Face Up to Climate Change

Demand change now

Peter J McManners, Thomas O McManners

• Publisher: Susta
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9780955736957
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Global Warming & Climate Change
• Index: Biological Sciences

This book is a call for action to face up to climate change. McManners argues that that there is a way out of the world's climate emergency which needs much greater realism than the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The changing climate is leading to record temperatures and increasing frequency of storms, but this is just the commencement of dangerous consequences to come.It has become abundantly clear that a bold approach is needed to pull back from catastrophe.People like Greta Thunberg should be admired for speaking up, and we should understand why organisations such as Extinction Rebellion exist. However, protest without a clear agenda for change has little lasting impact. The case for action is overwhelming, argued eloquently by David Attenborough and other environmentalists. The world's response must be real action, not empty promises.

This book provides the manifesto that protesters and environmentalists need. It states clearly the need to close down fossil fuel without delay.Individuals making change within their own lives will make little difference.The solution is to demand even bigger changes which apply to all.

Read this book. Support the manifesto. Face Up to Climate Change NOW.

CHAPTER 1

---

TIME TO GET REAL

The world is facing a climate crisis entirely of our own making through relying on the outdated energy source of fossil fuel. We have better technology which can improve our lives, but fear of job losses and lobbying from the fossil fuel industry keeps us trapped in the past. It is irrational to be fearful as it is entirely within our grasp to find a solution. Our fear should be of further delay which would lead to passing a point of no return as the planet transitions to a different climate in a process totally beyond our control. Act now, with urgency, and the worst consequences of climate change can be avoided. Weaning the economy off fossil fuel can be done – as I will explain – but we must get on with it. The most glaring anomaly is continued reliance on coal, the fuel which started the Industrial Revolution two centuries ago. There should be no place for coal in the twenty-first century world economy. It is time that we lifted the economy out of the rut of fossil fuel dependency and launched an economy fit for the twenty-first century, beginning with outlawing coal.

Addiction to fossil fuel

We are living under the clear and present danger of our addiction to fossil fuel. This is changing the climate of our planet, and it will have consequences. For two centuries we have been burning coal, oil and gas in order to operate factories, travel, stay warm, and keep the lights on. It is hard to imagine life without fossil fuel, so we fail to understand that a better future is to unfold. There is more than enough evidence that our addiction is dangerous; but still we carry on. Our dependency is total and our foolishness almost beyond belief. Of course, it is easier to allow short-term craving to control our actions than to face up to the challenge of curing the addiction. We are like drug addicts lounging around spending their money on the next fix whilst their health deteriorates. We convince ourselves that we feel good, it doesn’t matter, and fearing ‘cold turkey’, we carry on regardless.

Sitting around overdosing on fossil fuel whilst cooking the planet is the behaviour of addiction.

Addiction goes through stages: first, denial of the problem; second, avoidance of the consequences; and finally, acceptance that the addiction is too difficult to cure. The fast track from first fix to the mortuary is a smooth and easy ride. It takes effort and resolve to reflect, slow down, and work out how to switch to a better track. There is no doubt that there is the potential for a great future ahead but our thinking is clouded by our addiction.

DENIAL

Denial of climate change is the easy unthinking response. Believing it can’t be true relieves any anxiety and seems to make the problem go away. For such belief to stick, there needs to be a backstory to explain how climate change became such a big issue. This could be that climate change is a conspiracy dreamt up by scientists wanting to keep their research funding. Such untrue claims can still be found in obscure chat rooms in corners of the Internet; but as the science becomes ever more certain, and the consequences ever clearer, denial is no longer an option. With denial no longer believable, refuge can be found in downplaying significance. It won’t be as bad as predicted. The predictions being made by scientists have an element of uncertainty, so whilst there is still a chance that climate change may not be as severe as supposed, there remains a possibility that we do not need to do anything much about it. Some people demand absolute certainty that climate change will have serious consequences before being willing to take action which may change their current way of life. The ‘wisdom’ of this response is that whilst there is still a slim chance that it won’t be a complete disaster, we should wait, rather than invest resources which could be used to satisfy current needs and fix current problems.

Denial of climate change is now rare. Most people accept that the science is accurate; and that the consequences will be significant. The next phase of response is to shift to avoidance.

STUCK IN LIMBO

Avoidance requires people to be indifferent to the needs of future generations. Some people find comfort in the view that it is not their problem. It will affect future generations. So, it will be up to them to fix it. They can also draw on the trend that through modern history each generation has been richer than their parents. My kids will be richer than me so they can afford to fix what will be ‘their’ problem. This is a convenient claim, ignoring the fact that continued failure to face up to climate change will lead to it spiralling beyond human control.

The terminal stage of addiction is acceptance that the cure is too difficult. When it is obvious that the climate is changing, with more extreme storms, hotter heatwaves and longer droughts, people will realize that avoidance has become impossible. The easy route is to decide that it is now too late. Yes, fossil fuel is the prime cause of climate change. Yes, the consequences could be serious. Yes, it is happening now. But it is just too difficult to do anything significant in response. This is where the world is now; stuck in limbo over fossil fuel and climate change.

There is talk about the need for action and talk about what possible action could be taken. We have yet to get real and actually do something. We are now entering an important stage as our deliberations assume a sharper focus taking place whilst we start to experience the consequences of climate change. This will expose the world’s current weak approach and open the possibility of changing direction.

Changing direction

At some point, the various groups within the climate debate should come together and unite; but I doubt this will happen. Climate policy idealists (who talk about fair and equitable responses which will cost little) may unintentionally team up with the climate deniers (who don’t care a damn) in a coalition of complete inaction. Unrealistic idealistic aspirations are just as much a block to progress as downright refusal to accept the need to act. To break the stalemate requires a huge dose of realism. We face a pending crisis which will affect us all. A realistic evaluation should lead to tough choices and real action. People who adopt a green perspective need to get real, to see the world as it is, as a competition between nations seeking national advantage to secure their own future. The deniers need to get real, to stop believing that they can defend what they have by simply refusing to give ground. Action is needed because it is vital to our future. Whether you are a selfless person who wants to protect the future of humanity, a selfish person interested in the preservation of lifestyle, or something in between; everyone is just as much at risk. It is time to get real.

Climate change is a crisis, but it is not all doom and gloom. Looking beyond the current crisis there is a bright future. We can be confident that there are viable responses to the climate emergency, not only to deal with the problem but to launch a vibrant new economy with a wealth of opportunities. A major blockage to progress is that this better future is not accessible on the path we are on. To identify real responses, and make them accessible as policy choices, we need a change of direction to open the way to the possibility of a real action. First, we should seek to understand the challenge – fully and in detail – and accept this insight as the foundation for how we think and how we respond. We should not tolerate peddlers of falsehoods, fake theories and lies. We have been slow to get a grip on this. Until recently, it was common practice for news outlets – even credible and respected organizations such as the BBC – to include sceptical views in any piece on climate change, and invite climate change deniers to join with any live debate. It was only when such deniers were limited to a few oddballs from obscure institutions or funded by the fossil fuel industry, that mainstream media realized how the news flow had been subverted to allow doubt to persist in the public consciousness. For decades we have allowed the simple message, that burning fossil fuel is changing the climate, to be confused so that even well-educated professional people doubted this fact, and were persuaded to question the need for action which might have negative short-term economic consequences. With such confusion, it is perhaps not surprising that changing direction is so difficult.

The core facts

People should be free to express their views and opinions, with healthy debate a key part of the democratic process. But, when facing a crisis, the facts should be rocks embedded in the sands of discussion as fixed points of reference, with ideas allowed to ebb and flow around them. There are multiple possible solutions to consider, ranging from sensible and logical ways forward to off-beat ideas which just might work. Keeping to the core facts allows the best ideas space to grow. The clarity which emerges is incredibly useful. There are two key facts: first, burning fossil fuel is causing climate change; second, to halt climate change we must stop burning fossil fuel. Keeping this simple core logic in mind allows something credible to emerge from complex thought processes and a messy debate.

At a more detailed level, in the flow of debate, some apparently less important facts stubbornly remain like grains of sand caught in an oyster’s shell. One of these is that not all fossil fuels are the same. There are relatively cleaner (and relatively dirtier) fossil fuels. All fossil fuels should not be treated in the same way. Each type of fossil fuel should be treated according to its characteristics. This policy pearl is simple and, when explained, completely obvious.

Clarity and simplicity

The best policies are clear and simple to communicate; the upside is obvious to all, and the downside (there is always a downside) is also clear so that opponents can be clearly identified as vested interests to be faced down. This book presents a number of pearls of policy which can be strung together to make a coherent and credible response to the climate emergency. These are feasible, practical and simple, focused on closing down fossil fuel extraction, with transition arrangements making best use of the cleaner fossil fuels, gas and oil. To prove we are serious, I have then selected the thorny issue of aviation to provide clarity that solutions can be found in every sector – provided we are determined to succeed.

All of us live within a fossil fuel economy, and have done so for many generations. To turn our backs on such a familiar economy is a huge shift. We had a foretaste of the consequences of moving away from fossil fuel when the COVID-19 pandemic gripped the world in 2020. As the world shut down, burning much less fossil fuel, people could sneak a peek behind the curtains of fossil fuel dependency to see a cleaner future.¹ This may encourage more people to share my positive view that taking action which challenges the fossil fuel economy is progress and is not to be feared. My argument begins with examining the science of climate change. This is the focus of the next chapter – it is short and punchy because the hard work has been completed by the climate scientists and their findings have been interrogated with exceptional rigour. Such rigour is not surprising because the facts are inconvenient – the consequences of accepting them are so influential to policy and are so extensive in terms of the impact on society that we would rather the scientists were mistaken. The climate scientists are not mistaken. Ironically, the huge opposition to the science has served a useful purpose. The science is now rock solid. Where there are uncertainties these have been clearly laid out. There are no uncertainties about the core facts; only uncertainties about predicting the precise consequences.

This carefully calibrated uncertainty is integral to the science.

Dealing with uncertainty

The uncertainty about climate change should not be allowed to disrupt our thinking or delay key decisions. An analogy perhaps helps to explain how it is normal for uncertainty to sit alongside known facts. Let us suppose that a warning is received that a terrorist group has planted a bomb in a shopping mall, timed to explode in one hour. The terrorist organization has a reputation for accurate warnings and employs a bomb-maker who is known to be an expert. The facts are clear; if nothing is done there will be an explosion one hour from now. The consequences are clear (destruction) but the precise degree of damage is uncertain. No amount of modelling or speculation about the precise nature of the resulting damage can eliminate this uncertainty. The precise damage and cost of the repairs is unknowable. The focus of our attention should be the fact that a bomb is going to explode; there is no need to be distracted by examination of the detailed consequences – especially if this is instead of taking immediate action. Action needs to be based on the known facts. Therefore, the shopping centre should be evacuated and a robot sent in to try to locate the bomb and defuse it. The course of action is clear, even though the authorities do not know the precise consequences, and each shopkeeper doesn’t know the precise risk to their business. The bomb is a clear and present danger to the shopping mall and all the shops within it. All shop owners should support the clear and simple plan of action mapped out by the emergency services. Some shopkeepers might want to go in and use the hour to evacuate their most valuable stock, or board up the windows of their shop; but those in control would be correct to set up a cordon around the mall and focus on the plan of action. Selfish individualistic action may even interrupt efforts to defuse the bomb and should not be tolerated. Only after the hour is over, and the bomb has been defused (or not), do discussions about consequent actions have any real meaning.

The uncertainties about the precise consequences of climate change cannot be eliminated. Spending time and expending resources going into more and more detail about possible consequences is simply an excuse for delay and procrastination. The core science is solid. It should be accepted. There is a short window of opportunity to deal with the causes of climate change before serious harm becomes inevitable. This time should be spent focused on action against the causes rather than generating ever more hot air in a debate which swirls around giving an impression that some sort of response is in the wind, when plainly it is not.

Shifting attitudes

As the science of climate change becomes accepted, there is a discernible and useful shift in attitudes. A growing number of people now accept the need to do something. In a recent poll, a majority of people think that we are still able to avoid the worst effects of climate change but only so long as we take drastic action. This implied support for drastic action ranged from a low of 50% in the United States to over 80% of people in Spain, with the UK in the middle at 66% of those polled.² So, the ranks of climate activists demanding action have been joined by a growing silent majority who accept that action will be needed.

This is not yet an unequivocal demand for action, and it is still tempered by worries that action may undermine the economy and affect lifestyle. Action is wanted, but as climate change is not yet accepted in the public consciousness as a crisis, we stick to the condition that any action should not expect too much of us nor put at risk what we already have. This is not yet fertile ground on which politicians can plant a manifesto to deal effectively with climate change. There is too much worry about the negative consequences for society of effective climate policy, and not enough worry about the negative consequences of climate change. The play-off between this pair of negatives leads to paralysis in public opinion. Introducing a positive outlook could provide the tipping point which quickly, and perhaps abruptly, alters the political landscape. The positive perspective tha...