how is your country getting to a 'sustainable' future... and 'zero-carbon'?

ZERO-CARBON

Let's start with 'zero-carbon'

So what does net-zero mean? Completely eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions? Not necessarily. The “net” part of net-zero means we can still emit CO₂, as long as we offset (or remove) those emissions from the atmosphere by the same amount in other places… Net-zero, carbon-neutral, carbon-negative … confused by all the carbon jargon? Then read this

When does ‘zero’ not mean ‘zero’? When it’s greenwashing, of course

Net-zero 2050-ism must not be allowed to give oxygen to the lie that we can continue business-as-usual, without radically changing our lifestyles and economies… In fact, what appears to be happening is that many corporations and, in some cases, governments are concealing destructive fossil-fuelled business under the cloak of promises to be net-zero carbon by 2050.

A powerful case was made by James Dyke from the Global Systems Institute at Exeter University that net-zero can be a dangerous trap that lulls the public into thinking that real action is being taken to address the emergency. In fact, what appears to be happening is that many corporations and, in some cases, governments are concealing destructive fossil-fuelled business under the cloak of promises to be net-zero carbon by 2050. He argues they are banking on unproven carbon removal technologies to compensate – in the 2040s – for increasing emissions in the 2020s…

When does ‘zero’ not mean ‘zero’? When it’s greenwashing, of course | The Independent

Here is an audio version of Dr Dyke’s piece in the Conversation:

They argue that they’ve arrived at the painful realisation that the idea of net zero has licensed a recklessly cavalier “burn now, pay later” approach which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar. It has also hastened the destruction of the natural world by increasing deforestation today, and greatly increases the risk of further devastation in the future. Why the concept of net zero is a dangerous trap – podcast

James Dyke wrote in this week’s i-newspaper about the devastating fires in North America: The heat dome proves climate change is not a distant threat – it’s here now, and it’s killing people and Media reaction: Pacific north-west ‘heat dome’ and the role of climate change | Carbon Brief

He has a book out next month:

Fire, Storm and Flood: The violence of climate change: James Dyke
An unflinching photographic record of the epic effects of a violent climate, from the earliest extinction events to the present.
Violent geologic events have ravaged the Earth since time began, spanning the vast eons of our planet’s existence. These seismic phenomena have scored their marks in rock strata and been reflected in fossil records for future humanity to excavate and ponder. For most of the preceeding 78,000 years Homo sapiens simply observed natural climate upheaval. One hundred years ago, however, industrialization stunningly changed the rules, so that now most climate change is driven by us.
Fire, Storm and Flood is an unflinching photographic record of the epic effects of a violent climate, from the earliest extinction events to the present, in which we witness climate chaos forced by unnatural global warming. It uses often emotional and moving imagery to drive home the enormity of climatic events, offering a sweeping acknowledgment of our crowded planet’s heartbreaking vulnerability and show-stopping beauty. headofzeus.com/books/9781800242982 Books – James Dyke

If we go to Exeter, “choosing politically-palatable policies to present as solutions that don’t actually work” suggests that:

City councillors had a very limited understanding of what reducing Exeter’s carbon footprint to sustainable levels would actually involve.” The ‘Net Zero’ Exeter plan has “profound flaws” – Vision Group for Sidmouth

The excellent Exeter Observer posted this on its Twitter pages last week, showing that a new ‘Roaring Twenties’ might not get us to any targets, zero or otherwise: @WMO report confirms “relentless” intensification of climate crisis @IEA expects post-pandemic economic stimulus to drive huge carbon emissions rise @GreenAllianceUK says UK emissions to overshoot 2030 target by 40%

Its editor retweeted a link to this piece from the Conversation: This article/thread is necessary reading for all those who still mistakenly believe that #NetZeroExeter groupthink/rhetoric/solutionism will save us

And here is the opening of that article, penned by Exeter University’s own James Dyke and colleagues:

The threats of climate change are the direct result of there being too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it follows that we must stop emitting more and even remove some of it. This idea is central to the world’s current plan to avoid catastrophe. In fact, there are many suggestions as to how to actually do this, from mass tree planting, to high tech direct air capture devices that suck out carbon dioxide from the air.
The current consensus is that if we deploy these and other so-called “carbon dioxide removal” techniques at the same time as reducing our burning of fossil fuels, we can more rapidly halt global warming. Hopefully around the middle of this century we will achieve “net zero”. This is the point at which any residual emissions of greenhouse gases are balanced by technologies removing them from the atmosphere.
This is a great idea, in principle. Unfortunately, in practice it helps perpetuate a belief in technological salvation and diminishes the sense of urgency surrounding the need to curb emissions now.
We have arrived at the painful realisation that the idea of net zero has licensed a recklessly cavalier “burn now, pay later” approach which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar. It has also hastened the destruction of the natural world by increasing deforestation today, and greatly increases the risk of further devastation in the future….

Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap

SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

The idea of ‘sustainability’ is very slippery – so much so that it has been used and abused until it means almost nothing: Futures Forum: The semantics of sustainability: ‘sustainable development’… or ‘sustainable growth’ … or ‘sustained economic growth’… or ‘development for sustainability’…

Interestingly, more and more businesses over the last decade have been considering ‘longtermism’ as a way to look afresh at ‘sustainability’: Unilever chief on long-termism and sustainability | Financial Times and Why We Need Corporate Long-Termism & Responsible Investment and The link between long-termism and sustainability | Investor Strategy News

However, not everyone is convinced – with the philosopher Émile P Torres writing in October 2021:

The point is that longtermism might be one of the most influential ideologies that few people outside of elite universities and Silicon Valley have ever heard about. I believe this needs to change because, as a former longtermist who published an entire book four years ago in defence of the general idea, I have come to see this worldview as quite possibly the most dangerous secular belief system in the world today. But to understand the nature of the beast, we need to first dissect it, examining its anatomical features and physiological functions. Why longtermism is the world’s most dangerous secular credo | Aeon Essays

Here’s another philosopher writing earlier this month. Nigel Warburton considers how the extensive use of neonicotinoids to provide us with cheap sugar is not a ‘sustainable’ approach to farming – and he’d prefer a ‘less exotic short- to mediumtermism’ instead of the idea of ‘longtermism’. Here are some excerpts from his recent piece:

The short-term fix that is bad for bees

Sugar is bad for us. We know this, but as a nation we consume a lot, whether in sweetened drinks, cakes, or other food. That’s why sugar farming is a big industry in the UK. In tropical and subtropical climates they grow sugar cane, but here homegrown sugar comes from beet. But beet suffers from yellow virus, a disease spread by aphids. Yellow virus can destroy a crop.

If you want to kill aphids, neonicotinoid pesticides are very effective. They act on insects’ nervous systems. Unfortunately, they also take out honey bees, bumble bees, and solitary bees as collateral. Even where the insecticide picked up in pollen or nectar doesn’t kill these bees, it can damage their ability to forage and reproduce. Wild flowers nearby can build up residues of toxins too. It’s a dangerous time to be a bee.

Yet the UK government… has decided to allow the emergency use of neonicotinoids on sugar beet, despite independent scientific advice warning against this… But the cost will be very high for bees. This is iatrogenic medicine, a treatment that leaves the patient in a worse condition because of side effects. This year’s crop will probably be OK, but the future of food farming in the UK will be jeopardised.

Many fruit and vegetable plants are dependent on pollinator insects. Bee populations are already in serious decline due to climate change, disease, and loss of habitat, but also because too many farmers have used toxic chemicals unwisely. The government’s short-termism here is disappointing…

Assuming the interests of the virus-spreading aphids and of the bees don’t count for much, and the consequent health-damaging effects on the population of cheap sugar production aren’t too great, then perhaps the government could argue on utilitarian grounds that this is the best way to maximise beneficial outcomes. But any analysis which takes a slightly longer view will show neonicotinoid use to be reckless short-termism. It will kill beneficial insects and so will damage food farming.

If we take a much longer-term view, a dramatic and perhaps irreversible drop in pollinator numbers would be a disaster not just for people living now, but for those who have yet to be born. There could be trillions of these before humans go extinct…

Recently, some Oxford-based longtermist philosophers, including Nick Bostrom, Toby Ord and Will MacAskill, revealed they are prepared to bite that bullet: they’ve argued in favour of giving a surprisingly large weighting to the interests of all those not yet existent people. I’m sceptical about aspects of their longtermism, particularly their confidence in the predictions they make about what is likely to happen in the distant future.

But we don’t need to join the longtermist philosophers with their concerns about the trillions of unborn people’s interests or make accurate predictions about future centuries to recognise that people living today will be seriously damaged by a massive reduction in numbers of pollinator insects. A less exotic short- to mediumtermism is sufficient to see how foolish it is to license neonicotinoid use.

We don’t know for sure what the distant future will be like, but a bee-light medium-term future is looming, and that is very disturbing. And for what? Sugar.

Everyday Philosophy: The short-term fix that is bad for bees – The New European

.

.

.