Thanks Alastair - to answer your question, I'm
afraid I do not believe we will achieve these targets politically.
Politicians find it hard enough to agree on words - even harder to act on
them. But thankfully we do have 2 Greens pushing in the right
direction.
Carbon capture and storage ('clean coal') is being
hailed as the way forward & Longannet coal-fired power station in Fife
now has an experimental system to capture carbon. But even if scaled up, it
would only capture 1/8th of the emissions (300MW of a capacity of 2,400MW) by
2014. Hardly anything to get excited about.
And then there are the uncertainties and risks
(financial as well as technological) over North Sea storage. Why is the UK
going CCS crazy when we have such vast renewable resources? If CCS is the answer
to coal burning, let's set up overseas investment projects in countries where
coal use is huge, like China. Making the UK a showcase for coal just
demonstrates, to me at least, that things won't change. Well, not via politics.
I do still have a faint glimmer of hope for the grassroots rising
up....
I should add that I do not see nuclear power as
being the answer either. While it's not on the cards here in Scotland, who knows
what the next election will bring. We are ploughing on into a future of
depleting resources and rising energy costs with no examination of the
sustainability & 'net energy' issues of various options. Nuclear is not
carbon free - nothing is while we get the majority of our energy from fossil
fuels. I believe if the whole cycle is taken into account, nuclear produces 4
units of usable energy for one invested in it - not a great energy return
compared to the 100:1 oil used to give back in the 1930s. And this return
falls as uranium ore qualities fall. I believe that only Canada has significant
reserves left with ore quality of over 1%. Furthermore, nuclear plants produce
electricity. Replacing liquid fuels is the elephant in the room - I won't start
on biofuels and land availability! Nor on the wisdom of building new radioactive
sites on our coasts as sea levels rise....
We're facing an energy crisis which is
intrinsically linked to tackling climate change but even discussing it (other
than on online forums) seems impossible. I gave a talk to 15+ OU enterprise
students in Edinburgh on Tuesday eve on peak oil, net energy & links
to climate change. Those present included students from the finance and
off-shore oil industry & we had a good debate after it. When one looks at
what is happening in the energy industry, it is clear that while we talk about
climate change, we actually seem to be tackling (but never talking about!) peak
oil. We are trying to replace conventional oil with even dirtier
alternatives. We certainly are not reducing energy demand and until we realise
that this is the only option, we're screwed.
Growth is not progress. Growth happens when there's
surplus energy in a system. Things will change but the question is will we work
to change them now or carry on with business as usual until change is imposed by
nature? Even if we found a totally free and clean source of energy, what would
we do with that energy? What would be the next thing to go? Ecosystems?
Minerals? Water? The Limits to Growth report was published in 1972 (I think) -
we've done next to nothing with that knowledge yet the signs predicted are all
around. Sadly we're ignoring them.
Sorry for the rant - I'm increasingly frustrated at
our inability to face up to the crises all around us. If anyone wants a
presentation on these issues to stimulate some serious debate, please let me
know.
cheers
Mandy Meikle
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 9:54
PM
Subject: Today's Unanimous Passing of the
Climate Change (Scotland) Bill
Folks - here are key links to the Scottish
Parliament's bill that was passed today committing to carbon cuts consistent
with scientific advice rather than political expediency.
At an aspirational level, the Bill is a great
achievement, but I do have serious reservations about what has been achieved.
Here are some quickly jotted down thoughts for what has been achieved is
phenomenal, and yet, we need to tread cautiously in my view.
1. Do we really think these targets are politically
achievable? They would entail real challenges to people's whole way of life -
as the Delivery Plan seems to recognise, in pointing towards the "almost
complete de-carbonisation" of transport and generating capacity that is called
for by 2030. That's in 20 years time, yet 20 years ago, in the run-up to the
Rio Summit, we were all saying the same thing, and what happened is now
history as recorded at Muana Loa (currently 386 ppm, up from 355 20 years
ago). Nobody who I have spoken to who is both
scientifically and politically well-informed thinks that the scale of cuts
required is politically realistic, even though the science suggests it is what
must be aimed for, and every bit that can be achieved helps to slow down what
the models, if they are correct, forewarn. The Guardian article
confirms my observation that even key international campaigners privately
doubt that what needs to happen could happen in our hedonistic
democracies. And so, what will be the fallout for campaigning if/when the
targets are not met? Will it be positive fallout, highlighting the gap between
aspiration and reality and spurring on to further all-round effort? Or will it
fuel cynicism about green spin? These are important questions in terms of how
we, as activists, play the field from here - questions of integrity in an age
of spin vis-a-vis the expectations and understanding of our constituencies of
influence.
2. The Bill is only aspirational - the only sanction
if targets are not met will be embarrassment. As the Bill says for various
targets, for example, the 2020 target of 42% cuts: "If the interim target has
not been met, the report must explain why" (Section 32:3). Of course, it is
clear why Government cannot go further than that. A Government can hardly
self-punish. Yet it does risk setting this Bill up as a Cassandra Bill - one
that warns of the dangers, but goes relatively unheeded.
3. It is not surprising that the Bill was able to
command political unanimity. The green vote, which provided the balance of
power when the current Scottish Government was elected, is pivotal to the
potential political futures of all major parties under Scotland's proportional
representation system. Because green principles intersect with the
interests of all main political parties in Scotland, the environment has
considerable sway over where the political centre of gravity settles.
All parties therefore need to appear to be green - and to do so not just
to fend off the Greens but to gain, for themselves, a green aura. However, the
degree to which the Bill is constructed to have achieved such
all-round palatability is evident. For example, Schedule 1:4, which lays out
the remit for the Scottish Committee on Climate Change (to oversee
implementation), gives as first (and foremost?) in its list of areas of
expertise to be sought amongst members - "Business competitiveness"! I ask
you! The very thing that, arguably, most drives unsustainable behaviour!
Also listed in qualities sought are climate science, financial
investment and economic forecasting. There is nothing about expertise in, say,
energy obviation, or the psychology of reducing consumption (on that point,
note WWF's Strategies
for Change reports, including Tom Crompton's and Tim Kasser's
latest that came out today). Although the ancillary Delivery Plan
(link 4 above) does go into energy obviation, it only tilts in passing at
consumerism in Section 1:13 where it urges the need to, "Reduce
consumption, particularly of products which emit greenhouse gases as part of
their manufacture, e.g. cement; production, e.g. meat; or decomposition, e.g.
waste." As with nearly all Government-associated climate change strategies
(apart from the UK SD Commission's recent outstanding "Prosperity
Without Growth?" report), the metanarrative in the Scottish Bill is "Cut
carbon provided it doesn't cut economic growth."
4. And lastly, my bottom line reservation is the
paradox that the more we focus on outer actions, including target-setting, the
more we risk engaging in displacement activity unless we also attend to the
inner psychological and spiritual dynamics of addiction to consumerism and
what sustains it at socio-political corporate levels. Climate change is the
product of population and consumption. Our biggest target needs to be
consumerism, which I define as consumption in excess of what is needed for
dignified sufficiency. We're all complicit - at least, I am - and
we need both the outer and the inner, both the
individual and the collective action, if there is to be hope for change,
or at least, in a worst case scenario, facing with dignity the
come-what-may of the come-to-pass so that we are better positioned to mitigate
consequences and avert potential barbarity ... if the consensus scientific
models are right.
*
* Love and
Revolution, collected poetry, is from Luath
Press
*
* Rekindling Community:
Connecting People, Environment and Spirituality
* is Schumacher Briefing
No. 15 from Green Books,
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.12.91/2201 - Release
Date: 06/25/09 06:22:00