Climate change: Big lifestyle changes ‘needed to cut emissions’-DEFRA Chief Scientist

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Robin Guenier

 

Harrabin seems to be getting a bit unpopular with climate scientists these days, as he has begun highlighting how peoples’ current lifestyles are totally incompatible with our “climate change obligations”.

In which case, this latest report won’t help his cause!

 

People must use less transport, eat less red meat and buy fewer clothes if the UK is to virtually halt greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government’s chief environment scientist has warned.

Prof Sir Ian Boyd said the public had little idea of the scale of the challenge from the so-called Net Zero emissions target.

However, he said technology would help.

The conundrum facing the UK – and elsewhere – was how we shift ourselves away from consuming, he added.

In an interview with BBC News, Sir Ian warned that persuasive political leadership was needed to carry the public through the challenge.

Asked whether Boris Johnson would deliver that leadership, he declined to comment.

Mr Johnson has already been accused by environmentalists of talking up electric cars whilst reputedly planning a cut in driving taxes that would increase emissions and undermine the electric car market.

Sir Ian said polluting activities should incur more tax. He believes the Treasury should reform taxation policy to reward people with low-carbon lifestyles and nudge heavy consumers into more frugal patterns of behaviour.

It was vital, he said, for the changes to be fair to all parts of society.

He also believes Net Zero won’t happen unless the government creates a Net Zero ministry to vet the policies of all government departments in the way the Brexit ministry vets Brexit-related decisions.

Emissions won’t be reduced to Net Zero while ministers are fixed on economic growth measured by GDP, instead of other measures such as environmental security and a relatively stable climate, he argued.

Asked why the UK should take the lead when China’s emissions are so high, he answered that the Chinese government was very worried about the climate and was taking it very seriously.

Sir Ian, a polar expert with a chair in biology at St Andrews University, suggested that the UK was in a good position to show the world how to achieve Net Zero. But he agreed that similar radical action was ultimately needed by all nations.

He said that on broader issues the government had produced (or was in the process of producing) impressive strategies on the environment, waste, air pollution, marine and food.

Some ministers were enthusiastic to translate these into firm strategies, but they needed support from the public, he said. He confessed that he was not optimistic about the future of the planet because so many systems of government needed to change in a short time.

Sir Ian, who leaves Defra on Thursday after seven years in post, said: "The way we live our lives is generally not good for the environment.

"We like to consume things, but the more we consume the more we absorb the resources of the planet.

"That means we have to grow those resources or we have to mine them – and in doing that we generate waste. And consumption is going up all the time.

"(There’s) a conundrum – how do we shift ourselves from consuming? We need to do more about learning to live sustainably. We talk about sustainability but we don’t really know what it means.

"We need to make major technological advances in the way we use and reuse materials but we (also) need to reduce demand overall – and that means we need to change our behaviours and change our lifestyles.

"We certainly won’t be able to travel so much as we have in the past, so we have to get used to using modern communications methods.

"Moving material round the planet will be more difficult so we’ll have to do more with 3D printing; that sort of thing.

"We’ve got to reduce demand to a much greater extent than we have in the past, and if we don’t reduce demand we’re not going to reduce emissions.

"Emissions are a symptom of consumption and unless we reduce consumption we’ll not reduce emissions.

"It will very rarely come down to a direct message like ‘sorry, you can’t buy that but you can buy this’. But there will be stronger messages within the (tax) system that make one thing more attractive than the other."

Richard Black, from the think tank Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), said Sir Ian’s words were "somewhat surprising".

He added: "They appear to contradict the mass of evidence assembled on getting to Net Zero, including the major report from the government’s statutory adviser the Committee on Climate Change."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49499521?

Note that Harrabin’s chum, Richard Black, still persists with the lie that all we have to do is flood the country with wind mills, drive EVs etc, and the planet will be saved. This has been the official message all along.

Sir Ian Boyd has lifted the lid on the reality of the programme. We will all have to accept big lifestyle changes – travel less, eat less, consume less.

And forget about cheap imports from Asia, because these simply offshore emissions.

As Sir Ian points out, this is likely to mean much higher taxes on sinful consumption. Of course, this won’t matter to Elton John and co, who can afford to pay for their indulgencies.

But eventually some form of compulsion or rationing will be necessary, if climate targets are to be met.

The Science and Technology Select Committee let the cat out of the bag last week, when they officially announced “In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation”.

 

So far, the government has got away with the costs of decarbonisation by blaming the energy companies for high energy costs, which their own policies have been responsible for.

However, most of the cherries have been picked from that particular tree. Soon, the public will be directly affected, for instance when their central heating boilers and cars have to be replaced by expensive and impractical alternatives.

When they ultimately find themselves being told what they can and cannot consume, where they can travel and what foods they are allowed to eat, they will be furious about the way they have been misled.