In the orange light-filled advertising corner : the oil and gas companies proclaiming new, untold riches beneath the melting Arctic. Technology will make us stronger, less polluting and improve the lives of the countless poor.

In the blue chain-smoking activist corner : Climate Change and Peak Oil are really, really serious, destabilising and horrible and we should all get depressed and go and lie down in a darkened room for a while.

On the other hand, most people don’t fall in one camp or the other. We worry about Climate Change some days, but we’re too pre-occupied with trivia on other days.

We have a natural in-built “happy button”, according to recent research mentioned in New Scientist magazine, so we can’t sustain feelings of doom and gloom for too long unless we’re clinically unwell :-

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727791.000-how-to-be-happy-but-not-too-much.html

We’re born to be sunny, optimistic (Teddy Miliband’s favourite word) and relaxed, only reserving adrenalin and noradrenalin for times of stress.

So why does George Marshall try to convince us that everyone is dangerously susceptible to “apocalyptic” language ?

http://climatedenial.org/2010/09/29/collapse-porn/

People can cope with being given bad news as long as they have some strategy with which to combat the problem.

It’s not wrong to tell people the truth about Climate Change just in case they get scared and worried.

Alarm is a good thing – I’d rather a fellow pedestrian shouted at me to “look out !” if I’m about to be mown down by a car as I cross the street, rather than just watching on and wincing at the crunch moment.

George is telling us to be careful about our choice of language as activists, and warns of “false panics like Y2K”, but I think that one can be overly introspective about tone and fail to paint the larger narrative.

And anyway, raising the alarm produces action, as he himself mentions, and action actually changes things, averts disaster, mitigates against chaos.

“…there is overwhelming evidence that even when people do face problems they are far more likely to work together and seek collective solutions than to panic and riot…”

There is a problem with Climate Change communication – many people are still at the stage of describing the problems in order to engage an unconscious audience. This kind of activity almost invariably fails to move on to the solutions part of the narrative, and leaves people in a Lovelockian down state of mind.

Some Climate Change activists go to the other extreme and become all bubbly about the joys of Carbon Rationing austerity or going for a year without a shower, things like that.

I must admit, I do this from time to time. But I don’t leave the audience without the solutions, the real solutions. Going without electricity and meat isn’t going to solve Climate Change. But radical changes in the ways the whole Society acquires and uses energy and other resources is going to solve Climate Change. And this process has already begun.

We can avert Climate Change. We already have the tools. Now we need to build the narrative from problem to solution, instead of getting stuck in the problem phase.

As soon as the timeline of problem, reflection, discovery, action, solution is complete, people will buy in.

Here’s my answer to George Marshall :-

@GeorgeMarshall

I think you paint a picture of polarised human reaction that is not backed up by evidence.

People don’t all go and hide in caves or pretend they don’t care. People have shades of opinion.

Plus, I think that you are being too dismissive of the facts.

As a computer programmer, I can reliably inform you that Y2K was not a “false panic”. Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people like myself spent months correcting computer software to prevent massive turmoil in banking and retail systems on 1st January 2000.

If you correctly inform people of the risks, in a balanced, nuanced way, you can get coordinated reaction that can prevent a crisis.

For example, the swine flu pandemic, which has still not officially ended, was very well-managed.

Many people claim that it was hyped out of all proportion, perhaps by the pharmaceutical companies wanting to up their sales, but that is just not a watertight argument.

Influenza mutates and migrates, and swine flu is still a risk for this winter, which is why the swine flu vaccine will apparently be given with the normal winter flu jab that vulnerable and elderly people receive :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8012092/Swine-flu-vaccine-to-be-included-in-winter-flu-jab.html

Why is this being done ? Have a look at how the virus is still prevalent – apparently, according to some sources, holding a stronghold position in recently flood-destroyed Pakistan, from where it could explode on the world stage again :-

http://gamapserver.who.int/mapLibrary/Files/Maps/Global_influenzapositive_FluTransmissionZones_week36.png

I consider Michael Ruppert to be a self-serving “Free Speech” fantasist who has jumped on the Peak Oil bandwagon, and creating problems of access to this subject area by being so conspiracist.

I have read quite a few reports on fossil fuel resources and there is considerable cause for concern in my view, as to the continued ability of energy engineers to continue to be able to safely and cheaply produce oil and gas, and even coal.

Ruppert is just getting in the way of the public finding out what is going on. Is he creating a diversion on purpose ? Just whose stooge could he be ? I’d recommend everyone to avoid him and go read the university research reports on Peak Copper, Peak Phosphorus, Peak Petroleum, Peak Uranium and Peak Coal.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/britain-must-adapt-to-inevitable-climate-change-warns-minister-2077175.html

“Britain must adapt to ‘inevitable’ climate change, warns minister : As experts call for action now, the coalition withholds green funding and appeals to private enterprise : By Matt Chorley and Jonathan Owen : Sunday, 12 September 2010 : Britons must radically change the way they live and work to adapt to being “stuck with unavoidable climate change” the Government will caution this week, as it unveils a dramatic vision of how society will be altered by floods, droughts and rising temperatures. The coalition will signal a major switch towards adapting to the impact of existing climate change, away from Labour’s heavy emphasis on cutting carbon emissions to reverse global temperature rises. Caroline Spelman, the Tory Secretary of State for the Environment, will use her first major speech on climate change since taking office to admit that the inevitable severe weather conditions will present a “survival-of-the- fittest scenario”, with only those who have planned ahead able to thrive. Adapting to climate change will be “at the heart of our agenda”, she is expected to say…”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7997668/Climate-change-is-inevitable-says-Caroline-Spelman.html

“Climate change is inevitable, says Caroline Spelman : Britain can no longer stop global warming and must instead focus on adapting to the ‘inevitable’ impacts of climate change such as floods, droughts and rising sea levels, Government ministers will warn this week. : By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent : Published : 13 Sep 2010 : For the past few years Government policy has concentrated on trying to make people turn off lights and grow their own vegetables in an effort to bring down carbon emissions. But as global greenhouse gases continue to increase, with the growth of developing countries like China and India, and the public purse tightens, the focus will increasingly be on adapting to climate change. The Government will set out plans to protect power stations from flooding and ensure hospitals can cope with water shortages during dry summers….”

Ignore the “blame Chindia” stuff – and think about what it means for the UK and other already developed nations.

It’s probably an admission that the global recession will bar any serious public spending on mitigating Carbon Dioxide emissions.

In the UK, the policy known as “Voluntary Behaviour Change” has been cajoling us politely, invitingly and advertisingly in bright colours to happily and cheerfully cut our Energy use, switch off, switch bulbs, ride life-threatening bicycles (no, no, it’s the cars that threaten life).

Have we cut our national emissions ? No, not really. We’ve just exported them to China :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11172239

“3 September 2010 : Openness urged on UK’s emissions : By Roger Harrabin : Environment analyst, BBC News : The UK government’s chief environment scientist has called for more openness in admitting Britain’s apparent cuts in greenhouse gases are an illusion. Robert Watson says that if emissions “embedded” in imported goods are counted, UK emissions are up, not down. He says the same syndrome is true for other rich nations which offshored manufacturing industry. That means developing countries – particularly China – are blamed for goods they buy for export to the West…”

So asking people to change on a voluntary basis hasn’t worked, and central government action is too expensive, particularly for a “conservative” government facing up to a huge public debt, because naturally it was essential to bail out the toppling banks at the public expense, rather than sort out a new green economy.

It’s as if the Conservative-Liberal-Democrat coalition is shrugging its shoulders and saying “nobody wants coercion and nobody wants to change voluntarily, especially not the Fossil Fuel companies because everybody’s pension is with them, so you’ll all have to fend for yourselves, I’m afraid”.

Cleft stick time, ladies and gentlepersons.

The Confederation of British Industries is already moaning :-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/cbi-calls-for-state-help-on-climate-data-2077714.html

“CBI calls for state help on climate data : By Sarah Arnott : Monday, 13 September 2010 : The Government must make climate-change predictions more business-friendly to help companies to plan ahead for environmental factors such as extreme weather, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) will say today. The CBI’s “Whatever the Weather” report, to be published this morning, says that although the Government has detailed data on the potential impact of climate change on the UK – thanks to the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and the UK Climate Impacts Programme – the information is not in a format accessible to non-specialists. Yet with annual flood damage alone estimated to come in at as much as £22bn every year by 2020, all organisations need to be better prepared for future risks, the business group believes.”

Note : no doubt has been expressed as to whether Climate Change is happening or not, not even by the CBI.

Well, if the policy is now officially “Providence helps those who help themselves”, I think we should all be asking for more clarification on whether we should be thinking about selling up before the floods and storms become too expensive, or the local water supply dries up, or the local roads and railways at the coast become impassable.

Mr Average Middle-Aged Joe Public should be entitled to ask the question “What is my house still worth ?” and get a reply. Fortunately, nobody under the age of 30 will ever be able to purchase property or pay into a rock-solid pension, so their views don’t count (irony alert), but the rest of the voters deserve some better information.

Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway recommend that grassroots Internet writers focus on Climate Change Policy, in this Climate Science Watch interview shot at Netroots Nation 2010.

The subject of government policies to deal with Climate Change borders on the excessively dull – which is why most Internet web loggers (or “bloggers”) don’t want to touch Policy even with a full HazMat suit on.

It’s the kiss-of-interest-death to try to open up discussions on Carbon Taxation, Cap-and-Trade, Cap-and-Share, Cap-and-Dividend, Cap-and-Giveaway, Contraction & Convergence, Kyoto2, Border Tax Adjustments, Clean Development credits, Carbon Intensity and the like.

Only really seriously geeky, mildly obsessive people really want to think about the Big Picture. And many of us get stuck in a corner of unworkable aspiration, where we know something has to change, we fix on just a snippet of the giant problem, and then we find we cannot communicate it well enough for others to understand.

For example – very public insistence that the Coal-burning power generation industry has got to cease trading doesn’t make it happen, despite excellent reasoning and even entire Climate Camps of resistance and protest amongst the activist community.

This is probably because (a) most people don’t understand how banning Coal fits into the bigger Carbon picture, (b) most people don’t know how to go about asking the right people to ban Coal and (c) most of the Coal-burning industry don’t want people to look into their business too deeply so they have invested lots of money in public attitude smokescreens. No, it’s not a “conspiracy”. It’s a documented public relations exercise. Just ask Naomi and Erik.

The majority of people are unaware of the compromises being made in their name every day – from the high Carbon fuels used to make their electricity, to the highly-subsidised rotten old gunk that they burn to move their overweight cars around with.

More to the point, the majority of people don’t even care about the energy waste and Greenhouse Gas emissions of their lifestyle arrangements.

And why should they ?

Most Policy seeks to pose the question : should there be a deliberate financing of the Low Carbon Transition ?

But why would ordinary taxpayers be prepared to fork out extra to pay for greening up the power sector ?

Why should people have to pay more for Low Carbon food, clothing, technical gadgets and low impact chemicals ?

The only time most people feel the affects of Policy is when they find that the cost of things changes. And so that’s the only time they care about it.

So, while people accept, on the whole, that we, as a society, should reduce our Carbon Dioxide emissions, they’re not ready to think about what needs to happen to make that happen, and they probably aren’t going to like it, even if they do.

Investing in the Low Carbon Transition effectively means putting wealth creation on hold for a few years, while the whole Economy invests in Low Carbon Energy, energy efficiency, Low Carbon building renovations and changing a whole raft of chemical processes, agricultural practice and transportation systems for freight and passengers.

A recession is a great time to start implementing the Low Carbon Transition – people will barely notice the altered financial framework – the jam will come a couple of years later than expected, but it will be worth it in the long run.

The Low Carbon Transition is all about thinking for the long-term, making genuine investments, now, for long-term decarbonisation. And this investment will bring significant returns. That’s why the Big Boys (and Girls) are investing in wind farms.

Short-term concerns about tax payments and returns on savings will always trump the Low Carbon Transition in the minds of the ordinary person, even though the Big Players know where their future bread will be buttered.

Any Climate Change Policy that bumps up the prices of goods, power, fuel and services for the ordinary citizen won’t be acceptable – so that rules out Carbon Taxation, Cap-and-Trade…in fact most policy wonk proposals.

Most people aren’t interested in Policy, that’s why most Climate Change bloggers don’t talk about it. Most recommendations for Policy from the Economists make them look like eggheads or airheads, or just fantasists. Naomi and Erik call it “magical thinking”.

The average response from the cabbie in the street is “Just tell us how much it’s going to cost us, will you ?”

I talk about Policy because it’s important to rule out those schemes that are simply unworkable, inoperable, unfair or unethical.

Some Climate Change Scientists are becoming “activist” in their outlook, and have started daring to recommend Policies.

But do Climate Change Scientists, or even government people, really understand the limits and liabilities of modern Economics in handling the Low Carbon Transition ?

Here is James Hansen’s latest communication, wherein he recommends a “carbon fee”. I have the highest respect for Jim. He is a plainspeaker, a truly ethical fellow, smart, brave and a great researcher. However, I cannot see how this proposal could work. My most important first question is : exactly how does he think that people could be made to agree to it ?

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100730_Norway.pdf

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

PLEASE IGNORE THE ADVERTISEMENT AT THE START OF THIS VIDEO. Video Credit : The Guardian

It’s great to see David Mitchell tucking into a big bite of the “Voluntary Behaviour Change” posse’s pie.

Let’s be honest : nobody wants to stop consuming and burning, but we’re going to have to if the Big Energy companies don’t change the way they provide us with power and fuel.

Yes, guilt is so old-fashioned. You can’t tell the public to change their consumption behaviour, trying to make them feel personally responsible for Climate Change, whilst still providing them with environmentally damaging products.

All electricity should be Renewable, all heating systems Carbon-neutral, all manufactured products Low Carbon.

Until that day, governments will continue to hire Public Relations consultants to convince the public to make different choices, and continue to fail to make any converts.

Image Credit : The Climate Change Committee

The Economic Recession has had a clear impact on the rate of British Carbon Dioxide Emissions.

However, peoples’ individual behaviour change has not been an additional factor :-

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=13675

Hat tip goes to Paul Mobbs for his note :-

“Have a look at Chapter 11/Chapter 12 for some eco-gems — e.g. “Domestic energy consumption for lighting and electrical appliances in the UK between 1970 and 2007 increased by 155 per cent…”Between 1989–91 and 2008, the proportion of children in Great Britain of
primary school age travelling to school by car rose steadily, from 27 per cent to 43 per cent…”

Asking people to curb their energy enthusiasm simply isn’t working.

Concern over the Economy is going to trump green thinking :-

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport-environment/cash-not-climate-change-is-altering-driver-behaviour-1.1039078

“Cash, not climate change, is altering driver behaviour : Exclusive by Damien Henderson, transport correspondent : 4 Jul 2010 : Motorists have turned their backs on concerns about climate change thanks to the recession’s grip on Britain, a survey has found. An RAC poll found that the environment had slipped down the list of priorities over the last year while saving money on petrol bills had gained importance. The survey suggests the UK and Holyrood governments now face an uphill task persuading drivers to cut their carbon emissions. The results make for gloomy reading among policy-makers as transport accounts for around a quarter of the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions and is one of the few sectors where emissions are set to increase. Most worrying is the proportion of motorists who feel that their actions have little impact on the environment – about a third of those polled said they would drive regardless of the environmental impact, while an equal proportion believed either nothing they did would make a difference or were not sure if it would make a difference. The RAC said this was influencing people’s willingness to cut their carbon emissions or consider buying electric or other low-pollution vehicles…”

However, there may be a silver lining (irony alert) in this cloud. As Paul Mobbs points out :-

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=13675

“Also see Chapter 5 — the rich are still richer even though everyone else on average got poorer.”

And that means that as poverty rises, energy use will necessarily fall. Brilliant ! What a social engineering solution to the Greenhouse problem (tongue firmly in cheek) – keep everyone poor and they can’t burn fuel.

The problem with the British population and the distribution of energy use is that the rich emit more than the poor. The problem of emissions lies significantly in the unconstrained habits of the wealthy, and businesses, not the decisions of the ordinary woman.

But over and above that, the key cause of British Carbon Dioxide emissions is not actually the behaviour of individual citizens, but the Energy companies who resist de-Carbonising the supply of power and fuel.

Well-meaning government and charity campaigns to urge the people to drive, fly, consume less have very little impact. What’s needed is an evolution of responsibility in the production and distribution of energy supplies.

Image Credit : Gilbert & George, “Nettle Dance”, White Cube

I’m in the Climate Union. Are You ?

Soon we could all be, if the expansionist plans of a group of social campaigners come to fruition.

Taking in the unions, faith communities and the usual rag-tag bunch of issues activists, the Climate Union aims to establish itself as a political force for Low Carbon.

First of all, however, it has to tackle the uneasy and prickly problem of the exact name of the movement, and the principles under which it will operate.

The flag has been flown : a set of principles has been circulated for discussion amongst the “Climate Forum”. I cannot show you the finalised document yet, but I can offer you my comments (see below).

If you want to comment on the development of this emerging entity, please contact : Peter Robinson, Campaign against Climate Change, mobile/cell telephone in the UK : 07876595993.

Comments on the Climate Forum Principles
Jo Abbess
28 June 2010

I am aware that my comments are going to be a little challenging. I made similar comments during the review of the ClimateSafety briefing, which were highly criticised.

I expect you to be negative in response to what I say, but I think it is necessary to make sure the Climate Forum does not become watered-down, sectorally imprisoned and politically neutered, like so many other campaigns.

Comments on paragraph :-
“While there is an increasing awareness of the climate science, many governments are in practice opposed to implementing radical measure[s] to combat climate change [largely] because…such measures would appear to be in conflict with the interests of business, but also because they are uncertain if they would carry the majority of the public with them. The problem is that those in power do not necessarily have the will to bring about the legislation and the required actions.”

I would contest the assumption that “governments are in practice opposed to implementing radical measure[s]“.

My reasons are that I think that the reality of the situation is that governments are a little bit like mushrooms – kept in the dark and fed rotten sewage.

Although the governments do have access to the best Scientific information about Climate Change, they don’t always absorb it. On the other hand, they often do not have access to the best Economic information.

Governments often listen to some of the best Scientific information, and invest trust in the Scientific institutions. However, they have both a demon and an angel on their shoulder when it comes to Economic information.

The European Union is a classic example, of attempting to mesh together the best of Socialism and the worst of Neoliberalism. There are agents of Capitalism whispering into the ears of the inner circle policymakers the whole time, as evidenced by the work of such organisations as the Corporate Europe Observatory.

In the United Kingdom, when the “Recession”, sorry “Downturn” hit, Keynes and his pluralism was resurrected, but he has now been slain once more by the “Emergency Cuts Budget”.

The fight in Government is not over the Science. The anti-science crowd have picked off a few Members of Parliament with their vulture media tactics, but most MPs are on the ball as regards the Science of Climate Change, as are most of the Government Civil Services and Departments.

The synaptic gap is in translating that knowledge into effective Economic Policy, in my view. Pricing Carbon is not the solution, and even if it has an impact, it will not be a very large part of the solution. Public Finance for such things as Carbon Capture and Storage and New Nuclear will not achieve much – they are classic money pits schemes (or “boondoggle”, another American expression).

I think that the emphasis should be on educating the Government about the need to totally reform the Energy systems, the sourcing of Energy, and the use of Energy.

The reason why I think this is important can be seen in the approach taken to tobacco control. Since there was an enormous amount of money, both public and private, invested in the tobacco industry, it was not politically possible to close down the corporations that produced cigarettes.

Yet a total ban on cigarette smoking was indicated as necessary to the maintenance of public health.

Instead of shutting down the industry, the European governments began a two-pronged campaign, to outlaw smoking in various environments, and also to educate people.

After about 10 years, the tobacco industry saw the way things were going and went off to kill teenagers in China instead, in pursuit of the profit they continue to owe their shareholders.

I don’t think we have 10 years to effect a proper Climate Policy, and we certainly cannot continue to outsource Carbon Dioxide emissions to China through globalisation.

We need something more radical. For example, I suggest that we should call for a ban on the use of Coal to generate Electricity.

The other strand of the current situation is what the public appear to think when they answer opinion polls. Firstly, and importantly, their views don’t actually count towards setting Policy, as the Government is responsible to enact the Climate Change Act, not follow the whims of anti-wind farm lobby groups, pro-Carbon and anti-tax groups (for example).

Climate Change is not an issue about which people are entitled to vote. The cross-party imperative for Policy action is there, regardless of what Nigel Lawson, Christopher Booker, Steve McIntyre and James Delingpole think.

The Government has a mandate from the Climate Change Science, not from the people. However, it would be helpful if the people were more educated about the Science, and I would urge that the Climate Forum addresses directly the anti-science problems in the Media, where most people get their beliefs from.

Also, if would be helpful if the public could be asked to rally behind a basket of sensible, inclusive Policy measures – not taxation – but targeted spending and selective subsidies.

This is where the “One Million Green Jobs” initiative from the Campaign against Climate Change and the unions is so pertinent. A common, progressive agenda would help public debates to have better cohesion and less acrimony.

As for the phrase, “uncertain if they would carry the majority of the public with them”, I don’t believe that the public need to be encouraged to give the Government a “mandate”.

I believe it is naive, foolish and a waste of time and personal energy to suggest that the public need to be rallied to give the Government “a message”.

The Government already have the necessary information to act. What is needed is a general education of both Government and public about what is likely to work in terms of Social and Economic “engineering”.

It’s not about “voluntary behaviour change”. The Act on CO2 campaign asked everyone to drive 5 miles less a week. But over 50% of the population of driving age don’t have access to a car.

Public guilt-tripping is not only irrelevant, it’s unproductive. People who care are already doing the 10:10 initiative, or gave up flying and most home heating years ago.

People who know the problems and have decided to take personal action have already started their journey. The travel that needs to happen is in the field of those who provide us with our energy and fuel.

There has to be a new understanding that the Energy corporates must change – that BP, for example, must turn its production to Renewables or face corporate extinction.

There has to be massive disinvestment away from Carbon Energy and investment into Renewable Energy.

That can start with each one of us expressing a consumer “preference” in the way that we use our money, but it has to be carried higher and wider, with such activities of those of FairPensions.

In the end, it’s not the way we are taxed, but the way the whole Society uses money that determines our survival.

The Church of England, for example, has recently reported that their Commissioners have made a handsome profit on their investments. Which companies are in the top 20 shares held ? BP is one of those companies.

Yet the Church of England, in their Fifth Mark of Mission, say they want “To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth”. They can’t do that if they continue to invest in BP.

It is this kind of dilemma that needs to be addressed, not the debate about whether it is more energy efficient to use paper towels or hand dryers in public toilets.

If all the energy supplied to our homes and all the energy used in our transport systems were green, then it would not matter if we left the porch light on overnight by mistake.

There has to be a major shift in campaigning perception in my view. The energy system itself needs to be overhauled, not public opinion.

And anyway, what counts in Government is not public opinion, but the usual tendency of political views to be compromised by whichever business lobby is in the ascendance.

If the Government could be encouraged to make a clear statement about complete energy transition, a step far, far beyond the work of the Low Carbon Transition plan set out last year, then the tipping point might be near at hand.

It’s true that tackling the belief system of the Government would be helped by seeding the right ideas into the “Twittering classes”, who are strongly networked to the Government, but the major thrust of the Climate Forum surely has to be Government-facing, not public-facing.

I don’t want the Climate Forum to be a Government stooge. I don’t want the Climate Forum to end up as an outsourced public relations exercise – the Government have been using the NGOs to propagandise their plans for years. Gordon Brown and his Office were famously behind the Make Poverty History campaign from its inception.

I’m not against the whole concept of Government. In fact, I think organised government is the only way forward out of the Carbon mess. However, I think the Climate Forum needs to pitch itself as being opposed to lax regulation and weak thinking in Government, more than simply being a Social tool for change.

Reply from Ruth :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

“Jo, really interesting stuff – thank you. I can’t quite see how the Climate Forum could be “government-facing”, with any clout without a huge supporter base, demonstrated by ralleys, lobbying post cards etc?”

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Reply to Ruth :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Hi Ruth,

The current “campaign” mechanism has its focus on what individuals should be doing. The central theory is about how to change the behaviour of citizens and consumers. Even the 10:10 campaign is a glorified “Are you doing your bit ?”, “Lights Off” or “Save It” campaign.

When campaigns want people to act politically, the message is all about how the people have to mobilise, the people have to carry placards, write postcards, write to their MP, lobby Parliament, e-mail the media. The people have to take all this action. And for what ? To get our million man marches ignored by the political elite, or our petitions fobbed off by the Secretary of State.

Taking the message to Government doesn’t need to be backed up by getting 2 million people on the streets. In fact, in 2003 we managed to get 2 million people on the streets against the scheduled assault on Iraq. Did it make any difference ? No. Because the Government are not obliged to listen to “campaigners” and “protesters”, or act on what they demand.

The Government has to be analysed and critiqued within its own walls, using its own language, deploying its own policies. What level of authority do we need to accumulate to make a real difference ? Do we need maximum “bums on seats” in a campaign, or maximum political crowbars ?

Christian Aid and Oxfam love postcard campaigns. It means the paid staff need to do little work to respond to peoples’ concerns. Worried about Climate Change ? Fill in one of our postcards, then. I have heard an Oxfam campaigns worker recently say that much of their campaigns activity is “outsourced” to local activists, implying that it gave people something to do, even though it was ineffective.

Not cynical, just observant.

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Reply from Tony :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Dear Jo

Could you suggest a specific rewording of that paragraph that you referred to (and any others) based on your considered arguments? That is what Peter and Ann are looking for.

…

Regards

Tony

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Reply to Tony :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Dear Tony,

Thanks for asking for my wording.

What I was trying to explain in my comments is that I disagree pretty fundamentally with some of the theories the principles document is based on.

My comments are therefore in relation to the whole document.

My re-wording would take in an entire re-write of the document to place emphasis on effective political engagement with all those who have genuine decision-making authority, particularly and especially in regard to the energy companies.

Those mostly private organisations that provide us with energy and fuel need to be changing their behaviour, not our neighbours in our streets.

Those citizens who care are already committed. We don’t need another “campaign”. We need a networked research and response unit, continuously analysing the state of play in policy and corporate activities and feeding this back to everyone involved in a common, plain language.

I think that the focus of the Climate Forum should be holding the government and corporations genuinely and concretely accountable. And that is not going to be done by the normal “campaign” methods.

I have no idea whether other people feel the same way, so I don’t know if it’s worth trying to put in the energy to do another re-write of the document now, myself.

All I know is, if views like mine are not taken into consideration, then the membership of the movement risks being confined to “the usual suspects”.

Peter and Ann are looking for a re-wording of some of the paragraphs. Unfortunately, I question the whole of the document and the theories on which is is based.

If we want the same-old same-old piecemeal campaigning, then by all means, go ahead on the basis of the social theory that you need to “mobilise” people in order to have political change.

If you want a really different kind of organisation, with urgency and scope, you need a really different kind of movement tool.

Regards,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

The Price of Carbon

by Jo Abbess
20 April 2010

1.   Introduction

Policy strategy for controlling risky excess atmospheric greenhouse gas (Gowdy, 2008, Sect. 4; McKibben, 2007, Ch. 1, pp. 19-20; Solomon et al., 2009; Tickell, 2008, Ch. 6, pp. 205-208) mostly derives from the notion that carbon dioxide emissions should be charged for, in order to prevent future emissions; similar to treatment for environmental pollutants (Giddens, 2009, Ch. 6, pp. 149-155; Gore, 2009, Ch. 15 “The True Cost of Carbon”; Pigou, 1932; Tickell, 2008, Ch.4, Box 4.1, pp. 112-116). Underscoring this idea is the evidence that fines, taxes and fees modify behaviour, reigning in the marginal social cost of “externalities” through financial disincentive (Baumol, 1972; Sandmo, 2009; Tol, 2008). However this approach may not enable the high-value, long-term investment required for decarbonisation, which needs adjustments to the economy at scale (CAT, 2010; Hepburn and Stern, 2008, pp. 39-40, Sect. (ii) “The Consequences of Non-marginality”; MacKay, 2008, Ch. 19; Tickell, 2008, Ch. 2, pp. 40-41). Economists propose that protection of the commons of the skies should be achieved by creating monetary value out of atmospheric property rights (Tickell, 2008, Ch. 3). The basic choice is between privatising the air, allowing economically efficient competition between wealthy credit buyers; or making emissions a human right to be shared, via permits, distributed and sanctioned by central authorities; although recent designs are effectively hybrid (Dessler and Parson, 2010, pp. 184-185; Hepburn, 2009b; Laing and Grubb, 2010; Marshall, 2008, Ch. 2 pp. 35-39; Stavins, 2008, p. 217, Sect. (ii) “Carbon Taxes”; Stern, 2009, pp. 100-111). Rather than being dispersed back into the economy as compensation for climate damages and carbon rents (Cap and Share, n.d., Cap and Dividend n.d., Hallegatte et al, 2010), the resulting corporate profits or tax revenue should be “hypothecated”, recycled into carbon dioxide emissions reductions; through energy efficiency, demand control, fuel switching and infrastructure asset transition, taking energy and transport into their low carbon future (Tickell, 2008, p. 16 “Box 0.2 In a nutshell”). It seems like a tried-and-tested approach to a “sticky” ecological problem (Beamish, 2002, Ch. 2, pp. 42-45; Walsh, 2009; Whiteside, 2006, Ch. 2 “Debating Precaution”, pp. 32-33), yet so far it does not appear to be reaching its goals (Williams, 2010). It is clear we need to respect the climate sensitivity indicated by the best scientific research, by adopting some form of quota arrangement, but will pricing emissions enforce this ?

2.   An all-too-normal waste gas

Trading under a cap of permitted allowances has been useful in addressing both the problems of acid rain and the ozone layer hole (Meadows et al, 2005, Ch. 5), by creating markets in real emissions reductions. It could be argued that a system of regulation, taxation and targeted purchase would have seen greater financial efficiency in implementing the Sulphur Emissions Reduction and Montreal Protocols; but both the sulphur dioxide and the CFC emissions problems have been clearly tractable with commoditised operations (UNEP, 2007). These problems were confined to niche markets of “point source emitters”, and coupled with the easy substitution of the problem chemistry, that was clearly helpful in generating good outcomes (Ahmed, 1995). By contrast, carbon dioxide is very widespread throughout the economy, with many point sources (Tickell, 2008, Ch. 4, pp. 90-91), and substitution is costly, as it entails sweeping changes in infrastructure and machinery plant in all sectors, including manufacturing, transport, buildings and energy (Monbiot, 2007). Solving this transformation equation obviously requires financial flows, and since many emissions come from corporations, private capital, in addition to public revenue, needs to be stimulated to launch new investment (Durning, 2009; nef, 2009). The polluter should pay, or at least feel the threat of a pinch (Reuters, 2009a). Plus, there needs to be a unified global position taken, so that social and industrial inertia against carbon reductions do not compromise progress (Marshall, 2008, pp. 81-82).

3.   The trading floor opens

Carbon is endemic, and trading promises good returns (Macalister, 2009). The inter-regional and transnational trading of unused carbon quota permits and project-created credits has commenced, with the long view being to link all these markets together (Hepburn. 2009b, p. 384; Stern, 2009, p. 111). Using a market construct, there is no reason to assume that a negatively valued, virtual commodity should have a high price (Tol, 2005 cited in Barker, 2008a, p. 6; Tol, 2007 cited in Barker, 2008a, p. 7). Furthermore, the unknown price curve leads to uncertainty about programmes to remove carbon from processes and machinery by new investment. Too low a price and only the “low-hanging fruit” will be plucked, and the higher fruit will become unreachable. Yet targets based on the science indicate the total decarbonisation of the economy will be required in a clear timeframe. Can a market in carbon, on its own, be sure to drive this ? As evidence to the contrary, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) has a market to drive a defined ratchet downwards for the overall carbon cap, but it also has a variety of innovative schemes, subsidies and measures in place all over the economic region. The drive for the decarbonisation of the supply of energy appears to be coming from European Union Directives and regional targets, rather than the emissions trading market.

In addition, there are a number of flaws with the trading element of the European approach. The “grandfathering” of the assumed right to emit, based on historical behaviour of high carbon emitters, is a massive market distortion in the EU ETS; as is the initial zero charge for these granted rights, a “windfall”, as prices have risen in anticipation of future permit costs (Feasta, 2007; Tickell, 2008, Ch. 2, p. 49). Carbon-intensive sectors are continuing to lobby for this “dispensation” (Brady, 2009), even after carbon allowance permits become auctioned in 2013. Furthermore, the National Allocation Plans were too high, and the cap has been set too loosely; an effect only aggravated by the global economic recession (Sandbag, 2010). As a result, the price of carbon has remained predictably poor (Houghton, 2009, Ch. 10 “A strategy for action to slow and stabilise climate change”, p. 299 “Carbon trading”).

4.   The slow growth in the creation of new carbon credits

Despite the media attention paid to carousel fraud, cloning and illegal recycling of carbon credits (Commodities Now, 2010; Europol, 2009; Morison, 2010; Reuters, 2010), the biggest issue remains the risk that carbon markets will not materialise in volume (Rahman et al., 2010). Critics of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), and the emissions trading elements of the UK’s Climate Change Committee carbon budgets, berate the large proportion of the emissions reductions set to come from “project offsets”, created from “hot air” in Eurasia (den Elzen et al., 2009), the Kyoto Protocol’s “flexible mechanism” of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) worldwide, and Joint Implementation (JI) credits from inside the European Union (Bullock et al., 2009, p. 18, Sect. 4.4; Reyes, 2009). The European Union offered to increase carbon dioxide emissions reductions under any Copenhagen Treaty from 20% by 2020 to 30%. The implication is that the “Effort Sharing Decision” difference would be made up from market offsets that would have become available from the reformed CDM “sectoral” carbon markets enshrined in the treaty (Gilbertson and Reyes, 2009, Ch. 3, pp. 45-46, Ch. 5, p. 91; Hepburn, 2009a, pp. 420-426; Hepburn and Stern, 2008, pp. 51-53).

The CDM provided about 0.4 gigatonnes carbon dioxide equivalent of Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) in 2008 (Hepburn, 2009a; World Bank, 2009), and there is still a pipeline of projects waiting to be accredited. Research on the growth in unchecked emissions (Garnaut et al., 2008) shows that roughly 13 gigatonnes of offsets/reductions from Business As Usual (BAU) will be required by 2012 to meet the timeline of international targets (see Appendix); and CDM remains the central policy to contribute somewhere between 5 and 10 gigatonnes of that, each year by 2020 (Hepburn, 2009a). However, as of March 2010, the UNEP Risoe Capacity Development for CDM projections are that only just over 1 gigatonne of CERs will be available by the end of 2012 (UNEP Risoe, 2010), although the World Bank projects 1.5 gigatonnes (World Bank, 2010, Ch. 6, Table 6.3).

5.   Addressing existing carbon emissions liabilities

Embedded in the supply chain of virtually all the products consumed in the industrialised world, carbon dioxide is perhaps too pervasive to be susceptible to a market or a tax. Overall, production has not been de-coupled from carbon intensity in the global economy; which is continuing to grow, as are emissions (Jackson, 2009, Ch. 5, “The Myth of Decoupling”, pp. 68-76). In fact, carbon dioxide emissions are a direct result of most wealth-creation activities (CAIT, 2000), so it could be said that carbon dioxide emissions underpin the value of money. If so, how can money be used to control carbon dioxide, without de-valuing itself, thereby losing its power to control ? The carriage cannot pull the locomotive.

Eventually we may come to accept that monetising carbon will not, by itself, disincentivise breaching the “integrity of the atmosphere” (Wagner, 2009, pp. 392-394). Attempting to create a financial incentive to decarbonise has so far resulted in moves to outsource obligation from those carbon-intensive to those carbon-light or carbon-nascent. This globalisation of emissions reductions obscures the need for major change in industrialised infrastructure, essential to meet the long-term goals for global emissions control. Without massive upheaval, some industrial sectors will remain carbon-intensive, despite improved waste management and “skimming” intensity reductions (Barrett, 2009, pp. 73-75; Jackson, 2009, Ch. 5, pp. 75-82; Tickell, 2008, Ch. 5 “Non-market solutions” pp. 157-167). Until low carbon technology is more widespread, more growth means more energy use, as a rule, and more energy use means more carbon emissions. Industrialised-world carbon emissions are locked-in, and economic growth remains in lock-step with emissions (Fischer and Preonas, 2010; Jackson, 2009, Ch. 5; Meyer, 2004, p. 5, Sect. 4), as evidenced by the UK’s minor drop in emissions during the ongoing recession (Adam, 2010). The current carbon market is intended to simulate a downward trend in industrialised-world consumption, “offsetting” by stimulating decarbonisation in developing countries. If this is not sufficient, or sufficiently fast-acting (Meadows et al., 2005, Ch. 6, pp. 222-234), to implement staged carbon caps, it may be necessary to ration energy in the industrialised world (Challen, 2009, pp. 186-187; EAC, 2008; Fleming, 2007; Giddens, 2009, pp. 155-158; Hillman, 2004, pp. 126-145). Energy rationing would mostly affect such sectors as power production, transport, petrochemicals, metals and construction. Any cap on industrialised-world consumption and production would entail an economic contraction, that would affect rates of consumption and production in the developing world as a side effect, creating economic degrowth there too, likely obviating the need for the current carbon market.

6.   Carbon property rights & responsibilities

In some respects, a carbon cap and a market at the downstream, consumption end of the economy is not addressing the real underlying problem – the reliance on fossil fuels at the upstream, production end of the energy supply chain. It is unrealistic to think that the ordinary European or American householder will be able to reduce their personal carbon consumption by 50% to 85% if the energy resources they are provided with are still all fossil fuel-based (IPCC, 2007b; Mandelson, 2009, p. 90). In the mid- to long-term almost total decarbonisation of the energy supply must be effected (Jackson, 2009, Ch. 5, pp. 82-86). The recent admission amongst mainstream economists that this problem is substantial suggests that marginal charging will not make structural change happen (Barker, 2008a, p. 10). It is difficult to see how economists can continue to propose equilibrium mechanics, under a marginal corrective perturbation in financing (Wickens, 2008, Ch. 2), to a system that will have to undergo significant transition.

7.   Marketising enhanced deliberative expenditure

The evidence is that up until now, despite the bailout of the financial systems, capital has not been liberally freed to create the new low carbon energy infrastructure, fuel production and generation plant; investment that should have happened in response to the carbon price signal. Most policy treatments now propose significant public money to fill yawning investment and research gaps (Crooks E., 2010; Dessler and Parson, 2010, p. 185; Healing, 2010; Hudson, 2010; Maher, 2010; Tankersley and Muskal, 2010). Some argue that certain sectors of the economy were always going to need public money and private capital to boost them over the research, development and investment hurdles, and that the carbon market was never intended to cover everything (IEA, 2008). There are others who argue that everything should be incorporated into the carbon market, especially expensive novelties such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and new Nuclear Power (Marshall, 2008, p. 119) – for this reason it is proposed to add CCS to the CDM (Hepburn and Stern, 2008, p. 53). This could share the cost burden, but reveals that some emissions control takes significantly more money than others, because it involves high levels of new investment, some as “sunk costs”. This leads to the question of whether there is a workable carbon price that can emerge; as “…a result of discontinuities and path dependence… there is no longer a unique solution for the equilibrium carbon tax” (Barker, 2008a). With CCS and new Nuclear in CDM, less costly decarbonisation efforts would be done at a higher market price, which would be financially inefficient. End consumers facing carbon charging under a full global carbon market that includes rich world carbon credit-makers will experience this across the spectrum of domestic spending – energy, fuel, retail, food and water. Carbon charges could thus be a general economic depressant, or even cause general inflation (Barker, 2008b), thus negating the relative disincentive of the initial charge. After a period of adjustment, energy and fuel consumption could no longer be elastic to carbon charging, and the overall cap on emissions will become impossible to push downwards. Charging would not enforce the deeper stages of a carbon cap. And without enforcing the deeper caps, the carbon price would become ineffectually low.

8.   The one true price

If the market cannot reveal a useful or stable carbon price, that could mean a shifting aggregate price over different parts of the investment lifecycle, or even over the cycle of carbon permit auctions, leading to great uncertainty about the future costs in large parts of the economy (Dessler and Parson, 2010, pp. 169-170). CDM sectoral benchmarking and CER discounting could smooth price discrimination (Hepburn, 2009a), but the global carbon price is likely to remain inherently volatile, and risk long-term financing decisions. Indeed it is possible that carbon prices might never rise high enough to effect significant “behaviour change” (Gowdy, 2008). Research has shown a Marginal Abatement Cost curve indicating that a good proportion of carbon neutralisation can take place at low cost, or even be cost-negative (McKinsey, 2009). If economy-wide decisions were taken by nations, such as mass building retrofits for insulation, this would undercut the market carbon price. It can be argued that this is a good thing, making unavoidable carbon emissions reasonably charged. However, this could undermine the ability of firms to justify de-carbonising “heavy” industry, particularly power generation. Yet, since it is cheap to insulate homes and optimise the use of heating, lighting and transportation on such a wide scale, these are the options that are likely to be chosen by economy-stricken administrations (Bowen and Stern, 2010; DECC, 2010; State of Texas, n.d.).

9.   Carbon markets, born free, are everywhere in (supply) chains

Economists argue that the true price of carbon should be revealed by the market; that a market framework, in a context of free trade, will have the best possible information (Grossman and Stiglitz, 1980), and the competitive effect will deliver the optimal, aggregate price, especially in a regime of scarcity. Yet, existing markets in carbon, particularly in fossil fuel energy, are not generally open to new entrants, are highly regulated, and the dependency on carbon energy by all other parts of the economy creates barriers to competition. Electricity, for example, within most industrialised countries operates as a virtual monopoly (Patterson, 2007, Ch. 6, p. 74), or at best, a wealth-creation cartel, enjoying the unenviable position of being an obvious target for government “rent-seeking behaviour”. And since energy has been comparatively cheap in developed countries, the will to adopt conservation measures has been lax. The question has been asked many times, energy efficiency and conservation are such an cheap win, why haven’t they already been done ? (DeLong, 2009; Gayer, 2009; Roberts, 2009; Roberts, 2010) One of the answers is asset “lock-in”, whereby plant and other infrastructure with long lifecycles cannot easily become low carbon. Another of the answers is that carbon energy is effectively highly subsidised (Biello, 2009; Tickell, 2008, pp. 162-163). This means we are currently not paying the correct price for the carbon embedded in that energy; and thus, even when superimposing an environmental price for carbon via a market, or extracting an extra levy, we will still not pay to internalise the full cost of carbon dioxide damage to the environment. Besides which, the decarbonisation signal may well get lost entirely, swamped by wild variations in the commodities and energy supply markets (Helm, 2009, p. 15; Jackson, 2009, Ch. 1, pp. 8-11).

10.   Counting the right numbers

So we may not be able to establish an optimal price for carbon within a market, and even if we do, it might not be the most effective one for cutting emissions. However, even though we cannot grasp the right number for the price of carbon, we can approach an understanding of the correct amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (Anderson and Bows, 2008). An extensive range of studies reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), show that the environmental protection goal of mankind should be the stabilisation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, effectively within a human lifetime (Arrow, 2007; Bala et al. 2005; IPCC 2007c; Lenton et al, 2006). Evidence of possible early signs of dangerous climate change (Hogarth, 2010; NSIDC, 2010; Stone et al., 2010; Velicogna, 2009) strongly support a global carbon dioxide emissions budget over a period of several decades, a timeframe way beyond normal economic analysis (Allen et al., 2009; Meinshausen et al., 2009). This translates into a worldwide annual budget, which further breaks down into annual national allowances (WBGU, 2009).

11.   Where Kyoto mis-stepped

The focus should therefore be on carbon and not on cost. A money market solution to carbon obviously runs the risk of allowing the rich emitters to pay to carry on emitting, and within the global carbon budget this could translate into refusing energy access and economic development to the poor (Gilbertson and Reyes, 2009, Ch. 1). This is, in essence, the root of the problems at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conferences, attempting to negotiate a global treaty. The ultimate deal will need to be made on the basis of equal per capita carbon rights for each country, as nothing skewed in favour of the rich will satisfy the poor (Kraus, 2009). Under such a deal, the wealthy industrialised nations must pay to decarbonise, but it is now clear that the efforts to do it “on the cheap” (Reuters, 2009b) through the CDM-facilitated globalisation of carbon emissions reduction, are not going to provide a complete solution (Lohmann, 2008).

12.   The way forward out of Kyoto

A global carbon budget, implemented in a set time would be a “contraction event”, and equal per capita rights to carbon entitlements within that cap would require a rate of convergence, since it cannot be effected overnight or the economy would implode (Hillman, 2007, pp. 262-264). The Global Commons Institute proposes that the UNFCCC accept that it move from ideas of establishing “carbon shares proportional to income” over to “carbon shares proportional to per capita”, which is known to be acceptable to all nations and blocs. This is the Contraction and Convergence (C&C) framework (Meyer A. 2007). In order to establish the C&C framework for carbon dioxide emissions, at least two Kyoto Protocol kernels would need to be cracked.

The “common but differentiated responsibilities” of the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC, 1998) would need to be reviewed on the basis that some industrialising countries look a lot like industrialised countries already (Botzen et al. 2008). Releasing all nations from the definition of development assigned at Kyoto would allow the recipes for emissions intensity and efficiency under the national mitigation action (NAMA) of the Bali roadmap, to become firm commitments to control (NAMC) as the Convergence per capita levels of growing countries were reached (UNFCCC, 2008). This sliding scale would put all countries in the same lifeboat (Barrett, 2008, p. 68, Sect. V).

The other key component would be to admit that those who consume carbon-laced products are as responsible for the emissions as those that initially embedded the carbon by their production processes (Helm et al., 2007; Steckel et al., 2010; Tickell, 2008, Ch 4. pp. 88-89). Thus, for example, the United States should feel obliged to account for a proportion of the emissions from the full lifecycle of products it imports from China; and conversely China should feel the regulation pull to reduce carbon intensity in production for export to the United States (Helm et al., 2007, p. 4). Numerical facts crystallise this view. For example, direct emissions from the United Kingdom figure at around about 2% of the global total, yet the FTSE 100 British-based businesses alone are responsible for about 12% to 15% of emissions worldwide (Christian Aid, 2007; Trucost, 2005). It would be unaffordable for the industrialised world to accept the financial responsibility for the total of their cumulative historical “sins of emission” (De Backer, 2008) as the profit of the past has all been spent. However, financial flows from wealthy to not-wealthy nations, necessary to enable low carbon transition for the developing countries, could be justified on the basis of “mutually assured protection” (Schellnhuber, 2009), in recognition of the consumer’s role as polluter. Future consumption will need to be low carbon, and so wealthy consumers should pay for not-wealthy producers to transition (Hepburn and Stern, 2008, p. 48), rather than aiming to protect their “silos” of remaining wealth. However, the high-cost transition in the wealthy nations should not be neglected simply because there are some short-term financial gains to be had from emissions trading and financing lower-cost transition in the not-wealthy nations. Putting off the day when industrialised-world emissions reductions need to be effected does not mean it can be forever avoided.

13.   Compliance through systemic alterations

Issues of enforcement in the capped carbon market will remain problematic. Compliance with advanced caps could be addressed by re-routing the processes that enable carbon emissions to take place. Clearly one part of the picture is the liberal financial and legislation arrangements (Barker, 2009). The partly re-nationalised banks could reign in these “engines of carbon chaos”, changing the goalposts and conditions for economic investment, to bail out the difficulties of enforcing the later stage deep carbon caps (Silver, 2009). As the lifecycle of carbon-intensive physical “sub-prime” assets (ENS, 2008) comes around to the investment stage, bank lending rules could dictate such things as fuel-switching in electricity generation (IPCC, 2007d), the banning of coal for new power generation (Hansen, 2009) and the revocation of tar sands exploitation (FairPensions, 2010; Smith, 2008).

As for voluntary compliance, there are signs that scope for the dematerialisation of the economy may have reached its limit (Boden et al, 2009; Helm et al., 2007, p. 12; Jackson, 2009, Ch. 8, pp. 128-133). Given that we have somewhat less than ten years to effect a global peak in emissions (Anderson, 2009), we would best turn to structural mechanisms (Czisch, 2010; McKinsey et al., 2010; PwC, 2010) to change the energy supply and consumption patterns (Pacala, 2007 cited in Saxifrage, 2009), rather than wait for a carbon market to mature and widen (Wickens, 2008, Ch. 9).

14.   Conclusion

Piecemeal constructs, such as a universal carbon market, or sectoral taxation, cannot add up to the sum of emissions reductions necessary, unless they are operated within an overall framework (Meyer, 2000, Ch. 6 “Framework versus Guesswork”). It is essential to calculate what contribution each initiative and policy must achieve, and apply resources there to make it happen (Copenhagen Accord Commitments, 2010). In parallel, it is necessary to plug “carbon leakage” (Barrett, 2008, pp. 64-66, Sect III) and rebound effects (Alcott, 2005; Sorrell, 2007; Sorrell, 2009). Under the framework of C&C, it would be possible to trade carbon in a market, but carbon property rights would only be created for that tranche of emissions tradable between parties below their Convergence per capita quota, and those above it (Meyer, 2004, p. 5, Sect. 5; Wagner et al., 2009, pp. 387 & 390-391). For the rest of the emissions reductions, a global post-Kyoto treaty based on agreed rates of Convergence and an agreed timeline for Contraction, negotiated between all parties, signalling commitment, could offer the legislative power, insurance and industrial confidence needed to leverage public and private funds to effect wholesale substitution of energy resources, as direct, targeted investment (Giddens, 2008; Jackson, 2009, Ch. 11, pp. 177-178). Trading emissions rights does not appear to be capable of delivering the full low carbon transition. The carbon market is displacement activity. We should be paying for what we want to happen, not for what we don’t.

Appendix

GtCO2e = Gigatonnes Carbon Dioxide equivalent
Column 1 : Year
Column 2 : Emissions Business as Usual (BAU) (GtCO2e)
Column 3 : Target Emissions (GtCO2e)
Column 4 : Reductions in Emissions (GtCO2e)
Column 5 : References

2000   44.70   45.00   -0.30   (IPCC, 2007a)
2001   45.74   44.95   0.79   
2002   46.80   44.90   1.90   
2003   47.89   44.85   3.04   
2004   49.00   44.80   4.20   (IPCC, 2007a)
2005   50.01   44.75   5.26   
2006   51.03   44.70   6.33   
2007   52.08   44.65   7.43   
2008   53.14   44.60   8.54   
2009   54.23   44.55   9.68   
2010   55.34   44.50   10.84   
2011   56.47   44.45   12.02   
2012   57.63   44.40   13.23   
2013   58.81   44.35   14.46   
2014   60.01   44.30   15.71   
2015   61.24   44.25   16.99   
2016   62.50   44.20   18.30   
2017   63.78   44.15   19.63   
2018   65.08   44.10   20.98   
2019   66.42   44.05   22.37   
2020   67.78   44.00   23.78   (Lazarowicz, 2009)
2021   69.16   43.20   25.96   
2022   70.58   42.40   28.18   
2023   72.02   41.60   30.42   
2024   73.50   40.80   32.70   
2025   75.00   40.00   35.00   
2026   76.54   39.20   37.34   
2027   78.11   38.40   39.71   
2028   79.71   37.60   42.11   
2029   81.34   36.80   44.54   
2030   83.00   36.00   47.00   (Garnaut et al., 2008)
2031   84.70   35.20   49.50
2032   86.44   34.40   52.04
2033   88.21   33.60   54.61
2034   90.01   32.80   57.21
2035   91.86   32.00   59.86
2036   93.74   31.20   62.54
2037   95.66   30.40   65.26
2038   97.61   29.60   68.01
2039   99.61   28.80   70.81
2040   101.65   28.00   73.65
2041   103.73   27.20   76.53
2042   105.86   26.40   79.46
2043   108.03   25.60   82.43
2044   110.24   24.80   85.44
2045   112.49   24.00   88.49
2046   114.80   23.20   91.60
2047   117.15   22.40   94.75   
2048   119.55   21.60   97.95   
2049   121.99   20.80   101.19   
2050   124.49   20.00   104.49   (Lazarowicz, 2009)

References

Adam D., 2010. “UK greenhouse gas emissions drop by 8.6% : Economic contraction and move away from fossil fuels saw overall emissions fall from 533m tonnes to 481m tonnes in 2009″. The Guardian, [Internet] 25 March 2010. Available at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/25/uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-drop [Accessed 8 April 2010]

Ahmed K., 1995. “Technological Development and Pollution Abatement : A Study of How Enterprises Are Finding Alternatives to Chlorofluorocarbons”. Washington, D. C.: The World Bank, “World Bank Technical Paper Number 271 : Energy Series”. Available at:
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1995/04/01/000009265_3970311122950/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Alcott B., 2005. “Jevon’s Paradox”. In: Ecological Economics 54 (2005) pp. 9 – 21. Available at:
http://www.blakealcott.org/pdf/sdarticle.pdf [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Allen M. et al., 2009. “The exit strategy”. Nature Reports Climate Change, 30 April 2009. doi:10.1038/climate.2009.38, 30 April 2009. Available at:
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0905/full/climate.2009.38.html [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Anderson K., 2009. “Global emission pathways : A ‘fair’ deal for Non-Annex 1 nations : what’s left for Annex 1 ?”. Four Degrees and Beyond Conference, 28 – 30 September 2009, Session 10: Avoiding Large Climate Changes 2. Presentation at:
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/programme.php [Accessed 10 April 2010]
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/ppt/10-1anderson.pdf [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Anderson K. and Bows A., 2008. “Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends”. London: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 29 August 2008. Available at:
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/3863.full.pdf [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Arrow K. J., 2007. “Global Climate Change: A Challenge to Policy”. In: Economists’ Voice, June 2007, Berkeley Electronic Press. Available at:
http://www.uwec.edu/jamelsem/303/handouts/unit1/arrow_climate_change.pdf [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Bala G. et al., 2005. “Multicentury Changes to the Global Climate and Carbon Cycle: Results from a Coupled Climate and Carbon Cycle Model”. In: Journal of Climate, American Meteorological Society. Vol. 18, pp. 4531 – 4544. Available at:
http://caos.iisc.ernet.in/faculty/gbala/pdf_files/Bala_etal_JCLIM05.pdf [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Barker T., 2008a. “The economics of avoiding dangerous climate change : An editorial essay on The Stern Review”. In: Climatic Change, Springboard Editorial, DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9433-x Available at:
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp117.pdf [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Barker T., 2008b. “The Macroeconomic Effects of the Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy”. The Climate Group, “Breaking the Climate Deadlock” Briefing Paper. Available at:
http://www.theclimategroup.org/_assets/files/Macroeconomics-effects-of-the-Low-Carbon-Economy.pdf [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Barker T., 2009. “Will the reconstruction of the global economy be positive for mitigating climate change?”. In: “Building a low-carbon future : The politics of climate change” Giddens A., Latham S. and Liddle R. (eds). London: Policy Network. Ch. 2. Available at:
http://www.policy-network.net/uploadedFiles/Publications/Publications/BUILDING%20A%20LOW-CARBON%20FUTURE%20PAMPHLET%20(WEB).pdf [Accessed 10 April 2010]
http://www.policy-network.net/publications/publications.aspx?id=3136 [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Barrett S., 2009. “Climate Treaties and the Imperative of Enforcement” In: D. Helm and C. Hepburn, eds. 2009 “The Economics and Politics of Climate Change” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch. 4, Sect. (ii) “Enhanced Mitigation: The Merit in Sectoral Approaches”

Baumol W., 1972. “On Taxation and the Control of Externalities”. In: “The American Economic Review”, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 307 – 222. Available at:
http://m.domaindlx.com/cihanyuksel2/On%20Taxation%20and%20the%20Control%20of%20Externalities.pdf [Accessed 9 April 2010]

Beamish T. D., 2002, “Silent Spill : The Organization of an Industrial Crisis”. London: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press.

Biello D., 2009. “How much in subsidies do fossil fuels get anyway?”. In: Scientific American, [Internet] 18 September 2009. Available at:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=how-much-in-subsidies-do-fossil-fue-2009-09-18 [Accessed 9 April 2010]

Boden, T. A., Marland G. and Andres R. J., 2009. “Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions”. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A., doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001. Available at:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.html [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Bowen A. and Stern N., 2010. “Environmental policy and the economic downturn”. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper No. 16, Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy Working Paper No. 18. Available at:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publications/WorkingPapers/Papers/WorkingPaper16.pdf [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Botzen et al., 2008. “Cumulative CO2 emissions: shifting international responsibilities for climate debt”. In: Climate Policy 8, Earthscan, doi: 10.3763/cpol.2008.0539 Available at:
http://ivm5.ivm.vu.nl/adaptation/project/files/File/NCIP/Botzen%20(2008)%20Cumulative%20CO2%20shifting%20climate%20debt.pdf [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Brady S., 2009. “Carbon trading is not enough to tackle climate change : Unambitious emissions caps provide no incentive for businesses to cut CO2 output”. The Guardian, [Internet] 3 December 2009. Available at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/03/carbon-emissions-copenhagen-climate-change [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Bullock S. et al., 2009. “A Dangerous Distraction : Why Offsetting is Failing the Climate and People: The Evidence”. Friends of the Earth, [Internet] June 2009. Available at:
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/dangerous_distraction.pdf [Accessed 9 April 2010]

CAIT, 2000. “World GHG Emissions Flow Chart”. Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, [Internet]. Available at:
http://cait.wri.org/figures.php?page=/World-FlowChart [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Cap and Dividend, n.d. “Common questions”. On The Commons, [Internet]. Available at:
http://www.capanddividend.org/?q=commonquestions [Accessed 9 April 2010]

Cap and Share, n.d. “Frequently Asked Questions”. Feasta, [Internet]. Available at:
http://www.capandshare.org/faqs.html [Accessed 9 April 2010]

CAT, 2010. “Zero Carbon Britain 2″. Report from the Centre for Alternative Technology, 2010. Report at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/8613216.stm [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Challen C., 2009. “Too Little, Too Late : The politics of climate change”. Hove: Picnic Publishing.

Christian Aid, 2007. “Coming Clean : Revealing the UK’s true carbon Footprint”. Available at:
www.ChristianAid.org.uk, [Internet] February 2007. Available at:
http://www.christianaid.org.uk/resources/policy/climate_change.aspx [Accessed 9 April 2010]
http://www.christianaid.org.uk/Images/coming-clean-uk-carbon-footprint.pdf [Accessed 9 April 2010]

Commodities Now, 2010. “EU ETS: Closing the door to fraud”. Commodities Now, [Internet] 11 February 2010. Available at:
http://www.commodities-now.com/news/environmental-markets/1781-eu-ets-closing-the-door-to-fraud.html [Accessed 8 April 2010]

Copenhagen Accord Commitments, 2010. Summary of national commitments to Carbon Emissions Reductions. Available at:
http://unfccc.int/home/items/5264.php [Accessed 9 April 2010]

Crooks E., 2010. “Cash for carbon capture projects”. Financial Times, [Internet] 13 March 2010. Available at:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/86866bce-2e40-11df-85c0-00144feabdc0.html [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Czisch G., 2005. “Szenarien zur zukuenftigen Stromversorgung – Kostenoptimierte Variationen zur Versorgung Europas und seiner Nachbarn mit Strom aus erneuerbaren Energien”. Institut fuer elektrische Energietechnik und Rationelle Energiewandlung, Unversitaet Kassel, 2005. Available at:
https://kobra.bibliothek.uni-kassel.de/bitstream/urn:nbn:de:hebis:34-200604119596/1/DissVersion0502.pdf [Accessed 11 April 2010]
In translation: “Scenarios for a Future Electricity Supply: Cost-Optimised Variations on Supplying Europe and Its Neighbours with Electricity from Renewable Energies”, 7 August 2010 :
http://www.amazon.ca/Scenarios-Future-Electricity-Supply-Cost-Optimised/dp/1849191565 [Accessed 11 April 2010]

De Backer W., 2008. “Sins of emission: Dieter Helm on EU climate policies”. 3EIntelligence, [Internet] 13 March, 2008. Available at:
http://3eintelligence.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/sins-of-emission-dieter-helm-on-eu-climate-policies/ [Accessed 10 April 2010]

DECC, 2010. “Insulation Made Easy By Britain’s Top Businesses”, Press Release on “Insulate Today” programme. Department of Energy and Climate Change, [Internet] 30 March 2010. Available at:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn10_052/pn10_052.aspx [Accessed 10 April 2010]

DeLong J. B., 2009. “The Brookings Institution Needs to Exercise Some Quality Control”. DeLong.typepad.com, [Internet] 29 December 2009. Available at:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/12/the-brookings-institution-needs-to-exercise-some-quality-control.html [Accessed 9 April 2010]

den Elzen M. G. J. et al., 2009. “Too hot to handle? The emission surplus in the Copenhagen negotiations”. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), December 2009. Available at:
http://www.mnp.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/500114016.pdf [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Dessler A. and Parson E. A., 2010. “The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change : A Guide to the Debate” 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Durning A., 2009. “Clean-Energy Stimulus”. www.WorldChanging.com, [Internet] 28 May 2009. Available at:
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009927.html [Accessed 9 April 2010]

EAC, 2008. “Personal Carbon Trading : Fifth Report of Session 2007–08″ House of Commons, Environmental Audit Committee 13 May 2008. Available at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvaud/565/565.pdf [Accessed 11 April 2010]

ENS, 2008. “Gore Warns of Sub-Prime Carbon Catastrophe”. Environmental News Service, [Internet] 27 September 2008. Available at:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2008/2008-09-27-01.asp [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Europol, 2009. “Carbon Credit fraud causes more than 5 billion euros damage for European Taxpayer”. Europol, [Internet] 9 December 2009. Available at:
http://www.europol.europa.eu/index.asp?page=news&news=pr091209.htm [Accessed 8 April 2010]

FairPensions, 2010. “Tar Sands : Counting the cost”. The campaign for responsible investment, [Internet]. Available at:
http://www.fairpensions.org.uk/tarsands [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Feasta, 2007. “The Great Emissions Rights Give-Away”. Dublin: The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability”. Feasta, [Internet] March 2007. Available at:
http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/emissions2007.htm [Accessed 10 April 2010]
http://www.feasta-multimedia.org/2007_energy/emissions2007.pdf [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Fischer C. and Preonas L., 2010. “Combining Policies for Renewable Energy”. Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper, March 2010. Sect. 5.2, pp. 26 – 27. Available at:
http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-10-19.pdf [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Fleming D., 2007. “Energy and the Common Purpose : Descending the Energy Staircase with Tradable Energy Quota (TEQs)”. London: The Lean Economy Connection. Available at:
http://www.teqs.net/book/teqs.pdf [Accessed 8 April 2010]

Garnaut R. et al., 2008. “The Implications of Rapid Development for Emissions and Climate-change Mitigation”. In: D. Helm and C. Hepburn, eds. 2009 “The Economics and Politics of Climate Change” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch. 5.

Gayer T., 2009. “The EPA Tackles Greenhouse Gas : But the reductions won’t come cheap”. Forbes, [Internet] 29 December 2009. Available at:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/27/epa-greenhouse-gas-climate-opinions-contributors-ted-gayer.html [Accessed 9 April 2010]

Giddens A., 2008. “The politics of climate change : National responses to the challenge of global warming”. London, Policy Network, September 2008. Available at:
http://www.policy-network.net/uploadedFiles/Publications/Publications/The_politics_of_climate_change_Anthony_Giddens(2).pdf [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Giddens A., 2009. “The Politics of Climate Change”. Cambridge: Polity Press, 13 March 2009. ISBN-13: 978-0745646930

Gilbertson T. and Reyes O. 2009. “Carbon Trading : How it works and why it fails”. In: “Critical Currents” No. 7., November 2009. Uppsala: Dag Hammarskjoeld Foundation. Available at:
http://www.dhf.uu.se/pdffiler/cc7/cc7_web.pdf [Accessed 9 April 2010]

Gowdy J. M., 2008. “Behavioral Economics and Climate Change Policy”. In: Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 68 (2008) 632 – 644. Available at:
http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Gowdy-et-al-2008_economics-and-climate-change.pdf [Accessed 11 April 2010]
http://www.economics.rpi.edu/workingpapers/rpi0701.pdf [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Gore A., 2009. “Our Choice : A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis “. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 3 November 2009.

Grossman S. J. and Stiglitz J. E., 1980. “On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets”. In: The American Economic Review, June 1980 pp. 393 – 408. Available at:
http://www.sendsms.cn/download/wavecom/AT%D6%B8%C1%EE%BF%E2%A3%A8%B4%F3%C8%AB%A3%A9/on%20the%20impossibility%20of%20informationally%20efficient%20markets.pdf [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Hallegatte S. et al., 2010. “A Note on the Economic Cost of Climate Change and the Rationale to Limit it Below 2°C”. The World Bank, Background Paper to the 2010 World Development Report, January 2010. Available at:
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2010/01/13/000158349_20100113090158/Rendered/PDF/WPS5179.pdf [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Hansen J., 2009. “Coal-fired power stations are death factories. Close them”. The Guardian, [Internet] 15 February 2009. Available at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Healing D., 2010. “Carbon capture possible, but deemed money-loser : CO2 levy would need to rise: study”. Calgary Herald, [Internet] 13 March 2010. Available at:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Carbon+capture+possible+deemed+money+loser/2678293/story.html [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Helm D., 2009. “Climate-change Policy: Why has so Little been Achieved?” In: D. Helm and C. Hepburn, eds. 2009 “The Economics and Politics of Climate Change” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch. 2.

Helm D. et al., 2007. “Too Good To Be True? : The UK’s Climate Change Record”. www.DieterHelm.co.uk, [Internet] 10 December 2007. Available at:
http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/node/656 [Accessed 9 April 2010]
http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/sites/default/files/Carbon_record_2007.pdf [Accessed 9 April 2010]

Hepburn C., 2009a. “International Carbon Finance and the Clean Development Mechanism”. In: D. Helm and C. Hepburn, eds. 2009 “The Economics and Politics of Climate Change” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch. 20. Referenced at:
http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/members/cameron.hepburn/research.html [Accessed 8 April 2010]

Hepburn C., 2009b. “Carbon Taxes, Emissions Trading, and Hybrid Schemes”. In: D. Helm and C. Hepburn, eds. 2009 “The Economics and Politics of Climate Change” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch. 18.

Hepburn C. and Stern N., 2008. “The Global Deal on Climate Change”. In: D. Helm and C. Hepburn, eds. 2009 “The Economics and Politics of Climate Change” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch. 3. Referenced at:
http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/members/cameron.hepburn/research.html [Accessed 8 April 2010]

Hillman M., 2004. “How We Can Save the Planet”. London: Penguin, 27 May 2004

Hillman M., 2007. “Afterword: Where Do We Go From Here?”. In: “Surviving Climate Change : The Struggle to Avert Global Catastrophe”, Cromwell D. and Levene M. (eds). London: Pluto Books. pp. 253 – 265.

Hogarth P., 2010. “Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise”. Available at:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Visual-depictions-of-Sea-Level-Rise.html [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Houghton J. T., 2009. “Global Warming : The Complete Briefing” Fourth Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hudson B., 2010. “Australian Governments Spend Big Capturing Carbon”. www.Scoop.co.NZ, [Internet] 1 February 2010. Available at:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1002/S00012.htm [Accessed 10 April 2010]

IEA, 2008. “Now or Never – IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 shows pathways to sustained economic growth based on clean and affordable energy technology”. International Energy Agency, Press Release, 6 June 2008. Available at:
http://www.iea.org/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=263 [Accessed 9 April 2010]

IPCC, 2007a. “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report : Summary for Policymakers”. Fig. SPM.3 (a) “Global annual emissions of anthropogenic GHGs from 1970 to 2004″. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Plenary XXVII, [Internet] Valencia, 12 – 17 November 2007. Available at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf [Accessed 8 April 2010]

IPCC, 2007b. “Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change : Summary for Policymakers” Table SPM.5 “Characteristics of post-TAR stabilization scenarios”. IPCC 9th Session of Working Group III, [Internet] Bangkok, 30 April – 4 May 2007. Available at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-spm.pdf [Accessed 8 April 2010]

IPCC, 2007c. “Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis : Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections”. Available at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10.html [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Jackson T., 2009. “Prosperity without Growth”. London: Earthscan.

IPCC, 2007d. “Energy Supply”. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group 3. Available at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter4.pdf [Accessed 10 April 2010]
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.htm [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Kraus K. S., 2009. “Contraction & Convergence and Greenhouse Development Rights: A critical comparison between two salient climate-ethical concepts”. Diplomarbeit im Studiengang, Landschaftsoekologie und Naturschutz am Botanischen Institut der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universitaet Greifswald, April 2009. Sect. “Political Acceptability”. Report at:
http://climateethics.org/?p=291 [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Laing T. and Grubb M., 2010. “The Impact of Instrument Choice on Investment in Abatement Technologies: A Case Study of Tax versus Trade Incentives for CCS and Biomass for Electricity”. Cambridge University, Electricity Policy Research Group, February 2010. Available at:
http://www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/LaingGrubbCombinedEPRG10042.pdf [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Lazarowicz M., 2009. “Global Carbon Trading : A framework for reducing emissions”. Norwich: TSO (The Stationery Office). p. 4, Fig. 1.2. Available at:
http://www.decc.gov.uk [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Lenton T. et al., 2006. “Climate change on the millenial timescale”. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Technical Report 41, February 2006. Available at:
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/t3_18.pdf [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Lohmann L., 2008. “Carbon Trading, Climate Justice and the Production of Ignorance : Ten Examples”. The Corner House, August 2008. Available at:
http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/pdf/document/IgnoranceFinal.pdf [Accessed 11 April 2010]

McKibben B., 2007. “Deep Economy : Economics as if the world mattered”. Oxford: OneWorld Publications, 1 July 2009.

McKinsey & Company, 2009. “Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy : Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve”. Available at:
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pathways_low_carbon_economy.asp [Accessed 10 April 2010]

McKinsey et al., 2010. “Roadmap 2050: A Practical Guide to a Prosperous, Low Carbon Europe”. McKinsey & Company, KEMA, The Energy Futures Lab at Imperial College London, Oxford Economics, European Climate Foundation, April 2010. Available at:
http://www.roadmap2050.eu/downloads.html [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Macalister T., 2009. “Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade : Market could be worth $3tn a year but enthusiasm to place it at heart of Copenhagen is matched by growing criticism of concept”. The Guardian, [Internet] 29 November 2009. Available at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/carbon-trading-market-copenhagen-summit [Accessed 10 April 2010]

MacKay D. J. C., 2008. “Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air”. Cambridge: UIT. ISBN-10: 0954452933 ISBN-13: 978-0954452933. Available at:
http://www.withouthotair.com/ [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Maher S., 2010. “World cool on Rudd’s clean coal funding”. The Australian, [Internet] 29 March 2010. Available at:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/world-cool-on-rudds-clean-coal-funding/story-e6frg6nf-1225846623758 [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Mandelson P., 2004. “Climate change: the political and business challenge”. In: “Building a low-carbon future : The politics of climate change” Giddens A., Latham S. and Liddle R. (eds). London: Policy Network. Ch. 9. Available at:
http://www.policy-network.net/uploadedFiles/Publications/Publications/BUILDING%20A%20LOW-CARBON%20FUTURE%20PAMPHLET%20(WEB).pdf [Accessed 10 April 2010]
http://www.policy-network.net/publications/publications.aspx?id=3136 [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Marshall C., 2008. “The Political Economy of Sustainable Energy”. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. “Energy, Climate and the Environment Series”.

Meadows D. et al., 2005. “Limits to Growth : The 30-Year Update”. London: Earthscan, ISBN: 1-84407-144-8. Ch. 5 “Back from Beyond the Limits: The Ozone Story”; Ch. 6 “Technology, Markets and Overshoot”

Meinshausen M. et al., 2009. “Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C”. Available at:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/abs/nature08017.html [Accessed 10 April 2010]
Report at:
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0905/full/climate.2009.38.html [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Meyer A., 2000. “Contraction and Convergence : The Global Solution to Climate Change”. Totnes: Green Books, The Schumacher Society, “Schumacher Briefings : 5″

Meyer A., 2004. “Briefing: Contraction and convergence”. In: Proceedings of the ICE – Engineering Sustainability, Volume: 157, Issue 4, Pages: 189 – 192, ISSN: 1478-4629, E-ISSN: 1751-7680, DOI: 10.1680/ensu.157.4.189.56900. London: Institution of Civil Engineers. Available at:
http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/ensu.2004.157.4.189 [Accessed 8 April 2010]
Presentation at:
http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf [Accessed 9 April 2010]

Meyer A., 2007. “The Case for Contraction and Convergence”. In: “Surviving Climate Change : The Struggle to Avert Global Catastrophe”, Cromwell D. and Levene M. (eds). London: Pluto Books. Ch. 1.

Monbiot G., 2007. “Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning”. New York: South End Press. ISBN-10: 0896087794 ISBN-13: 978-0896087798.

Morison R., 2010. “European Commission takes action over EU ETS fraud”. Energy Risk, [Internet] 5 February 2010. Available at:
http://www.risk.net/energy-risk/news/1590620/european-commission-takes-action-eu-ets-fraud [Accessed 8 April 2010]

nef, 2009. “The Cuts Won’t Work”. London: the new economics foundation, December 2009. Available at:
http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/The_Cuts_Wont_Work.pdf [Accessed 9 April 2010]

NSIDC, 2010. National Snow and Ice Data Center, “Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice Extent : March 1979 to 2010″. Available at:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ [Accessed 10 April 2010]
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure3.png [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Pacala S. W., 2007 cited in Saxifrage B., 2009. “The Rich: Our Biggest Carbon Problem : Math, Not Morality, Requires Wealthy to Make Biggest Reductions.” www.Saxifrages.org, [Internet] 12 February 2009. Available at:
http://www.saxifrages.org/eco/go19a/The_Rich_Our_Biggest_Carbon_Problem [Accessed 10 April 2010]
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/iiasa35/docs/speakers/pacala.html [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Patterson W., 2007. “Keeping the Lights On : Towards Sustainable Electricity”. London: Earthscan with Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs).

Pigou A.C., 1932. “The Economics of Welfare”, London: Macmillan (first edition 1920; editions to 1932). Available at :
http://www.econlib.org/library/NPDBooks/Pigou/pgEW.html [Accessed 11 April 2010]

PwC, 2010. “100% renewable electricity: A roadmap to 2050 for Europe and North Africa”. Available at:
http://www.pwc.co.uk/pdf/100_percent_renewable_electricity.pdf [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Rahman S. M. et al., 2010. “Will the Clean Development Mechanism Mobilize Anticipated Levels of Mitigation?” The World Bank, Development Research Group, Agriculture and Rural Development Team, Policy Research Working Paper, March 2010. Available at:
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2010/03/16/000158349_20100316150946/Rendered/PDF/WPS5239.pdf [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Reuters, 2009a. “Carbon tariff threat useful in climate talks”. Reuters Breakingviews, [Internet] 20 October 2009. Available at:
http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/2009/10/20/carbon-tariff-threat-useful-in-climate-talks/ [Accessed 9 April 2010]

Reuters, 2009b. “U.N. carbon market a success despite criticism: Enel”. Reuters Newswire, [Internet] 24 May 2009. Available at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE54O08M20090525 [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Reuters, 2010. “EU acts to shut out recycled CERs”. Carbon Positive, [Internet] 19 March 2010, (Reuters, 18 March 2010). Available at:
http://www.carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.aspx?articleID=1932 [Accessed 8 April 2010]

Reyes O., 2009. “UK carbon budget: offshoring emissions reductions”. www.CarbonTradeWatch.org, [Internet] 23 April 2009. Available at:
http://www.carbontradewatch.org/articles/uk-carbon-budget-offshoring-emissions-reductions.html [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Roberts D., 2009. “Economics as pathology : All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds”. Grist, [Internet] 30 December 2009. Available at:
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-12-29-economics-as-pathology/ [Accessed 9 April 2010]

Roberts D., 2010. “Economics as pathology, part two”. Grist, [Internet] 5 January 2010. Available at:
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-01-05-economics-as-pathology-part-two [Accessed 9 April 2010]

Sandbag, 2010. “EU emissions plunge leaving emissions trading scheme high and dry”. www.Sandbag.org.uk, [Internet] 1 April 2010. Available at:
http://www.sandbag.org.uk/node/276 [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Sandmo A., 2010. “The Scale and Scope of Environmental Taxation”. Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration (NHH), October 2009. Available at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1554948_code1391513.pdf?abstractid=1554948&mirid=3 [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Schellnhuber H. J., 2009. “Three Ways of Going MAD”. www.ReThinkClimate.org, [Internet] 2009. Available at:
http://www.rethinkclimate.org/debat/rethink-politics/?show=dnp [Accessed 10 April 2010]
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/pik-in-the-media/three-ways-of-going-mad [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Silver N., 2009. “Royal Bank of Sustainability”. World Development Movement, “Clean the Banks” Report, 19 October 2009. Available at:
http://www.wdm.org.uk/sites/default/files/RBSreport19102009.pdf [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Smith K., 2008. “Cashing in on Coal : RBS, UK Banks and the Global Coal Industry”. London: PLATFORM, [Internet] August 2008. Available at:
http://www.oyalbankofscotland.com/cioc/pdf/cashinginoncoal.pdf [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Solomon S. et al., 2009. “Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), vol. 106 no. 6 1704-1709 doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812721106, [Internet] 10 February 2009. Available at:
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full [Accessed 9 April 2010]
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full.pdf+html [Accessed 9 April 2010]

Sorrell S., 2007. “The Rebound Effect: an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings from improved energy efficiency”. United Kingdom Energy Research Centre (UKERC), Sussex Energy Group, October 2007. Available at:
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/Downloads/PDF/07/0710ReboundEffect/0710ReboundEffectReport.pdf [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Sorrell S., 2009. “Improving Energy Efficiency: Hidden Costs and Unintended Consequences”. In: D. Helm and C. Hepburn, eds. 2009 “The Economics and Politics of Climate Change” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch. 17.

State of Texas, n.d. “Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP)”. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, [Internet]. Available at:
http://168.39.88.72/ea/wap.htm [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Stavins R. N., 2008. “Addressing Climate Change with a Comprehensive US Cap-and-trade System”. In: D. Helm and C. Hepburn, eds. 2009 “The Economics and Politics of Climate Change” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch. 10.

Steckel J. C. et al., 2010. “Should carbon-exporting countries strive for consumption-based accounting in a global cap-and-trade regime?”. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PIK Working Paper, March 2010. Available at:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/steckel/publications/Consumption-based%20accounting%20in%20a%20global%20cap-and-trade%20regime [Accessed 11 April 2010]

Stern N., 2009. “A Blueprint for a Safer Planet”. London: The Bodley Head.

Stone E. J. et al., 2010. “The effect of more realistic forcings and boundary conditions on the modelled geometry and sensitivity of the Greenland ice-sheet”. The Cryosphere : An Interactive Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union, The Cryosphere Discuss., 4, 233-285, 2010. Discussion at:
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/4/233/2010/tcd-4-233-2010.pdf [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Tankersley J. and Muskal M., 2010. “Obama pledges $8 billion for new nuclear reactors”. Los Angeles Times, [Internet] 16 February 2010. Available at:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/16/nation/la-na-obama-nuclear17-2010feb17 [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Tickell O., 2008. “Kyoto2 : How to Manage the Global Greenhouse”. London: Zed Books. ISBN: 978-1-84813-024-1 hb ISBN: 978-1-84813-025-8 pb

Tol R. S. J., 2005 cited in Barker, 2008a. “The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties.” Energy Policy 33(16) pp. 2064 – 2074

Tol R. S. J., 2007 cited in Barker, 2008a. “The social cost of carbon: trends, outliers and catastrophes” Economics Discussion Papers, pp. 2007 – 2044.

Tol R. S. J., 2008. “Social Cost of Carbon”. SciTopics, [Internet] 3 September 2008. Available at:
http://www.scitopics.com/Social_Cost_of_Carbon.html [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Trucost, 2005. “The Carbon 100 : Quantifying the Carbon Emissions, Intensities and Exposures of the FTSE 100″. Henderson Global Investors, [Internet] June 2005. Available at:
http://www.sefi.unep.org/fileadmin/media/sefi/docs/industry_reports/SRICarbon100Report.pdf [Accessed 9 April 2010]

UNFCCC, 1998. “Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change” New York: United Nations, Article 10. Available at:
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php [Accessed 9 April 2010]
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf [Accessed 9 April 2010]

UNFCCC, 2008. “Report of the Conference of the Parties on its thirteenth session, held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007 : Decision 1/CP.13 Bali Action Plan” (as known as the “Bali Roadmap”). New York: United Nations. Available at:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf [Accessed 9 April 2010]
http://unfccc.int/documentation/decisions/items/3597.php?such=j&volltext=/CP.13 [Accessed 9 April 2010]

UNEP Risoe, 2010. “UNEP Risoe CDM/JI Pipeline Analysis and Database, March 1st 2010″, “CDM/JI Pipeline Overview Page”. Roskilde: UNEP Risoe Centre. Table: “CERs”. Available at:
http://cdmpipeline.org/overview.htm [Accessed 8 April 2010]

UNEP, 2007. “A Success in the making : The Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer : Celebrating 20 years of progress in 2007″. Nairobi: The United Nations Ozone Secretariat, United Nations Environment Programme. Available at:
http://www.unep.ch/ozone/Publications/MP_A_Success_in_the_making-E.pdf [Accessed 9 April 2010]

Velicogna I., 2009. “Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE”. In: Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 36, doi:10.1029/2009GL040222, 2009. Available at:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml [Accessed 10 April 2010]
http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/increasing-rates-of-ice-mass-loss-from-the-greenland-and-antarctic-ice-sheets-revealed-by-grace.pdf [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Wagner G. et al., 2009. “Docking into a Global Carbon Market: Clean Investment Budgets to Finance Low-carbon Economic Development”. In: D. Helm and C. Hepburn, eds. 2009 “The Economics and Politics of Climate Change” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch. 19.

Walsh B., 2009. “Still Digging Up Exxon Valdez Oil, 20 Years Later”. In: Time Magazine, [Internet] 4 June 2009. Available at:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1902333,00.html [Accessed 9 April 2010]

WBGU, 2009. “Solving the climate dilemma: The budget approach”. Berlin: German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). Available at:
http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_sn2009_en.pdf [Accessed 10 April 2010]

Whiteside K. H., 2006. “Precautionary Politics : Principle and practice in confronting environmental risk”. London: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press.

Wickens M., 2008. “Macroeconomic Theory”. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Available at:
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s02_8595.pdf [Accessed 8 April 2010]
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s04_8595.pdf [Accessed 8 April 2010]
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s09_8595.pdf [Accessed 8 April 2010]
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s10_8595.pdf [Accessed 8 April 2010]

Williams D., 2010. “UK carbon scheme ‘not learning from EU’s errors’ “. www.PublicFinance.co.uk, [Internet] 11 February 2010. Available at:
http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2010/02/uk-carbon-scheme-not-learning-from-eus-errors/ [Accessed 11 April 2010]

World Bank, 2009. “State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2009″. Washington, D. C.: The World Bank. Table 1, “Carbon Market at a glance, Volumes & Values in 2007-08″. Available at:
http://wbcarbonfinance.org/docs/State___Trends_of_the_Carbon_Market_2009-FINAL_26_May09.pdf [Accessed 8 April 2010]

World Bank, 2010. “World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change”. World Bank, [Internet], final files 22 October 2009. Available at:
http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTWDRS/EXTWDR2010/0,,contentMDK:21969137~menuPK:5287816~pagePK:64167689~piPK:64167673~theSitePK:5287741,00.html [Accessed 11 April 2010]

The question arises : since our lifestyles are causing deadly Climate Change for people in other parts of the world, maybe we should have communications based around pictures of suffering children ?

I disagree. I point out that when the environmentalists put out posters about Polar Bears, that the audience pretty quickly realised that the Polar Bears were being used as a “poster child” for Climate Change, and they started to mock the campaigning.

Ten years ago, or even less, a poster depicting a tragic human or endangered animal was still a useful communications tool, but the potential recipients for these communications are now highly sceptical of this device, this attempt to pluck at their emotional/heart strings.

A poster is not useful, I say. What would be useful would be to have a long-running television series on how Climate Change is impacting a town or city in the Global South, or in the Arctic region – sort of like the engagement factor of a soap opera, but with a real-life Reality TV flavour.

I say, we have to get Climate Change under peoples’ noses, in their faces, all the time. More and more information needs to be presented to people, from old and new Media, establishment and informal web stuff.

I said that there has been a lot of criticism of one-shot shock communications, like the UK drink-drive infommercials, the UK Government’s “climate-drive” and “bedtime stories” infommercials, the National Health Service “cancer, sticks” advertisements, and some of the Greenpeace “phaser set to stun” environment campaign materials.

This kind of thing no longer gets through to people.

Even the really successful Smoking Causes Cancer tobacco product labelling is losing its impact – pictures of blackened lungs or no pictures of blackened lungs.

The young female American activist, with the obligatory nose ring, of course, took up my theme, and explained that where she comes from in the United States, if somebody is involved in a drink-drive accident, they are made to face the family of the victim, to see the results of their actions.

People need to be made aware, on an ongoing basis, of the results of the Global North’s use of Fossil Fuel energy.

It’s not a personal thing – communications should not be targeted at individual readers or viewers. If somebody tries to inform somebody else of the risks and realities of Climate Change, the message should not carry the idea that the hearer or viewer is personally responsible; and that they should repent in sackcloth and ashes and never use their car again.

Yet if all Climate Change communications are reduced to “this is a problem, and you need to believe this is a problem”, what can people do when they come to believe it ?

How do we take people on a journey of awakening, guiding them towards effective social and political engagement with the underlying causes of Climate Change ?

After all, it’s not the fault of ordinary people that Climate Change is happening. It’s the fault of those who continue to sell fossil fuels to us, who have made us dependent on products that they should be diversifying out of.

Climate Change is the fault of weak government, who dare not regulate against the monopoly on energy markets that the Oil and Gas (and Coal) companies have.

Climate Change is the fault of the Economy, with its constant drip-feed of messages to Consume.

Ordinary people are just doing the best they can, with the information they have.

People need more information about Climate Change.

For example, we need to have every weather segment on TV and Radio prefaced with a report on the state of the Cryosphere today – how far the Arctic has melted, how much snow and ice has been lost from mountains.

We need to have weather reports outlining the freak weather and extreme droughts and flooding taking place around the world.

We need business programmes and newspaper articles covering the failures in the grain harvests and other crops, the moves by governments and businesses to protect freshwater supplies, analysis of how heatwaves and other extreme weather are damaging enterprises and infrastructure.

You can’t just put up a poster and not deal with the emotional and political reaction it can cause. If you put up a poster, and the viewer has no way of interacting with the information, they will discount it, and become immune to the guilt that they think the poster is designed to trip.

Communications clientele are smarter than they used to be – they know when people are trying to manipulate their feelings – or even when they suspect people are trying to manipulate their feelings.

Let’s be honest, here. Quite a lot of Climate Change communications is deliberately of the “shock” variety – a one-way, short-term, quick-fire informational payload via Media.

But this has no value if it is not backed up with a narrative – an ongoing narrative – about how Climate Change is already impacting our lives and, more severely, the lives of the poorest – how it is a risk-multiplier in everything from freshwater supplies, through food growing to energy supply.

The threats are mounting. A catastrophe is possible.

We have to be prepared, and we have to help others be prepared.

A poster child will not suffice.

Every now and again, some well-meaning, or even lightheartedly jokey relative or friend lets me know I should calm down with the story of the risk of Climate catastrophe as it’s (a) not effective; (b) not necessary or (c) way off the end of the scale. Apparently I’m crying wolf, but there’s not even a messy puppy in the neighbourhood.

There are two narratives at work here. One is that people don’t like being preached too (neither do I), and they feel that the sum total of Climate Change communications amounts to somebody high up the authority chain telling them to change their behaviour, somehow making the common man (and woman) responsible for a problem that should actually be fixed by the governments, who have the power (or large companies and international corporations, who have the financial resources).

The moral of nearly every cultural telling of the Climate Change story is “ten things you can do to make a difference”, and a lot of people feel it will mean shivering in the dark with no car and more tax. People are so not into self-sacrifice and abstention from consumerism, and they react badly, even to the extent of skin rashes, to the fear of micromanaged austerity being thrust upon them.

But that’s not why I talk about Climate Change.

The second narrative at work is that warning people of the risks of Climate Change is somehow a political gambit, something to do with social management on the grander scale, that enforcing belief in Climate Change Science will mean that the public are pliable to corporate or government control. People cannot seem to hear the warning, and instead look for any other reason why Climate Change is being presented in the public space.

And again, that’s not why I talk about Climate Change.

The reason why I talk about Climate Change is that everybody has the right to know what is already happening, what is set to happen, and what the possible outcomes are, as an invitation into the truth. What they do as a result of that informational process is up to them, but putting their fingers in their ears will not make this go away.

One of my female relatives, bless her, is a Counselling Psychologist, and she recently, pointedly, sent me this, with the comment : “Article 4 could be relevant to messages about climate change as well, I
presume….” :-

“The BPS Research Digest : Issue 162 : The Research Digest is published fortnightly by the British Psychological Society : Editor: Dr Christian Jarrett”

http://www.researchdigest.org.uk/blog

“4. Scary health messages can backfire”

“A short while ago there was a shocking advert on British TV that used slow motion to illustrate the bloody, crunching effects of a car crash. The driver had been drinking. Using these kind of scare tactics for anti drink-driving and other health issues makes intuitive sense. The campaigners want to grab your attention and demonstrate the seriousness of the consequences if their message is not heeded. However, a new study makes the surprising finding that for a portion of the population, scare tactics can back-fire, actually undermining a message’s efficacy.”

“Steffen Nestler and Boris Egloff had 297 participants, 229 of them female, average age 35, read one of two versions of a fictional news report from a professional medical journal. The report referred to a study showing links between caffeine consumption and a fictional gastro-intestinal disease ‘Xyelinenteritis’. One version was extra-scary, highlighting a link between Xyelinenteritis and cancer and saying that the participant’s age group was particularly vulnerable. The other version was lower-key and lacked these two details. Both versions of the article concluded by recommending that readers reduce their caffeine consumption.”

“Before gauging the participants’ reaction to the article and its advice, the researchers tested them on a measure of ‘cognitive avoidance’. People who score highly on this personality dimension respond to threats with avoidance tactics such as distracting themselves, denying the threat or persuading themselves that they aren’t vulnerable.”

“The key finding is that participants who scored high on cognitive avoidance actually rated the threat from Xyelinenteritis as less severe after reading the scary version of the report compared with the low-key version. Moreover, after reading the scary version, they were less impressed by the advice to reduce caffeine consumption and less likely to say that they planned to reduce their caffeine intake.”

“On the other hand, highly cognitive avoidant participants were more responsive to the low-key report than were the low cognitive avoidant participants. In other words, for people who are cognitively avoidant, scary health messages can actually back-fire.”

” ‘Practically, our results suggest that instead of giving all individuals the same threat communications, messages should be given that are concordant with their individual characteristics,’ Nestler and Egloff said. ‘Thus, the present findings are in line with the growing literature on tailoring intentions to individual characteristics, and they highlight the role of individual differences when scary messages are used.’ ”

“Nestler, S., & Egloff, B. (2010). When scary messages backfire: Influence of dispositional cognitive avoidance on the effectiveness of threat communications Journal of Research in Personality, 44 (1), 137-141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.10.007”

“Author weblink: http://www.psych.uni-mainz.de/abteil/pp/nestlers.html”

The point, my dear, lovely relative who cooks really well, missed, is that messaging on Climate Change for me is not about trying to influence personal, individual behaviour.

That rotten psychology is the domain of the UK Government, who in their quest to implement an “information” instrument to nudge “voluntary behaviour change” have produced some of the worst public infommercials ever witnessed on British television :-

Let me repeat : it is not my fault, or your fault, that Climate Change is happening : it’s the fault of our democratic leaders who have failed to insist on a transition to Low Carbon Energy. All they seem to have heard for the last 25 years is a cacophany of national business interests and international energy, fuel and mining companies clamouring for special treatment.

We still have time : elect people who make a stand for Green Energy and a Low Carbon Economy.

We have it easy now, but it could become a nightmare.

Remember the Ozone Hole scare ? It was real. We did something about it, and it looks like it’s going to be OK. Remember the Y2K Millenium Bug ? That was real, I helped modify computer software to stop it wreaking havoc. We did something about it, collectively, and it was OK.

Get this : Climate Change is real. It’s happening now, we’re in for more because of a time lag in the Global Warming processes, and it could get much, much worse if we don’t collectively, as human civilisation, make changes in how we source and use energy and fuel.

Climate Change is already affecting water supplies, and interfering with the viability of stressed environments and habitats. It’s adding to the sufferings of those who experience wilder and more extreme weather : droughts, flooding and storms. It is a factor in the worsening health of animal and plant communities, both on land and at sea. It’s already destroying the Arctic, and threatening food supplies in Africa and Asia.

I’m not making this up, and I’m not inflating the seriousness of this. If you can’t hear this message, it may be because you fear that I am telling you to do something. In fact, I am warning you that the changes are coming, regardless of what you personally may or may not do. Your governments and those who run the corporations have not yet taken full responsibility for what needs, desperately, to happen.

Whether or not there is a strong movement towards changing to a Low Carbon Economy, Climate Change is in the process of destroying a lot of the things that you take for granted. That’s factual and not in the slightest apocalyptic. It is not my intention to make you afraid. All I am attempting to do is make you aware.

Dr Gregor Czisch’s meisterwerk is being translated into English for publication this Summer :-

Scenarios for a Future Electricity Supply: Cost-Optimised Variations on Supplying Europe and Its Neighbours with Electricity from Renewable Energies

You would never know from the plainspeaking title just how exciting this is : seriously cheap Energy and peacemaking collaboration all in one shot !

The management consultants PriceWaterhouseCooper (couldn’t they think of a more speakable name ?), have just published their own view on Europe and North Africa combining to provide a one hundred percent renewable Energy solution :-

http://www.pwc.co.uk/sustainability/

http://www.pwc.co.uk/eng/publications/100_percent_renewable_electricity.html

Mark Delucchi (one half of the “two Marks” Jacobson and Delucchi) is coming to London, England for a presentation on Zero Carbon Transport Futures in May :-

http://futurity.org/earth-environment/totally-clean-and-green-by-2030/

http://www.claverton-energy.com/pipermail/claverton-group_claverton-energy.com/2010-March/003805.html

http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/delucchi/index.php

Meanwhile, investors crowd into the DESERTEC project :-

http://www.gsjournal.com/2010/03/first-solar-joins-the-desertec-industrial-initiative/

http://www.scienceknowledge.org/?p=6309

http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/56974

And of course, the Centre for Alternative Technology will be launching Zero Carbon Britain 2030 in June 2010 :-

http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/content/blogcategory/1/35/

Britain could be a Renewable “Titan” :-

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/britain-could-be-wind-and-wave-titan/

http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=7933596&story_id=15311437

There’s money in them there sloshing waves and swirling winds :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/13/manchester-report-bonds

There’s a remarkable amount of synergy going on with all the moves towards Renewables.