Is the UK serious about climate change?

The bells toll louder now, but will we listen and act? The UK is hosting the climate summit, the 26th UN Climate Change Conference, COP26, at the end of October. No doubt it will set new targets or reiterate old ones, but more is needed. Politicians need to face reality.

We need to set new goals for our economy and the way we live. It will require the most massive investment, probably bigger than the bail-out of the banking system. If we can bail out the banks, we can save the environment from a cataclysmic global crisis. But governments need to be honest with their citizens. Trading emissions is no longer an option. It simply allows the wealthy and rich countries to park their responsibility onto the shoulders of others.

No doubt, the UK will boast about approaching its targets in reducing carbon emissions. Sadly this is all a sleight of hand. The UK has, in large part, achieved that by exporting its carbon emissions. If the UK is serious about its carbon footprint, it will legislate to reduce this invisible trade-related impact. That is the hardest of the political tasks. It requires a significant restructuring of our economy and no doubt increased prices for our food and so many raw materials. But unless the UK does act on this, it cannot claim any high ground on tackling climate change.

COP26 is perhaps the last opportunity for us to avoid disasters and to impact climate change. It requires bold action. Let us hope our politicians do more than pay lip service to it. If you hear them boasting about what they are already doing, you will know they are missing the mark. If they say we have not done nearly enough and take drastic action, then there is hope.

What we know is that free trade deals that encourage destructive global trade will destroy our planet. Anything short of a significant restructuring of our production and trade will fail to halt the tragedy of adverse man-made climate change.

Photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash

About the writer: Ray Noble is a Chartered Biologist.

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'. The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different. It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to

The Thin End

Search This Blog