Registered user login:

Climate change - we've got 10 years

Caroline Lucas

Published 29 November 2007

The Green Party's Caroline Lucas hails a UN report that she argues brings shame upon world leaders before attacking Gordon Brown's "monumental failure of vision"

If you ever thought UN Development Reports were dull statistical tomes, full of little more than dry facts and figures, then the latest report - published this week on climate change - will very soon disabuse you.

This year’s Human Development Report 2007/2008 is a rousing call to arms, which firmly positions climate challenge as the most pressing moral issue of our time.

Rich nations and their citizens account for the overwhelming bulk of greenhouse gas emissions locked in the Earth's atmosphere.

But poor countries and their citizens will pay the highest price for it, as decades of development work are rolled back, destroying any chance of a sustainable future.

Allowing the tragedy of climate change to happen, argues the Report, would represent such a systematic violation of the human rights of the world's poor and of future generations, that it would be "an outrage to the conscience of mankind".

Passionately and eloquently, it hammers home its central message: that the world lacks neither the financial resources nor the technological capacities to act - if we fail to address climate change, it will be because of a simple lack of political will. And such an outcome, says the report, would represent "not just a failure of political imagination and leadership, but a moral failure on a scale unparalleled in history."

The report is critical of all developed countries for their performance so far on cutting emissions. But it singles out the UK government for particularly scathing attack, criticising its failure to adopt ambitious emission reduction targets and its lack of progress in developing renewable sources of energy. Not surprisingly, then, Britain produces more CO2 emissions than Nigeria, Egypt, Pakistan and Vietnam combined.

In attempting to shame this government into action, we can only hope that the UNDP is successful where others have failed. Gordon Brown's recent announcements on the issue have turned hypocrisy into a new art form.

Just a few weeks ago, he was priding himself on his first major speech on climate change, claiming he was ready to meet this "immense challenge". Just four days later, his government gave the green light to a major expansion of aviation, the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. Such behaviour isn't just pathological - it demonstrates a monumental failure of political vision and leadership.

We are at a crucial stage in the battle to protect the world’s people from rising temperatures in the Earth’s atmosphere. We need nothing short of a revolution in the way we run our economies, the way we produce and consume, and the way we measure human welfare.

It's been estimated that, globally, it would cost about £800bn a year to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2050.

It sounds a lot, but it's substantially less than what we currently spend globally on arms. Governments urgently need to redefine security, and to recognise that climate change poses by far the greatest threat to our own security, and to that of future generations.

Reversing the environmental devastation wrought by current processes of economic globalisation, transforming our economies, asserting real global leadership on climate change through challenging the ‘business as usual’ politics that have caused it - all these things are possible, but they will require political will.

And as the quotation from Martin Luther King at the front of the report reminds us: “there is such a thing as being too late”. The world has less than a decade to change course. No issue merits more urgent attention – or more immediate action.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

11 comments from readers

tonyrobin
29 November 2007 at 17:32

It is true that the world has, perhaps less than 10 yrs to get its act together. But I dont think any of the major countries are listening. I believe they are like many of the sceptics, they read the figures all the warnings, yet still dont believe it. Lets wait and see how it goes. Instead, more investment into fossil fuels, and now that oil is becoming more expensive, and reserves expected to finish in less than 30 yrs, their thoughts go to the old favourite, coal. Coal is plentiful, but extremely dangerous for the climate. Even the most modern clean coal plants emit close to 1000 lbs CO2 / Mwh. A Nordic CHP plant emits 45 lbs CO2/Mwh. You wrote that the UK emits more CO2 than 4 named countries, go futher and say that the UK emits more CO2 than all of the 100 countries at the bottom of the list. In the next 10 years, the UK will emit more CO2 than it does today, due to increasing demand, even if emissions/Mwh are reduced.

DrColes
29 November 2007 at 17:40

The debate is over; all we now see is propaganda articles. Political propaganda NOT science. UK court says Gore is a fraud. August 2007 Update: Man-made Catastrophic Global Warming Not True. Unfortunately, Hansen is a political hack of George Soros. Further, flawed NASA Global Warming data paid for by George Soros. In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework; a starting point http://www.InteliOrg.com/ Remember CONSENSUS is NEVER science it’s always a POLITICAL STATEMENT (Party Line).

tonyrobin
29 November 2007 at 17:51

Dr Coles, more claptrap and baloney. You are a doctor in what may I ask, feline skin infections

Chris Hyland
30 November 2007 at 01:01

"Remember CONSENSUS is NEVER science it’s always a POLITICAL STATEMENT (Party Line)"

So the theory that the Earth goes round the Sun or that germs cause diseases is also a political statement?

Just beacuse you don't like the implications doesn't mean the science is wrong.

tonyrobin
01 December 2007 at 07:32

Dr Coles, so you think that this debate in over, well after reading articles on your OWN INTELIORG.com, I must say that I have read some claptrap in my life, but this takes the biscuit. Typical propaganda from the USA, party political propaganda from the Senate, what a load of baloney. I wonder if any of the named scientists ever get off their backsides and travel to places across the N Hemisphere and see the results with their own eyes, that the climate is changing. It is only natural that the USA based scientists are only mouthpieces for the USA government, its all about money. What will it cost. Do we really have to do something, or perhaps if we wait, all this climate scaring will go away. You and the rest can believe in what you want, continue with your coal fired power stations, continue poluting the atmosphere, I only wish that all the USAs polution could stay over the USA, but it doesnt. Many areas in the USA are already well above 410ppm CO2, some above 420ppm. This is natural changes as you say. Not natural when the highest figure over the past 500000yrs is only 280ppm.

Bob Latimer
11 December 2007 at 07:30

We have to fight fire with fire when dealing with amorality. There is B.P breaking all the rules just to earn more money for the greedy shareholders. How much do they need then? ain't 11 billion enough. They break all the rules against the people, so why should'nt the people break the rules against them? A couple of kids on a computer could do a lot more against the immorality of the so called "untouchables" than all the marches in the world. (Not one word about the climate change marches in any news chanels) have i seen yet? Read my blog: www.northernair.org

DrColes
01 January 2008 at 16:51

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.

http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz

Pat T
24 January 2008 at 02:44

We've got 10 years - - - - - isn't that what they said 10 years ago?

10 years before what - hurricanes get stronger or weaker (they're now arguing both sides of that you know).

Pat T
24 January 2008 at 02:46

When hurricanes were more frequent and stronger, global warming was alleged to cause more frequent and stronger hurricanes:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...

http://zfacts.com/p/120.html

http://www.livescience.com/environment/a...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=1...

Now that the last two hurricane seasons have been duds, they're saying almost the opposite:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/na...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/2...

If X happens, American industry did it, via global warming.

If the opposite of X happens, American industry did it, via global warming.

Pat T
24 January 2008 at 02:48

Now most of the warmers are denying the stall in global warming that this news source wrote about a few months ago.

But in case the stall continues they're polishing off an excuse - they call it "global dimming."

Just wait, you'll hear about it soon if the temperature increase doesn't start up again.

It's just more backtracking, yet another example of the facts change, the joke changes but the punchline remains the same "it's bad and American production and consumption caused it."

Pat T
25 January 2008 at 23:17

And by the way the debate is hardly over:

http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/uploads/scientificconsens...

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Also by Caroline Lucas

Read More

Vote!

Is this the worst economic situation for 60 years?