Environment: science & politics

The St Andrews Prize has already won widespread recognition, and warm thanks are due to the University and to ConocoPhillips which first made it possible and then have supported it over the years. Long may it continue.

At present we are preoccupied with a global crisis over money and credit with all its social as well as economic implications. But beyond and behind this is a much bigger crisis over the condition of the global environment and its future prospects. In the last few years or even months, awareness of environmental, or green, issues has entered the world of politics as never before.

There is a long and rickety bridge between the world of science, academe and research on one side, and that of public understanding and policy-making on the other. The crossing between the two is never easy, and often gives rise to misunderstandings and misconceptions. The science is usually far ahead of the politics. Moreover the process itself is slow. In the present case there has been a number of developments and key documents which together have caused radical change in scientific as well as political thinking. Looking back the main ones are:

• The Stockholm Conference on the Environment of 1972; the Rio Conference of 1992; the Johannesburg Conference of 2002;
• The successive Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and in particular the Fourth Assessment of 2007;
• The Amsterdam Declaration of scientists from the four great Global Research Programmes in 2001, which stated that "The Earth is current operating in a no-analogue state ... The accelerating human transformation of the Earth's environment is not sustainable."
• The Stern Review of 2006 on the social and economic impacts of climate change;
• Successive meetings of political leaders in such groups as the G8+5, and the G20;
• The report of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in March 2009 which laid out the foundations for a Global Green New Deal;
• Successive meetings of the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which led to COP 15 at Copenhagen last December, and will lead to COP 16 at Cancun at the end of this year.

Of course climate change - or as I prefer to call it climate destabilization - is only one of the impacts which our animal species is having on the surface of the Earth and all life within it, what has been well called the human empire. Parts of that empire have collapsed before for environmental and other reasons, but the circumstances today are new. They go back to the beginning of the industrial revolution some 250 years ago.

The evidence for the crisis now facing us is not in serious dispute. This is not the occasion for looking at the science in any detail, but it is important for political as well as other purposes to distinguish between natural change and human-driven change.

• Natural change is constant: the last 11,000 years have been a fairly warm period with ups and downs, some very abrupt. To trace it there is a new field of study, known as tipping points, when one set of circumstances can - sometimes rapidly - tip into another. Here are some things to watch:
  • the ever changing relationship of the Earth and the Sun: our orbit is affected by three main factors: wobble, tilt and spin;
  • then there are hits from space, more than are most realized: the one that hit Siberia just over a hundred years ago had local rather than planetary effects, but others in the history of life caused massive extinction of species.
  • disasters from within the Earth system: earthquakes such as recently in China, Haiti and Chile; and volcanic emissions such as from Iceland and Indonesia;
  • the state of the Amazonian rainforest, an interesting barometer of change;
  • sea levels in different parts of the world, and in particular the direction of North Atlantic currents;
  • the release of methane from beneath the tundra and the ocean bed;
  • the pattern of the Indian monsoon;
  • the frequency and the intensity of the periodic changes in Pacific Ocean currents known as El Nino and La Nina;
  • the state of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets.
• Human-driven change is something new. At present it is clearly accelerating, and affects land, sea and air.
  • there is continuing destruction of forests, degradation of soils, consumption of often irreplaceable resources, and accumulation of wastes;
  • warming of the oceans, melting of parts of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps, and rising sea levels (at present on average 3.5 cm a year). In addition acidification of some surface areas with effects on marine life, including corals;
  • multiplication of one animal species - our own - at a giddy rate (2.5 billion 1930, 6.9 billion today, possibly 9 billion by 2050), affecting all other living organisms and eco-systems;
  • steady increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
  • carbon dioxide: the highest in more than 650,000 years; 190 ppm in glacial times, 285 ppm in warm interludes, 385 ppm today (and rising by around 2 ppm per year);
  • methane: a twenty times more potent green house gas than carbon dioxide, rising from a preindustrial level of around 715 ppb to 1774 ppb in 2005.
  • nitrous oxide: rising from a preindustrial level of around 270 ppb to 319 ppb 2005;
• increase in particle pollution: some reflect sunlight and therefore mitigate warming; others, particularly soot and back carbon retain heat and therefore increase warming;
• in September 2009 the magazine Nature published an article by Johan Rockstrom and others identifying nine scientific stops or boundaries which humans would cross at their peril. Three had already been crossed: climate change; loss of biodiversity; and interference with nitrogen and phosphorus levels. The other six were: atmospheric ozone depletion; ocean acidification; use of fresh water; changes in land use; chemical pollution; and atmospheric aerosol loading.

But these stops however important only tell part of the story. What are the effects so far as humans are concerned? They will be seen in:

• changes in weather everywhere, with more extreme events, manifest in storms and droughts;
• melting of glaciers, affecting the river systems of Asia and South America.
• the rise in sea levels, threatening coastal cities and causing changes in ocean chemistry, affecting fisheries and all forms of aquatic life;
• problems of distribution of fresh water for human and other purposes;
• increasing competition for natural resources;
• changes in ecosystems, including insects and micro-organisms of all kinds, with multiple effects on human health;
• potential undermining of current social, and in particular urban, infrastructure: reservoirs, sewage, buildings, industry, public services etc;
• movement of people within and between countries as environmental refugees.

Now for the politics. The nature of science and the nature of politics are very different.

• The nature of science:
  • scientists work on different degrees of uncertainty, and work on probabilities;
  • they have to cope with problems of paradigm shift, and how to cope with phoney science (eg creationism or so-called intelligent design);
  • some of them like to lock themselves into specialities, and thereby miss the big picture;
  • all face difficulties in converting the vocabulary of science into the vocabulary of politics.
• The nature of politics:
  • few politicians have scientific backgrounds or understanding of scientific problems;
  • they usually operate short term within the electoral cycle;
  • the mechanics of the system, at least in Britain, are usually operated by non-scientific mandarins;
  • politicians want black and white answers, not shades of probability;
  • the relevance of science to policy is not always apparent: scepticism or exaggeration can lead to perverse results, including sterile and emotional debates and poor decision-making.

Not surprisingly the crossing of the long and rickety bridge has been slow and uncomfortable, and policy-makers of all kinds have only gradually realized the significance of what is happening.

A lot of the current greening of politics, and indeed business with it, has been called greenwash because the talk has so far greatly exceeded the action. But any real progress will depend on how we, and in particular politicians, respond to some very practical questions. All involve awkward choices.

• In the broadest sense what should be done about climate change at all levels, global, national and local? Can we lower greenhouse gas emissions in time to avoid drastic changes in the atmosphere?
• More specifically what are the prospects for supplies of water from current sources?
• Hence what would be the effects of any change on reservoirs, storage capacity and sewage systems? Are they in the right place? Can supply match demand?
• What restrictions should be placed on carbon emissions from cities (at present the energy consumed by buildings world wide accounts for around 45% of greenhouse gas emissions)?
• Should we move more quickly to renewable sources of energy (wind, tide, solar, geothermal, biofuels etc), and possibly new nuclear technologies (ranging from pebble-bed to fusion)?
• How much should we move from macro to micro energy systems, and plan accordingly?
• What new technologies should be applied to transport in its many forms (cars, ships, aircraft etc)?
• How can we ensure the supply of food?
• Even if we did not go for national self sufficiency, should we do more to ensure self reliance?
• What should governments now do to cope with sea level rise? Fortifying sea defences has to be selective. Where should the priorities lie, and at whose expense?
• How should town planning, such as it is, be adapted to take account of:
  • urban breakdown of all kinds?
  • buildings, architecture and future design?
  • new configurations of business and industry?
  • disposal of wastes?
• Can we predict changes in the world of micro-organisms on which we all depend? Cities are particularly vulnerable to epidemics as history has shown.
• What new as well as old diseases are likely in the changing circumstances?
• Perhaps most critical of all: how do we bring about changes in human behaviour?

I have had experience in dealing with governments and politicians on at least some of these issues over the years. Different countries have of course reacted very differently (if they have reacted at all). Many have preferred to look in another direction.

In Britain there is a long and honourable record of interest in environmental and in particular climate change issues. I was an informal adviser on them to Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair, and acted for six years as the founder and chairman of the Government Panel on Sustainable Development, where I was succeeded by Jonathan Porritt in a somewhat different format.

There is broad all-party agreement on the need for action, and a Climate Change Act has set in place a Committee on Climate Change with remarkable powers to enforce respect for targets. We now have a Department for Energy and Climate Change. Some towns, especially London, have worked out detailed plans for their own future. At the same time there has been blanket coverage of environmental issues in the media, and the public is broadly sympathetic. We have yet to see what a new government will do.

In Europe the scale of the problem has been long recognized, and the European Union has given practical leadership. Progress has been made under the Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme which entered into operation in 2005, and is now the largest cap and trade system. It has many defects but improved arrangements are under way.

In the United States, by far the biggest single per capita emitter of greenhouse gases, the Administration of President George Bush Jr was rightly the villain of the piece. Individual US cities and states, particularly those in the north-east and the west, were already far ahead of his Administration. Now things are changing. President Obama has set out policies which could make the United States a leader rather than a reluctant follower of international action. His problems arise from a nasty mixture of vested interests, Congressional bloody-mindedness and such other emotional issues as health care. In China and India there is growing awareness of vulnerability, particularly over water supplies. There is a familiar conflict of interest within each government. Both the Chinese and Indian governments are investing in new technologies, and although China is now the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, it is acutely aware of the need to restrain them.

At global level debate and negotiations continue. There has been unequivocal leadership from the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki moon. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has been widely applied, and now accounts for around half of emissions, but any global mechanisms for carbon cap and capture, and carbon capture and sequestration, have yet to be worked out. The complexities of an equitable and effective system are enormous. My own view has long been that we need something in the form of a World Environment Organization to balance - and be a partner of - the World Trade Organization, and bring order into the messy system of specific environmental agreements.

It was against this background that the conference on climate change (COP 15) took place in Copenhagen last December. The results were, as everyone knows, disappointing, although it was not the disaster it has sometimes been portrayed. Some positive measures have already come out of it. An important lesson from it is the difficulty in persuading the whole international community to agree to a wide variety of politically difficult commitments and actions. One of the lessons we may draw is the need for what has been called pluralities of agreements, in other words groups of countries which can agree among themselves on certain measures, and later try to fit them within a global framework. The proposal for Global Green New Deal, which has since been discussed amongst the G20 leaders, is a good example. This brought out the practical implications of what development could and should mean; to stimulate economic recovery, create employment, reduce poverty and lessen dependency on fossil fuels, and in short to tackle environmental degradation of all kinds. According to an article in Nature of 8 April, the G20 account for two thirds of the world's population, 90% of global activity and at least three quarters of global green house gas emissions.

So far the G20 may have failed to deliver on their promises at their Pittsburgh meeting in September 2009. But the directions they aim to follow in the future are now clearer than ever. So far as initiatives in green technology are concerned, the world leaders are now South Korea and China, and the rest of the world, including the United States and the European Union are behind. All governments face a major responsibility in determining the right incentives and disincentives within their countries, getting rid of perverse subsidies, and of course in working so far as possible within a global framework.

Before I conclude I want to mention an enterprise in which I am involved which brings out the sheer problems facing the Earth. In geological terms the Pleistocene epoch of the ice ages was followed some 10,000 years ago by the Holocene epoch. The Holocene has been marked by relatively warm conditions in the climate of our planet. Now it is proposed that the Holocene should be followed by an Anthropocene epoch to mark the extraordinary changes begun by the industrial revolution some 250 years ago. These changes were caused by one animal species - our own - which has transformed the condition of the surface of the Earth - that is where we are today.

We all suffer from the disease of what has been called conceptual sclerosis. Politicians are subject to it as well as anyone else, if not more so. True change is usually brought about by leadership from above, pressure from below, and - less welcome - benign catastrophes when something goes attributably wrong and the world recognizes it.

I leave the last word to Brian Fagan who once wrote:

"If we've become a super-tanker among human societies, it's an oddly inattentive one. Only a tiny fraction of the people on board are engaged with tending the engines. The rest are buying and selling goods among themselves, entertaining each other, or studying the sky or the hydrodynamics of the hull. Those on the bridge have no charts or weather forecast, and cannot even agree that they are needed; indeed the most powerful among them subscribe to a theory that says storms don't exist, or if they do, their effects are entirely benign, and the steepening swells and albatrosses can only be taken as a sign of divine favour. Few of those in command believe the gathering clouds have any relation to their fate or are concerned that there are lifeboats for only one in ten passengers. And no-one dares to whisper in the helmsman's ear that he might consider turning the wheel."