The Mouse that turned off the lights

So, at long last anthropogenic climate change makes the front pages of every newspaper. The first authoritative report on the subject came out in 1990, yet since then the world has largely managed to avoid making any hard choices to tackle the subject. It is tempting to see us now as the inveterate smoker who waited till he was diagnosed with lung cancer before giving up the weed, by which time the gesture was irrelevant.

It is at times like this that I turn to The Daily Telegraph newspaper for amusement. For years the Telegraph has 'exposed' climate change as a myth perpetrated by Guardian-reading killjoys, intent on slapping taxes on anything enjoyable. The Kyoto agreement was characterised as an attempt by Europeans to hobble the world's economic stallion, the USA, through taxes and levies. Any scientist or economist (such as the bonkers and widely discredited Bjorn Lomborg) that questioned the consensus on global warming was held up as 'the voice of reason'. It seems that being a contrarian is enough to get endorsement by the Telegraph (and, sadly, by The Economist, which is a great newspaper that often finds itself on the wrong side of any argument in which the editors express an opinion).

In the light of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, the skeptics have to find a new line of argument lest they be abandoned floating on a diminishing iceburg with the creationists, MMR vaccine protesters, Donald Rumsfeld and a very hungry polar bear. The Economist has, to its credit, issued a mea culpa and started reporting about the ways international businesses have stopped waiting for politicians to catch up and are already getting on the right side of the debate.

In contrast, The Telegraph's new theme is the Private Frazer approach to crisis management: 'we're all doomed laddie, doomed I tell you!' Today's leader, 'carbon emissions', suggests that as the UK represents such a small proportion of global emissions that,

'Unless the Americans, Chinese and Indians curb their own CO2 emissions, our own efforts will be doomed to costly and pathetic failure.'

Whatever happened to the blitz spirit and Churchill's defiant stand of 'alone, then' in the face of the Nazi menace and America (ever the Jonny-come-lately to a global crisis) refusing to enter the war until a specific invitation was received from Hitler? I hope that the doughty Telegraph reader, port-ridden and bilious after his Sunday beef roast, will not allow his organ to so readily shrivel in the face of a global threat, however alarming.

The fact is that there is much that Britain can do, and indeed is already doing to face the threat of climate change. Although even a 20% cut in UK emissions will not save Greenland if other countries do not follow our lead, we have certain strategic advantages that we could use as leverage:

1) Heathrow airport is the largest passenger hub in Europe and third largest in the world. By lobbying for a Europe-wide aviation tax on all aircraft entering European airspace, the UK could show that narrow economic self-interest should not stymie collective action (hopefully the French will take note).

2) The UK is a net importer of manufactured goods out of all proportion to its size and population (the arrival of the supership Emma Maersk just before Christmas confirmed this). All UK consumers can send a message to developing economies such as China that sustainability must be built into every product. Thoughtlessly buying plastic toys without considering their provenance is a poisoned gift for the child in question, as each pointless extrusion of polyethylene represents a step towards a precarious future for our offspring.

3) One of the few government departments that has improved beyond recognition under this government (OK, the only one), is the Department for International Development (DfID). In development circles, DfID is now regarded as the gold standard of 'good' development practice. It can now use this credibility to encourage other aid agencies to explicitly intervene to stimulate sustainable development. Again, the French could do with some help in this area, along with the Italians, Greeks and Irish. Oh, and of course USAID (not that they listen to anybody).

4) Contrary to doom-laden predictions in 1997, London has advanced and entrenched its position as one of the world's leading financial centres. Any fiendishly clever financial instruments that deal in emissions trading are likely to be designed here. As soon as the speculators see some prospect of lucre in it, they will be head first into the trough. Cap and trade schemes, securitization of natural resources, exotic derivatives and the like will weave the financial markets into a system that at last accounts for environmental consumption along with capital and labour.

So, shall we sob in our bunker with the Daily Telegraph, defeated before we have even fired a shot? Or shall we accept that Britain has a crucial role to play in preserving this wonderful planet for future generations?

Comments

[john]

I do think cutting 20% of the UK's carbon emissions is laudable but peanuts on a global scale.

I reckon the real problem is Western consumption, it is driving the growth of emissions in China etc. We should look to ourselves to lower consumption of goods which are produced by polluting industries.

That probably means tariffs.

Consumer power will save the day yet!

[john]

* by polluting industries, in developing countries.

(thereby incentivising the lowering of emissions)

[ed]

I don't recall Bjorn Lomborg ever refuting man's impact on climate change - but what he did do (if I remember rightly) was dare to put it into context by calculating that for a fraction of the cost of implementing and enforcing the Kyoto agreement we could pay for the installation of fresh water supplies to every village on Earth (thereby saving hundreds of millions lives every year) or other similarly beneficial projects. I for one would certainly have delayed saving our own skins with Kyoto for a year to achieve this.

It's little surprise he was wideley discredited by the established scientific community he so acutely criticised, and as non-scientists with neither the time nor the skills to sift through all his data, analyses and conclusions we're left in the middle of an argument between him and the said establishment, none the wiser as far as I'm concerned .

What is notable is that other huge global human issues costing millions and millions of lives every year simply haven't had the attention they deserve, and rightly or wrongly (and probably inevitably) it's obvious that self-preservation is the driving force behind Kyoto rather than empathy for others. This to me makes Kyoto seem like less of a 'good thing' than it really is.