Climate change – what are we supposed to do about it?

Given that the COP26 Climate Change Conference kicks off in Glasgow today, it seems to be the obvious topic for a blog today.  Many of you may now be about to click on, some may have already done so when they saw the title and the image above, but I hope you will bear with me.  As an engineer and scientist by education and training, I believe the science.  I see the reports of retreating glaciers and more frequent severe weather events and do not dismiss them as ‘fake news’.  Even if they are in part the result of a natural long term climate cycle, that does not justify sitting by and doing nothing.  The last recognised global warming event was apparently around 12,000 years ago – so not that long ago in terms of the age of planet Earth.  However, the global population is estimated to have been not more than 15 million at that time, so around the same population as the Paris or London metropolitan areas today, and if the tide came in a bit further one day, it was not difficult to move their settlements.  Our ability to do something today to moderate a natural event is infinitely greater, so we should not just accept global warming as ‘natural’ when we know that we can smooth out these peaks.

I am sure that many will share my distaste for the jamboree that these climate change conferences have become.  Do none of those responsible not see the disconnect between the focus of the event and the attendance of 25,000 delegates and perhaps a similar number of lobbyists and activists, most of whom have travelled a considerable distance?  I accept that there may be valuable exchanges which don’t make the headlines between scientists that advance our understanding, or between those who implement policy and those who have potential solutions, but will the political leaders who have to reach an agreement be influenced by the lobbyists and activists?  Personally, I doubt it.  I suggest that the concern of the politicians is the reaction of their voters back home, or for those who do not come from a true democracy, the support of those who could topple them if the leader’s actions are misaligned with the interests of their backers.  One of the challenges governments face in any long term decision-making is that the interests of the voters may not be aligned with the opinions of the voters.  When the electoral cycle is every few years, and we are looking at challenges that spread over decades, we either have to hope that politicians take decisions that may not be in their own political self-interest, or that the voters’ opinions can be moved to align with their longer-term interests.

The latter in my view has to be the focus if we are going to make real progress.  Unfortunately, all the indications are that there will not be any meaningful and decisive agreement at COP26.  However, the climate-sceptics and many of those sitting on the fence will look at the carbon footprint of the conference itself and ridicule the whole objective.  The media – who have a key role in educating people on climate change – will instead focus on the political wranglings, who’s not there and a few soundbites from Greta Thunberg.  It seems that most people in the general population have a stronger interest in the fortunes of their favourite football team than the fortunes of the planet and the sort of life their children and grandchildren will have.  Over the years, we have not made the connection between individual action and global events.  I recall interviewing a new junior consultant three decades ago whose doctoral thesis had been on individual responses to climate change.  The vast majority of survey respondents acknowledged that there was a need for government action, but that there was no point in them doing anything as their influence was so small.  (Sabine Dembowski – I hope I got that about right!)

Which brings me back to what my own individual response should be to climate change.  It would be fair to say that over the years I have been a climate hooligan.  I have a million miles of flying clocked up with British Airways alone, and my flying included day trips to places as far away as India, South Korea and the US.  I used to keep a mental scorecard of how many cylinders, horsepower and turbos there were in my personal car collection.  (The answer in each case was ‘a lot’.)  Good holidays normally involved a long haul flight.  The car collection has largely given way to a helicopter, but that is hardly green.  Now, my 29 year old son (who enjoyed many of those benefits as he grew up) wonders what sort of world he would be bringing his children into if and when he starts a family, and I come to that question of individual responsibility.  Should I push to continue the virtual ICDP meetings that have kept us going since March last year, even though face-to-face networking is an important part of the knowledge sharing?  Should I holiday closer to home, even though my two UK staycations were not great experiences?  Should the classic car go, even though it is carbon offset for its estimated 4 tonnes of CO2 output each year?  Should the helicopter go, even though it will carry on flying because there are still people who want one for their wedding or trip to Goodwood?  Should I join my fiancée and go vegan?

My feeling is that we all need to take personal climate responsibility more seriously, and that if we do that, it will be reflected in the national mood and actions and determination of our elected leaders.  We do not all need to be eco-warriors, but we have to give our politicians – in government and opposition – a stronger message for them to take tough decisions in the interests of society and our children and grandchildren.  I’ll do my bit for now, and I will accept the restrictions and costs that come with tougher management of the factors that are destroying our planet.  What about you?