Mr Jones: With such overwhelming evidence, aside from a few naysayers, it really beggars belief that we haven’t managed to mobilise the resources of humanity to kick this climate change lark into touch once and for all.

Mrs Jones: Quite so, my dear. We put men on the moon and can connect with anyone anywhere in the world, and yet we cannot come together to rid ourselves of this debilitating addiction to greenhouse gases.

Climate Change

What:

Scientists are almost universally in agreement that the 0.7C rise in global temperatures since 1900, and future predicted rises, are largely the result of human emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases. Predictions of how much warmer the world could get range from 1.4 – 5.8C by 2100, depending on how fast we can curb our addiction to fossil fuels, and other contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.

And before you start fantasizing about sunbathing all year round in the UK, instances of extreme, unpredictable weather are set to increase too. Rainfall in the UK has got heavier and more frequent in the last century and, given that the UK’s sea level has risen 10cm in the last 100 years already, those beaches you’re dreaming about will probably be underwater soon anyway.

Who:

China has overtaken the US as the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, despite the American Right’s best attempts to convince us that human responsibility for climate change is a marxist-socialist-fascist fabrication, designed to cheat us all out of our freedoms. India is catching up too, despite emitting a paltry 17,000 metric tonnes of CO2 per person in 2010, compared to China’s 62,000 and America’s whopping 176,000.

Sound bites to wow with:

“Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius proposed that CO2 emissions would enhance the ‘greenhouse effect’ and contribute to global warming in 1896, but it took until 1988 for the UN to warn of the dangers of increased CO2 levels, and until 1992 for countries to consider actually cutting them.”

“Although the economic costs of dealing with climate change will initially be high, the Stern Report, commissioned by the UK’s Treasury in 2006, found that the costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of action.”



Don’t say:

“Why don’t we all just move to Antarctica? I hear it’s warmed up significantly.”

It is not often said that oil companies have a hard time of it. In the public imagination they’re somewhere up there with bankers. They make too much money, they pollute the environment, they exploit natural resources and they support continuing climate change.

The evidence is everywhere. Consider Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Horizon, or the myriad of less well-publicised spills like them. Think of the Niger Delta, the hegemonies that oil allows to flourish in countries like Saudi Arabia, the civil wars it perpetuates in areas like South Sudan. Oil is a major cause of evil, ergo oil companies are evil. But amidst all the talk about Shell or BP, what are we doing?

Fossil fuels are getting harder to reach. Twenty years ago, we didn’t need to drill so deeply or in such inhospitable areas as the Gulf of Mexico.  Today, oil companies are going to fantastic technological lengths to maintain supply. The infamous Deepwater Horizon was a structure working in 4,000ft of water, drilling over 6 miles down. That is a phenomenal feat of engineering and it comes with risk. No matter what, accidents happen. There will always be another spill.

Still, we fly to far-flung places on holiday. We charge our iPads, iPods, mobiles and laptops. We complain about our heating bills and petrol prices, and also of new drilling projects nearby or in unspoilt landscapes like Alaska. We can’t have it both ways. The oil companies are the suppliers that meet our demands. If they are evil, they are our evil. The effects of Deepwater Horizon, the unrest in the Niger Delta, the building of pipelines in Alaska: these are all for our benefit. We are addicts, blaming the corner shop owner for continuing to sell to us.

The questions of energy security are big, difficult ones, without simple answers. But we are not helpless. We live in a democracy. We can email our MPs without leaving the comfort of our warm rooms. We can ask what they’re doing to support the shift away from oil. We can argue for support of renewable industries and we can call for the building of a base of green engineers and scientists to create those industries. We can demand renewable energy.  We can call on the government to create a long-term plan for the fundamental shift in our energy infrastructure. We can make this an issue that does not get left behind in the rush for austerity.

Oil companies are well aware of the need to shift to renewables. Few industries know better the increasing difficulty in satisfying our demands for energy. If we create the move away from oil, they’ll still be there, just in a healthier form.

Needless to say, we’ll have to find another industry to vilify. Another round of banker-bashing, anyone?

What stage are climate change talks at?

Climate change talks are dragging. After more than 20 years of negotiations, countries have agreed that we must keep global average temperatures from increasing more than 2 degrees Celsius, but they have not been able to agree a plan that would achieve that goal. They have made voluntary commitments to begin reducing emissions, and they’ve agreed some of the building blocks for a global deal. But we see neither the urgency nor the ambition that will be required.

Why has it been so difficult to reach an agreement on climate change?

This may be the most difficult diplomatic challenge we have ever faced. The problem is hugely complex – the causes and effects of climate change implicate every facet of the global economy. Every country has a stake in the issue, and success will demand bold action by all the world’s largest countries to achieve both sharp reductions in emissions in industrialized countries and an aggressive shift to low-carbon development paths in emerging economies. And of course we are trying to negotiate a solution with 194 parties around the table.

Which countries are most reluctant to take serious action?

The US is most often singled out for its reluctance and appropriately so. It is stunning to see national political leaders asserting that the science of climate change is somehow in doubt. There is no question that leadership from the US would yield a breakthrough in the negotiations. It is also important to note, however, that other countries – Canada, Japan, Russia, to name a few – have also been resisting action.

How will any agreement be enforced?

The short answer is that we don’t know. One can be sure that before the parties agree to a binding deal, there will be intensive negotiations on how it is to be enforced.

Given the difficulties of getting an inter-governmental agreement, could action in the private sector act as a substitute?

It is still vitally important that we establish a global regime that ensures a concerted effort to reduce emissions. Given the pace of negotiations, however, it is also clear that we must find other ways to spur action. We need leadership both from companies and also from individual governments at all levels.  

Companies can reduce emissions from their own operations, of course, and many have already done so. They can also help drive down emissions across their entire value chains, and by making products such as electric cars that help consumers reduce their own emissions.  Already you see some companies stepping up to this challenge, because they recognize that the future belongs to businesses that are leading the way to a low-carbon economy.

Governments can also act without waiting for an international agreement. Last year, Denmark announced that they would meet all of their energy needs with renewable sources by 2050, and mapped out a detailed road map for achieving that goal. China, the world’s second largest economy, is investing very intensively in developing renewable energy and driving greater efficiency into its economy.  Some states in the US are taking action, despite a political stalemate at the national level. And many of the world’s largest cities are expanding transit systems, discouraging car use, and establishing strict efficiency standards for new buildings. There are many compelling reasons to get much more out of the energy we use, and to shift from fossil fuels to energy sources like sunlight and wind that are clean, abundant, and free.

Owning a pizza parlour is the best investment in an economic downturn. It is a well known fact that in times of hardship we abandon the organic root weed compotes and go straight for the processed dough, in the vain hope that our cheese induced delirium will distract from our other problems.

Never has this analogy been more apt than when considered in relation to the problem of climate change. The middle class supposedly has more concrete problems to deal with than those gnawing environmental guilts, so easily pushed to the back of an already full conscience. We are responsible for enough disasters as it is: war and poverty, to name but two. We do not need to be saddled with another.

The impetus for change has been dealt an almighty blow by the growing backlash against the very notion of climate change. It has become increasingly fashionable to deny global warming’s existence altogether, by appealing to dubious scientific assertions and cheerful American guys with questionable scruples telling us everything is going to be OK. And so we buy into this cross Atlantic “can do” spirit and we tell ourselves that contaminated oceans and encroaching deserts are God’s problem, not ours.

But everything isn’t going to be OK. Whilst we sit twiddling our thumbs and watch as Rome burns, we ignore the great big footprint that we’ve trodden into the planet. Unconcerned by humanity’s disproportionate contribution to the Earth’s deteriorating condition, we turn the other cheek to rising consumption of almost every one of the planet’s resources. The government’s promises to foster a more sustainable society by banning plastic bags and increasing taxes on gas guzzlers seem to have fallen on deaf ears. The vogue is for living for the present and not worrying about the future. So long as the tree has a healthy exterior now, we can worry about the deadly disease festering in its roots later.

Soon we’ll look in the mirror at our bloated, distended reflection, and regret ever having eaten that pizza. And we’ll wish we had chosen the healthy option instead.