In today’s post, with a bit of help from Philip Larkin, Bill Scott – who recently stood down as our Chair of Trustees at the 2023 AGM – reveals how he spend part of his Christmas holidays. As ever with our blogs, his views are not necessarily shared by the Association.
I an idle post-Christmas moment, I spent some time browsing XR’s guide: Emergency on Planet Earth. This presents an utterly gloomy picture unleavened by anything that looks vaguely like hope. My overall recommendation is that if you ever think that your life is too fun-filled or joyous, or that you’re getting too euphoric, this would be a great antidote. It brought Philip Larkins’ Going, Going to mind. Here’s a taster:
The UK needs to be getting to net zero by 2025, not 2050
Even if we were on track to meet the UK government’s commitment to get to net zero emissions by 2050 (a target that only accounts for emissions generated on our own territory, sweeping under the carpet all emissions from imported goods, and that, even if it was met globally, would still only give the world a 50:50 chance of staying below 1.5°C heating), which we’re clearly not, it’s important to realise this would still give the UK a much larger share of the global carbon budget than other countries.
Not only does the UK emit more than twice as much per person than the global average (vastly more if we take into account shipping, aviation and imports), Britain ranks fifth highest globally in terms of its historical emissions. In addition, as a wealthy nation, we have the capability to be able to turn our economy around and decarbonise more rapidly than most other countries. So, in order to give global carbon net zero 2050 a good chance of actually being achieved, many climate scientists now agree that the UK should really be getting to net zero much sooner than 2050, a concept known as “carbon equity”. See section on why richer countries need to get to net zero MUCH FASTER than 2050.
Indeed, a recent report concluded that if we assume a “fair” split of total global carbon emissions, acknowledging the higher emissions and greater historical responsibility of the UK, avoiding reliance on negative emissions technologies and aiming for a more ambitious target of a 2 in 3 chance of staying below 1.5°C of heating, the UK needs to get net zero emissions by around 2025 to stay within our allocated budget – in line with Extinction Rebellion’s Second Demand.
END of QUOTE
A few points:
[1] This is not great writing: the first sentence is 89 words long, and the last one is 77. Neither are easy to follow.
[2] I think that first sentence is trying to say:
“Even if we were on track to meet the UK government’s commitments to get to net zero emissions by 2050, this would still give the UK a much larger share of the global carbon budget than other countries.”
For a document that is “fact-checked and reviewed by a wide range of experts”, this is extraordinarily loose writing. “Much larger” – how much larger? “other countries” – which other countries? It can’t be all other countries as UK emissions are currently only ~1% of the global total.
[3] Britain does rank fifth highest in the league table of global historical emissions, but China has generated more CO2 over the past decade than the UK has since 1750. Between then and 2020, the UK produced some 78 billion tonnes, compared with China’s contribution of around 80 billion tonnes over the past 10 years or so. China has emitted 14% of all emissions throughout history. Only the United States has done more with around 25% of emissions over time. By comparison, we have produced about 5% of all emissions and ~ 80% of these were before 1990 following which we have taken a few successful steps to decouple economic growth from CO2 emissions. The Guardian has details. As far as I could see, the guide did not mention China once.
[4] We read that “many climate scientists now agree that the UK should really be getting to net zero much sooner than 2050″. Fair enough, but many climate scientists will have no opinion either way given that this is a political judgement rather than a scientific one.
[5] A policy to get to “net zero emissions by around 2025″ is deranged. It’s 2024 already and we still rely on fossil fuels for ~78% of our total energy needs. Even the opposition’s plan to remove fossil fuels from electricity supply seems technologically unachievable if the lights and heating are to remain on.
The Guide’s gloom reminded me of another piece of Larkin advice (from This be the Verse):
Man hands on misery to man. / It deepens like a coastal shelf. / Get out as early as you can, / And don’t have any kids yourself.
The Guide, which says that it “tells the truth about what’s happening, why, and what we can do”, is written by Emily Grossman (who makes science “exciting and accessible”), with the support of the XR Scientists community. It’s “fact-checked and reviewed by a wide range of experts” we’re told.
I should confess that I didn’t read it from cover to cover. I couldn’t bear to. But what I did read convinced me never to rely exclusively on XR for facts about either climate change or what to do about it. There are other “truths” out there after all.
…………………………………
Bill can be contacted at edswahs@bath.ac.uk