SprintBio Climate Change - Distibutors of environmentally friendly boilers, burners and heat pumps

There are some pretty contradictory measures coming out of Westminster these days. Just as it looks as if the Transport Secretary, Geoff Hoon, is to announce the forthcoming expansion of Heathrow’s runway capacity (which will see annnual flight numbers jump from around 480,000 to over 700,000), we are also learning that the government last night moved to tighten its commitment to meeting an 80% cut in CO2 emissions by 2050.

I am beginning to wonder if there is any communication within different government departments at all these days, or if everyone is blindly running around trying to meet individual centrally imposed targets, without much regard for long term consequences…

It seems pretty clear that something will have to give here. It is blindingly obvious that such reckless airport expansion will be yet another jigsaw piece in the bigger environmental catastrophe, no matter how much more efficient planes get (I strongly doubt that using a lighter paint on the outer shell of a jet will offset damage of the extra 220,000+ flights).

Geoff Hoon is talking about congestion and economics as the two justifications for the expansion plans, conveniently forgetting that both are only short-term arguments while the environmental ramifications of the decision will have far more long-lasting consequences.

Yes Heathrow is congested - and yes the expansion will greatly improve the passenger experience of using the airport. Except we are forgetting that we should be finding ways to discourage flying and working towards a reduction in the industry’s carbon footprint so that we can avoid ruining the planet, in case Geoff doesn’t remember. I don’t think saving 30 mins in a security queue when flying on holiday to the Canaries outweighs worsening the risk of environmental catastrophe…

But it’s not all about convenience says Geoff; the expansion will help attract more industry and create new jobs, which ultimately is the most important thing in these times of economic crisis and it is this that is the most overwhelming factor in the decision. Except that again such gains will be only short-lived as the inherent unsustainability of attracting industry dependent on such infrastucture will later become evident. What happens when we really, really have to face up to the environmental consequences? (i.e. when even short term economics will not be an adequate counter-argument).

It seems to me the logic of Hoon’s thinking is basically to bury our heads further into the sand on the issue of climate change - because other matters seem more pressing today. I am not criticising Hoon for wanting and finding ways to create jobs or boost the country’s infrastucture; my only complaint is the laziness and inherent short-sightedness of the solution he is currently in the process of approving. Not to mention the fact that the move is akin to political suicide when public opinion strongly opposes the expansion - but that is merely his, and Labour’s, loss (the Conservatives are opposed to the plans and look set to reap the electoral rewards for this in the next general election).

In the current economic situation the argument of economy over environment is mightily attractive to many, and indeed a government which appeared to be more concerned with the latter would probably not stand much chance in the next general election. But the point is that we have arrived in this economic mess because we made stupid, short-term decisions for a quick gain. Surely we are not about to see yet another such move with regard to Heathrow? The lesson is that sustainable development and growth is the only way out. If it takes a little longer than the quick-fix then so be it; most people would rather this than face such a crisis again in 10 years (or probably even sooner). In short, pretending climate change isn’t as big an issue as the economy, or even continuing to see the two as unconnected, is not only foolish but also downright reckless.

Dejan Levi

NB To find out more about the campaign against Heathrow expansion visit the ‘NO campaign’ website at www.stopheathrowexpansion.com/

Leaked documents seen by the Guardian this week (http://tinyurl.com/4643b9) suggest that the EU council could use the current economic crisis as an excuse for reneging on previous climate change targets and commitments. The council is set to meet this week and will discuss whether to sidestep proposals to increase the EU’s target of a 20% cut in emissions by 2020 to 30% (which will come into effect if a global deal is signed).

The question is why this is even being considered in the first place, and what consequences could we face as a result? Is it not more rational to see this as another exploitation of the public’s fear over the economic crisis (which on a daily basis takes on newly mythical levels of potency in mainstream media reporting), to abandon something which is deeply neccessary but fundamentally politically difficult?

Is the ‘extreme situation’ of the financial crisis not simply being used to reconfigure our notions of what is acceptable in terms of government policy and business practice, and to legitimise failure to meet crucial targets?

Presumably the key tenet of this reasoning is that in the current economic climate we cannot afford to let energy costs increase any further, as people struggle to pay their heating bills this winter. This is a perfectly reasonable concern and must be responsibly addressed.

The idea is that if the climate change commitment is relaxed then EU countries could go ahead with plans to increase coal power generation capacities which in turn would provide cheaper energy so that household bills could be kept down. In theory this would be an effective (and probably popular) short term solution to the economic issue. It all seems perfectly simple and logical…

However the problem is that these exceptional circumstances are acting as an excuse to forget the core facts of climate change - that the cheaper fossil fuel solution brings devastating long-term consequences, something that is now commonly understood in the public domain as indisputable fact. To revert to such solutions essentially amounts to saying; ‘renewables are expensive, let’s just use coal and forget about the environmental issues - it is an economic crisis after all…’

Instead of basically looking at ways to take the easy way out, the EU should be facilitating a more adequate solution. Why not look at subsidy package to help ease the impact of rising household bills over the next few years to quite literally ‘buy’ time to make a significant improvement to renewables capacity?

This whole measure of avoiding targets would no doubt be an effective way of maintaining the status quo (or roughly thereabouts) but the whole problem is that while potentially easier (both for governments and populations) this represents a childish attempt to bury our heads in the sand and hope the problems we face will somehow not be here the day after tomorrow.

Even the 30% cut which is proposed as part of this deal is considered by many experts to be an absolute minimum (and in almost every case only just a stepping stone to further reductions) - so to start wavering at this early stage poses a real threat to a long term process in its infancy. The EU as a leading economic and political institution in the world should surely be focused on leading by example rather than destabalising an essential global effort.

As I write this the meetings will surely be commencing in Brussels for what promises to be a crucial chapter in the future of EU climate change policy and indeed of the world. When the US obstinately obstructed the Kyoto agreement it damaged the entire effort to a degree that set progress back a good few years - for the EU to do similarly now, remembering not only Kyoto but also the increased significance of such a move at this even later stage, would be verging on the criminal were it not so frustratingly and mindlessly short-sighted. We’ll see what decision the next few days brings from Brussels…

Dejan Levi

It is time to distinguish fact from fiction once and for all over the climate change issue. A recent Observer poll has shown that many Britons still doubt the causes of climate change, and question the extent of the problem. Roughly 60% of those surveyed believe that there is still disagreement among scientists over whether climate change is happening, while 40% think the extent of the climate change problem has been exaggerated. Despite this nearly two-thirds want the government to do more to tackle the issue.

How has such a degree of doubt arisen? Where is the confusion coming from?

It is certainly not due to legitimate scientific studies or reports. In the last 10 years there has not been a single scientific paper published that denies climate change is happening, man-made, and massively dangerous - excluding of course the ‘work’ of the numerous psuedo-scientists and documentary makers, and other seemingly independent media voices which have all received payments from oil companies or lobby groups.

So if science is so totally and truly clear in its findings (that climate change is an impending man-made disaster in development); how come so much doubt still pervades among the general public?

Well, in the UK there are some 14,000 people working in the PR industry. In essence people harnessing the power of the media to make private companies look better. The influence of big business in politics has never been greater, and the EU for example is recognising that certain lobby group activities need to be scrutinised. To this end the EU Commission has this week announced a forthcoming new register to monitor the activities of various lobby groups, and the involvement of big business in politics.

Such an effort is vital if we are ever to expel the doubt that still exists relating to climate change and its causes. George Monbiot has recently compared the current situation to that of the efforts of Big Tobacco in decades gone by to create doubt and confusion in the public consciousness over what is, scientifically speaking, a relatively black-and-white issue (http://tinyurl.com/42j9es). The profits that can be made from a misinformed public are colossal, and oil lobbyists (as well as motor industry lobbyists, non-renewable energy lobbysists etc etc) exist for this reason alone.

This week James Hanson, one of the world’s leading climate change scientists will call for executives of oil companies to be placed on trial for crimes against humanity and the planet, on account of the misinformation (and its serious consequences) that they have been responsible for deliberately spreading (http://tinyurl.com/4juqq3). He too has highlighted the similarities with Big Tobacco campaigns, emphasising before congress that ‘democracy is not working in the way it should’ as a result of the fact that ‘money talks in Washington’.

The thousands of PR workers, and billions of dollars that comprise their budgets represent a mighty Goliath indeed. Luckily certain mainstream media channels also wield considerable influence, and it is in this time that they have a crucial role to play in providing accurate and trustworthy information to the general public.

Here’s a little indicator of what is going on; the CEO of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson, (annual salary: £8.54bn) has publicly said: ‘a lot of climate change policy is still up for debate’. However, his company has recently cut funds to groups which ‘divert attention’ from the need to develop renewable energies due to the negative press (and subsequent financial implications) that these activities have been causing. This very action represents an open admission that such groups are used, and the cynical nature of the whole operation is plainly evident in the doublespeak of its wording.

What is needed now more than ever is a commitment from trusted media sources, and across all relevant information outlets as a whole, to a stalwart defence of facts and clarity. The doubt-casters must be thwarted and only black-and white, precise, and clear reporting can achieve this. It is not easy to remove the obstructions of the deluge of PR material that floods the internet and many public information outlets. However only a thorough and accurate practice can redress the imbalance between scientifically established fact and public misconception that currently is a testament to the success of lobby groups and big businesses campaigning on this issue.

Dejan Levi

President Bush has finally unveiled his goals for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately this is at the end of his Presidency and we wait for the results. We’ve put in three links for this news item. The first is the offical White House webpage, the second is the Washington Post’s article about the speach and the third is from the Carbon Conscious Consumer Blog.

White House Webpage
Washington Post
Carbon Conscious Consumer