Skip to main content

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. 



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha