Explanations, Examples and Arguments on Climate Change

Understanding the Relationship Between Climate Change and Global Economy

• How climate change, or the causes of climate change, have impacted the global economy in the recent past - and especially how the attitudes which lead to climate change have also led to the problems in the global economy.

• How global economy impacts climate change. For example, it may be argued that whatever we receive in income ends up as climate change emissions (see below). If this is so, then, of a global scale, no growing economy can reduce climate change emissions.

But all three relationship must be taken into account, and all three understood. We call urgently for more discussion of the latter two.

In addition, in this Manifesto we a deeper root to both these:

• Both arise from a spiritual root: the aspirations we have in life, the expectations of what is normal and our right, and assumptions about the nature of things. The globalised, individualistic, Western view removes from this any sense of responsibility before God, and has a hard time even feeling a responsibility to future generations. It is this that lies at the root of both problems of economy and climate change.

In this Manifesto we try to face the challenge of all three.

Back to Manifesto.

Climate Change and Global Temperature: A Climatological Explanation

• Human activities generate CCEs.
• CCEs increase the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere.
• The greenhouse effect occurs because the balance is altered between solar radiation warming the earth's surface and long-wave radiation back into space from the earth. Increased greenhouse gases reduce this long-wave radiation (property of these gases, including carbon dioxide, methane). Radiation increases with temperature (simple fact of physics). To restore equilibrium between input and output energy (basic law of physics), the earth atmosphere must heat up a bit.
• There are some other factors at play too:
  • Some other effects such as industrial pollution limit some of this increase.
  • In addition there are cycles of rise and fall of global temperature (e.g. from sunspot cycles and El Ninio).
  • But overall, there is an inexorable greenhouse effect due to human activities.
• Warmer atmosphere means more energy in atmosphere. More energy in atmosphere means a lot more kinetic energy, not just an increased temperature. Increased kinetic energy means more storms, different wind patterns, etc.
• This leads to climate change, such as changes in rainfall patterns and more frequent and more severe droughts and storms.
• Climate change has many impacts; see below, mostly negative and many of them irreversible.

Before the start of the industrial era, around 1750, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration had been approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) for several thousand years. Ice from Antartica also indicate that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 did not exceed 300ppm for the 650,000 years before the beginning of the industrial era. The Industrial Revolution disturbed this balance and it has risen continuously since then, reaching 383 ppm in 2007. The annual carbon dioxide growth-rate was larger during the last ten years (1.9 ppm/year from 1995-2005) than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1.4 ppm/year from 1960-2005). This unexpected increase in carbon dioxide concentration is important, because the current suites of emission scenarios informing the international and national climate change agenda seldom include emissions data post 2000 (Anderson and Bows, 2008). For example, while Stern (2006) assumes a mean annual CO2e (CO2 equivalent: CO2 plus other greenhouse trace gasses) emission growth between 2000 and 2006 of approximately 0.95%, the growth rate calculated from the latest empirical data is closer to 2.4%. At the present rate of increase, atmospheric CO2 concentration will reach 400 ppm in about 10 years. [Source: John Lockwood]

Why is it necessary to keep CO2 concentration down? And what concentration is desirable? The average global change in surface temperature between the depth of the last ice age about 20,000 years ago and the present day is about 5°C. A concentration of 450 ppm would increase global temperatures by 2°C - equivalent to almost half of the temperature change between the present day and the depth of the last ice age. Such an increase would have significant impacts. See impacts below. Anything more than 2°C is likely to be very damaging.

The politicians tend to see 550 ppm as a 'magic figure' to work with in their planning: we must at all costs keep concentrations below 550 ppm. How to achieve this? Since we cannot (within political feasibility) cut the level of CCEs overnight, it is expected that CCEs will peak sometime in the next 20 years and then decline; the date at which CCEs peak and the rate of decline thereafter is called a trajectory. Studies of different trajectories have been carried out:

Committee Climate Change (CCC) (2008) have analysed eight greenhouse gas emission trajectories. Trajectories with global emissions peaking in 2028, and with subsequent reductions in total CO2 emissions of 1.5%, 2% and 3% per annum. Trajectories with global emissions peaking in 2016 with subsequent reductions in total CO2 emissions of 1.5%, 2%, 3% and 4%. None of the three trajectories with emissions peaking in 2028 would keep atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations below 550 ppm CO2e by the end of the century, and all would give a global average warming of 2.5-2.8°C this century. Global temperature increases above 2°C are widely considered to be potentially highly damaging. CCC (2008) does not believe that a global policy, which leaves emissions peaking as late as 2028, is adequate. All the trajectories with emissions peaking in 2016, except a 1.5% annual reduction after 2016, would keep concentrations below 550 ppm CO2e by the end of the century. Only reductions after 2016 at 3% or 4% per year would limit the chance of reaching 4°C to very low levels, with central model estimates indicating a 2.2°C rise this century with the 3% trajectory, and a 2.1°C rise with the 4% one. Even in these cases the CCC (2008) comment that the chances of exceeding 2°C by 2100 would be 63% and 56% respectively. [Source: John Lockwood]

The following, part of a draft of a Report on emission targets for TearFund written by John Lockwood, and used with permission, puts it all together:

" As already noted, the long life of CO2 in the atmosphere makes stabilization difficult, and at present nearly impossible in the short term, for levels below the present atmospheric concentration (383 ppm). The carbon cycle has a strong one-way direction in the short term that is to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration. For this reason Hansen et al (2008) target of 350 ppm, while scientifically sound, is not attainable in the foreseeable future. Houghton (private communication) comments that the stabilization of CO2 alone below 400 ppm would require an immediate drastic reduction in global emissions which would be extremely difficult to achieveand that this is not attainable. Houghton believes that the targets of 2°C and 450 ppm (around 520 CO2e) provide a rational basis for action at the present time. However a 450 ppm stabilization level for CO2 only provides a 50% chance of achieving a 2°C temperature rise. An 80% chance of achieving 2°C would require stabilization at about 380 ppm (around 440 ppm CO2e), the current atmospheric CO2 level. A 50% chance of a 3°C temperature rise only would require a CO2 stabilization level of 550 ppm (around 620 ppm CO2e).

CCC (2008) have analysed eight greenhouse gas emission trajectories. Trajectories with global emissions peaking in 2028, and with subsequent reductions in total CO2 emissions of 1.5%, 2% and 3% per annum. Trajectories with global emissions peaking in 2016 with subsequent reductions in total CO2 emissions of 1.5%, 2%, 3% and 4%. None of the three trajectories with emissions peaking in 2028 would keep atmospheric GHG concentrations below 550 CO2e by the end of the century, and all would give a global average warming of 2.5-2.8°C this century. CCC (2008) does not believe that a global policy, which leaves emissions peaking as late as 2028, is adequate. All the trajectories with emissions peaking in 2016, except a 1.5% annual reduction after 2016, would keep concentrations below 550 CO2e by the end of the century. Only reductions after 2016 at 3% or 4% per year would limit the chance of reaching 4°C to very low levels, with central model estimates indicating a 2.2°C rise this century with the 3% trajectory, and a 2.1°C rise with the 4% one. Even in these cases the CCC (2008) comment that the chances of exceeding 2°C by 2100 would be 63% and 56% respectively.

Anderson and Bows (2008) comment that in the absence of the widespread deployment of geoengineering technologies that remove and store atmospheric carbon dioxide they come to the following conclusions. If emissions peak in 2015, stabilization at 450 ppm CO2e requires subsequent annual reductions of 4% in CO2e and 6.5% in energy and process emissions. If emissions peak in 2020, stabilization at 550 ppm CO2e requires subsequent annual reductions of 6% in CO2e and 9% in energy and process emissions.

As the century progresses, because sulphur dioxide emissions are highly lightly to decrease, the sulphate aerosol cooling will decrease. Therefore the minor greenhouse gas contribution to global warming will steadily increase. Parry (2008) and Parry et al (2008) comment that limiting impacts to acceptable levels by mid-century and beyond would require an 80% cut in global emissions by 2050. This policy, leading to a stabilization of greenhouse gases at 400-470 ppm CO2 equivalents would still leave a large number (half billion in 2050) of people at risk of water stress and flooding by climate change. Lord John Browne, one time Group Chief Executive of British Petroleum, has stated that, for carbon dioxide, stabilisation in the range 500 CO2e 550 ppm is possible, and with care could be achieved without disrupting economic growth (Committee on Climate Change (CCC), 2008). Houghton (2008) considers that global emissions should peak at 2016 for 450 ppm CO2 (520 CO2e) stabilization and 2°C temperature rise. As explained above the CCC report (2008) suggests that a decrease in emissions of at least 3% per year is required. As explained later, the peak for individual countries will vary, but all should decline to about zero at 2050.

Both the CCC (2008) study and that by Meinshausen et al (2006) suggest that greenhouse gas concentrations will have to overshoot an acceptable long-term level and then fall before temperatures reach equilibrium. If it were assumed that overshoot is not acceptable, then much stronger action would be required. Anderson and Bows (2008) show that a long-term stabilisation at 450 CO2e without overshoot (leaving a roughly 50% probability of exceeding 2°C) will require a 6.5% annual reduction in fossil fuel CO2 emissions given current emissions growth.

The Rio Earth Summit in Article 2 states that the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere should be stabilized at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The stabilisation should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner."

Back to Manifesto.

Examples of Man-Made Climate Change Emissions

• "We burn fossil fuels too easily" - air conditioning, aviation, cars, heating, electricity all involve massive CCE-generation. Which of these are unnecessary? Per passenger or tonne of freight, road transport emits three times as much as rail transport, and air transport emits ten times as much, so could we use rail more instead of air or car or truck? Westerners: why not cycle or walk more? People of India: why aspire to leave your bike behind; treasure it! The people of Netherlands do!

• "We destroy forests that soak up carbon dioxide" - for mahogany and other tropical hardwoods, and to grow crops like palm oil. Which of this is unnecessary? Too much tropical hardwood is used for luxury in the rich nations. Too much palm oil finds its way into Western processed food (usually as 'vegetable oil' in the ingredients: you can usually find an alternative).

• "We demand products whose production emits greater CCEs" - for example desiring beef, we expand hugely the numbers of cattle (who emit methane). Do overfed Americans (and others) really need so much beef? Bottled water emits 300 times the CCEs that tap water (in UK, where tap water can be drunk) does. Do we really need so much bottled water rather than tap water?

• "We pressure governments to higher energy-related expenditure" - usually not a single large project but a myriad of small ones (remember the Scots' saying "Mony a mickle maks a muckle"), for example in the UK councils keep street lighting on all night (because we believe doing so reduces crime!), and also they keep on adding new night lighting along rural roads.

Back to Manifesto.

Climate Change Impacts

• Increased frequency and ferocity of storms
• Melting polar ice cap
• Melting glaciers

Some negative impacts are most likely to happen over the next few decades:

• Human communities, mainly poor, threatened by higher sea levels - leading to massive population migrations as people flee their homes, leading to local and international tensions.

• Increasing scarcity of water - leading to military conflicts.

• Hunger in the arid areas - leading to rising number of environmental refugees.

• The hydrological cycle becoming more intense - leading to floods, droughts, storms of increasing severity more frequently. For example, the extremely hot summer of 2003 that hastened the deaths of 10,000 in France, which is currently of a 1-in-200 years severity is likely to become commonplace by middle to end of the century.

• Breakdown of sensitive ecosystems, decline of biodiversity - robbing major ecosystems of robustness, depriving future generations of the diversity of resources to discover for e.g. new medicines, which we have enjoyed for so long.

It is the poorest regions will be most negatively affected by climate change. (Is that just and fair?) With some of these impacts, there is no return; for example, once a species has been lost it cannot be recovered. Once we have increased the global temperature it will take millennia to reduce.

Are there any positive impacts? There might be for people in colder climates.

• Small temperature increases might allow more food-growing in colder climates. But aggregate market studies suggest that the potential beneficial effects of small temperature increases will be exhausted sooner (i.e. at lower temperatures) than previously estimated. [source? ====]

Back to Manifesto.

How Do We Know?

• 'Climate Sciences': Try to understand how the planet and its ecosystems behave. This involves a circular ongoing process:
  • Proposing models and theories relevant to planet and ecosystems.
  • Gathering evidence to test and refine them.
  • Debate to test and refine that process until consensus is arrived at.
  • Clarifying the consensus results.
  • Being cautious and humble ('self-critical') by keeping an eye open for things overlooked, and returning to above steps when necessary.

• Identifying factors from that which human activity might (directly or indirectly) affect. e.g. CO2, CH4 concentrations.
• Engineering sciences: Try to understand what affects those, e.g. cars running, cows farting.
• Human sciences: Try to understand how human activity affects the amount of those things happening. e.g. the more we drive, the more cows we breed and feed (especially with industrialised feed).
• Social sciences: Try to understand how structures of, and aspirations and beliefs in, society affect human activity. e.g. externalising the costs of driving, keeping fuel cheap, spending lots on roads, and massive marketing, all increase car use; industrial farming and marketing of beef products increases number of cows.
• Politics and management: Take appropriate, responsible action.

The first step above is what is loosely called climate science. The latter steps apart from the final one involve the human, social and societal sciences. The final one involves human responsibility: management, politics, etc.

By and large, the climate scientists and governments who agree on the reality of climate change and that it arises from human activity, have been careful about most of those steps (though some governments resist some of the findings of social sciences and are unwilling to take action).

By and large, the climate skeptics are engaged in a 'crusade' against climate change rather than contributing to debate; they are narrow-minded and not open to having their own beliefs and assumptions scrutinised (even though they claim and even believe they are). See, for example, examination of Nigel Lawson's book.

Back to Manifesto.

The Atmosphere as a Nonlinear System

In the atmosphere, the 'input' is amount of CCEs, and the 'output' is the changes to climate and its impacts. The atmosphere is a nonlinear system, with an unexpected steep part. The reason this is important here is that climate change effects seem to be happening sooner than we had predicted, suggesting that the atmosphere is a nonlinear system.

John Lockwood, to explain this nonlinearity, writes the following text especially for this section.

The climate record shows rapid step-like shifts in climate variability that occur over decades or less, as well as climate extremes (e.g. droughts) that persist for decades. The variability of climate can be expressed in terms of the following basic modes:

• the forced variations which are the response of the climate system to external forcing,
• the free variations owing to internal instabilities and
• feedbacks to non-linear interactions among the various components of the climate system.

The external causes operate mostly by causing variations in the amount of solar radiation received or absorbed by the Earth, and comprise variations in both astronomical (e.g. orbital parameters) and terrestrial forcings (e.g. atmospheric composition, aerosol loading). The internal free variations in the climate system are associated with both positive and negative feedback interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere and biosphere. These feedbacks lead to instabilities or oscillations of the system on all time-scales, and can operate independently or reinforce external forcings.

The inherent non-linear nature of the atmosphere is manifest in interactions and fluctuations on a wide range of space and time scales. Even on the annual scale, abrupt circulation changes are observed as seasonal changes progress. Many climatic switches take place on time-scales that are relatively short, and make them of significant societal relevance. There are a number of types of behaviour found in dissipative, highly non-linear systems, under non-equilibrium conditions. In particular, as a system evolves, it may approach a bifurcation point where the natural fluctuations become abnormally high, as the system may 'choose' among various regimes. These bifurcation points are often know as tipping points in the popular literature [from the metaphor of walking slowly along a see-saw, until at one point it suddenly tips over]. Under non-equilibrium conditions, local events have repercussions throughout the whole system, with long-range correlations appearing at the precise point of transition from equilibrium to non-equilibrium conditions. Long-range correlations (teleconnections) are indeed observed in the atmosphere, and the strength of these teleconnections is observed to vary with time.

Examples of non-linearity in the climate system include the following.

• The Asian monsoon shows an abrupt change or seasonal jump in the northern spring. This abrupt change in the Asian monsoon system is characterized by a sudden shift northward of the subtropical westerly jetstream in early June. This is associated with nearly simultaneous changes in atmospheric circulation parameters over large regions of southern Asia.
• On a longer time scale, throughout the Alps, the last 3000 years were characterized by repeated glacial events at intervals of 200 - 400 years, which, in some, were comparable to the Little Ice Age of around 1700. The advances were quite sudden and rapid, with advances in the later ones obscuring the earlier events.
• The sparse long records of Sahel rainfall suggest that conditions of the last couple of decades may be unprecedented in the context of the last several centuries, and also, that shifts from one variability state (e.g. 'wet') to another (e.g. 'dry') may occur in a couple of years.

Simulations from even the earliest global climate models have shown that the effects of loading the atmosphere with greenhouse gases would be seen first and be especially prominent in the Arctic, largely due to feedbacks involving the loss of sea ice and snow cover. Particularly important are the ice-albedo feedback, where absorption of solar radiation increases when snow melts, and the loss of sea ice cover allowing for strong heat transfers from the ocean to the atmosphere. Serreze (2009) has summarized recent climate change in the Arctic. In October 2007, surface temperature showed very large positive anomalies (10 - 12°C) over areas of the Arctic Ocean experiencing record sea ice loss. This basic pattern of autumn warming has been emerging over the past seven years or so. Model simulations suggest that conditions are ripe for a 'tipping point' once the spring ice thickness averaged across the Arctic Ocean thins to about 2.5m, close to the value estimated for spring 2007 from IceSat, NASA's satellite altimeter system. In one of the model simulations, the tipping point occurred in 2024 when 1.8 million km2 of ice was lost. Associated with this Arctic warming, the extent and intensity of summer surface melt over the Greenland Ice Sheet has shown a general upward trend. There is evidence that some of this melt water is reaching the base of the large Greenland glaciers, lubricating them and increasing the iceberg discharge to the North Atlantic. This raises concern that projections of sea level rise through the 21st century are too conservative, What is surprising climatologists is the rapid rate of change in Arctic conditions.

Back to Manifesto.

Reaching 80% Reduction in CCEs

Back to Manifesto.

Example of Leading Nations

Back to Manifesto.

All Sectors of Society Contribute to the Problem

• Us - Every good or service we purchase generates climate change emissions: in its production, storage, distribution or use. See section Why Global Economic Activity Generates CCEs for details.

• Business - Business sees it as its purpose to provide as many goods and services for us as possible, so that it gains as much of our money as it can. Very few business have the courage to restrict their output for the sake of keeping climate change in check.

• Bankers and financiers - They make too much money available to us, making it all too easy to buy more and aspire to buy more (as well as via goods and services they purchase).

• Politicians - Politicians give overriding importance to economic growth. So they resist making serious policy changes to address climate change that would put economic growth at risk.

• Media - The media under-represent the message of responsibility and over-represent the views and hollow anger of climate sceptics. The media support and exacerbate the false assumption that we have a basic right to almost whatever we fancy or desire.

Back to Manifesto.

The Problems Reinforce Each Other

• Us - If we try to cut back our consumption (as in the 2009 economic downturn), business, banks and politicians call us to spend more for the sake of the economy, and the media willingly conveys their message.

• Business - If business tries to reduce its output it is told that it will suffer in the competition with its rivals, and it is told it is stupid to do so.

• Bankers and financiers - If bankers restrict their lending to us, we get angry, and politicians castigates them for reducing economic growth, and business castigates them for putting jobs at risk.

• Politicians - If politicians try to bring in policies that encourage reduced climate change emitting activity, we and the media both scream at them, and they back down (example: the UK fuel duty escalator was scrapped in 2001 because the Blair government ran scared of fuel price protestors).

• Media - If the media try to give a message promoting responsibility, we, business and politicians castigate them for being moralising and boring. And their ratings suffer.

This reinforcement has yet to be properly studied, investigated and understood. Perhaps someone will undertake serious research into this?

Back to Manifesto.

Why Western Lifestyle Generates Climate Change Emissions

• We jump in a car (burning fuel) without thinking to go even the shortest distance, because it is so convenient.
• We demand uninterrupted electricity supply, and use it unnecessarily, because it is to cheap and convenient.
• We keep on buying new goods (CCEs in their manufacture, storage, distribution) even when what we already own is still perfectly serviceable, because we assume we have a right to the best that our money can buy.
• We take several air flights a year (massive CCEs), assuming this is the only way to holiday.
• We avail ourselves of pleasures, thinking we deserve them; most generate CCEs. We demand what are now called 'hedonic products'.
• We assume that what is good can only be procured my money, and that 'free' services such as enjoying the natural world are inferior.
• We assume we have a right to be employed for pay.
• We assume that our pay should continually increase.

These lead to a mix of bigger and smaller things. Bigger things:

• e.g. cars

Smaller things, which nevertheless mount up:

• e.g. leaving the PC on overnight

Note: changing lifestyle does not mean 'sacrifices', but more joy in life. See the experience of Ashton Hayes.

Back to Manifesto.

Why Global Economic Activity Generates CCEs

Suppose I receive $1000 per month. It might be used as follows:

• Direct spend on fuel and energy is converted to CCEs.
• Some is spent on goods, but the production, marketing, storage, distribution of these generates CCEs.
  • Production uses energy (except for secondhand goods).
  • Storage uses energy (heating, lighting, refrigeration).
  • Distribution uses energy.
  • Marketing uses energy (heating, lighting, travelling).
• Some is spent on services, ditto.
• Some is saved in a bank - but does not the bank then almost immediately put that money 'to work' by lending it to others, and thus it can be treated recursively like the whole e1000.
• Some is sent to the government as tax - but same as with bank savings.
• Some is given to charity - but again, same as with banks.
• Spend on activities that reduce the planet's ability to cope with CCEs, e.g. deforestation, is equivalent to generating CCEs.
• *Activities* that increase the planet's ability to cope with CCEs, e.g. reforestation, is equivalent to reducing CCEs. But *spend* on such activities involves giving people their own e1000; see next point.

The conversion ratio ($ to CCEs) might vary, but it is clear that all money-flow implies CCE generation.

Question is: can we find a way to reduce the conversion of $ to CCEs by a massive 80%? If not, then the total global economy must shrink.

Back to Manifesto.

Examples of Ignoring of Aspects

Back to Manifesto.

Examples How Social and Economic Structures Affect CCEs

How Structures Encourage certain behaviours, most of which increase CCEs. First, some high-level general examples:

• Technology built to serve productivity. Existing technological achievements and innovations are mainly geared to the promotion of productivity and organisational efficiency as it is honoured by, and leads to more profitable results within, the market-sector of our economies. So driving up the general level of consumptive demand in our economies ; we need to consume always more to cope with the always increasing supply of goods in the economy,due to the ongoing increase in (labour-and-capital) productivity. (cf. President Eisenhower: it is a duty of every american to consume) - with all its CCE conequences. (This in fact asks for a kind of liberation of technology from the far too strong orientation on the present marketsector; technology should firstly serve sustainability and not the highest economic rate of material expansion. See 'Technology' row in Manifesto.)

• Structure of legislation. Three problems.
  • Much legislation actively encourages high-carbon ways of living and working, for example that related to health and safety in the UK.
  • Contamination of legislation that recognises need to reduce CCEs with other aims. Example: UK Energy Bill has two pillars, reduction in CCEs and national energy security. Guess which of these has the greater weight in actual reality!
  • Loopholes in legislation that aims reduce CCEs. Often in the form of exceptions or phrases like "where practicable".
  • Unintended loopholes that lawyers can find. Loophole example: The UK has just passed the Climate Change Act, which requires the UK to reduce CCEs by 80% by 2050. But at the Public Inquiry for the Mersey Gateway in May 2009 (Halton Borough Council wants to build a new road bridge across the River Mersey, deeming it an 'iconic structure') the barrister for the Council argued that in the Climate Change Act it is only the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that has the responsibility to reduce CCEs by 80%, and hence Halton Borough Council itself has no responsibility to reduce CCEs by 80%. That the Secretary of State cannot meet the target without the full cooperation of local authorities like Halton, seemed to have escaped him.

• more to come ====.

Now some smaller, more concrete examples:

• Tax structure. In UK, VAT is charged on refurbishment of buildings, but not on new-build. The tax structure encourages the latter, and discourages refurbishment, but refurbishment does less environmental damage than new-build.

• The U.K. House of Commons Treasure Select Committee published a report on bankers' bonuses 15 May 2009. It was the bonus system that led to the economic collapse: bank directors had put in place a bonus system that encouraged "recklessness".

• Individual structures that determine ways of working. In Cheshire one shop sells apples that were grown locally - but those apples are first taken to South Africa to be waxed and then flown back again [source: JM]. Why? It could be because the contract requires it. Or that this is the most cost-effective waxing process. (But why wax them? It is not mandatory in UK. Think about it: it has a lot to do with what the grower believes and assumes, which is a structure.)

How Structures Discourage CCE Reduction:

• Market structure. In Germany, if households generate electricity, they can sell the to the grid. This has encouraged a lot of renewable micro-generation schemes.

Back to Manifesto.

How Climate Change Will/Might Damage Other Areas of Life

• Agricutlure: Changes in climate imply different crop regimes, which imply need for long-term learning what and how to grow (trial + error), the need to disseminate this knowledge, train all growers, and the populace needs to learn how to use the new crops, and new distribution networks must be set up if other than subsistence growing.

• Tourism:

• Construction and Homes: e.g. storm damage

• Lives of Poor:

• Wildlife and Species: [including speed of adaptation]

• Economy of Nations:

• etc.

Back to Manifesto.

The Illusion that Technology will Solve the Problem

• increased efficiency in jet engines - a mere 10% increase, not the 400% needed for 80% reduction!
• nuclear power - total energy spent throughout life of power station greater than total amount of electricity generated

• Carbon capture and storage:

• Biofuels: [from JL] For example, the idea of using biofuels for transport, particularly ethanol generated from carbohydrate crops as a substitute for petrol and vegetable oils in place of diesel fuels, has been much discussed recently. Diesel containing biofuel will be on sale shortly. Such an approach would require very large areas of land in order to make a significant contribution to reducing fossil fuel carbon emissions. A 10% substitution of petrol and diesel fuel is estimated to require 43% and 38% of current cropland area in the United States and Europe, respectively. As even this low substitution level cannot be met from existing arable land, forests and grasslands would need to be cleared to enable production of the energy crops. The global area of arable crop land is fixed, so taking arable land anywhere in the world to grow energy crops results in the reduced production of food crops, thus driving up the price of agriculture food crops. Such increases impact mostly on the poor, since they spend the greatest proportion of their income on food. Thus at this point in time, biofuel production may well increase food prices in the poorest parts of the world, and also impact adversely on the environment. The point is that we have to think on a global scale, because any changes we make in our life style will probably have changes on a global scale.

In addition, technology, especially information technology, keeps on inventing new 'hedonic products', which we find very pleasurable and, once tasted, do not willingly give up.

Back to Manifesto.

The Illusion that Market Forces Can Solve the Problem

• Carbon trading:

• Note Economic collapse!

Back to Manifesto.

The Illusion of Trickle-down Finance

Back to Manifesto.

Spiritual Drivers

Example: The prevalent attitude in our modern society is that we should do our utmost to try to keep what we have and possess by all possible means, and even expand it where possible our material standard of living fully included. But precisely that fear, that utmost concern, motivates us again and again to do things which, seen in a realistic way, aggrevates the paradoxes and increase the tensions, and so threaten the very underpinnings of nature and of our own human existence.

Back to Manifesto.

Spiritual Root of Morality

Back to Manifesto.

Idolatry

Different sectors of Western society have different types of idol. Governments idolise economic growth and prestige, businesses and other organisations idolise competition, and individuals idolise personal convenience, among other things. Here are some oft-heard statements associated with reasons for not taking wholehearted action on climate change or other environmental responsibility, which indicate idolatry; they are by no means exhaustive.

• "We can't return to the dark ages" - idolatry of technology.
• "It would be too expensive" - idolatry of money.
• "We must keep a balance" - an idol that must be protected by ensuring that it is 'balanced' against responsible action.
• "We need a growing economy in order to pay for all the environmental remedies" - idolatry of economic growth
• ... others to come.

Taking effective action on climate change is seen as a threat to our idols, because we protect our idols. Despite lip service, it is seen as of less importance because our idols determine what we deem of ultimate importance. This is what makes us incapable of real action, and it also generates illusions in us. Even followers of religions that abhor idolatry (e.g. Judaism, Islam, Christianity) can fall into this trap.

Back to Manifesto.

Please Comment:

Back to Manifesto.

Why Spiritual Change is Necessary

• In the 1980s, people moved to smaller cars, more fuel efficient, because they were convinced by argument and marketing. But during the 1990s SUVs became the aspirational cars. The hearts of the people had not changed, only their heads.

Back to Manifesto.

New Ways of Seeing Things

Back to Manifesto.

Tsedeq

Back to Manifesto.

A Real Purpose for Economic Activities

Other examples to be written.

Back to Manifesto.

How Finance Destroys Shalom

Back to Manifesto.

Blossoming Economy

Back to Manifesto.

Political Action

Back to Manifesto.

Economic Action

Back to Manifesto.

Media Action

Back to Manifesto.

Examples of Spiritual Solutions

• Perhaps the largest example is the abolition of slavery. As with climate change, the problem of slavery seemed insurmountable. Powerful interests resisted abolition of slavery. Abolition would damage the economy. Abolition would undermine property rights. The UK was at war with France, so had more important things to worry about. And (important to Christians) the Bible had no clear imperative against slavery. Similar with climate change - see detailed tabular comparison of the two.

• It was said of the 1904 Welsh Revival that it achieved more reduction in drunkenness in two months than the government had managed in two years. This was because people from all walks of life - including miners and publicans - were converted (turned-around) and set their hearts on something that precluded getting drunk. This also occurred in Lappland under the ministry of Lars Levi Laestadeus.

• Flora Thompson, in Lark Rise to Candleford, was discussing boys' birdnesting in the 1890s. Boys would not only take all the eggs of a nest to make a necklace of pretty shells but also wreck the nest. "Ordinary country people at that time," she lamented [p.152], "though not actively cruel to animals, were indifferent to their sufferings." But change came [p.153], not from political activity but ... "Then came the splendid Boy Scout movement, which has done more than all the Preservation of Wild Birds Acts to prevent the wholesale raiding of nests, by teaching the boys mercy and kindness." This was a 'spiritual' solution insofar as it affected the vision that boys had of who they were and what they could aspire to be, and its effects lasted a long time.

These major changes are effective, but continued vigilance thereafter is needed. Some of the above 'revivals' deteriorated after perhaps 50 years into religious rules and regulations. But that does not detract from their effectiveness in solving intractable problems of society for a time.

Back to Manifesto.

An Outline of the Christian Way

• Through the action of Jesus Christ forgiveness and healing are made possible to those who genuinely seek it (repentance). In Jesus' words, those who "lose their lives for my sake and the gospel's".
• As a result, the Holy Spirit dwells in those who let him, to change their way-orientation: their attitudes (Galatians 5:22-23), aspirations and way of seeing things (Romans 12:2), and commitments .
• These people then begin to reinterpret economic and juridical issues in a new way, as ways to bless creation. They treat the rest of creation as God would.
• This is not just for individuals but also communities and societies. When this is widespread, it is effective in changing our collective way of seeing reality, aspirations, commitments, saviours, etc. It has happened in the past, e.g. with Slavery.
• The extent this occurs is ultimately under God's sovereignty, but there are past cases of human beings changing the mind of God when they are earnest enough (e.g. Moses).
• Human responsibility in all this. So the question is: are there those who are earnest enough to repent, let the Holy Spirit change them inside, and then seek God to act?

Sadly, however, many so-called evangelical Christians, especially in North America, have a much narrower view and sphere of concern. See Andrew Faraday's portrayal of this. Nevertheless, we believe that what is said in this Manifesto is relevant to both Christians and non-Christians, and needs to be taken seriously by all human beings.

Back to Manifesto.

REFERENCES

Archer, D. 2005 Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time. Journal Geophysical Research 110, C09S05, doi:10.1029/2004JC0022625

Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

Climate Change 2007 - Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group 2 to the Fourth Assessment Report of IPCC.

Climate Change 2007 - Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group 3 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

Clouser, R. (2005) The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories. USA: Univ. Notre Dame Press.

Committee on Climate Change. 2008 First Report, December 1 st 2008.

DeConti, R. M. and Pollard, D. 2003 Rapid Cenozoic glaciation of Antarctica induced by declining atmospheric CO2 Nature 421, 245-249.

Hansen, J et al. 2005 Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications. Science 308, 1431-1435.

Hansen, J et al 2008 Target Atmospheric CO2: Where should Humanity Aim? The Open Atmospheric Science Journal 2, 217-231.

Houghton, J 2009 (4 th Edition) Global Warming: the Complete Briefing. Cambridge University Press.

Lockwood, J. G. 2009 The Climate of the Earth. In C. N. Hewitt and A. V. Jackson (Eds) Atmospheric Science for Environmental Scientists. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.

Matthews, H. D. and Caldeira, K. 2008 Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L04705, doi: 10.1029/2007GL032388

Meinshausen, M et al. 2006 Multi-gas emissions pathways to meet climate targets. Climate Change, 75, 151- 194.

Meyer, A 2004 Briefing: Contraction and Convergence. Engineering Sustainability, 157, 189-192.

Pacala, S and Socolow, R 2004 Science, 305, 968-972.

Parry, M 2008 Key impacts: those inevitable and those avoidable. Paper presented at Conference on "Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: Dangerous Rates of Change". University of Exeter, September 2008.

Parry, M., et al. 2008. Climate policy: Squaring up to reality. Nat. Rep. Clim. Change, 2, 68-71.

Serreze, M. C. 2009 Arctic climate changes: Where reality exceeds expectations. Witness the Arctic, Chronicles of the NSF Arctic Sciences Division. Winter 2008/2009, Vol 13, No1. Pp 1-4.

Stern, N. 2006 The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, P. 2008 Energy technology perspectives 2008. Scenarios and strategies to 2050. International Energy Agency.

Last updated: 22 February 2009 amendments from BG. 22 March 2009 last few added. 13 April 2009 changed to emphasise 'way', and replaced 'religious' by 'spiritual', in response to BG's comments. 3 May 2009 JHL piece; Accra 'Orchard'; Lockwood explanation. 15 May 2009 struct eg. 17 May 2009 added all.sectors, reinforce, pol.action, media.action, moved sections about in accordance with mfst. 31 May 2009 Added climatological details from JL to 'Climate Change climatological explanation'; added nonlinearity; moved some bits of 1.2, 1.3 from mfst to here, in response to BG's comments of 090529, and more about structures of society; added pointer to AF's concern about evangelicals. 12 June 2009 Hedonic products. 19 July 2009 loophole example; modifications+refs by J. Lockwood; theme of idolatry filled out here, replacing rlg.idol. 14 December 2009 science. 20 December 2009 changed ccx. 6 May 2010 Replaced by version 3. 7 July 2011 problems with blossoming economy.