China’s carbon emissions have risen this year by an amount that experts say is “globally significant”.

An analysis of official data by Unearthed shows that emissions from the world’s biggest carbon polluter increased three percent in the first half of 2018, compared to the same period last year.

The additional emissions, driven by surging energy demand from industrial growth, are equivalent to those emitted by Spain’s entire energy system. It follows a two percent rise in 2017, after several years of decline

Urgent action

The news follows a summer heatwave across the northern hemisphere, with China’s June temperatures the second highest on record.

New research also suggests that China’s northern plain – its most important region for food production and one of the most populous areas in the world – could be hit by the world’s most deadliest heatwaves by the end of the century if emissions are not drastically curbed.

It is widely acknowledged that China is on track – or even ahead of its current schedule – to meet its current 2030 emissions reduction target.

But as China is both the world’s biggest emitter and seen as a leader in efforts to combat global climate change, international experts are concerned. However, they are not yet sure if the rise constitutes a long-term trend or is a temporary blip in progress.

Bill Hare, director of German think-tank Climate Analytics, told Unearthed: “The rise is globally significant, and whilst not a trend yet, is a clear warning sign and timely reminder that the deep and urgent action will require sustained efforts and policy attention.

Long-lasting trend

“To meet the Paris agreement long-term temperature goal we should now be in a period where CO2 emissions from coal  should be going down globally, and in countries like China stabilising before a increasingly rapid decline in the next decade.  Consequently a rise like this is of concern.”

The rising emissions could be reversed, especially if the issue of coal consumption is addressed he added.

Neither Hare nor Dr Helena Wright from think-tank E3G thought that the data is yet a sign of China’s role as a global leader on climate change diminishing.

“China is showing political leadership in an absence of leadership from the US. In fact, part of the China rise could be due to temporary stimulus spending to offset the impact of US tariff,” she told Unearthed.

“As the world’s largest emitter, the efforts taken by China on climate change are critical – we should take note of this issue if it becomes a long-lasting trend rather than a temporary rise.”

What’s driving this?

Energy demand is accelerating at its fastest pace since 2011, driven by industrial growth across the economy that follows a record credit boost by China’s banks last year.

The largest increase in industrial power demand came from the iron and steel industries, with China’s steel mills producing record output in recent months. Steel in China is used almost exclusively for construction and for industrial machinery, making up 70-85% of total demand.

Although renewable energy is still growing, it has been unable to keep up with demand, with coal consumption rising by 3% in the first six months of 2018, after a historic fall that started in 2013.

The weather didn’t help with either, with conditions – lack of rain in some places and far too much in others – meaning that hydropower plants have been producing below capacity, which make up China’s biggest source of renewable power.

The rate of deployment of clean electricity generation would need to double to keep up with growing demand without increasing emissions.

The key drivers of the increase in coal demand are rapid growth in coal-fired power generation and steel output, according to data from WIND Information, the Chinese financial data provider.

The number of new coal power plants that began construction in the second quarter was the highest since the government started clamping down on coal power overcapacity two years ago.

It was also enabled by the loosening of regulations from last year that curbed coal capacity, with  a recent analysis of satellite imagery by CoalSwarm identified 46.7GW of previously suspended coal plants that have started or re-entered construction in the last few months.

What next?

Dr Yang Fuqiang, senior energy and climate adviser for the Natural Resources Defense Council China programme predicted that rising energy consumption would slow down in the latter half of the year, but that China would still see an overall emissions rise of 2.6% in 2018.

“We anticipate that the rise of energy consumption, in particular the coal use, will slow down from July to December. There are a mixture of reasons. The China-US trade war could potentially hit the industrial production; the energy intensive industries will be contained during the winter heating season; and the hydro-power installation is set to go up.”

China’s increasing energy and coal demand follows a similar rising trend in lending. Data from the People’s Bank of China shows that total new credit grew by 16% in 2016 and 9% in 2017, unleashing a wave of construction that is now driving emissions up.

But new lending slowed by 19% year-on year in the first half of 2018, so if this trend continues, it should trigger a significant slowdown in coal consumption and CO2 emissions growth.

However, the government may be about to loosen its monetary and fiscal policy again, so this is by no means certain.

This Article

This article first appeared at Unearthed, from Greenpeace.

The headlines are true. We are already facing, and will continue to face, some severe changes to our environment, including our oceans, as a result of climate change. But if we act now with proactive and adaptive good management, there may be a chance to see better outcomes. 

I was the co-author of a study recently published in Science Advances showing that climate change-induced warming of our oceans will alter the productivity and movement of global fish stocks. As ocean temperatures rise, fish populations will travel outside of their normal ranges, largely shifting towards the poles.

In Europe, the impacts of climate change on commercially vital fish species are already visible, with recent research indicating that 16 out of 21 of the most valuable fish species in the North-East Atlantic inhabit waters outside of where they have traditionally been found. Of these 16, nine are considered ‘big movers’ – with those nine species representing more than 50 percent of the landed value of the North-East Atlantic catch.

Unless we prepare for these types of changes, they will wreak havoc on a global fishing system that is already under stress from overfishing, and unprepared for the impacts of shifting fish populations.  

Ocean productivity                                                      

Importantly, our latest research outlines an opportunity to improve on the picture of ocean health and marine food production that we see today.

If more nations begin to manage fishing sustainably, work together on shifting stocks, and establish policies that limit warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, we can increase the number of fish in the sea by nearly a third, while providing an additional 25 billion servings of seafood and increasing profits for fishing communities by twelve billion euros.

If we don’t act, we could lose a vital source of protein and nutrients that help support billions of people around the globe. Even before accounting for the impact of climate change, more than a third of the world’s assessed fisheries are at risk of collapse due to overfishing and a lack of policies that strike a balance between the ocean’s economic potential and its need to replenish itself. Experts warn that 80 percent of the world’s fisheries will be at asimilar risk by the end of the next decade if we don’t change how they are managed. 

Climate change adds to this challenge. Nearly all fish species are expected to experience changes in productivity, and half of them will shift across existing national boundaries in search of cooler water, testing international shared fishing agreements and sparking new conflicts over fishing grounds and profits. 

The good news is that overfishing – and the web of problems associated with it – is an environmental challenge that we have the experience to deal with. 

Decades of research and real-world examples have shown that our oceans can be incredibly resilient with good fisheries management. Smart decisions that ease pressure on fish stocks and give them time to replenish can yield results very quickly. In a number of countries, including the United States, Mexico, Namibia, Belize and the Philippines, sustainable management has eased fishing pressure, stabilised prices and sustained local fishing economies. 

Call to action

But only a few fishing nations are developing solutions that take into account the shifting stocks that this new research predicts. 

For example, Chile and Peru already recognise the conflicts these shifts might create. Both nations benefit from fishing grounds that are fed by the Humboldt Current, one of the most productive ocean ecosystems on earth that accounts for 15 percent of the world’s fish catch. Warming waters are creating radical shifts in the cycles of the sardine and anchovy fisheries, as well as movement of species like giant squid and smaller, but locally important, artisanal fisheries. 

In response, the two countries are beginning to share information on shifting stocks, discussing plans for observation and monitoring across the Humboldt Current region, and considering the types of joint management responses that may be necessary to deal with the effects of climate change on their fisheries. They deserve recognition for their foresight and cooperation, and more countries should follow their lead.

It’s tempting to view this research as more bad news for our oceans. On the contrary, I see it as an optimistic call to action – our decisions now can make a difference. Despite the impacts of climate change, there is a path forward that is not only good for our oceans, but good for the people and economies that depend on them as well.

Now, policy makers in fishing nations around the world must answer the call. The ocean waters are warming, and time is running short. 

This Author

Kristin Kleisner is a senior scientist with the Environment Defence Fund’s fisheries solutions centre. She researches the science around combining spatial and rights-based management to achieve sustainable fisheries around the world.

Natural Resources Wales has agreed to end pheasant shooting on Welsh public land in a landmark move which has been welcomed by leading wildlife-protection organisations. 

The announcement from Natural Resources Wales (NRW) comes off the back of a three-year-long campaign by Animal Aid and the League Against Cruel Sports, which included over 12,500 people signing a petition to the government agency.

The pheasant shooting leases have been strongly opposed by the Welsh Government.

Extremely controversial

Welsh Environment Minister Hannah Blythyn AM wrote to NRW over the summer to spell out how the administration does not support rearing, releasing and shooting game birds for sport on public land.

This position has strong public support: over 75 percent of the Welsh public disagreed with shooting birds for sport in a recent opinion poll.

Leasing public land for pheasant shooting has become extremely controversial in recent years because of the considerable negative impact on wildlife and the environment.

Large numbers of factory-farmed pheasants have been released into government woodland to be gunned down by shooting parties for sport. Many birds are not killed instantly and hit the ground suffering from painful wounds and injuries, only to be killed by having their necks broken or being hit over the head with a beater’s stick.

Native predators – including foxes, stoats, weasels, crows and magpies – are also killed to preserve large numbers of ‘game’ birds for the guns. These practices, which form a standard part of managing woodland for pheasant shooting, result in an overall decrease in biodiversity. This includes through displacing threatened wild birds, upsetting the delicate ecology and threatening rare butterfly species.

Offering thanks

Bethan Collins, Senior Public Affairs Officer (Wales) at League Against Cruel Sports, said:“Natural Resources Wales is to be commended in the strongest terms for ensuring pheasant shooting in the Welsh national forest is being brought to an end. This outcome reflects strong opposition to the practice from the Welsh Government.

“We thank those who have relentlessly pursued an end to pheasant shooting in the Welsh national forest, including Environment Minister Hannah Blythyn AM and the public who have backed us. This is as much a victory for them as it is for the wildlife which has now been spared the gun.”

Fiona Pereira, Campaigns Manager at Animal Aid, said: “We are delighted that NRW has banned the cruel shooting of pheasants on public land. The campaign has shown that the vast majority of people strongly oppose the killing of animals for ‘sport’ and want to see an end to it.

“NRW can now use that land for positive activities that are kind to animals and to the environment, and, importantly, set an example for other public bodies that also want to bring about an end to the shooting of birds.

“We’d like to thank all the animal lovers who helped the campaign – and secured a victory for game birds.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This story was based on a press release from the League Against Cruel Sports.

The climate deniers were ready to attack the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) following its second report, released in 1995. They well understood the political dangers that confronted them.

Frederick Seitz, then chairman of the faux think tank, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) – which argues against the existence of climate change – demanded that IPCC chairman Bert Bolin draft a statement immediately saying that the IPCC had “not been able to quantify the magnitude of the greenhouse gas”. 

He even took the extra step of drafting the proposed letter, ready for Bolin to sign. “I was indeed amazed about Dr Seitz’s way of proceeding,” Bolin would recall.

‘Disturbing corruption’

Seitz would later use the pages of the Wall Street Journal to issue unsubstantiated claims against the IPCC, rather ironically under the headline “A Major Deception on Global Warming”.

He stated that “this report is not what it appears to be – it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page.”

“In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”

The newspaper, however, did not inform the reader of Seitz’s oil or tobacco funding, which meant the author was not what he appeared to be.

Seitz was joined by Patrick Michaels, then a visiting scientist at the Exxon-funded George C. Marshall Institute, in the attack against the IPCC.

State of the climate

Michaels used his position as editor of the publication the State of the Climate Report to accuse scientists of hiding any weaknesses from policymakers and members of the public in the most recent climate models, despite the fact that this issue had been directly addressed in the IPCC documents.

Michaels also demanded that the Met Office in Devon, England, provide the original data supporting some of the science, and complained bitterly when it refused.

The State of the Climate Report was delivered to every member of the US Congress on Earth Day in April 1996.

Bolin was absolutely furious and unusually blunt about his feelings. “The way Michaels dealt with the climate change issue in the first issue of the State of the Climate Report disqualified him from taking part as a serious fellow scientist in the climate change debate. His statements were simply not trustworthy.”

The Union of Concerned Scientists responded by issuing a press release attacking the maverick scientist for his sources of funding. They claimed: “The forthcoming climate change report sponsored by the Western Fuels Association is like a lung cancer study funded by the tobacco industry.”

Cooler heads

Michaels was then invited to speak at the launch of the latest sceptic vehicle, the Cooler Heads Coalition. The coalition presented itself as a subgroup of the National Consumer Coalition and wished merely “to dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific and risk analysis.”

Myron Ebell, the chairman of this new outfit, around the same time joined the newly formed Exxon-funded free market think tank, the Frontiers of Freedom. The economist currently works with Fred Smith at the Koch-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

Meanwhile, Roger Bate, founder of the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF), was working equally hard in the UKto attack the IPCC and climate science.

Politicisation of science

An internal memo set out the tasks for the tobacco- and oil-funded front: “RB to write a short book on the politicisation of science, showing the motivations of the various players influencing the outcomes. May concentrate on one topic so one can analyse the players properly. Climate change is the obvious choice. Two publishers interested.”

The ESEF also planned to place articles implying that the “source is now more important than the science,” defending British American Tobacco while Bate and an environmental journalist named Richard D. North wrote an article titled Anatomy of Health Scares, dubbing the salmonella outbreak “Chickengate”.

Bate also penned a comment article asking, “Why Regulate Nicotine When Caffeine is More Addictive?” and continued to promote his latest climate change book, Global Warming, A Report of the European Science and Environment Forum.

Subjective view

Promotional material sent to tobacco companies stated: “There has been much focus on the IPCC and the only opposition to the idea that there is a consensus has come from individual scientists who, with a few notable exceptions, have been dismissed as misguided by those within the process, and indeed most commentators.”

It goes on: “We are identifying mainstream journalists, specialist science journalists, selected MPs and MEPs and other policy advisors and academics. We want the media to come to ESEF for a different subjective view.”

The book was advertised as including contributions from the major climate change deniers: Singer, Michaels, geography professor Robert Balling, and the increasingly eccentric climatologist Piers Corbyn.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press). He tweets at @EcoMontague. This article first appeared at Desmog.uk. 

“New ideas to solve the big issues of our time” is the theme of this year’s Ethical Consumer conference, with sessions on how to rethink the role of the consumer and regenerative and mission-led business.

Get tickets now!

Speakers include Andy Goldring, chief executive of the Permaculture Association who will discuss innovative systems and Rachel Mountain from Ethex, on choosing an ethical investment.

A panel including Kate Sandle, community manager at B-Corp and Charlie Wigglesworth, deputy chief executive at Social Enterprise UK, will debate different types of innovative company.

Palm oil, plastics, tax avoidance, ethical finance and how to market your ethical business will also be discussed. The full programme is available here.

The conference will be held from 10am – 6pm on 12 October at the Amnesty International Resource Center, Shoreditch, London.

Tickets cost £22.50, including a vegan or vegetarian lunch, and are available online. To gain your 20 percent discount, use the code TheEcologist.

The conference is sponsored by vegetarian food co-operative, Suma Wholefoods.

This Author

Catherine Early is chief reporter for The Ecologist.

A Labour government would set a target for UK emissions to be slashed to “net zero” by the middle of the century, boosting ambition from the current 80 percent set in the Climate Change Act.

The party says it will ensure that 60 percent of energy to be from low carbon or renewable sources within 12 years of coming to power – up from around 10 percent now, bring back the zero carbon homes target scrapped by the Conservatives and table a Clean Air Act, according to its environment manifesto published at the weekend ahead of its annual conference.

Labour said that tackling the drivers of environmental degradation would require a “fundamental rebalancing of economic power”. Economic decisions should be made by the many who will suffer the consequences of climate change, rather than the few who have benefited from it.

Rebalancing economic power

The party wants to bring the water, rail and energy sectors back into public ownership, arguing that this would lower bills while providing investment.

Funding for farming and fishing should be reconfigured to support sustainable practices, smaller traders, local economies and community benefits, it said.

It reiterated its promise to ban fracking, as is the case in France and Germany. Any airport expansion would have to pass tests on noise and air pollution, while staying within the UK’s climate change obligations and meeting growth across the country, it said.

Greenpeace praised the manifesto’s ambition on fracking, onshore wind, home energy efficiency and public transport. It was also pleased with a commitment to review the UK’s fishing quota to support low-impact fishing, which it said would benefit the UK’s coastal communities.

However, Greenpeace UK head of politics Rebecca Newsom pointed out the lack of policy on waste and plastic pollution.

“Labour should introduce a progressive waste and resource strategy that requires corporate producers of waste to cut the amount they churn out and take full responsibility for disposing safely of the rest,” she said.

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and chief reporter for The Ecologist. She was formerly the deputy editor of the Environmentalist. She can be found tweeting at @Cat_Early76. 

Delays to maintenance at 13 Ministry of Defence run nuclear sites has created a ‘ticking time bomb’, a powerful House of Commons committee has warned.

The Public Accounts Committee highlighted a potential £20 billion shortfall in the MoD’s overall equipment programmes and has questioned the ability of the MoD to meet its national security commitments.

The Committee has already warned about a £2.9billion ‘affordability gap’ for the ‘Nuclear Enterprise’ which includes the Trident replacement submarines – Dreadnought.

Spending requirements

Now it has highlighted that when the subs are built there will be nowhere to berth them. Devonport and Rosyth dockyards are already full of old subs, some of which still contain nuclear fuel.

Kate Hudson, general secretary of CND, said: “We welcome this very frank PAC report which puts MoD incompetence and negligence in the spotlight.

“It’s clear that the MoD is overreaching itself financially: it clearly cannot afford to buy a new nuclear weapons system and maintain its other spending requirements. Spending on Trident replacement when it can’t afford general equipment is grossly irresponsible.

Common sense

“Even worse are the health and safety risks presented by years of MoD inactivity. There is a backlog of subs waiting to be dismantled, some of which contain nuclear fuel waste that will be radioactive for thousands of years.

“No permanent safe storage facility has yet been found, but our government chooses to produce more of this toxic waste through a nuclear weapons system that it cannot afford.

“This PAC report must ring alarm bells at the highest levels. The common sense solution is to cancel Trident replacement.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor to The Ecologist.

Basking sharks are the second largest fish in the world. They can reach lengths up to 10m, and have previously had a reputation for being slow and languid as they scour the sea for their staple diet of plankton. Hundreds of basking sharks live off the shores of Cornwall, Ireland and Scotland.

Researchers used video analysis for basking sharks and great white sharks to estimate vertical swimming speeds at the moment of leaving the water. They also fitted one large basking shark with a data recording device to measure speed and movement.

At one point during the deployment of the recording device, in just over nine seconds and 10 tail beats, the basking shark accelerated from a depth of 28m to the surface, breaking through the water at nearly 90 degrees. The shark cleared the water for one second and peaked at a height of 1.2 m above the surface.

Athletic speeds

To achieve this breach, the basking shark exhibited a six fold increase in tail beat frequency and attained a top speed of approx. 5.1 m/s. This is more than twice as fast as the average competitor in the Olympic men’s 50m freestyle swim.

The videos of basking sharks and great whites breaching showed similar speeds of breaching in other individuals. The basking shark videos were recorded in 2015 at Malin Head, Ireland. The white shark videos were recorded in 2009 at two sites in South Africa, during predation attempts on Cape fur seals using seal shaped decoys.

Lewis Halsey, a reader in the Department of Life Sciences at the University of Roehampton and one of the scientists involved, said: “The results of the research put the basking shark in a new athletic light.

“While there are no recorded incidents of them being of danger to swimmers or small boats, unlike the great white shark, we now know they do have an impressive ability to swim at great speeds and jump clear of the water.”

The research team comprised Queen’s University Belfast, University of Roehampton, Trinity College Dublin, University of Cape Town, Irish Basking Shark Study Group and the South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity.

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This story was based on a press release from the University of Roehampton. 

The Lancashire ‘Nanas‘ are thus named because they’re motivated by grandchildren – everyone’s grandchildren. When John Kerry signed the Paris Agreement, he made a point by sitting his two-year-old granddaughter on his lap.

But the impact of climate change on children has already begun. As UNICEF have reported: “From natural disasters to the creeping impacts of rising sea levels and changing rain fall patterns, climate change threatens children’s most basic rights, including their health, access to food and water, education – even their survival.” 

As an author in school, I’ve noticed touching displays about polar bears, and photos of children working to earn the title Eco School – usually by recycling and reducing energy use.

Sensitive topics

One primary teacher told me: “Our Eco Warriors have been involved in working with the council to address fly tipping in the streets, and have written to the school milk provider to ask for paper straws instead of plastic.” 

I asked teachers how climate change is addressed in the classroom and informally when children raise the issue. Another primary teacher explained: “In Key Stage Two there is obvious sensitivity around political and cultural issues – I have been ticked off for openly discussing my political views with my year 6 class, so whether explicit teaching of climate change is deliberately avoided in Key Stage Two, I don’t know.”

But he added, “Children do ask about it and I’d be morally wrong if I didn’t allow them to discuss issues. Typically, they are beautifully black and white about it. I remember one girl exclaiming about how stupid it was to agree more nuclear power stations when energy can be safely harnessed from wind and solar.”

Clearly, with the subject missing from the early curriculum, there are no guidelines for teachers to use when asked about climate change by those most vulnerable to its impact.

In 2013 the UK Government removed climate change from the Key Stage One and Key Stage Two curriculum to the dismay of many, including the government’s former science adviser, Professor Sir David King. 

But The Royal Geographical Society said that the draft geography programme of study would provide “a sound underpinning of factual knowledge to prepare, at GCSE and A level, for pupils to study the topics that confront us all, globally, as citizens and which are inherently geographical, such as climate change.”

BBC Bite Size Chemistry (OCR Gateway) stated: “There are international treaties aimed at reducing the emissionsof carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. However, even if these emissions should fall significantly, it would take a long time for the Earth’s temperature to stabilise then decrease.” It then identifies ways to mitigate the impact of climate change.

Mental health

I found another revision site, this time for GCSE Geography, where environmental impacts of climate change are listed alongside economic impacts as if these are of equal importance.

The tone is low key rather than alarmist. But the data, including the graph by Robert A. Rhode showing 2000 year temperature comparison, must be enough to frighten any teenager studying it – which brings us to a problem.

In 2009 the film Age of Stupid shocked me to the core. I believed that every adult in the world should watch it, but balked at the idea of showings in school. Children, while more at risk than adults, are not in a position of power to change outcomes.

In 2016 we learned that rates of depression and anxiety among teenagers had increased by 70 percent in the previous twenty-five years; a decade or so ago, a friend’s teenage son said she had no idea what it was like to grow up in a world under threat from global warming. 

Fiction can carry truth, and fantasy and allegory (like my fracking novel The Dreamer) can make the point less brutally. But I was told my YA climate change novel Start was “a bucket of iced water over the head”. 

I’m aware that when young people recognise the failure of governments to protect their right to life, they are profoundly shocked. One teacher, asked about his own young sons, said: “My boys do worry.” Another teenager said: “It’s very bad and the worst thing is it affects the animals that don’t have an opinion and are becoming extinct.” And another said that climate change spelled “disaster and the beginning of the end of the world” and that he worries about it. 

Active hope

A school librarian at a comprehensive school asked visitors to her library for their thoughts about climate change and was told: “We need to stop it but we are not going to be alive to see the effects,” by one student, while others were more concerned: “We need to stop using greenhouse gases” and “Everyone needs to do a little bit to make a change. For example use electric cars. If everyone changes then we can stop it.” 

Another teenager said: “It’s very bad and the worst thing is it affects the animals that don’t have an opinion and are becoming extinct.” Another said that climate change spelled “disaster and the beginning of the end of the world” and that he worries about it. 

As adults we don’t have to be climate scientists to come face to face on a daily basis with climate events and predictions that could reasonably cause despair. There are books, like Joanna Macy and Chris Johnstone’s Active Hope, which have helped me, like my Quaker faith. However, I know a young man, highly educated and of a sunny disposition, who thinks “we’re fucked”, and tells me his university friends think so too.

What of children too young to be inspired by Macy or Naomi Klein, dependent on their parents for their security? What are parents to tell children, when they ask or even if they don’t?

My brother Dave Hampton, a carbon coach, has given many talks in school since 2005. A piece of his will appear in a leaflet called OK OurKids. He drew my attention to Dr Heidi Edmonds and Climate Kiss in Australia: a rather gentler easing in to truth than NASA’s Climate Kids.

There are apps, and plenty of videos on YouTube that parents can view with a child, managing questions as honestly but kindly as they can. Those who look for technological solutions will stress the importance of science and creative problem solving as a positive slant. Others may focus on equipping young people with ways to handle knowledge, such as meditation or mindfulness, and support groups, online or physical, where they can share fears and hope.

Radical change

Children will want to do something about what they have processed – like those school Eco Warriors – and achievable objectives have obvious advantages for wellbeing as well as society. It may be a mistake to limit that action to the anodyne or disingenuous – a sort of eco equivalent of going along with the Santa myth for their own benefit.

Just as I always feel hugely heartened by protesting with others who share my ideals, the young will surely be encouraged by taking part in activism for something in which they believe – like the thrilling #ThisIsZeroHour youth of America.

Fifteen year old Bella Lack, a contributor to The Ecologist, made an inspiring speech outside Downing Street for the UK Youth Climate Coalition’s March this summer – added to this, I have seen that children as young as eight can express themselves with passion and clarity. And there are other ways to campaign. 

A trial date for Juliana v. United States has been set for 29 October in Eugene, Oregon. The plaintiffs, aged 10 – 20, include the granddaughter of climate scientist James Hansen, formerly of NASA, and argue that the government, “through its affirmative actions in creating a national energy system that causes climate change, has violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, and has failed to protect essential public trust resources.”

British children could make a similar case as the UK government continues to pursue its policy of fracking against the will of local communities and the wider public – a policy inconsistent with Paris targets. It is up to the grownups in government to face reality as presented by climate and medical science, and ban a practice which puts short-term gain for the grownups ahead of the safety of children.

Long ago before we had a television, my dad protected me from the world news by keeping the paper he read on his train home out of bounds.

Now children can learn more about climate change from social media than the press or television. As adults we must tell them what we believe to be the truth, empower them to act as they feel they must, and help them hold on to hope. We owe it to younger generations to work tirelessly to safeguard their future.

If governments won’t fulfil this basic duty, they are negligent, and we must tell them so, accuse them of ecocide, stop them fracking and drive radical change. Enough damage has been done, and those who haven’t caused it cannot be allowed to pay the price of our mistakes. 

This Author

Sue Hampton is an author writing fiction for children, teenagers and adults, all underpinned by green values. She lives in Berkhamsted, Herts, where she is a Trustee for People not Borders supporting refugees, a Green Party member and a co-founder of Plastic-Free Berko.

Michael Mann’s submersion into climate research coincided with a global groundswell. In 1993, he set about trying to establish when the global temperatures had last risen so high or so rapidly.

Two years later, in December 1995, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) completed its second major report and published it during the first weeks of the following year.

Bert Bolin, the IPCC chairman, used his foreword to express his increasing frustration at the allegations being flung at the IPCC by climate sceptics and to defend its laborious and painstaking processes, rather than setting out the findings and implications for governments around the world.

IPCC defensive

The free market, oil funded climate deniers had already forced Bolin onto the defensive. “The reader may note that the IPCC is a fully intergovernmental, scientific-technical body,” he explained.  

The IPCC was extremely cautious and – five years after its first report – would only record that the signal of global warming, amid the natural chaos of weather, was only just emerging.

Despite no strong signal emerging from the climate science community, the late Professor Stephen Schneider, a Stanford University climatologist, well understood that the latest report was “fraught with political significance”.

He believed that President Bill Clinton was about to announce that America would finally agree to binding emissions cuts.

Emission targets

Tony Blair was elected Britain’s prime minister in May 1997 and followed in Conservative John Major’s climate footsteps.

During his first month in office, he flew to the G8 Summit of world leaders in Denver, as well as an environmental conference in New York, where he met Vice President Al Gore and used a keynote address to attack climate polluters.

Referring to agreements made at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, he said Britain was among only three countries to stabilise its carbon emissions.

“Some other countries cannot say the same, including some of the great industrialised nations,” he said. “To them I say this: our targets will not be taken seriously by the poorer countries until the richer countries are meeting them. The biggest responsibilities falls on those countries with the biggest emissions.”

Professor Bob Watson, a cheerful grey-bearded British atmospheric chemist, was made chairman of the IPCC in 1997.

A dynamic leader

Watson had impeccable scientific credentials, and, even more remarkably, combined these with a commanding and believable media presence.

He had been chief scientist for the Office of Mission to Planet Earth at NASA before being hired by the president to advise at the White House.

He was described by the New York Times as an “outspoken advocate of the idea that human actions – mainly burning coal and oil – are contributing to global warming and must be changed to avert environmental upheavals.”

His clear scientific analysis and managerial aptitude ensured that the IPCC would resist the snipe fire from their sceptic adversaries.

The leaders of the two nations that had historically produced the most carbon emissions were poised to take radical action, while the scientific body that informed such action itself had a new, dynamic leader.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press). He tweets at @EcoMontague. This article first appeared at Desmog.uk.