It’s Thursday 3rd February, 2011, a large number of human beings have gathered together at the Thomas Paine Lecture Theatre, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, United Kingdom, Earth. Why are they here…to save the world, at least, to listen to somebody talk about saving the world, that person is Professor Lord Anthony Giddens.
Anthony Giddens, among other things, is a lifelong supporter of Tottenham Hotspur, helped to influence the evolution of New Labour (Blair et al), is a renowned sociologist and has had a profound impact on politics worldwide.
So, having spent the last three years researching and writing a new book, what does he have to say about Climate Change?
I went to find out…
‘The too difficult box’ – UEA Lecture series
Society faces a set of issues that can seem intractable. In this lecture series, convened by the School of Political, Social and International Studies, experienced policy-makers look at the obstacles which make solutions difficult to achieve, consider how well-conducted politics might address those difficulties, and explore possible political solutions.
(Source “http://www.uea.ac.uk/psi/eventsnews/too-difficult-box” 10.02.2011)
Climate Change by Anthony Giddens
Climate Change is the most testing issue facing humanity in the 21st Century.
It is different from all other problems we have ever faced before, for three reasons:
1. No other civilisation has affected the global environment in the same way we have done in the last 200 years, at least not to the same scale.
Therefore, we cannot draw lessons from the past.
2. The evidence is filtered through the findings of specialist scientific groups. There is a vast gap between Climatologists and the lay-public, this gap is bridged by the politics of climate change.
3. Climate Change is different from all other problems, for example global poverty could be solved by 2050 (In fact, the world currently produces enough food to support around 10bn people – Alaric). Climate Change has a cumulative nature (the bad effects add up and up, and won’t be felt until the future), greenhouse gasses have a long-lasting lifespan in the atmosphere and therefore, there is an urgency to this problem that could make it more important than all others.
We don’t yet know whether or not it is too difficult.
Risks of Climate Change
Broadly speaking, there are categories that people could be placed in, when considering the risk of climate change.
1. Climate change skeptics: Who will either deny that Climate Change is happening or they will say that the average increase temperature that we are experiencing (Measuring average temperature is generally agreed to be a proxy an for global warming, i.e. an increase of heat or energy in the global system) is natural or rather, not man-made. In fact, most skeptics are not scientists, of those who are, a minority are climatologists.
The political impact of skeptics is huge.
The ‘climate gate’ UEA hacked emails demonstrates this.
The role of the blogosphere: A world in which, anyone can become an ‘expert’ without the necessary skills, this also produces of extreme emotions, opinions and emotions.
The main concern is the political impact of bloggers.
2. Mainstream scientific opinion: IPCC Reports
The IPCC reports concern what is Climate Change, how does it occur and what the dangers of it could be.
Simply put, there is a growing body of evidence that links climate change with fossil fuel use (Greenhouse gas emissions) and deforestation.
The IPCC comment in terms of 20-30 years into the future.
3. Climate Change radicals: Heterodox (outside of the mainstream orthodox) figures such as James Lovelock or James Hanson and others.
They believe that Climate Change is happening faster and faster (similar to exponential growth) and that, the Earth is more susceptible to small temperature changes. More specifically the Earth more fragile and intolerable to change than we are ready to accept. The ideas of tipping points are discussed (in which you reach a point when things degrade very suddenly and to a large degree). There is a great fear that the permafrost in Siberia will melt and release large deposits of methane (which is 20x worse than CO2 for global warming).
To conclude: The politics of climate change are about risk.
The current argument is whether the risks are over/under calculated.
The IPCC have been said to be climate conservative and I believe that the radicals are more likely to be right than the skeptics.
Climate Change is an existential threat to the continuity of the industrial civilisation.
This is the vortex of opinion within which we need to shape climate change policy.
To sum up:
1. Skeptics – Believe the Earth is robust, it looks after itself.
2. Scientific mainstream – Believe the Earth is fragile, we are damaging the ecosystem.
3. Radicals – Believe the Earth is a volatile system, like a wild beast and reacts in an extreme way.
This is the backdrop to local, national and international political debate.
Climate related policy: A brief history,
The world has woken up to the dangers of Climate Change over the last 30 years.
It started with a meeting in Rio, followed by Kyoto, Copenhagen and more recently Cancun. Climate change presents a challenge, to act decisively and cohesively as a global community. However human beings find it very hard to take a risk seriously if it is not immediately visible. Climate change is about future risk, Its affect on political leaders is to produce rhetoric which echoes the indifference of the general public. It is much easier for politicians to speak about actions in 2050 than in 2012.
In Kyoto, an agreement was reached among some countries to reduce their emissions, the impact of this was mostly zero.
In Copenhagen (COP 15) An Accord was signed, this ignored the geo-political reality and is a non-binding agreement. Five of the biggest nations signed up to adoption of carbon emissions reductions.
In Cancun, 2010, 150 countries had targets, China had a Climate Change plan and Brazil showed their commitment to renewables.
Problem: Timescales
Climate change has an accumulative trajectory and as far as we know, cannot be reversed (human impact). Industrial countries have historically emitted the most greenhouse gasses and the UK is the biggest emitter per person.
Kyoto and Cancun where concerned with the what, we need to move to the how, in terms of Climate Change policy. This is not all about international negotiation, industrial countries must shape Climate Change policy.
Politics of Climate Change in Industrial Nations
1. We need to create or invent politics of the long-term. Free-market philosophies aren’t capable of generating long-term incomes. Integrated with recovery from recession and coping with the impacts of more extreme weather.
How will we protect the poorest people, like farmers in front-line countries. One way to protect people is through insurance, a collaboration between government and private insurance companies. For example the company ‘Alliance’ has created ‘catastrophe bonds’. Micro-credit and floating agriculture was created in Bangladesh.
2. Trying to limit political polarisation, Climate Change is not concerned with the difference between right and left. The UK government has a general consensus among Climate Change policies. In the United States, political polarisation paralyses Climate Change policies. Generally the republicans are sceptics and the recent Healthcare Bill showed how polarised the political community is. A recent poll in the US showed that, 11% of republicans and 60% of democrats believe in Climate Change. In fact Copenhagen failed partly because Obama didn’t do anything.
Interestingly the US, Canada and Australia all have the highest emissions per person and are the most politically polarised, this issue needs to limited in other countries.
3. It is an abstract concept, it is very easy to say ‘it has no impact on my life’. We need a good model of the low carbon economy, with a positive message. Some say that Martin Luther King would not have achieved half as much as he did if his speech began “I have a nightmare…”
Role of the motorcar: Designed as an instrument of freedom, not as a creator of congestion and all-round polluting vehicle. Fact is, we need better transport infrastructure!
Utopian element: A structural revolution of massive significance within the fossil fuel industry.
China and India simply cannot track the western historical path of development. Chinese leaders are aware of the need to change, to transform economies and society. Utopian realism is paradoxical.
Electric cars, relatively uninteresting as they are, present the problem of transforming the transport system. A great book called ‘the future of the auto-mobile’ that covers this has been published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) available at here, it talks of technology being the ‘mobility internet’
Anthony Giddens finished the talk mentioning the London School of Economics (LSE) having been founded by the Fabians, “kind of socialists” and by mentioning something to do with a famous disagreement between George Bernard Shaw and Winston Churchill.
All in all, I believe that he has a good grasp of the issues, but I reserve my judgment whether or not he is proposing the best ways to tackle Climate Change. There were a few questions after the talk and I was unable to ask mine, so here goes… I am interested to know what role the ‘tragedy of the commons’ debate plays, on a global scale with respect to Climate Change, humans and the Environment.