at the broader picture, recognising the contribution of business and government to the increasingly difficult position we find ourselves in. “Climate Breakdown – What do we want governments to do?” and “Climate Breakdown – What do we want from business and organisations?” develop this theme further and provide you with some tools to encourage and persuade government and business to take appropriate action.

If, like me, you are having to deal with the feelings of loss, disappointment, betrayal, anger and frustration in the aftermath of COP26, please do not give in to despair but take positive action. We hope our courses may guide you in the right direction.

COP26: the role of finance

Environmental activists (and I count myself in that number) could argue that we should take whatever action is necessary to safeguard the climate, biodiversity and, ultimately, the human race regardless of the cost. Most countries managed to find staggering amounts of money to deal with Covid-19, a more rapid but overall much less serious emergency than the imminent collapse of our atmospheric life-support system. Inevitably however, money will play a very large role in the negotiations at COP26.

Wednesday 3 November is when world leaders discuss the provision of finance for lower income countries to help them deal with the climate crisis. But finance will also be a thread through the whole of the conference.

Climate Finance Delivery Plan

Under pressure from developing countries at the Copenhagen COP in 2009, developed countries agreed to mobilise $100 billion per year in climate finance to the global South by 2020. This target was missed. A “Climate Finance Delivery Plan”, prepared by the German and Canadian governments at the request of the UK as hosts of COP26, was published on Monday 25 October 2021. The report’s authors found that the $100 billion target would not be met until 2023. But by 2025, according to the plan, the amount flowing to developing countries should reach $117 billion a year. Some new pledges are also likely to be made by the end of 2021.

Mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage

Up to now, finance from the rich countries has focused on mitigation: that is, cutting emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More than 60% of the finance has been targeted towards renewable energy generation projects, which are considered easy to fund as they generally make a profit for the donors!

But as we are seeing, some of the impacts of climate breakdown that we have been warned about for years are now happening. These events are predominantly occurring in the global South and to people who have contributed little to the crisis. So, in addition to funding for mitigation, developing countries need funds to help them adapt.

In addition, there is no mechanism in place to raise finance for loss and damage due to climate change. Examples include the more frequent extreme weather events that have affected Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Bolivia in the past couple of years. COP26 is an opportunity for countries to agree to increase funding for adaptation measures and to agree a method of financing loss and damage. Would a levy on the major polluters, the oil and gas companies, be an idea of how to finance this?

The Climate Finance Delivery Plan, outlined above, suggests that during COP26 existing pledges may be refocused towards helping developing countries cope with the impacts of extreme weather.

Investment in fossil fuels

In a landmark report published in May 2021, the International Energy Agency reached the conclusion that to meet emissions reductions targets there should not be any further investment in new oil, gas or coal projects. Including gas in this statement was significant as many international finance institutions, governments and fossil fuel companies have moved a lot of money from coal into gas power in recent years. The UK is no exception. The argument has been that gas is cleaner than coal or oil and can be a transition fuel as we increase the capacity of renewable energy systems. A wholesale move to using gas would, however, only result in a marginal reduction in emissions and would still lead us to breach the 1.5°C level of global heating that was agreed in Paris. We still need a rapid transition away from the exploitation of all types of fossil fuels.

Loans vs grants

The unmet undertaking to provide $100 billion per year of funding has another twist. Of the $79 billion that developed countries claimed to have provided in 2018, almost three quarters was in the form of loans that the global South has to pay back. It is estimated that more than two thirds of the public climate finance delivered between 2013 and 2018 was in the form of additional debt.

This type of finance increases the debt burden on the global South and makes these countries more vulnerable to financial crisis, on top of the climate crisis!

National debts have been growing in recent years, and 52 countries are now in crisis. In 2020 alone, countries in the global South spent $372 billion on servicing debt, so you could argue that $100 billion additional funding would flow directly back to the donors in debt interest. This means that many countries are unable to rebuild when hit by disasters such as floods and hurricanes. They have little room to adapt or transition to a more sustainable economy and are being forced into more debt to pay for the crisis. The outcome is likely to be further exploitation of their natural resources to pay creditors.

Lower income countries are least responsible for emissions causing the climate crisis, and worst affected. It is the richer, polluting countries that should pay for the damage caused and to support the transition. The agreement to provide the $100 billion per year is a partial acknowledgement of responsibility but the failure to meet the pledges sends a different message.

The UN estimates that the impact of the climate crisis is set to cost vulnerable countries up to $300 billion per year. It would seem that, to claim that the contributions of the richer, polluting countries are based in equity, the pledges should be increased to at least this amount and that the funding should be in the form of grants rather than loans.

Role of the private sector

Given the neoliberal economic ideology of the host government of COP26, it was inevitable that private sector finance would also be called upon to contribute to the funds available to help us decarbonise. 

Mark Carney, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance and the UK Prime Minister’s Finance Adviser for COP26, has recently published a report. “Building a Private Finance System for Net Zero” outlines some key goals for the private finance sector. 

Mr Carney’s overarching objective is to make sure that private finance to companies can help them realign their businesses towards net zero by funding new initiatives and innovations. In his opinion, this amplifies the effectiveness of government climate policies and accelerates the transition to net zero, minimises public sector costs and promotes jobs and growth. If we can do this, Mr Carney believes “the transition to net zero is creating the greatest commercial opportunity of our age”.

Summary

While all this sounds very worthy, a couple of points made in the report resonated.  The first is that every financial decision made by companies must take climate breakdown into account. The second is that scientifically feasible transition paths for each business sector will help expose the companies who can seize the opportunities in the transition to net zero and which will cease to exist. Recognising that climate breakdown must permeate through every decision made by businesses and that some current business models will not be viable if we are to achieve our decarbonisation goals echoes some points we made in another post more than 2 years ago. That business and finance leaders are now recognising this is encouraging.

Less welcome is the conclusion that the attainment of net zero by many companies will be reliant on offsets, particularly funding carbon sequestration projects in emerging and developing economies. Offsetting is often used by companies as a “get out of jail free” card when it should be a policy adopted after all other options for decarbonisation have been exhausted. Preventing this will be important.

The other issue highlighted is that successful release of the significant amounts of private finance mentioned in the report (several hundred trillion dollars) will depend on the ambitions of governments’ climate policies. The previous posts in this series question the commitment of our governments to treat climate breakdown as the emergency it certainly is!

There are clearly several threads to the issue of public and private sector finance that will be discussed during COP26. A key test of the success or otherwise of the conference will be the amount of money that is committed by those governments most responsible for historic emissions of carbon dioxide. It is also important that any commitments are real and not just more pledges that may not be fulfilled. Providing funds in the form of grants rather than loans subject to repayment will also be a key test.

COP26: the role of China

China is the single largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. It surpasses even the resource intensive economy of the United States. With this tag comes some responsibility to take action to reduce emissions.

But China, so influential in reaching agreement in Paris, may not be represented by their President, Xi Jinping at the world leaders summit next week. The result is that we may have to be braced for headlines blaming China for a lack of ambition in any agreement or, worse, any breakdown of the talks or failure to reach agreement.

China – my impressions

I am not an expert on China and Chinese politics. I have never been to China and like most people in the UK and other western countries, my view of China has been coloured by reports in the press and other media which, almost without exception, seeks to position China as an adversary of the west.

About 10 years ago, I did a lot of research on environmental entrepreneurship in China while preparing a “Green Business Options” course for the Green Jobs Programme of the International Labour Organisation in south-east Asia. The overriding impression I gained from that research was that with the market reforms that were, at the time, gaining momentum, the amount of time, money and effort that was being put into new “green” businesses in China dwarfed anything we were doing in the UK.

One party government

The other insight I gained from this research was that to some extent, China, its leaders and its people are relatively unconcerned about what happens in western democracies. Our electoral cycles are based on 4 or 5 year terms of office for our governments. This, in reality, condemns us to probably only 2 years of meaningful policy-making in that it can take a year for a new government to find its feet and the final year to 18 months of a term is spent positioning the government to gain re-election. In contrast the Chinese system allows their government to work to a much longer time-horizon than ours. We also need to be aware that Chinese civilisation can be traced back at least a couple of thousand years, so the last 250 years of dominance by the UK, Europe and the United States, could be considered by the Chinese as a historical aberration that will pass and China will, again, assume its rightful place as world leader.

It may be a controversial perspective to take, but perhaps we can see this happening with China’s increasing influence outside its own borders at a time when western political and economic systems are showing signs of decline? Remember, Chinese politicians are happy to play a long game!

Please do not assume that this means I endorse China’s one-party state system. Flawed as it may be, I prefer democratic government. However, the type of democracy we enjoy here in the UK, the US and western Europe clearly does not lend itself to the long-term, strategic thinking we need to deal with climate breakdown!

China at COP26

The insights I gained from my research prompted me to be more sceptical when reading about China in western media outlets and encouraged me to try and look behind the headlines. The key headlines in relation to China and COP26 last week were that President Xi was unlikely to attend either the G20 meeting in Rome or COP26 in Glasgow. The implications from the reports in the UK were that President Xi’s absence would undermine the conference and that it would make an effective outcome much more unlikely. What was less well reported was that the Chinese President has not left China since the outbreak of Covid-19 in 2019 and that the lack of face-to-face meetings has not had any major effect on China’s role in other international gatherings.

Of course, there are benefits in personally attending some of these world leaders’ meetings. In particular, there is always the opportunity for unscheduled sessions, away from the main discussions, which may be more productive than the formulaic and choreographed plenary sessions. But many people from across the world in both their professional and personal lives have become used to video conferencing and it is entirely possible that while not attending the conference in person, President Xi will address the sessions via video link. We must also remember that President Xi’s absence does not mean the Chinese will be absent from the conference.

The same, but different

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN FCCC) has always acknowledged that developed countries have contributed the most to historical emissions of greenhouse gases and that developing countries should be allowed to increase their share to enable them to meet their social and development needs. This gave rise to a fundamental principle of the UN FCCC, that governments would seek to protect the climate on an equitable basis but in accordance with their “common but differentiated responsibilities”. This meant that developed countries would take the lead in dealing with climate change and would transfer finance and technology to developing countries to support their mitigation and adaptation.

Unfortunately, the idea of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs, discussed in earlier articles in this series) turns the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” on its head, instead, asking for “common and shared responsibilities” that take no account of historical responsibility or equity between developed and developing countries. An alternative, equity-based proposal that was put forward by several developing countries was not adopted in Paris, partly because at that time, there was no effective way of determining what that equitable access meant.

Bear with me, this is relevant!

China’s role in emitting greenhouse gases is undoubtedly important in that the country now emits, annually, a greater quantity of carbon dioxide than any other single country in the world. But how important is it in relation to emissions from the second largest emitter, the United States? A key issue to bear in mind is that in terms of climate breakdown, it is the “stocks” of carbon dioxide that reside in the atmosphere, not the annual flow, that we need to consider. So, responsibility for climate breakdown must be measured in terms of each country’s contribution to the quantity of carbon dioxide that has accumulated in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution. On this basis, the cumulative emissions from the USA (420 gigatonnes – or 420 000 000 000 tonnes) and Europe (377 gigatonnes) are each more than twice as significant as China’s 160 gigatonnes.

Fair share emissions

Jason Hickel, in an article for The Lancet Planetary Health in September 2020, used this starting point to calculate what a “fair share” of carbon dioxide emissions might look like. This is a real attempt to determine what equitable access to atmospheric space means. Using Hickel’s calculation, as of 2015, China had not overshot its fair share of global emissions. At current rates of emission, it will overshoot in a few years and will then join the United States and Europe as a climate debtor with responsibility for climate breakdown.

This fair-shares approach provides an opportunity to quantify national responsibility for climate breakdown, consistent with the principles of planetary boundaries and equal access to atmospheric commons. The results provide guidance for determining just approaches to liability for damages related to climate breakdown. The outcome is that high-income countries must not only reduce emissions to zero more quickly than other countries, but they must also pay down their climate debts.

This means that although China is the country with the largest emissions of carbon dioxide, when you consider emissions per person, China is still some way behind most the G20 group of countries. A resident of the United States emits nearly three times as much per person as a resident of China. When we look at the historical cumulative emissions, as we have done above, China is well behind the US and EU. It is, therefore, fair that China should be allowed to reach its decarbonisation targets later than those countries that industrialised much earlier. The fairest way for us to work towards decarbonisation on a planetary basis is for the biggest historic emitters to take the quickest action. They promised to do this when signing the UN FCCC back in 1992.

What action is China taking?

We must not forget that along with the United States, China led the way at COP21 in Paris to secure the agreement to keep warming to 1.5 degrees. They have also followed other major economies by pledging to achieve net zero emissions by mid-century. The Chinese government has committed to making sure their emissions peak by 2030 and that beyond 2025, their use of coal will decline. This has been extended recently when President Xi promised to end funding for coal-fired power station projects overseas, supporting green and low carbon energy instead.

China is also a world-leading manufacturer of solar panels; is the biggest single market for electric vehicles; and is not far behind the UK as one of the biggest markets for offshore wind. 

Undoubtedly, the Chinese government also understands the economic benefits of decarbonising and the significantly greater costs of not acting. The role of China is, therefore, very important in these negotiations but it is wrong to characterise China as responsible for inaction on the climate. That responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the UK, the United States and western Europe. We have the skills, the technology and the finance to help the rest of the world to decarbonise. 

Do we have the will to do so? 

In less than three weeks, we will know the answer!

COP26: the approach to Glasgow

The Paris Agreement was the outcome of COP21 in Paris. This was a promise made by all the Parties to the Convention (the UN FCCC) to slow down their emissions of greenhouse gases. The more economically developed countries set targets to reduce emissions and the less developed countries agreed to reduce the rate at which their emissions are rising with a view to cutting them at a later date.

The Parties also committed to keep global heating “well below” 2°C and to “make efforts” to hold it to 1.5°C. Scientific evidence shows that there is significantly more risk of significant climate breakdown at 2° when compared to 1.5°.

Those taking part in the conference undertook to review their commitments on a five year cycle and upgrade them if the science indicates that this is required.

Nationally Determined Contributions

2020 was the end of the first five year cycle and the Parties to the Paris Agreement were supposed to submit updated Nationally Determined Contributions during the year. COP26 was intended to be the time that the Parties would upgrade their commitments in line with the scientific advice put forward by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC. The number of Parties who upgrade their commitments will be an important test of the Paris Agreement – but it is easy to make promises and much more difficult to keep them, as we have seen with pledges and commitments made by national governments before, both in relation to climate breakdown and other issues.

The problem is that, in line with many international agreements, the Paris Agreement is quite vague and lacks any form of sanction. Under the Agreement, the enhanced NDC submissions should have been presented in 2020 but this is non-binding on countries, and there was no political momentum or urgency – most governments claimed to be fully occupied with their response to Covid-19.

One bright spot in the approach to COP26 has been the reinvigoration of the commitment of the United States to take action to overcome the worst effects of climate breakdown. Following the rejection of President Donald Trump’s policies by a significant proportion of the US electorate, President Biden’s administration has engaged with the international negotiations once more and on 21 April 2021, submitted their updated NDC, committing the US to setting an economy-wide target of reducing its net greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52 percent below 2005 levels in 2030.

The next set of upgrades to the NDCs comes in 2025 but if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise between now and then, it it is likely to be impossible to meet the 1.5 degree global heating target and the 2 degree target may also be at risk. The UK’s NDC commits us to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by at least 68% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels.

Following recommendations from the UK’s Committee on Climate Change, in April 2021, the UK government took another step forward by committing to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 78% by 2035. This move was intended to encourage other governments to make bolder commitments ahead of COP26.

Funding for less economically developed countries

At the Copenhagen summit, COP15, in 2009, the most economically developed nations agreed to ensure the provision of 100 billion US dollars per year by 2020 to help the poorest countries reduce the carbon intensity of their economies and prepare for the impacts of Climate Breakdown. This target was reconfirmed in the Paris Agreement.

This funding package has to be finalised by the time of COP26, along with a clear commitment and mechanism for delivering it year after year and increasing the amount available before 2025. This is essential for securing the support of the developing world. Some of the NDCs put forward by developing countries include pledges to curb emissions further if the financial support comes through. Clearly, this funding package could unlock further cuts in greenhouse gas emissions so it’s really important that this commitment and mechanism is put in place at COP26.

In January 2020, Mark Carney, the former Governor of the Bank of England was appointed as the UK Prime Minister’s finance adviser for COP26. This appointment confirmed the government’s focus on finance and economics as a method of driving action on climate change and Mr Carney’s input is important. Unlike many politicians, he does seem to understand the importance of climate breakdown – but his experience is deeply rooted in finance and whether he fully grasps the severity of the problem remains to be seen. Many of the neoliberal policies implemented to deal with climate change, such as emissions trading schemes, have not had the required effect.

The IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5 degrees C, published in 2018, shows that it’s still technically feasible to keep global heating below 1.5 or 2 degrees but the economic cost of doing so is increasing rapidly. So far, we’ve made only slow progress towards emission reductions. With every month and year lost, the technical and financial challenges and costs rise and will, at some point, become insurmountable. At that point, we’ll be locked in to global heating of 2 degrees C and above. The postponement of COP26 until 2021 is, therefore, bad news.

In short

This has been a bit of a technical explanation but, in short, the delegates to COP26 must agree to a set of Nationally Determined Contributions which, in total, ensure that greenhouse gas emissions begin their downward trajectory and that policies are in place to prevent them from rising again. There must be a binding commitment from all the Parties to the Convention to enact the policies in their own countries to ensure the Nationally Determined Contributions are met. Wealthy countries must commit to provide the funds to help the poorer and more vulnerable countries to meet their own commitments but also to allow them to adapt to the effects of climate breakdown.

To achieve this level of agreement will need the delegates to arrive at the conference with a clear understanding of what is required if we are to avoid the most damaging effects of climate breakdown. They will also need an unequivocal mandate from their governments to make sure the conference is successful! COP26 cannot ‘solve’ climate change; no single event can. But it can go a long way to making sure that we change course to meet the temperature targets set out in Paris, 6 long years ago.

COP26: what can we expect?

If you have been paying attention to the news over recent weeks, you should be aware that COP26 is a huge event that involves much more than just the headline conference. This brings together many, many people in one location and together with the pre-conference and other associated events will emit a massive amount of greenhouse gases. I am sure the irony of this will not have escaped you!

A great deal of time, effort and energy has been expended in preparing for COP26, and while this preparation has been going on, the chances for us to take meaningful action to avoid the most serious consequences of climate breakdown have become more and more limited. Most climate scientists generally agree that now, in the autumn of 2021, we have less than 10 years left in which to reduce significantly our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases if we are going to limit global heating to 2o C or less above pre-industrial levels. This is the target that was agreed by the Parties to the Convention at COP21 in Paris in 2015.

Climate Change 2021

In their Sixth Assessment Report ‘Climate Change 2021’, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made it clear that action by humans has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land, leading to widespread and rapid changes. The rate of warming is unprecedented and climate change is already affecting weather and leading to climate extremes in every region of the world. The IPCC warned that under even the most optimistic scenario, the earth will warm by more than 2°C during this century unless “…deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades.”

To make the changes quickly enough to achieve the target of the Paris Agreement, we should have reached global agreement on the action to take some time ago and already be well into the necessary actions. The fact that we have not done so means that COP26 is probably our last chance to agree to meaningful international action to deal with climate breakdown! But more than this, any agreement to act must be followed, immediately, by these deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gases. We cannot afford to wait another 5 or 6 years.

From my position as an interested and informed observer to the process, I do not think the omens for COP26 are good. The UN FCCC has organised 25 COPs since 1995. After so much time spent discussing what we need to do, we should be seeing real reductions in the level of greenhouse gas emissions. 

But instead, emissions have been increasing to the extent that in May 2020, the average level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was more than 417 parts per million (ppm). To meet the targets set by the Paris Agreement, we need to keep levels at less than 350 ppm. Given that 25 previous COPs have taken place during a period of rising emissions of carbon dioxide, will a 26th have any significant effect?

Build Back Better?

In announcing the new dates for COP26, the UK Prime Minister called for renewed collaborative action on climate change. He continued by indicating that we owe it to future generations to “build back better” and base our recovery from the Coronavirus pandemic on solid foundations, including a fairer, greener and more resilient global economy. There is little evidence at this stage that his rhetoric is being matched by policies and funding. Whenever the UK government makes a positive announcement, it is almost always followed by another announcement that will see greenhouse gas emissions rise – a possible new deep coal mine in Cumbria and additional funding for oil exploration in the Cambo field, off the Shetland Isles. Funding pledges seem to follow a similar pattern with money announced for action to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from a business or sector dwarfed by the amount awarded to projects with the opposite effect.

Expectations

An effective and meaningful outcome to COP26 is vitally important to the global effort to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases and avoid damaging climate breakdown. If our leaders fail to reach a meaningful agreement and defer decisions further, it’s difficult to see what future there is for the UN FCCC process – and for our efforts to avoid and adapt to the most serious effects of climate breakdown. Again, you may recall that in an earlier post in this series, I explained that the UN FCCC is a United Nations treaty.

The ultimate aim of the treaty is to prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system. If agreement to take meaningful and immediate action to limit our effect on the climate is not taken in early November, the treaty has failed and should, probably be consigned to history as being full of the best global intentions against which it could not deliver.

But this would leave us in a position where each country is forced to act alone and in what their politicians consider to be their country’s best interests. This would mean that the most vulnerable states would be forced to deal with a crisis that is not of their making and without the funding or other resources to take effective action. The recriminations and fallout from such a failure could further jeopardise international relations with the real danger of conflict.

In the remaining days and weeks before the World Leaders assemble in Glasgow, we must all put as much pressure as possible on our leaders to put aside their narrow self-interest and do what is right for the earth and for humanity.

COP26: the Glasgow conference

Over time, these conferences have grown to the extent that the number of people attending COP26 in Glasgow may be more than 30,000. This will be made up of:

• government delegates

• climate scientists and meteorologists, members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

• representatives of many environmental non-governmental organisations, businesses, business organisations, academic institutions

• delegates from the UN

Pre-meetings

But this is not the whole story. In advance of the actual COP, there have been many pre-meetings at which different elements of the COP have been planned and choreographed. Much of the wording of any agreement that will arise from COP26 (if, indeed, agreement is reached) will already have been discussed. In particular, Italy has hosted several “key preparatory events” including a Youth event and the Pre-COP Summit.

The Pre-COP Summit took place in Milan between 30 September and 2 October. This was the final ministerial meeting before the full conference convenes. It provided an opportunity for a selected group of countries to discuss and exchange views on some key political aspects of the negotiations and offer political guidance for subsequent negotiations. Some cynics would suggest this is where the real negotiations take place – without the NGOs and representatives from those countries who contribute the least to climate breakdown but who will feel the worst effects.

Just before this Pre-COP summit took place, Milan also hosted the Youth Summit. This was billed as a chance for “young people to express themselves on climate change”. I think they’ve been doing quite a good job of this without the formal stage of this conference!

The conference

The website dedicated to the conference already lists a series of meetings that have been held by the President of the Conference. The number of events will increase significantly over the next couple of weeks. These events are intended to make sure that agreement has been reached on as many elements of discussion as possible before the conference itself.

Then, on the final day of October 2021, the delegates will gather in Glasgow for 12 days of meetings, negotiations, discussions and, no doubt, arguments before some form of agreement is reached. This will involve discussions in plenary but many more, smaller discussions behind closed doors and away from possible media intrusion.

After the procedural opening of negotiations on Sunday 31 October, the World Leaders Summit will take place on 1st and 2nd November. This is where Heads of State and government, ministers and heads of delegations or dignitaries deliver national statements, putting forward their “high level ambition towards securing global net zero and keeping 1.5 degrees in reach; adapting to protect communities and natural habitats; mobilising finance”. Each of the following days is devoted to an element of the negotiations. So, on Wednesday 3 November for example, the delegates will discuss finance, on Saturday 6th they will talk about nature and on Thursday 11th about cities, regions and built environment. These Presidency events reflect the priorities of the UK as the country that holds the Presidency of the conference.

Aside from all the official events, the other organisations that will be attending the conference will have held their own meetings to decide on their strategy and the actions they’ll take during the event. Government representatives from all the participating countries will also be meeting individually and in groups to agree their strategy for the conference. The amount of time and effort that has been spent globally on preparing for COP26 is incalculable.

Other events

Alongside the conference there will be an official exhibition which is a platform for those involved to highlight climate change issues and to provide a meeting point. The exhibits will cover a wide variety of related topics.

Official side events are a platform for organisations that are admitted by the UNFCCC to attend the conference but who have limited opportunities to speak during the formal negotiation. This is their chance to meet the Parties and other participants to share knowledge and information and to explore options for meeting the challenge of climate breakdown.

Global Climate Action events are where independent voices from cities, states, business and civil society demonstrate what they’re doing to avoid the worst effects of climate breakdown. There will be other events in the conference centre and around Glasgow too. I am sure there will also be demonstrations by activists aimed at focusing the minds of the delegates on the importance of the discussions. However, the powers being afforded to the police to “manage” any protests may reduce their impact and effectiveness.

Given that there will be many speeches made, pledges given and, potentially, decisions made, there will, inevitably, be a large number of press conferences and this will be reflected in the number of journalists who will attend.

I cannot help thinking that if all these people, from World Leaders down, put as much effort into solving the crisis as they have done into planning for and organising this and other conferences over the years, COP26 would not be required!

COP26: one year late

In this series of blog posts, we are talking about the imminent 26th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This is more commonly known as COP26.

These conferences of the parties or “COPs” generally happen every year.  COP25 should have been held in Chile in December 2019. Due to internal difficulties it remained under the Presidency of Chile but took place in Madrid. COP26 was initially scheduled for November 2020. But as we all know, some of us to our cost, the worldwide outbreak of Coronavirus began to develop in late 2019 and really took hold in February 2020. This resulted in what became known as “lockdowns” where national governments imposed strict limits on individual freedoms, with many people being restricted to their own homes for long periods of time – and which are still happening sporadically in some countries. The restrictions also extended to international travel.

In the UK, the limits on personal freedom extended to a ban on mass gatherings but also, where possible, people were encouraged to work from home. Clearly, in these circumstances, it was very difficult to plan for and arrange such a large, international event. It was eventually agreed that COP26 would be postponed until 2021.

For the UK government, the arrangements for COP26 were in some disarray even before the disruption arising from their response to the Coronavirus outbreak. Claire Perry O’Neill, the government’s initial appointment as President of the conference, was replaced by the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy, Alok Sharma.

There was criticism that the government was being slow to make the arrangements for COP26, there were questions about whether it would take place in Glasgow as planned, or whether it would be moved to London. There were also disagreements with the Scottish Government about their role.

It may be that the Coronavirus outbreak spared the government the embarrassment of either having to postpone the conference because they wouldn’t be ready for it or to go ahead under-prepared and risk a shambolic and inconclusive outcome.

Alok Sharma was initially trying to fulfil the role of President of COP26 alongside his full-time role as Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Industrial Strategy. Towards the end of 2020, he was being criticised for not spending enough time focusing on the conference. In January this year, a new Secretary of State was appointed to allow Mr Sharma to focus solely on COP26.

The postponed COP26 will take place in Glasgow between 31 October and 12 November 2021. Put the dates in your diary!

However, the global pandemic continues to be an issue. Scott Morrison, the Australian Prime Minister, has indicated that he may not attend, citing travel restrictions and the need to isolate on his return to Australia. There is likely to be more political manoeuvring in the remaining days of October as different countries try to make sure the outcome is as favourable for their country as possible. Unfortunately, the most favourable outcomes for most world leaders will be to keep their contributions to the necessary changes as low as possible and consistent with continued economic growth. Most of the rest of us realise that the only realistic goal is to make absolutely sure we avoid the consequences of impending climate breakdown.

COP26: background

This second post in the COP26 series comprises some recent history, along with some challenging organisational names and acronyms!

I will begin with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, sometimes known as the UN FCCC. The UN FCCC is a United Nations treaty that has, as its ultimate aim, preventing dangerous human interference with the climate system. Given that we are in the final stages of preparations for the 26th international conference to try and solve the problem of climate breakdown, you could argue that it has failed in this aim.

Since coming into force on 21 March 1994, this UN treaty has achieved near universal approval with 197 national governments having signed it. The signatories have gained the status of “Parties to the Convention”. This process of signing or approving an international treaty is known as “ratification”. Since the UN FCCC was ratified, there have been 25 Conferences of the Parties or COPs.

The “Parties” referred to in the title Conference of the Parties are the parties to the convention – the 197 national governments who ratified the treaty.

Beyond being a treaty or agreement between national governments, the UN FCCC is also the body which is responsible for the United Nations response to climate breakdown. Part of this response is organising these Conferences of the Parties.

A couple of these conferences have resulted in some modest gains, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. But most of them have passed off without much fanfare and with few tangible results. Some, such as the conference in Copenhagen in 2009 was eagerly anticipated by climate scientists and activists. It promised a great deal and delivered very little.

The most notable recent COP was COP21. This took place in Paris in 2015 and led to the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement brings all nations into a common cause based on their historic, current and future responsibilities for emitting climate changing gases. That is, it looks back to emissions that countries have been responsible for in the past, looks at the current situation and tries to predict what may happen in the future in an attempt to assign levels of responsibility to different nations.

The Paris Agreement confirmed that it is national governments who hold the key to meaningful action with each of the Parties to the Agreement pledging to prepare, communicate and maintain successive “Nationally Determined Contributions” or NDCs that it intends to achieve. The “contributions” are the quantity of greenhouse gases they each intend to emit over coming years and the idea is that the sum of all the NDCs should be less than the total emissions of greenhouse gases that will keep us below the 2 degree threshold that was agreed as the aim of the talks.

This is an example of a principle known as “common but differentiated responsibilities”.  This principle recognises that while all nations have a common responsibility to deal with climate breakdown, different states have different levels of responsibility, depending on their stage of development and their historic contributions to emissions of climate changing gases.

The problem is that the total of all the NDCs does not equate to a big enough reduction in global emissions to meet the target of the Paris Agreement so further rounds of contributions are required to improve on existing commitments.

Given the UK’s role in COP 26, our government could be seen to be in a position of moral authority in relation to the NDCs. Unfortunately, despite some challenging future targets for reaching “net zero”, the government’s actions during 2021 have cast doubt on their real commitment to taking the action necessary to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown. These include increased commitments to road building, a failure to dismiss plans for a new deep coal mine in Cumbria and additional funding for oil exploration in the North Sea.

All this talk of COPs and NDCs and treaties and conventions can easily detract from the real issue of reducing our emissions of the gases that are leading to climate breakdown. Meaningful, lasting and effective action to reduce these emissions is what we need to see in early November in Glasgow!

In the next post, we will look back briefly to understand why the conference in Glasgow is a year later than planned.

COP26: an introduction

The 26th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN FCCC) will take place in Glasgow between 31 October and 12 November this year. This sounds like something that will only interest climate geeks and policy wonks! But please do not just move on, because this is important for all of us!

Climate breakdown is the most serious environmental issue we currently face. Some people consider it to be the most serious issue facing humankind, not just the most serious environmental issue.

Many of us have taken action to deal with the causes and consequences of climate breakdown. We have, for example, reduced the number of times we fly, avoided unnecessary travel, or changed the way we heat our homes. Businesses and governments have also taken action. An action taken by many governments has been to attend annual “Conferences of the Parties” or COPs and we’re about to see what happens at the 26th of these major conferences.

But despite 25 previous conferences at which pledges and promises have been made by governments from across the world, the action we have all taken has not been enough. We have not reduced our emissions of climate-damaging greenhouse gases by the amounts needed to avoid serious consequences, in fact, emissions have continued to rise. Up to now, we thought the consequences of climate breakdown would affect our children and their children but it has now become clear that we are already experiencing the effects.

We see these effects in extreme weather events.

Abnormal periods of hot, dry weather lead to drought and in some cases food shortages and in others, wildfires. Heavy rain and windstorms lead to structural damage to buildings and to flooding, which can also damage food crops. Storm surges at sea lead to flooding of low-lying areas and coastal towns and cities. At higher latitudes and altitudes, hotter temperatures are leading to melting of ice caps and glaciers which also contribute to rising sea levels. And hotter temperatures are also affecting the most vulnerable among us – our children, those coping with poverty and infirmity, women and girls and the older members of society.

Against this background, the UK is hosting the latest in this series of COPs. COP 26 was originally scheduled for the end of 2020 but the Covid 19 global pandemic forced its postponement. So, COP 26 is taking place in Glasgow between 31st October and 12th November this year.

COP26 is going to be a very big event. Massive amounts of energy have been put into it over the last twelve months and much more will be expended in the next thirty days. In future posts, we will consider some more of the background and explore why this conference is such a big deal for all of us, not just the climate geeks!

Tree planting in the Dales: an opportunity to view

Since 1996, Yorkshire Dales Millennium Trust has been planting trees in the Yorkshire Dales. They have planted more than 1.5 million trees in a diverse range of sites. Of course, all this activity has to be funded and the Trust seems to be adept at finding funding sources from public bodies and businesses. An alternative source of funding comes from members of the public who dedicate a tree (or several) in memory of a loved one or just as an alternative gift for a birthday or Christmas.

I chose to do this a few years ago as a birthday gift for my father. As a result of my financial contribution, the Trust was able to plant two native broadleaf trees in Ormsgill Wood, near Airton and a few days ago, we attended an Open Day to have a look at the series of woodlands that have been developed. Because the woodlands created by the Trust are intended to mimic what happens in nature, the individual trees are not marked and you cannot choose where “your” trees will be planted but the Open Day was a wonderful opportunity to have a look at the area and see what the Trust has achieved.

The site of the Ormsgill woodland has several streams running through it. Because it is quite a damp area of land, the trees planted are appropriate for wetland areas and include Downy Birch, Silver Birch, Rowan, Hazel, Bird Cherry, Sessile Oak, Goat Willow and Hawthorn. More than 20,000 trees have been planted in three distinct areas, all sympathetic to the landscape and intended to complement the existing vegetation and woodland.

The streams at Ormsgill form some of the headwaters of the river Aire that flows from the Dales through Skipton to Leeds and beyond. The site was selected, in part, because of this. In recent years, the Aire has flooded in Leeds and increasing the woodland coverage in the upper reaches of the catchment should slow the flow of water into the river and, over time, reduce the likelihood of flooding further down stream. Leeds City Council is contributing to additional woodland creation in the Aire catchment with this in mind and also to contribute to the alleviation of climate breakdown by planting trees to absorb carbon dioxide.

Carol Douglas, Woodland Officer at the Trust, who was taking the opportunity afforded by the Open Day to do some maintenance on the woodland, advised that the success rate for the planting is approaching 90%, which is higher than is planned for. Plastic tree guards are used to protect the saplings as they become established and the individual areas of woodland are fenced to prevent ingress by the numerous sheep grazing the adjacent pasture. As the woodland areas have not been grazed, at the time of our visit, the grass and other vegetation was waist high and walking through the woodland areas was a challenge. But it was good to get up close and personal to some of the trees on the site.

Although maintenance of the woodland, including removal of the tree guards, is the responsibility of the landowner, this rarely happens. The Trust works with several volunteer groups who spend time removing the tree guards for recycling. The manufacturers are, apparently, able to manufacture new guards from those removed and are working towards a circular process. Yorkshire Dales Millennium Trust is also carrying out research into alternative tree guards and the ultimate aim would be to find material to make a tree guard that is durable enough to protect the trees for up to 10 years but which would, ultimately compost in-situ and provide some nutritional benefit to the tree. Are there any materials scientists out there up for a challenge?

We had an enjoyable and interesting couple of hours at Ormsgill. Although relatively close to Airton and other Dales villages, the woodland is quite remote. The views over Airedale and across to Pendle Hill are spectacular and when there are no visitors to an Open Day, it must be very quiet. I intend to visit again in the near future via the network of footpaths and look forward to experiencing it in those circumstances. In the meantime, thanks to Carol Douglas and her colleagues from Yorkshire Dales Millennium Trust for the opportunity to visit and for their willingness to share their knowledge and experience with us and the other visitors.

Friends of the Dales

Karen and I are based on the edge of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. We use images and ideas of the National Park quite often in our work so I was pleased to be invited to talk to the policy committee of Friends of the Dales about climate breakdown.

Friends of the Dales is a membership charity campaigning for the protection and enjoyment of the Dales. Like many organisations, they are coming to terms with the realities of climate breakdown and developing policies in response. While aware of the issue, the committee felt that an external view of the scale and severity of climate breakdown, its impact on the wider world and some actions we could take would help to focus their thinking.

Three minutes of individual visualisation of what the committee members would like the Dales to be like in 2030 produced some unexpected and thought-provoking ideas. These were beyond the anticipated improvements in landscape and biodiversity, extending to significant social change and building an international reputation for the area’s excellence in regenerative agriculture.

Unlike many organisations that have recently declared a climate emergency but failed to follow it up with meaningful action, I am confident Friends of the Dales will develop an effective policy response. Beyond this, I think this will have a more profound impact because of the relationship Friends of the Dales has with the National Park Authority here in the Dales.

One outcome from the talk is that I am putting together an article for the group’s newsletter to seek the input of the wider membership and to find out what they want the Dales to be like in 2030.

Build, build, build!

In his attempt to kickstart the economy in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, the UK Prime Minister urged us to “Build, Build, Build!”. If this is going to happen, how can we make sure the new houses we need also coincide with our goals for a zero-carbon Britain?

In 2019, 178,800 new houses were completed, an increase of 9% on the previous year. In 2014, Dr Alan Holmans, a housing expert at the University of Cambridge, produced estimates of the housing gap based on 2011 data but taking housing conversions, second homes and vacancies into account. His analysis suggested we need to build about 170,000 additional private sector houses and 75,000 social sector houses each year. This is a total of an extra 240,000 to 250,000 new houses each year, excluding any reductions in existing housing stock.

There is debate about whether we need this number of new houses or whether a smaller number is more appropriate. Writing in The Guardian in January 2018, Ann Pettifor, director of Policy Research in Macroeconomics and a fellow of the New Economics Foundation argued that there were enough houses in the UK for the number of households but that the price of houses keeps rising due to speculation in the property market. She suggests that this speculation is fuelling house price rises rather than shortage of supply.

Whatever the cause, the increasing price of houses, which means that the people in most need of housing cannot afford to step onto the property ladder, is exacerbated by some house builders constructing the wrong houses in the wrong places. If you consider that many of the houses we now occupy are more than 100 years old, the housing stock currently being constructed should still be serviceable well into the 2100s. But the design of the houses and the quality of the construction means that these houses are likely to become uneconomic to live in and to maintain significantly earlier than that. Nor do many of these new houses use the most up to date technologies to make sure they are energy efficient, pleasant places to live in.

The Passivhaus idea began in Sweden and Germany in the 1980s but with the exception of a small number of specialist builders, the full range of techniques and ideas used in Passivhaus construction have not been adopted in the UK. We know how to build thermally efficient homes that are cheap to run and which make the most of passive solar gain for heating and lighting yet we continually fail to do so. We know how to capture rainwater and use it to supplement tap water for flushing lavatories and watering gardens but we fail to install it in new houses. Many existing homeowners are installing solar panels to heat water and generate electricity but at present, few new homes are equipped with this technology when they are built.

With the knowledge we have about how to build thermally efficient houses which result in few emissions of greenhouse gases and which can contribute to our energy requirements, it seems to be verging on the criminal that few builders think about the full life-cycle of the houses they build.

All new houses should be built using the latest technology to minimise emissions at all stages of their life-cycle, from the production of the bricks, blocks, timber and other components, to the way they are constructed and, importantly, how they function through their life as homes for families. Well-built houses can, and do, last many decades and over this period, the environmental impact can be significantly greater than that from the initial construction.  Builders must take some responsibility for the use phase of the life-cycle of our houses when constructing them rather than abdicating all responsibility the minute they hand over the keys – relying on the NHBC to pick up the pieces when houses do not perform as promised.

Housebuilders tell us they’re building the houses their customers want but it is difficult to see how they are providing any sort of service to their customers. Many of the houses being built today are unaffordable and many are not fit for purpose. There have been several recent reports about the use of sub-standard materials in new build houses and significant problems with the construction and finish of the buildings. It could be argued that this is a failing of government policy but an ethical house building company should be identifying how they can provide affordable housing that meets the highest standards for as many people as possible and this may necessitate a fundamental rethink of the housebuilding model.

In this context, is the idea of “Build, Build, Build!” as championed by the Prime Minister really valid? Should we aim for a smaller number of houses to be built each year but make sure that each one is high quality and that a bigger proportion of those built are affordable? “Affordable” in this context should mean more than just the price to buy the house. It should also take into account the cost of running and maintaining the building for the next 100 years or more, no matter how many families get to call it “home” in that time.

Edge lands

Edge lands, “the urban fringe, the no man’s land between town and country”.

During a series of daily rail journeys from my local town, I identified a group of linear edge lands. At first I could not get beyond the abandoned tyres, plastic buckets and other assorted detritus that humans seem so keen to dump along our railway lines. But as the journeys progressed my eye developed to see the other aspects – the newly forming catkins on the willows, the gently unfurling buds of new leaves in the blackthorn & the flitting sparrows and other hedgerow birds.

Common ground

I first came across the concept of edge lands when reading an extraordinary book, Common Ground, by Rob Cowen. In the book, the author describes and explains his developing relationship with an unloved patch of land on the outskirts of Harrogate. In its own way, this small patch of ground was as wild as some of the areas we more commonly associate with wilderness. He describes the edge lands as “the urban fringe, the no man’s land between town and country.” While I could recognise the sort of area described, I had not explored this idea until my series of journeys gave me an opportunity to think about it in more depth.

Although the incidence of litter along these edge lands increases as the train approaches the towns and cities, the more rural areas are not immune. Why is it that these areas attract rubbish? It cannot be a function of the railway lines and the passengers as modern trains do not allow litter to be thrown from windows. Perhaps it is the nature of the edge lands themselves? Just by virtue of their position, they are not cared for. So, accumulating debris is no person’s responsibility and it is not cleared. The railway embankment is off limits to the farmers and home owners whose land adjoins it and provided the rubbish does not affect the running of the trains, it is probably not cost-effective to clean it up – the employees and contractors for Network Rail are tasked with a specific role and rubbish clearance would not appear to be part of it.

Resilient nature

But it is a testament to the resilience and strength of nature that new growth and new life can, not only survive, but thrive here. I have long been fascinated and intrigued by this ability for plants to find a niche whenever we turn our backs. A tiny build up of stone debris and dust in the corner of a step becomes a home for a germinating seed which develops into a small weed and then after a couple of seasons, there is an established colony of plants and associated insects and other invertebrates. Leave this untouched for much longer and there’s a wild patch of land we had not intended.

The “experiment” that is the exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine demonstrates this on a much larger scale. It serves to demonstrate what can happen when we either knowingly or unintentionally abandon an area. Nature soon takes over to the extent that most of us are excluded from it because we are reluctant to encounter nature in this wild and unmanaged form.

This was also observed by many users of social media during the Covid-19 lockdown when pictures were shared of urban foxes, deer and wild boar roaming the streets that were, only a few days before, full of cars and people.

Whose litter?

It is obvious that some of the debris seen by the side of railway tracks is left by contractors working on the lines. Empty and part empty plastic dumpy bags, old rails, sleepers and insulators together with other discarded materials can be seen. Perhaps the contractors need to be incentivised to remove these materials for use elsewhere rather than just abandon it?

Some of the house holders whose properties abut the lines also seem to consider the land over their back wall or fence to be a legitimate repository for their unwanted garden and household waste. This is not just a function of the lines locally either. I have seen the same in the wealthy commuter belt to the south west of London. I suspect there is an element of “out of sight, out of mind” as with much of our waste. We have become used to other people taking responsibility for it and for managing it on our behalf. Once we cannot see it, it is no longer our responsibility. We see this with waste thrown from car windows that litters the sides of roads.  But do the people who discard this debris over their fence onto the railway embankment not realise that their story, told in their discarded waste, is on view to all the rail passengers who pass by their back gardens every day?

I am quite happy to accept that what makes this part of the urban fringe, this edge land fascinating is that it is not cared for or managed or tidied but it would certainly be improved if there was less evidence of how wasteful we can be.

Climate lockdown?

What we can learn from the Covid-19 lockdown for the longer-term restrictions in our normal way of life that are likely to arise from climate breakdown? Are we heading for a climate lockdown?

Background

Although now being eased, the restrictions imposed in most countries in response to the Coronavirus outbreak have been significant. It will be interesting to see if the restrictions were in place for long enough to have led to permanent changes in our lifestyles or if we will just go back to normal. There is no doubt the UK government would like us to get back to business as usual as soon as possible to avoid or limit the worst impacts on the economy and already we are being urged to consume our way out of recession. But many of us recognise that business as usual is not an option for the longer term.

Many commentators are suggesting that more workers and their employers will have identified the benefits of working from home. This could have a long-term impact on commuter travel and on the commercial office sector. These changes may be beneficial when we look at climate breakdown as the emissions from travel and offices may be reduced. But the converse is that the emissions from our houses, which may be less thermally efficient than our offices, will increase so the overall benefit may be limited. It is also clear that the worldwide lockdown has only slowed our emissions. We have not reduced the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Beyond these changes, what can we learn from the restrictions that were imposed to avoid the worst effects of Covid-19 and the effects that will arise as a result of climate breakdown?

Same, but different?

We are being urged to see the links between a global pandemic and climate breakdown. One can make us much more susceptible to the other and both are symptoms of serious disruption to the natural systems that underpin everything we do. But I am more concerned with how much of a blueprint the lockdown provides for when the effects of climate change begin to take effect. During a recent webinar, Chris Stark, Chief Executive of the Committee on Climate Change, suggested that some of the effects of climate change are now inevitable – we have not taken enough action to avoid them and we will have to find ways to adapt. Adaptation will involve changes in our way of life.

A key difference between climate breakdown and Covid-19 is the notice of the changes. Statistically, we are told, a pandemic was overdue but we had no idea what it would be, how severely it would affect us and when it would take hold. So we had the opportunity to prepare but only in a general sense. However, we have known about climate breakdown and its potential consequences for many years. It is 26 years since the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was ratified and we are currently preparing for the 26th Conference of the Parties to that Convention. We could have been much more prepared for climate breakdown and may have been able to avoid some of the changes that are likely to affect us.

What can we expect of climate breakdown? If we manage the transition to a low-carbon world effectively, the changes ought to be gradual and controllable. We can change the way we heat our homes and the way we travel for work and leisure. We can travel less and as flying becomes less acceptable, holidaying closer to home may become the norm, although the long-term outlook for tourism as an industry is less certain both at home as well as abroad. The types of food we are able to buy from the supermarkets may change and we may have to get used to fewer commodities being imported. The range and quantity of consumer goods may be reduced. We will probably have to get used to appliances lasting longer and being repaired rather than replaced.

So we can already begin to see the correlation between the enforced lockdown resulting from trying to manage a pandemic and what may happen in the near future. We have become used to travelling less and to a significant reduction in the number of flights available. For those living near airports and under aircraft flight paths, this has improved the quality of life considerably with fewer emissions and reduced exposure to noise. The roads were, for a period of time, quiet, which reduced emissions of carbon dioxide and other harmful pollutants. Many more people have come to recognise the benefits of slower travel on foot or by bike and there has been some reconnection with the natural world.

Covid-19 exposed some of the frailties of extended supply chains and just-in-time working and as a result, some organisations may rethink the way they work. They may need to retain a larger inventory of parts than they have been used to and, perhaps, seek manufacturers and suppliers closer to home. Making this change now will prepare them for further disruption due to climate breakdown. Some businesses will, inevitably, not survive but many people are beginning to realise that the transition to a low-carbon economy can create a different set of jobs that may be more rewarding than those that currently exist.

Work patterns will change with more people working from home, provided there is adequate investment in the infrastructure needed to support this. Working hours may change with us moving towards a shorter or more flexible working week.

Shops, restaurants and entertainment venues closed as a result of Covid-19 are now opening up and are having to operate very differently to keep their customers safe while the virus is still circulating in the population. In the longer term, these businesses will have to find significantly different ways of working and many of them may not survive. We may find that it is the smaller, more agile and less heavily indebted businesses that will thrive in an age of Covid-19 and climate breakdown whilst the bigger businesses may succumb to competition from new innovators and disruptors.

In a managed transition to a post-carbon world, there will be more leisure time and the opportunity to reconnect with the natural world and with our surroundings. Many people have commented on the benefits to health and wellbeing that have come about as a result of the Covid-19 lockdown and these benefits can be multiplied as many of us get used to a different pace of life.

Unmanaged transition

However, if we do not strive now to decarbonise our economies and to complete that process within the next few years, we will face an unmanaged and unmanageable transition to a post-carbon world.

There is little evidence from across the world that the transition is being managed effectively. There still seems to be a lack of awareness of the changes that will happen and the speed at which they will hit us. Scientists are warning that the target of the Paris Agreement, to maintain the global temperature at 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, is now unlikely to be met and some governments seem to accept much greater levels of heating. If this is the case, the transition will be rapid, unplanned and we will enter the post-carbon world unprepared for its effects.

A major difference between the Covid-19 lockdown and the changes that will arise from climate breakdown is that the current restrictions are likely to end. We may have to operate under some restrictions for several more months and possibly stretching into a couple of years but, eventually, our scientists and medical specialists will, if they do not find a vaccine, be able to work out the best way to treat the virus, to manage its worst effects and to help most people to recover.

Unlike a virus, there is no vaccine for climate breakdown! There will, almost certainly, be things we can do to alleviate some of the effects in a similar way to the treatments that are and will be found for treating Covid-19. These may lead to changes and adjustments to the restrictions that we face. Many of the mitigation measures we are currently adopting – but at too slow a pace – will remain important. Examples include the electrification of our vehicle fleet and the growth of car clubs and other vehicle sharing; the move to renewable energy generation and smart grids; upgrading the capacity of our homes and buildings to retain heat; and the continued growth of walking and cycling for shorter journeys. But we will also have to find ways to adapt to a significant rise in sea levels, different weather patterns, increased heat and new food growing conditions coupled with a possible increase in pests and diseases.

With an outbreak of disease, we know what we are facing. There is a single issue to address and to devise a solution to. With climate breakdown, the issues will come at us from many different directions. We cannot predict where or when severe weather events will occur. We can assume that the south eastern US, for example, will continue to be affected by hurricanes but will the hurricane season extend? Will the range and severity of the hurricanes change? Will new areas of the world be affected by hurricanes or severe storms? In the UK, global heating is welcomed by some who envisage mediterranean conditions in the Lake District but the amount of cold water entering the oceans from the melting Greenland ice cap may lead to much colder conditions.

An added complication is that, the longer we take to find a vaccine for Covid-19 and administer that vaccine to nearly 8 billion people, the more likely it is that we may still be trying to manage the effects of a pandemic as climate breakdown begins to take effect. We may have to find ways to manage these global shocks concurrently.

Related issues

In an increasingly unequal society, the effects will be greater for those less able to manage them. This is true globally but also within the UK and other countries where the impact of climate breakdown will be felt most by the poor and the disadvantaged. To avoid this, we must continue to find ways of overcoming inequality and speed up our response. If we continue to do the bare minimum in terms of mitigating the emissions of greenhouse gases, levels of other air pollutants will also continue to rise and the effects will be felt disproportionately by the less well off.

It is unlikely that restrictions on our way of life as a result of climate breakdown will be government-led. In response to Covid-19, restrictions were imposed and can be eased or tightened by government to manage the challenge. This is unlikely to be the scenario with climate breakdown – the restrictions are likely to be driven by the conditions and be more and more onerous. Our ability to operate in the ways that we have become used to will disappear and we may not have time to adapt to one challenge before another comes along.

We will also, concurrently, have to deal with the related issue of biodiversity loss.

Adapting to change

But we will adapt. We have shown our ability to live under changing conditions and to evolve many times since modern humans first appeared about 300,000 years ago. It will take time and as more and different shocks occur, the changes may become more difficult to adapt to. And there is a real danger that if the changes are not managed correctly, if societies are not informed about what is going on and involved in the decision-making, people will object, perhaps violently. This is probably not imminent but it is certainly possible in the next 20 to 50 years. The UK government was late to impose a Covid-19 lockdown for fear of the public reaction to draconian restrictions on our freedom. They are risking much more serious civil unrest by not recognising the dangers posed by climate change and managing the transition effectively.

Alternatives

Is this inevitable? If we do not take action quickly and match the commitments made by government with effective policies to take us in the right direction, almost certainly. But as we learn to live with Covid-19 there is a real opportunity to build back better, to tread much more lightly on the planet than we have hitherto and to continue to reap the benefits so many people have identified as a result of the enforced lockdown. Less traffic on the roads means less noise pollution and less air pollution and wildlife can continue to recover from the way we have ravaged it over the past hundred years. We can take advantage of the green spaces and the woodlands that so many of us have come to value once more.

Less air travel means we have to become more grounded in our own space and it also means less air pollution and noise – particularly in the vicinity of airports. Less shipping means we may again have to get used to seasonal produce grown locally but which will be fresher and much less likely to be affected by chemicals as we will be unable to produce the quantity of herbicides and pesticides. There are so many more advantages of managing a reduction in our carbon dioxide emissions.

The potential for a climate lockdown is very real and the consequences may be very serious but there is also potential for much improved lifestyles if we take more action now and opt for a green recovery from the massive shock our systems have suffered as a result of Covid-19.

Sustainable purpose

A meeting was recently convened by Ben Kellard, Director of Business Strategy at Cambridge University’s Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL). The meeting drew together a number of eminent thinkers from the field of business sustainability to discuss what they considered to be represented by the term “sustainable purpose”.

If you have read anything else I’ve written, you will know that I am not a business leader. I work in environmental education but I have worked with employees from a diverse range of businesses. I have also worked in businesses both large and small and for a number of years, I ran my own small company. Although sometimes ambivalent about the role of business in society, I recognise that some form of trade between individuals is necessary, particularly in our complex and interrelated society.

I read the report of the meeting.

My underlying emotion on reaching the end of the video and the explanation behind it was one of disappointment. I was disappointed that a meeting of such eminent people could not put forward a more radical set of goals. In the introductory video Jonathon Porritt questions the viability of the underlying capitalist economic system on which the whole idea of a “sustainable business” is founded. Like him, I find the idea of business purpose quite confusing when many, perhaps most, businesses that currently exist will be unable to continue in the world where we face rapid climate and ecological breakdown.

I am also confused as to why civil society would or should look to existing businesses for solutions when they have manifestly failed to deliver them up to now. Are there any businesses that currently exist that are “part of the solution” as envisaged in the discussions? Are there any companies who are looking at their business model with the honesty and integrity needed to meet the challenges we currently face? Where is the business equivalent of the School Strike for Climate or Extinction Rebellion?

Greta Thunberg is currently being vilified by some elements of the media because she is asking some uncomfortable questions of government, business and society. But any person who is or aspires to be the leader of a major company must, surely, be asking these same questions. We need people with real vision and true leadership ability to head our businesses. They need to talk with the honesty advocated by Greta Thunberg, by Extinction Rebellion and by Jonathan Porritt. They need to tell the truth about what is happening and the contribution of their business to the problem. Now is the time for these highly paid executives to earn their money and to lead their businesses into this uncertain future.

Tim Balcon, CEO of IEMA said in his editorial in the June edition of Transform that, “…business leadership is required – corporations must not just recognise that they have a role to play, but should look at what that role is and how it should play out.”

An issue for business leaders, though, is the number of existing business models that are obsolete in the context of climate and ecological breakdown. Fossil fuel companies are the obvious example, but we could also look at chemical companies, mining organisations and, perhaps, some of our road transport businesses. Civil engineers will have to move away from road building to other, more resilient forms of infrastructure.

The CISL discussion concluded, correctly, that incremental change and the goal of doing no harm is no longer enough. Why do more business leaders not recognise this? Why do they not see that climate and ecological breakdown will profoundly reshape the economy and society and take action? Can business really take the proactive role in delivering the transformational change required? Disruption to business models generally comes from outside rather than being generated by existing businesses. How many chief executives will be brave enough to close down their business? How many have the vision to reinvent their business to address these challenges?

The very definition of sustainability and whether this is achievable has been called into question, but even if we accept this as our objective, it has to permeate through all aspects of business decision making. If a business decision has to be made, the impact of the decision on the climate, the environment and society must be the main priority and come ahead of making profit. If a decision will lead to harm to the climate, environment or society, the new leaders have to be strong enough to decide against that course of action. But do we have leaders of this calibre in business today? In reality, how many businesses have a truly sustainable purpose as defined by the CISL? Even the companies that perform the best are not truly sustainable and retain their focus on the profit motive even as they pursue peripheral sustainability goals.

I do not have the answers to these questions but I came across the report of Mr Kellard’s meeting at a time when similar questions had begun to settle in my mind and to lead me to question the role of business in our (arguably) broken society. Perhaps by asking some of these questions, we may find some more acceptable and viable answers!

The future of the UK motor industry

The future of the UK Motor Industry raises some interesting issues but before we can consider this, we first need to look at the current situation.

The SMMT, the trade body for the UK motor industry suggests that the industry contributes £202 billion directly and indirectly to the economy. Whether or not you accept this exact figure, it is beyond dispute that the industry contributes significantly to the economy when you consider research and development, logistics, retail and distribution, finance, insurance, fuel and maintenance. The SMMT website suggests that 200,000 people in the UK are employed in new car retail, the vehicle fuel industry supports 40,000 jobs and more than 340,000 work in vehicle servicing and repair.

But the UK motor industry is currently in difficulty. In 2021, Honda will close its only UK factory in Swindon. There are concerns over the Nissan plant in Sunderland and a collaboration with Suzuki will see a larger number of vehicles being produced at the currently under-used Toyota plant in Burnaston, Derbyshire. Concern over the fate of the motor industry in the UK is nothing new. I remember the almost constant stream of bad news from British Leyland over the 30 years from its initial collapse and nationalisation in 1975 until its administration in 2005. This brought to an end to mass production of cars by British-owned manufacturers.

In the UK today, the foreign companies producing cars at a large scale are predominantly Japanese. The Japanese manufacturers took advantage of government incentives to invest in the UK because it offered a relatively benign financial environment from which to produce cars for the European market. The European Union meant that parts and finished vehicles could cross internal borders quickly and tariff-free, facilitating just-in-time assembly. The departure of the UK from the European Union will, inevitably, increase the challenges faced by the UK manufacturing plants at a time when vehicle manufacturing is experiencing significant difficulties across the world due to over-production and failure to anticipate some significant shifts in customer demand.

The complete demise of the motor industry in the UK is unlikely to be imminent but are the difficulties experienced as much of a problem as the government and the media imply?

Clearly, if we look at the use of cars, vans and trucks in the context of the climate emergency, the end of the motor industry as it currently appears cannot come too soon. The 40 million cars, vans and trucks on our roads are major users of fossil fuels and contribute around one third of our greenhouse gas emissions. As we already know, we cannot continue to extract, refine and use fossil fuels if we are to avoid climate breakdown. But they also consume large amounts of energy: in the extraction and refinement of the raw materials needed to build the vehicles; in the transport of parts across vast distances to meet the demands of just-in-time manufacturing; and in vehicle building itself.

We also need to factor in the raw materials. Most of the materials used in vehicle manufacture are finite and until relatively recently, few were or could be recycled. The situation improved with the Directive on End-of Life Vehicles which, in the year 2000, introduced the concept of Extended Producer Responsibility. This puts some of the responsibility for the product at the end of its life on the manufacturer. The Directive aims to reduce the waste arising from end-of-life vehicles but it is limited to passenger cars and light commercial vehicles, so resource intensive heavy goods vehicles do not have to comply. From 1 January 2007 the Directive covered all vehicles a given producer has ever introduced in the market-place.

Motor vehicles are also implicated in causing pollution other than carbon dioxide emissions. The air quality in our towns and cities ranges from poor to toxic. Although London is often singled out for criticism, all major cities across the UK suffer from poor air quality, particularly, it seems, in the vicinity of our schools. Our veneration of the car together with our fear of harm to our children paradoxically leads to us poisoning our children and ourselves with the noxious gases that arise from burning fossil fuels in our car engines as we drive them to school. And the pollution effects are much worse when we and our children are inside our cars and in a queue of stationary traffic! We could be in a position where the life-expectancy of our children is less than we enjoy.

Electric vehicles are the favoured solution of both government and the motor industry. While a move to electric vehicles is to be welcomed if it removes some of the pollution from our streets, it only addresses one aspect of the problem with our car use. The emission of carbon dioxide and other gases from vehicle tail-pipes will be eliminated but if a high proportion of these new cars are powered with electricity generated using fossil fuels, we are just shifting this part of the problem from the streets to the power stations. Only if the vehicles are powered using electricity from renewable sources do we remove much of the carbon dioxide and the particulates. But some of the particulate pollution arising from cars and other vehicles comes from the brakes, the tyres and the road surface, an issue that moving to electric vehicles will not overcome.

Neither does a move to an electric vehicle fleet address the impact of resource use in the manufacture and disposal of the vehicles. In fact, electric vehicles add another layer of complexity with the need for batteries that require large quantities of scarce minerals. And appropriate large-scale facilities for recycling these batteries do not yet exist.

We have a highly developed infrastructure for refuelling our existing vehicle fleet and although some progress has been made in installing charging points on the motorway network and in some towns and cities, there is still more to do. Disruption from installing the cabling necessary to meet the need for additional charging points does not appear to have been factored into the move to an electric vehicle fleet.

In addition, if we simply substitute vehicles driven by internal combustion engines for similar vehicles with electric motors, we will do nothing to address the problem of congestion in our towns and cities and on our motorway and trunk road network. As the number of cars and other vehicles on our roads increases year on year, journey times increase and frustration builds as people sit in traffic queues. Even if the climate emergency allowed for it, building more roads is not the answer due to “induced demand” where the increasing supply of a commodity (in this case roads) makes people want even more of it.

With this catalogue of challenges caused by the demand for personal transport in the form of the car, is the contraction of car manufacturing in the UK such a problem? Or should we be looking at this as an opportunity to disrupt the UK motor industry? I do not know what the next generation of personal transport is going to look like. I certainly do not think it will just be a question of substituting the existing car fleet for a similar one powered by electric motors as neither situation is sustainable. This is a time that calls for re-imagining our need for our chosen modes of transport and the infrastructure associated with them.

Individuals can take action to avoid some of the problems associated with climate breakdown. One of the most effective is to avoid owning or using a car. The average car in the UK travels 7,900 miles a year and for much of its life, it is parked. The annual carbon dioxide emissions associated with owning the car and running it is 2.4 tonnes. If you consider that the average individual carbon footprint in the UK is about 14 tonnes and the government target is 10.5 tonnes, going car-free could make a considerable impact.

But, in common with many of the problems associated with climate breakdown, the solutions are not all down to individuals.

The closure of the Honda’s Swindon plant is a massive blow to the people who work there. But the nature of car manufacturing has changed over recent years so that many of these people are now highly skilled engineers who have much to offer other industries. This is surely an opportunity for the government to invest in the area, promoting, for example, the manufacture of solar panels or wind turbines; green refrigerators or the next generation of transport system designed to overcome the issues with our current generation of cars, vans and trucks.

It is up to government to set the policy framework and to provide the right economic environment for the necessary changes to take place. We need a government that is not fixated on a single issue but which grasps the magnitude of the climate emergency we face and is willing to make the major policy changes that will allow us to avoid climate breakdown.

Swallows: an update

I know. I promised to write again about the swallows and provide some photographs of them if my photography skills were up to it.

Unfortunately, since I wrote about the arrival of the swallows on 15 May, I have hardly seen a swallow here. There are some in the village although my feeling is that the numbers are significantly lower than usual. I have seen them at a distance but the family group that makes its summer home around our house and the neighbouring terrace has been strangely absent.

We spent a week in early July in a village on the northern tip of the Yorkshire Dales National Park but which is actually in Cumbria. Each evening we were treated to the spectacle of 8 to 10 swallows diving and swooping around the house and farm buildings as they sought out flying insects. It was quite a spectacle and reminded me of what had been missing from the summer at home.

I did try to take some photographs. The ones on the wing were very poor but I did get a few shots of them at rest on the cables connecting the buildings. The quality is not high but at least I managed to get a few images.

I have checked with both the RSPB and the BTO websites and there is nothing to suggest that 2019 has been a particularly bad year for swallows. A couple of other forums report mixed fortunes. Some areas enjoyed early arrivals and significant numbers while others suggest that numbers are reduced and in a few cases a complete absence. So, perhaps the lack of swallows around our house and outbuildings is not something to worry about for one year. But I am already concerned about what will happen next spring.

The RSPB website suggests that as with other once common species, swallows in the UK are in long-term decline. In the case of swallows, numbers have been decreasing since the 1970s. Changes in farming practices may be to blame for fewer nesting sites and fewer flying insects here in the UK but changing climatic conditions over their whole geographic range may be more important. At their over-wintering sites, conditions are becoming hotter and drier and there is less food. This means that they begin their migration to Europe in poor condition and changing conditions over North Africa and the European continent also affect the success of the migration.

I certainly hope the lack of swallows around our house this summer is an anomaly. I’ll let you know what happens in 2020!

Sustainable and resilient business models

The United Kingdom (UK) has, over recent years developed a favourable regime for starting new business. But a business is not just created in a vacuum. As well as government policy, environmental, societal and scientific factors govern all aspects of our daily lives and forming a new business is no different. If you are considering establishing a new business, these factors will inevitably influence the direction you take both in terms of the product or service you will seek to offer and the form your business will take. Your goal for your new business may only be small and local or you may intend for your new sustainable and resilient business to be a major international force. Whatever the scope of your ambition, you can make a difference to your own life and those of other people. If this motivates you, developing your new business to design and create a new product or service that can have a positive environmental impact could be one of the best things you do.

The current political and economic world view suggests that the economies of the world can continue to grow without limits and that the environmental system is a function of the economic system. Economic growth is seen as the primary goal of government policy throughout most of the world and success is measured by gross domestic product (GDP). Conventional economic thinking suggests that as a resource runs out, we will find an alternative and substitute that resource for the depleted one. But this is clearly not the case for all resources. For example, phosphorous is an important plant nutrient, essential to food production. Current estimates suggest we have only between 60 and 130 years of phosphorous reserves in the world. Increasing price and scarcity could force changes to global agriculture and there are already shifts in the global trade in phosphorous-based fertilisers. How will we cope when the supply has run out?

Even if we can find alternatives to scarce resources, this does nothing to affect the way we dispose of the waste created by our resource use. We cannot, for example, expect our oceans to continue to absorb carbon dioxide without limits because as they do, they become more acidic and this affects the plant and animal life they can support. Similarly, we cannot continue to push pollutants into our atmosphere because we cannot control where they go and there is a limit to the level of pollution humans, animals and plants can cope with before we begin to suffer the effects. This is seen by the increased rate of illness and death resulting from air pollution in our cities.

This view, that economic performance is all that matters, also holds true for business, where profit and return on shareholder value are the key metrics used when comparing business performance and deciding where to invest. Providing your business is making a profit and returning dividends to its investors, it does not seem to matter that it is spewing pollution into the atmosphere and the water courses or that it is exploiting vulnerable people, either here or in other parts of the world.

What is a sustainable business?

This current worldview sees the environment as part of the global economy. The reality is that without a healthy and functioning environment, there is a limit to our economic development. We have to recognise the environmental limits that govern our lives and we have to find different models for our businesses that are healthy and regenerative rather than exploiting both human and physical resources. In this context, a sustainable and resilient business is one that has a minimal impact on the earth, safeguards and husbands our resources and looks after the people with whom it comes into contact.

The UK and the rest of the world has a long way to go before we can consider our businesses to be truly sustainable and resilient in the long-term. To reach this stage will require a complete change of mindset as far as most policy makers and most business-people are concerned. Changing this mindset will take time or, perhaps some cataclysmic event. But while this change is taking place, there is a desperate and urgent need for new innovations in products and services to help us reduce the carbon intensity and resource inefficiency of our current business models. This change offers two different opportunities for creating sustainable and resilient businesses:

• reducing the impact of existing businesses by eliminating or minimising their impact by for example, decreasing the use of scarce resources and on-site generation of renewable energy

• the design and creation of completely new products and services that meet the current and future needs of businesses and people

The first opportunity is about transforming existing businesses which is happening but not nearly fast enough or on a sufficiently large scale. The second of these opportunities is the more exciting and the one which provides the greatest opportunity for fundamental change. While it may be good to think about a world where everyone helps each other rather than competing, we need to recognise that people trade with each other. With the right business model and the right set of values, there is no reason why new and adapted businesses cannot make money while also changing the world for the better.

There may be opportunities in helping individuals and other businesses to recognise their own impact and to reduce it. A massive reduction in consumption, as people become more aware of the impact of ‘disposable’ clothing and other consumer goods may reduce some business opportunities but others open up. For example, rather than selling new washing machines, could you design a rental model that would work more effectively? You could supply the machine to a household and charge a fee per wash cycle. A periodic payment by the user would include a full maintenance package to keep the machine running as long as possible. At the end of the rental period, you would then take back the machine, refurbish it and replace worn out parts before leasing it to another household who cannot, perhaps, afford the charges for a brand new machine.

This business model would reduce the amount of waste generated but it would also extend the life of the machine and serve customers much more effectively. It might feed into the design and manufacture of the washing machine in that it would be in your interest and that of your customer for the machine to run as long as possible with minimal intervention. This is the opposite of the current model where the manufacturer wants the machine to wear out and be replaced quickly. It also changes the financial and social relationship between business and customer in that you are being paid a regular, small amount for the service provided by the washing machine instead of a larger amount periodically for the customer to “own” the machine. It is also in your interests to maintain a longer-term relationship with the customer to make sure you secure the repeat business when a replacement machine is required.

The way forward

The environmental goods and services sector contributed an estimated £30.5 billion to the UK economy in terms of value added in 2015. This is 1.6% of GDP. Although GDP is not an effective measure of a country’s health or wellbeing, it is the default measure of performance we currently use. If we are to become a sustainable and resilient country with sustainable and resilient businesses with a low impact on the earth that safeguards our resources and avoids energy insecurity, we have to shift the balance so that only 1.6% of our GDP (or better still, even less) is generated by our current model of resource inefficient and polluting businesses.

A sense of place

Naomi Klein’s book, “This Changes Everything” was published in 2014 and I read it shortly afterwards. It is quite a dense book, with 466 pages excluding the notes and references but it provides a very good analysis of climate change. The book develops a theme from the author’s previous book, “The Shock Doctrine” hypothesising that the solution to the issue of climate change lies in politics and economics and not in science. This is a conclusion I share and which I try to explain to the environmental policy students with whom I work. I also agree with the author that the necessary changes will be extremely difficult to achieve, given the entrenched values that drive our current neoliberal economic and political system.

I found reading the book quite a frustrating experience. I realise I was probably waiting for the flash of inspiration or the call to action that would provide the clear solution to the problem. I was waiting for the answers to the intractable problems that Naomi Klein describes so eloquently but was disappointed when they were not forthcoming. Of course, I realise from my work on climate change and other environmental issues that there is no silver bullet, no single solution to the mess we have caused for ourselves but despite this, I still found myself asking her for the answer! Instead, she describes a series of relatively small, apparently unconnected events that have built to become a movement; a slow groundswell that is building to challenge the conventional worldview. Whilst changing values and behaviours is a long-term process, my concern (and the author’s) is that the changes will not happen quickly enough to avoid the catastrophic environmental changes associated with climate change.

Given her origins, it is perhaps inevitable that Naomi Klein’s case studies focus on North America. She mentions the Occupy Wall Street movement that had its parallels in the UK and elsewhere. These movements failed to change the banking and finance systems in the wake of the 2007/8 crash but have helped to begin a much more interesting debate about the nature of our financial and political systems. The protests against the Keystone XL pipeline are also highlighted and the importance of Native Americans or First Nation groups in mounting legal challenges to fossil fuel developments and the infrastructure changes needed to support new sources of energy are explored in depth. In the UK, the anti-fracking protests are highlighted and linked to action both in North America and around the world.

This is where the whole thing begins to get interesting. The author makes the case that in an effort to demonstrate to their shareholders that they continue to be a good investment, the fossil fuel companies must continually identify new sources of oil and gas as existing fields mature and decay. Without this continuous pipeline of new discoveries, the companies become worthless. This is prompting the search for unconventional sources of oil and gas because the easy to win, relatively shallow, land-based sources have all been found and are in use.

These unconventional sources include the tar sands in Canada and Venezuela and shale gas in the United States and elsewhere. The same pressures are encouraging Shell and others to explore the potential for tapping into resources within the Arctic circle and the inhospitable reaches of the Southern Ocean. In addition to being more carbon intensive than conventional reserves, these sources of oil and gas are also found in places that are unused to industrial development and the infrastructure necessary to support an oil and gas industry.

While oil and gas exploration was taking place in Saudi Arabia or Iraq, or even in the North Sea, we in the UK, individually, had little connection to it. But the idea of an intensive industrial process such as fracking taking place in some of our most precious landscapes and adjacent to our front and back gardens prompted a new wave of activism by a new group of people. Although initiated by the major environmental NGOs, many of the protests are led by people unused to direct action and the increasingly draconian response of the government suggests that the protests are having an effect. The release of additional tracts of land for shale gas exploration and the government’s attempts to circumvent the planning process means that few of us will be unaffected by this development in the next few years. If this happens, many more people will be prompted to take direct action.

This is where Naomi Klein’s book and another favourite of mine tend to collide. “The Shepherd’s Life – a tale of the Lake District”, by James Rebanks has, on the face of it, little to do with climate change, geopolitics and neoliberalism. But what these two books share is an attempt to help us find our sense of place – geographically, socially and politically. As sheep farmers, looking after a flock of local Herdwick sheep, James Rebanks and his family are deeply rooted in the fells of the Lake District. By continuing a way of life and a family connection they can trace back over 600 years, they work to protect the landscape and the way of life they love (and sometime loathe) and which forms such an important part of what and who they are.

Recent surveys suggest that a significant majority of the population of the UK is against fracking but our democratically elected government thinks it knows better. It has put its weight behind fossil fuels and fracking, while failing to support the renewables industry that is critical to avoiding catastrophic climate change. If the places where we have our roots are threatened, indirectly by climate change but more directly by fracking or other technologies, will we do what is necessary to protect them? This link to a sense of place could be one of the important factors that will help us to stop the oil and gas industry and its political puppets in its tracks.