JRI The John Ray Initiative

Connecting environment, science and Christianity

Briefing Paper 14, third edition 2009

Global Warming,Climate ChangeandSustainability

Challenge to Scientists, Policy Makers and Christians

John HoughtonPRESIDENT, THE JOHN RAY INITIATIVE

2

Global Warming, ClimateChange and Sustainability—-Challenge to Scientists, Policymakersand Christians

John Houghton

In this paper, I first list some of the growingthreats to the environment and introduce the

important concept of sustainability. I then explain thethreat arising from human induced climate change,summarising its scientific basis and the most significantimpacts. I proceed to outline the action that is necessaryto halt climate change especially in the energy sector.Finally, I emphasise the moral imperative for action andsuggest how Christians in particular should respond tothe challenge.

Why care for the Environment?It has always been important to look after our local

environment if only so that we can pass on to ourchildren and grandchildren an environment at least asgood as we have enjoyed. Today, however, it is not justthe local environment that is at risk but the globalenvironment. Small amounts of pollution for which eachof us is responsible are affecting everyone in the world.For instance, very small quantities of chlorofluorocar-bons (CFCs) emitted to the atmosphere from leakingrefrigerators or some industrial processes have resulted indegradation of the ozone layer. Of greater importance isthe carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere from theburning of fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas, which is leadingto damaging climate change. Pressures from rapidlyincreasing world population and from over-use of theearth’s resources are making such problems much moreacute and exacerbating the damage both to the naturalworld and to human communities. The perils of humaninduced climate change are now recognised much morewidely. It is frequently described by responsible scientistsand politicians as probably ‘the greatest problem theworld faces’ and as a ‘weapon of mass destruction’.Global pollution demands global solutions.To arrive at global solutions it is necessary to addresshuman attitudes very broadly, for instance thoseconcerned with resource use, lifestyle, wealth andpoverty. They must also involve human society at alllevels of aggregation - international organisations, nationswith their national and local governments, large andsmall industry and businesses, non-governmental organi-sations (e.g. churches) and individuals. To take intoaccount the breadth of concern, a modern term that isemployed to describe such environmental care is‘sustainability’.What is Sustainability?

Imagine you are a member of the crew of a largespace ship on a voyage to visit a distant planet. Your

journey there and back will take many years. An adequate,high quality source of energy is readily available in theradiation from the sun. Otherwise, resources for thejourney are limited. The crew on the spacecraft areengaged for much of the time in managing the resourcesas carefully as possible. A local biosphere is created in thespacecraft where plants are grown for food andeverything is recycled. Careful accounts are kept of allresources, with especial emphasis on non-replaceablecomponents. That the resources be sustainable at leastfor the duration of the voyage, both there and back, isclearly essential.

Planet Earth is enormously larger than the spaceshipI have just been describing. The crew of Spaceship Earthat six billion and rising is also enormously larger. Theprinciple of Sustainability should be applied to SpaceshipEarth as rigorously as it has to be applied to the muchsmaller vehicle on its interplanetary journey. In apublication in 1966, Professor Kenneth Boulding, a dis-tinguished American economist, employed the image ofSpaceship Earth. He contrasted an ‘open’ or ‘cowboy’economy (as he called an unconstrained economy) with a‘spaceship’ economy in which sustainability isparamount1.

Sustainability is an idea that can be applied toactivities and communities as well as to physicalresources. Environmental sustainability is strongly linkedto social sustainability - that is, creating sustainablecommunities - and sustainable economics. SustainableDevelopment provides an all-embracing term. TheBrundtland Report, “Our Common Future” of 1987provides a milestone review of Sustainable Developmentissues.

There have been many definitions of Sustainability.The simplest I know is ‘not cheating on our children’; tothat may be added, ‘not cheating on our neighbours’ and‘not cheating on the rest of creation’. In other words, notpassing on to our children or any future generation, anEarth that is degraded compared to the one we inherited,and also sharing common resources as necessary with ourneighbours in the rest of the world and caring properlyfor the non-human creation.

Crisis of SustainabilityThe human activities of an increasing world

population together with the accompanying rapidindustrial development, are leading to degradation of theenvironment on a very large scale. Notwithstanding,some deny that degradation is happening; others thatdegradation matters. Scientists have an important role inensuring the availability of accurate information aboutdegradation and also in pointing to how humans canbegin to solve the problems.

1 Kenneth Boulding was Professor of Economics at the University ofColorado, sometime President of the American Economics Associationand of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Hisarticle, ‘The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth’ was pub-lished in 1966 in ‘Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy’ pp77-82.

3

Many things are happening in our modern worldthat are just not sustainable2. In fact, we are all guilty ofcheating in the three respects I have mentioned. Thetable below lists five of the most important issues, brieflyshowing how they are connected together and also linkedto other major areas of human activity or concern. Toillustrate these connections let me use the example ofdeforestation. Every year the area of tropical forest that iscut down or burnt is equivalent approximately to theisland of Ireland. Some is to harvest valuable hardwoodsunsustainably; some is to raise cattle to provide beef forsome of the world’s richest countries. This level of forestdestruction adds significantly to the atmosphericgreenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane, soincreasing the rate of human induced climate change. It isalso likely to change the local climate close to the regionwhere the deforestation is occurring. For instance, in theAmazon if current levels of deforestation continue, someof Amazonia could become much drier, even semi-desert, during this century. Further, when the trees go,soil is lost by erosion; again in many parts of Amazoniathe soil is poor and easily washed away. Tropical forestsare also rich in biodiversity. With loss of forests there willbe much irreplaceable loss of valuable species.

TABLE Important Sustainability Issues

All these issues present enormous challenges. Formuch of the rest of this paper I will address in somedetail the world’s most serious environmental and sus-tainability issue—one with which I have been particularlyconcerned—that of global warming and climate change,explaining the essential roles of both science and faith ingetting to grips with it.

Global Warming and Climate Change: theBasic Science

I begin with a quick summary of the basic science.By absorbing infra-red or ‘heat’ radiation from the earth’s

surface, ‘greenhouse gases’ present in the atmosphere,such as water vapour and carbon dioxide, act as blanketsover the earth’s surface, keeping it on average 20 or 30ºCwarmer than it would otherwise be. The existence of thisnatural ‘greenhouse effect’ has been known for nearlytwo hundred years; it is essential to the provision of ourcurrent climate to which ecosystems and we humanshave adapted.

A record of past climate and atmosphericcomposition is provided from analyses of thecomposition of the ice and air bubbles trapped in the iceobtained from cores drilled out of the Antarctic orGreenland ice caps (Fig 1). From such records we findthat, since the beginning of the industrial revolutionaround 1750, one of the greenhouse gases, carbondioxide, has increased by nearly 40% and is now at ahigher concentration in the atmosphere than it has beenprobably for millions of years. Chemical analysisdemonstrates that this increase is due largely to theburning of fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas. If no action istaken to curb these emissions, the carbon dioxide con-centration will rise during the 21st century to two or threetimes its pre-industrial level.

Fig 1 Changes of atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide concen-tration in the atmosphere during the last ice age as shown from the‘Vostok’ ice core drilled from Antarctica. The main triggers for iceages have been small regular variations in the geometry of the Earth’sorbit about the sun. The next ice age is predicted to begin to occur inabout 50,000 years time.

The climate record over the last 1000 years (Fig 2)shows a lot of natural variability—including, for instance,the ‘medieval warm period’ and the ‘little ice age’. Therise in global average temperature (and its rate of rise)during the 20th century (Fig 2a) is well outside the rangeof known natural variability. The year 1998 is thewarmest year in the instrumental record. A more strikingstatistic is that each of the first 8 months of 1998 was thewarmest on record for that month. Variations from yearto year are strongly influenced by the natural cycle of ElNino years (with unusually warm tropical Pacific oceane.g. 1998) and La Nina years in between (with anunusually cold Pacific such as 2006, 2007 and 2008).Despite these variations the steadily rising trend is clear2 See, for instance, UNEP, ‘Global Environmental Outlook 3’,pp 446,

Earthscan Publications, London 2002

Issue Links

Global Warming & ClimateChange

Energy, Transport,Biodiversity Loss, Deforesta-tion, Water, Soil loss,Agriculture, Food

Land Use Change Biodiversity Loss, Deforesta-tion, Water, Soil loss, ClimateChange, Agriculture, Food

Consumption Biodiversity Loss, Deforesta-tion, Water, Soil loss, ClimateChange, Agriculture, Food

Waste Consumption, Energy,Agriculture, Food

Fish Consumption, Food

The last 160,000years (from icecores) and thenext 100 years

Time (thousands of years)160 120 80 40 Now

–10

0

10

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

CO2 in 2100(with business as usual)

Double pre-industrial CO2

Lowest possible CO2stabilisation level by 2100

CO2 now

Temperature

difference

from now °C

CO2

conc

entr

atio

n (p

pm)

4

and the evidence very strong that most of the warmingover the last 50 years is due to the increase of greenhousegases, especially carbon dioxide.

Confirmation of this is also provided byobservations of the warming of the oceans. The periodof ‘global dimming’ from about 1950 to 1970 is mostlikely due to the increase in atmospheric particles(especially sulphates) from industrial sources. Theseparticles reflect sunlight, hence tending to cool thesurface and mask some of the warming effect ofgreenhouse gases.

Fig 2 (a & b) Variations of the globally averaged earth’s surface tem-perature (combined land surface air and sea surface temperatures).

(a) for 1850-2006 relative to 1961-90 mean. Black dots show annualmeans and right-hand axis the estimated actual average temperature.Linear trend fits are shown to the last 25, 50, 100 and 150 years indi-cating accelerated warming3

(b) 1000-1860, N Hemisphere from proxy data; 1861-2000, globalinstrumental; 2000-2100 IPCC projections using a range of assump-tions about emissions of greenhouse gases and with further shading toindicate scientific uncertainty4.

Over the 21st century the global average temperatureis projected to rise by between 2 and 6 ºC (3.5 to 11 ºF)from its preindustrial level; the range represents differentassumptions about emissions of greenhouse gases andthe sensitivity of the climate model used in making theestimate (Fig 2b). For global average temperature, a riseof this amount is large. Its difference between the middleof an ice age and the warm periods in between is onlyabout 5 or 6 ºC (9 to 11 ºF)5 . So, associated with likelywarming in the 21st century will be a rate of change ofclimate equivalent to say, half an ice age in less than 100years – a larger rate of change than for at least 10,000years. Adapting to this will be difficult for both humansand many ecosystems.

The impacts of climate changeTalking in terms of changes of global average

temperature, however, tells us rather little about theimpacts of global warming on human communities.Some of the most obvious impacts will be due to the risein sea level that occurs mainly because ocean waterexpands as it is heated. Melting of ice on glaciers andpolar ice caps adds to the rise. The projected total rise isestimated to be up to one metre this century and the risewill continue for many centuries – to warm the deepoceans as well as the surface waters takes a long time.This will cause large problems for human communitiesliving in low lying regions. Sea defences in many parts ofthe UK, for instance in the eastern counties of England,will need to be improved at substantial cost. However,many areas in other parts of the world, for instance inBangladesh (where about 10 million live within the onemetre contour – Fig 3), southern China, islands in theIndian and Pacific oceans and similar places elsewhere inthe world will be impossible to protect, and manymillions will be displaced.

3 Climate Change 2007, Physical Science Basis, in IPCC 2007 Report,Summary for Policy Makers, www.ipcc.ch. The years 2001-2008show little if any increase in global average temperature. Like otherexamples of interannual variability in the record this is connected withvariations in El Nino events in the Pacific - see D.M.Smith et al, 2007,Science, 317, 796-9'

4 From IPCC 2001 Synthesis Report published by CambridgeUniversity Press 2001.5 See Fig 1, noting that changes in global average temperature areabout half those at the poles.

Adapted from Milliman et al. (1989).

Fig 3 Land affected in Bangladesh by various amounts of sea level rise.

Variations of the Earth’s surface temperature: 1000 to 21001000 to 1861, N.Hemisphere, proxy data; 1861 to 2000 Global, instrumental;

2000 to 2100, SRES projections

Bars show therange in 2100produced byseveral models

Global average near-surface temperatures 1861-2006

5

There will also be impacts from extreme events.The extremely unusual high temperatures in centralEurope during the summer of 2003 (Fig 4) led to thedeaths of over 20,000 people. Careful analysis leads to theprojection that such summers are likely to be average bythe middle of the 21st century and cool by the year 2100.

Fig 4 Distribution of average summer temperatures (June, July andAugust) in Switzerland from 1864-2003 showing a fitted gaussianprobability distribution6. The 2003 value is 5.4 standard deviationsfrom the mean showing it as an extremely rare event far outside thenormal range of climatic variability.

Water is becoming an increasingly importantresource. A warmer world will lead to more evaporationof water from the surface, more water vapour in theatmosphere and more precipitation on average. Ofgreater importance is the fact that the increasedcondensation of water vapour in cloud formation leadsto increased latent heat of condensation being released.Since this latent heat release is the largest source ofenergy driving the atmosphere’s circulation, thehydrological cycle will become more intense. This meansa tendency to more intense rainfall events and also lessrainfall in some semi-arid areas (Fig 5).

Fig 5 Projected relative changes in December to February precipitation(rain, hail or snow in % for period 2090-99 relative to 1980-99 forIPCC scenario A1B (see Fig 2b) from multi-model averages. Stippledareas are where more than 90% of the models agree in the sign of thechange; white areas are where less than two thirds of models agree.7

On average, floods and droughts are the mostdamaging of the world’s disasters. Between 1975 and2002, due to flooding from rainfall over 200,000 liveswere lost and 2.2 billion affected, and due to droughtover half a million lives were lost and 1.3 billionaffected8. Their greater frequency and intensity is badnews for most human communities and especially forthose regions such as south east Asia and sub-SaharanAfrica9 where such events already occur only toofrequently. For floods, an increase in risk typically of afactor of 5 can be expected by 205010. For the mostextreme droughts that currently affect about 2% of theworld’s land area at any one time (20 years ago thisapplied to only 1% of the world’s land area), recentestimates are that by 2050 over 10% of the world’s landarea will be so affected11. Further, extreme droughts willtend to be longer, measured in years rather than months,again leading to many millions of displaced people.

What about tropical cyclones (hurricanes ortyphoons) —how will they be affected by globalwarming? The year 2005 was a record year for Atlantichurricanes in both their number and intensity. Katrinawas the costliest natural disaster in US history and Wilmawas the most intense ever observed. But there is muchvariability from year to year in hurricane numbers andintensity (note for instance the difference between 2005and 2006) so that neither the year itself nor the individualstorms can be considered outside the range of naturalvariability and therefore due unequivocally to humaninduced global warming.

There is no evidence that tropical cyclones willincrease in number with increased greenhouse gases.However, the intensity of storms is connected with theocean surface temperature in the region where the stormsdevelop, not surprisingly so because the main energy

6 from Schar et al, 2004, Nature 427, 332-6.7 Climate Change 2007, Physical Science Basis, IPCC 2007 Report,Summary for Policy Makers, www.ipcc.ch

8 Jonkman, S.N. 2005 Natural Hazards 34, 151-175; the losses due toflooding only include those from rainfall and not those from stormsurges from the sea for instance in tropical cyclones.9 Defined according to the Palmer drought index that distinguishesbetween moderate, severe and extreme drought.10 See for instance T. N. Palmer and J. Raisanen, 2002, Nature 415,pp512-14.11 E J Burke, S J Brown and N Christidis, 2006, J Hydrometeorology,7, pp1113-1125

Drought in Africa

European heat-wave 2003 - 20,000 died

extremelyrare

event

extremelyrare

event

()

Swiss Temperature Series for June-August 1864-2003

Analysis shows it likely that most of therisk of the event is due to increase ingreenhouse gases - also likely that

- by 2050, average summer

- by 2100, a cool summer

Projected Patterns of Precipitation ChangesJun-Jul-Aug

Precipitation increases very likely in high latitudes

Precipitation decreases likely in most subtropical land regionsFrom Summary for Policymakers, IPCC WG1 Fourth Assessment Report

Projected Patterns of Precipitation ChangesJun-Jul-Aug

From Summary for Policymakers, IPCC WG1 Fourth Assessment Report

-20 -10 -5 5 10 20

%

6

source for such storms comes from the latent heatreleased as water vapour condenses. Over the last thirtyyears there is evidence of a connection between awarming of about 0.5ºC in the ocean surface temperatureover the region and a rising trend in the number of themost intense cyclones, a trend that is expected tocontinue as ocean surface temperatures rise further.

Sea level rise, changes in water availability andextreme events will lead to increasing pressure fromenvironmental refugees. A conservative estimate12 hassuggested that, due to climate change, there could bemore than 150 million extra refugees by 2050. Where canthese refugees go in our increasingly crowded world?

Further impactsIn addition to the main impacts summarised above

are changes about which there is less certainty, but if theyoccurred would be highly damaging and possibly irre-versible. For instance, large changes are being observedin polar regions. With the rising temperatures overGreenland, it is estimated that melt down of the ice capcould begin during the next few decades. Complete meltdown is likely to take many centuries but it would add 7metres (23 feet) to the sea level. Rising temperatures inpolar regions are also likely to result in the release ofmethane, a powerful greenhouse gas, trapped in largequantities in the permafrost under the surface. This couldbecome a more serious and imminent threat if globalaverage temperatures were allowed to rise above about4ºC.

A further concern is regarding the Thermo-HalineCirculation (THC) – a circulation in the deep oceans,partially sourced from water that has moved in the GulfStream from the tropics to the region between Greenlandand Scandinavia. Because of evaporation on the way, thewater is not only cold but salty, hence of higher densitythan the surrounding water. It therefore tends to sink and

provides the source for a slow circulation at low levelsthat connects all the oceans together. This sinking assistsin maintaining the Gulf Stream itself. In a globallywarmed world, increased precipitation together withfresh water from melting ice will decrease the water’ssalinity making it less likely to sink. The circulation willtherefore weaken and possibly even cut off, leading tolarge regional changes of climate. Evidence frompaleoclimate history shows that such cut-off has occurredat times in the past. It is such an event that is behind thehighly speculative happenings in the film, The Day afterTomorrow.

I have spoken so far about adverse impacts. Youwill ask, ‘are none of the impacts positive?’ There aresome positive impacts. For instance, in Siberia andother areas at high northern latitudes, winters will be lesscold and growing seasons will be longer. Also, increasedconcentrations of carbon dioxide have a fertilising effecton some plants and crops which, providing there areadequate supplies of water and nutrients, will lead toincreased crop yields in some places, probably mostnotably in northern mid latitudes. However, carefulstudies demonstrate that adverse impacts will faroutweigh positive effects, the more so as temperaturesrise more than 1 or 2 ºC (2 to 3.5 ºF) above preindustrial(Fig 6).

In addition to the direct impact on humancommunities are the impacts on ecosystems with anestimated 15 - 40% of species potentially facingextinction after only 2ºC of warming. Further majorirreversible impacts on marine ecosystems are likelybecause of acidification of ocean water as a direct effectof rising carbon dioxide levels.

A recent review of the economics of climate changeby Sir Nicholas Stern13 provides estimates of the likelycost of climate change impacts supposing no mitigationaction is taken. I quote from the report’s summary.

“In summary, analyses that take into account the fullrange of both impacts and possible outcomes – that is, thatemploy the basic economics of risk – suggest that ‘business-as-usual’ climate change will reduce welfare by an amountequivalent to a reduction in consumption per head of between 5and 20%. Taking account of the increasing scientific evidence ofgreater risks, of aversion to the possibilities of catastrophe, and ofa broader approach to the consequences than implied by narrowoutput measures, the appropriate estimate is likely to be in theupper part of this range.”

These estimates in economic terms do not take intoaccount the human cost in terms of deaths, dislocation,misery, lack of security etc that would also accompanylarge scale climate changes. Nor do they emphasisesufficiently the predominance of impacts in poorcountries.

12 Myers, N., Kent, J. 1995. Environmental Exodus: an emergentcrisis in the global arena. Washington DC: Climate Institute.

13 Commissioned by UK government, published by CambridgeUniversity Press, December 2006

Fig 6 Summary of impacts of Climate Change in different sectors as afunction of the rise in global average temperature (from the SternReview on the Economics of Climate Change 2006)

from Stern Report 2006

7

Can we believe the evidence?Many people ask how certain is the scientific story I

have just presented. Let me explain that it is based largelyon the very thorough work of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC)14. I had the privilege ofbeing chairman or co-chairman of the Panel’s scientificassessment from 1988 to 2002. The IPCC has producedfour assessments—in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007—covering science, impacts and analyses of policy options.The IPCC 2007 report is in three volumes, each of about1000 pages and containing many thousands of referencesto the scientific literature.15 It confirms the mainconclusions of previous reports, and, in the light of sixmore years of climate change observations and research,is able to express them with greater certainty. Severalthousand scientists drawn from many countries wereinvolved as contributors and reviewers in theseassessments. Our task was honestly and objectively todistinguish what is reasonably well known andunderstood from those areas with large uncertainty, andto present balanced scientific conclusions to the world’spolicymakers. No assessment on any other scientifictopic has been so thoroughly researched and reviewed. InJune 2005, just before the G8 Summit in Scotland, theAcademies of Science of the world’s 11 most developedcountries (the G8 plus India, China and Brazil) issued astatement endorsing the conclusions of the IPCC andurging world governments to take urgent action toaddress climate change. The world’s top scientists couldnot have spoken more strongly.

Unfortunately, there are strong vested interests thathave spent tens of millions of dollars on spreading misin-formation about the climate change issue16. First theytried to deny the existence of any scientific evidence forrapid climate change due to human activities. Morerecently they have largely accepted the fact of anthropo-genic climate change but argue that its impacts will not begreat, that we can ‘wait and see’ and in any case we canalways ‘fix’ the problem if it turns out to be substantial.The scientific evidence cannot support such arguments.

International ActionBecause of the work of the IPCC and its first report

in 1990, the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in 1992could address the climate change issue and the actionthat needed to be taken. The Framework Convention onClimate Change (FCCC) - agreed by over 160 countries,signed by President George Bush Snr for the USA andsubsequently ratified unanimously by the US Senate –

agreed that Parties to the Convention should take“precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent orminimise the causes of climate change and mitigate itsadverse effects. Where there are threats of irreversibledamage, lack of full scientific certainty should not beused as a reason for postponing such measures.”

In combating climate change, action has to be oftwo kinds, adaptation and mitigation. Because of thesubstantial commitment to climate change that is alreadyin train, much attention needs to be given to means ofadapting to it so as to limit the damage for instance fromsea level rise or extreme events. Because of large changesin many areas in water availability (Fig 5), themanagement of water resources, and the development ofnew crop strains possessing heat and drought resistance,are examples of areas that need to be addressed. For therest of this paper I turn to what has to be done in termsof the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions inorder to slow climate change and eventually to halt it.

More particularly the Objective of the FCCC in itsArticle 2 is “to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations inthe atmosphere at a level that does not cause dangerousinterference with the climate system” and that isconsistent with sustainable development. Such stabilisa-tion would also eventually stop further climate change.However, because of the long time that carbon dioxideresides in the atmosphere, the lag in the response of theclimate to changes in greenhouse gases (largely becauseof the time taken for the ocean to warm), and the timetaken for appropriate human action to be agreed, theachievement of such stabilisation will take at least thebest part of a century.

Fig 7 Carbon Dioxide equivalent emissions per capita in 2004 for dif-ferent countries or groups of countries showing also their populations.EIT= economies in transition.17

Global emissions of carbon dioxide to theatmosphere from fossil fuel burning are currently over 25billion tonnes of CO2 containing 7 billion tonnes ofcarbon per annum and rising rapidly (Fig 8). Unlessstrong measures are taken they will reach two or eventhree times their present levels during the 21st centuryand stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations or ofclimate will be nowhere in sight. To stabilise carbon

14 The IPCC was formed in 1988 jointly by two UN bodies, the WorldMeteorological Organisation and the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme.15 Climate Change 2007 in three volumes published by CambridgeUniversity Press 2007. A summary document, Climate Change 2007,Synthesis Report is available from IPCC, Geneva. All are available onthe IPCC web site www.ipcc.ch. My book, John Houghton, GlobalWarming: the complete briefing, 4rd edition, Cambridge UniversityPress, 2009 is strongly based on the IPCC reports.16 George Monbiot’s book Heat, 2007, chapter 2, provides detail ofthis misinformation campaign.

17 Climate Change 2007, Mitigation, IPCC 2007 Report, Summary forPolicy Makers, www.ipcc.ch

India & South Asia 13%Africa 8%China and

East Asia 17%

LatinAmerica &Caribbean10%

Mid

dle

East

4%

Eur

ope

12%

Rus

sia

& E

IT 1

2%

US

A &

Can

ada

20%

Japa

n, A

ustra

lia &

NZ

5%

700060005000400030001000 1000

Cumulative population in Millions

Developing WorldDeveloped World

40

30

25

20

15

10

5

00

Tonn

esC

O2e

per

cap

ita

Carbon dioxide emissions in 2004per capita versus population

8

dioxide concentrations, emissions during the 21st centurymust reduce to well below their present levels by 2050(Fig 8) and to a small fraction of their present levelsbefore the century’s end.

The reductions in emissions must be made globally;all nations must take part. However, there are very largedifferences between greenhouse gas emissions indifferent countries. Expressed in tonnes of CO2 percapita per annum, they vary from about 25 for the USA,10 for Europe, 5 for China and 2.5 for India (Fig 7).Further, the global average per capita, currently about 6tonnes per annum, must fall substantially during the 21st

century. The challenge is to find ways to achievereductions that are both realistic and equitable. I returnto this issue later.

The FCCC recognised that developed countrieshave already benefited over many generations fromabundant fossil fuel energy and that developed countriesshould therefore be the first to take action. First,developed countries were urged by 2000 to return to1990 emission levels, something achieved by very fewcountries. Secondly, in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol wasagreed18 as a beginning for the process of reduction,averaging about 5% below 1990 levels by 2012 by thosedeveloped countries who ratified the protocol. It is animportant start demonstrating the achievement of auseful measure of international agreement on a complexissue. It also introduces for the first time internationaltrading of greenhouse gas emissions so that reductionscan be achieved in the most cost effective ways.

Regarding agreements for emissions reductions postKyoto, serious international discussions are nowunderway that will culminate in a conference inCopenhagen in December 2009. These must include allmajor emitters in both developed and developingcountries. On what eventual level of stabilisation, ofcarbon dioxide for instance, should these negotiationsfocus? To stop damaging climate change the level needsto be as low as possible. In the light of the FCCCObjective it must also allow for sustainable development.

A stabilization target that has often been talkedabout is one that limits equivalent carbon dioxide con-centration (see box in next column) to double its prein-dustrial value, i.e. to about 550 ppm CO2e, equivalent toa rise in global average temperature from its preindustrialvalue of about 3ºC. Although climate change wouldeventually largely be halted—although not for well over ahundred years—the climate change impacts at such alevel would still be very large –of the kind and magnitudeI described in earlier paragraphs.

It is now widely recognized that a lower limit than3ºC must be the aim if such unacceptable damage is to bemollified. A limit of a 2ºC rise in global averagetemperature (that implies a CO2e concentration limit ofabout 450 ppm) was first put forward by the EuropeanUnion Council in 1996.

Equivalent Carbon Dioxide (CO2e)

Greenhouse gases other than CO2 that areincreasing because of human activities, for instancemethane and nitrous oxide, also contribute to globalwarming19. It is often helpful to convert the effect ofthese other gases into equivalent amounts of CO2

(written as CO2e). For instance their total effect atthe moment is approximately equivalent to adding75 ppm to the CO2 atmospheric concentration ofabout 385 ppm, giving a value for CO2e of 460 ppmif these other gases alone are considered. However,in addition to greenhouse gases, small particles inthe atmosphere called aerosols also contribute toglobal warming or global cooling by absorbing solarradiation or by reflecting it back to space. Theireffect can also be converted to equivalent amountsof CO2. Most aerosols tend to cool the atmosphere;their net cooling effect at the moment is about thesame magnitude as the warming effect ofgreenhouse gases other than CO2. So taking bothgases and particles into account, the value of CO2e isapproximately the same as the concentration of CO2

alone or 385 ppm.An important question is whether aerosols will

continue to provide cooling at the same level astoday. Because of the life time of particles in thelower atmosphere (typically a few days only), theanswer to the question depends, for instance, onwhether sulphur dioxide (the source of sulphateaerosols) will continue to be released into theatmosphere from power stations burning coal or oil.These emissions are likely to continue for some timein the future but begin to reduce significantly byaround mid-century as coal and oil use diminish.When these reductions become imminent it will benecessary to find ways of reducing CO2 emissionseven further to compensate. It would be prudent tobegin now to explore technologies through whichthese additional reductions could be achieved.

That 2º limit has now become widely accepted andintense discussions are taking place as to how it can beachieved. It would require global emissions of carbondioxide to peak by about 2015 and by 2050 to be reducedby over 50% from 1990 levels (Figure 8).

Some leading climate scientists led by ProfessorJames Hansen of the USA are arguing that the targets of2ºC and 450 ppm CO2e stabilization are insufficient toprevent serious risk of large unacceptable climate changeand that a target of 380 ppm CO2e should be the aim.Since 380 ppm is below the present level of atmosphericCO2, such a target could not be reached this century.However, Hansen and others are beginning to look intohow large amounts of CO2 can be drawn down from theatmosphere and sequestered in trees, soils or in otherreservoirs. It is important that preparations of this kindare begun as it may well turn out that this more drasticaction is required.

18 Although agreed in 1997 it did not come into force until 2005. TheUSA has not ratified the protocol; Australia ratified it in March 2008.

19 For details of the global warming influence of different constituentssee P Forster & V Ramaswamy, chapter 2 in IPCC Report, ClimateChange 2007, The Physical Science Basis, Cambridge UniversityPress, 2007, or John Houghton 2009, loc cit chapter 3

9

In order to allow some growth in emissions bydeveloping countries as they grow economically, it isnecessary for larger reductions than the global average tobe made by developed countries (Fig 8). For instance, theUK government has taken a lead on this issue and in theClimate Change Bill, that became law in December 2008,a target is set for the UK of a reduction of greenhousegas emissions from 1990 levels of 80% by 2050.

Fig 8 Waymarks for the global energy emissions road map to 2050showing International Energy Agency (IEA) Reference scenario (red);and also a profile (green) aimed at targets of <2°C temperature risefrom pre-industrial and 450ppm CO2e stabilization. The division be-tween developed and developing countries from today until 2050 is aconstruction based on the developed countries’ share, compared withthat of developing countries, peaking earlier and reducing further e.g.by about 90% by 2050.20

What actions can be taken?I now address actions that need to be taken if the

reductions required are to be achieved. Three sorts ofactions are required. First, there is energy efficiency.Very approximately one third of energy is employed inbuildings (domestic and commercial), one third intransport and one third by industry. Large savings can bemade in all three sectors, many with significant savings incost. But to achieve these savings in practice will requireappropriate encouragement and incentives from centraland local government and a great deal of determinationfrom all of us.

Take buildings for example. Standards of insulationand energy efficiency in buildings need to be improved tomore like Scandanavian standards in many countriesincluding the US and the UK. Why in the UK, forinstance, is combined heat and power (CHP) not thenorm for new housing estates? Recent projectsdemonstrate that ‘zero emissions’ buildings are a practicalpossibility – initial costs are a little larger than forconventional buildings but the running costs a lot less.For example, in south London the BedZEDdevelopment (ZED = Zero Emissions development) –the largest carbon neutral housing project in the UK - is acomplex of 82 homes obtaining its heat and power from

the burning of forestry residue. Bringing older housingstock up to a much higher standard is also essential. Inthe transport sector, large efficiency savings are alsopossible. For cars, for instance, a progression oftechnologies between now and 2050 is anticipatedbeginning with petrol/electric hybrids then moving on tofuel cells and hydrogen fuel from non fossil fuel sources.Within the industrial sector a serious drive for energysavings is already occurring. A number of the world’slargest companies have already achieved savings in energythat have translated into money savings of billions ofdollars.21

Secondly, there are possibilities for sequestra-tion of carbon underground, for instance, in spent oil andgas fields or in suitable rock formations22. Because of thelarge number of coal fired plants being built especially inChina and India (China is building new electricitygenerating capacity of about 2GW per week), rapiddevelopment, demonstration and implementation ofcarbon capture and storage (CCS) in all new plants is avery high priority.

Thirdly, a wide variety of non-fossil-fuel sourcesof energy is available for development and exploitation,for instance, biomass (including waste), solar power,hydro, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal energy and nuclear.The potential of solar power, both photovoltaic andconcentrated solar power (known as CSP in which solarenergy is used to drive heat engines), is especially large,particularly in developing countries and near desert areaswith high levels of sunshine. For instance, large solarprojects are envisaged that couple electricity andhydrogen generation with desalination in desert regionswhere water is a scarce resource. The opportunitieswithin industry for innovation, development andinvestment in all these areas are large (see box).

Socolow’s WedgesA simple presentation of the type of reductions that are requiredhas been created by Professors Socolow and Pacala of PrincetonUniversity23. To counter the likely growth in global emissions ofcarbon dioxide from now until 2050, seven ‘wedges’ of reductionare proposed, each wedge amounting to 1 gigatonne of carbon peryear (3.66gt of C02) in 2050. To provide further for the reductionsbelow today’s levels, required by the 2ºC target mentioned above,13 such wedges would be needed. Some of the possible ‘wedges’he proposes are the following. They illustrate the scale of what isnecessary.

• Buildings efficiency - reduce emissions by 25%• Vehicles fuel use - from 30 to 60 mpg in 2bn vehicles• Carbon capture and storage at 800 GW of coal plants• Wind power from 1 million 2 MWp windmills• Solar PV power from area of (150 km)2

• Nuclear power - 700 GW - 2 x current capacity• Stop tropical deforestation & establish 300 Mha of new tree plantations• Biofuel production from biomass on 250 Mha of land

20 From chapter 11, John Houghton, Global Warming: the CompleteBriefing, 4th ed, 2009, CUP.

21 Information from Steve Howard of The Climate Group22 Carbon Sequestration, IPCC Report 199923 Pacala, S and R Socolow, 2004, Science 305: 968-972

Global Energy Emissions Road Map 2010-2050

2050• Energy emissions <50% 1990 levels• Surface transport >90% carbon-free

2030• Deforestation halted• Electricity >90% carbon-free• Energy use in buildings halved

2010• CO2 emissionstargets set for 2020,2030, 2050

From 2010 onwardRapid deployment:• energy efficiency• renewable energies• CCS

'Businessas usual' (IEA reference scenario)

En

erg

y em

issi

on

s gi

gato

nnes

CO

2

205020302020201020001990Year

10

20

30

40

50

60

Developingcountries' share

Developedcountries' share

0

2016• Emissions peak• Deforestation halved• > 10 CCS demo plantsoperating

2040

10

The International Energy Agency (IEA)24 in June2008 published its Energy Technology Perspectives200825 that describes in detail the technologies andinvestment required by the world’s energy industries toreduce global fossil fuel emissions to the extent requiredby 2050 to have some chance of meeting the 2ºC target26.Figure 9 details the reductions required in differentsectors under what IEA have called the BLUE Mapscenario. In addition, global deforestation especially inthe tropics, that today accounts for about 20% of carbondioxide emissions, would need to be halted early in theperiod.

The costs of stabilization at 450 ppm CO2e havebeen estimated by the IPCC and the Stern Report27 asequivalent to a loss of a few per cent of world GDP by2050, i.e. a loss of one or two years’ economic growthover a 40 year period. The IEA has also estimated thecost in terms of the additional financial investment inglobal energy required to meet the BLUE Map scenario(Figure 9)28. They begin with an estimate of the totalcumulative energy investment needs for business-as-usual(their Reference scenario - see Fig 8) from 2005 to 2050of about 250 trillion (million million) US$ or about 6%of cumulative world GDP. By far the largest proportionof this relates to investments that consumers make incapital equipment that consumes energy, from vehicles tolight bulbs to steel plants. In fact because of very largeinvestment in vehicles, transport alone accounts for 84%of the total investment. To follow the BLUE Mapscenario over this period additional investment needs areestimated as 45 trillion US$, an increase of 18% over theReference scenario and equivalent to just over 1% ofcumulative world GDP over the period – a figure similarto that above quoted by the IPCC for the likelymitigation cost of stabilizing CO2e at 450 ppm. The IEAalso point out that, compared with the Referencescenario, the BLUE Map scenario will result in significantfuel savings over the period amounting to about 50trillion US$, approximately wiping out the additionalinvestment cost.

In addition to the mitigation of climate change,many beneficial moves towards other aspects of sustaina-bility can be identified associated with the revolution inenergy generation and use that I have presented. Theoverall net cost of this action, often quoted as a mainconcern, would appear to be small even possibly negativeand certainly far less than the costs of taking no actionthat were mentioned earlier.

At the end of this section on action, we are boundto ask can it be done? Figure 8 summarizes elements ofthe road map that will have to be fulfilled for a 50%chance of success in achieving the 2ºC target. Itrepresents an extremely ambitious timetable that can onlybe fulfilled if the programme of energy transformation israised to a very much higher level of urgency - more likethat prevailing in time of war. In 1941, at the request ofWinston Churchill, President Franklin Rooseveltintroduced his remarkable programme of Lease-Lend toaid the war in Europe, under which the United States’industrial machine turned round within a few months toproviding military equipment – tanks, aircraft, etc – on avery large scale. I believe that the threat of climate changeis such, that concerted action of a similar kind is nowneeded.

A long term strategyIt is relatively easy to present paper solutions (see

box on page 9 for an example) but harder to see howthey can be implemented. Questions are immediatelyraised such as: what are the best options? There is no onesolution to the problem and no best technology. Further,different solutions will be appropriate in differentcountries or regions. Simplistic answers I have heardmany times have been— ‘leave it to the market, that willprovide in due course’, and ‘the three solutions areTechnology, Technology and Technology’. The marketand technology are essential and effective tools but poormasters. Solutions need to be much more carefullycrafted than these tools can provide on their own. Sohow can the process start?

A long-term perspective is required. I like to thinkof it in terms of a voyage. For the boat we are taking,technology can be thought of as the engine and marketforces as the propeller driven by the engine. But where isthe boat heading? Without a rudder and someonesteering, the course will be arbitrary; it could even bedisastrous. Every voyage needs a destination and astrategy to reach it (see box below). Energy strategyneeds a perspective that is long-term, not just short-term.

24 The IEA is an OECD body responsible for implementation of aninternational energy programme.25 Also see World Energy Outlook, International Energy Agency,November 200826 By 2050 the BLUE Map scenario reduces CO2 emissions by 50%from 2005 levels. For a 50% chance of achieving the 2ºC target, thereduction must be at least 50% from 1990 levels – see curve in Fig 8.27 The Stern Report loc cit28 Energy Technology Perspectives, IEA, Paris 2008, chapter 6 page221ff.

Components of energy strategy

· Market and Technology: tools not masters

· Long-term not only short-term

· Economy & environment considered

together - internalize external costs· Get potential technologies to starting gate –

provide necessary Research and

Development· Address social & ‘quality of life’ values e.g.

community benefits of local provision

· Energy security to be taken into account

· Partnerships both national and international

are required to craft solutions.

11

I mention five components of the strategy that shoulddirect any solutions.

First the economy and environment must beaddressed together. It has been said that ‘the economy isa wholly owned subsidiary of the environment’. In aspeech in 2005, Gordon Brown, then UK’s Chancellor ofthe Exchequer, expanded on this idea when he said29,

‘Environmental issues - including climate change – have tra-ditionally been placed in a category separate from the economy andfrom economic policy. But this is no longer tenable. Across a rangeof environmental issues –from soil erosion to the depletion of marinestocks, from water scarcity to air pollution – it is clear now not justthat economic activity is their cause, but that these problems inthemselves threaten future economic activity and growth.’

Fig 9. Future global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions asestimated by the International Energy Agency (IEA) for their baselinescenario and with illustrative options for contributions to emissionsreductions to achieve their BLUE Map scenario with its target ofrestricting the growth of global average temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial.30 Note that the lower four contributions relate to energyefficiency and the top two contributions relate to carbon capture andstorage (CCS).

Take the market. It responds overwhelmingly toprice and the short term. It has been effective in bringingreduced energy prices over the last two decades. But inits raw form it takes no account of environmental orother external factors. Although there has been generalagreement among economists for many years that suchfactors should be internalised in the market, for instancethrough carbon taxes or cap and trade arrangements,most governments remain slow to introduce suchmeasures. An example where it is working comes fromNorway where the carbon tax that is levied makes iteconomic to pump carbon dioxide back into the stratafrom where gas is extracted. Aviation presents a contraryexample where the absence of any economic measures isallowing global aviation to expand at a highly unsustaina-ble rate.

Second, not all potential technologies are at thesame stage of development. For good choices to be

made, promising technologies need to be brought to thestarting gate so that they can properly compete. Thisimplies joint programmes between government andindustry, the provision of adequate resources for researchand development, the creation of demonstration projectsand sufficient support to see technologies through tomaturity31. The market will provide rather little of this onits own. Appropriate incentive schemes are needed. Forinstance, the UK has some of the largest tides in theworld. Energy from tidal streams, lagoons or barrages hasthe advantage over wind energy of being preciselypredictable and of presenting few environmental oramenity problems. It has the potential of providing up to20% of UK’s electricity at competitive prices. Similarpotential is available from wave energy to the north andwest of Britain.

A third part of the strategy is to address thesocial and ‘quality of life’ implications arising from theway energy is provided to a community. For instance,energy coming from large central installations has verydifferent knock-on social and community effects thancome from small and local energy provision. The besturban solutions may be different from what is mostappropriate in rural locations. Addressing more than oneproblem at once is also part of this component of thestrategy. For instance, disposal of waste and generationof energy can frequently go together.

Waste, energy and biomassIt has been estimated that the potential energy value

in agricultural and forestry wastes and residues could, ifrealised, meet at least 10 % of the world’s totalrequirement for energy32 —a very significant contribu-tion. For the UK, domestic, industrial, agricultural andforestry wastes amount to about 20 million tonnes perannum and could provide about 4% of the UK’s totalenergy needs33. I have already mentioned an earlyexample of what is being done, the south LondonBedZED development that obtains its heat and powerfrom forestry residue.

Waste is just one component of biomass that isgaining increasing recognition as an important energysource. Biocrops (see box on page 12) can be employedeither as fuel for power stations for electricity and hotwater or for the production of liquid biofuels. There aresubstantial advantages in local biomass energy schemes.For instance, they can easily include Combined Heat andPower (CHP) so achieving nearly double the efficiency ofschemes providing power alone. They also bringemployment to rural areas and a feeling of ownership tolocal communities. Further, they are also more secure notbeing liable to political interference.

29 Address to the Energy and Environment Ministerial Roundtable, 15March 200530 From Chapter 2 Energy Technology Perspectives IEA Paris, 2008

31 That government energy R & D in the UK is now less than 5% ofwhat it was 20 years ago provides an illustration of lack ofcommitment or urgency on the government’s part.32 From World Energy Outlook 2006, IEA, Table 14.633 From Biomass Task Force Report – a report to UK government,October 2005

Future carbon dioxide emissions reductionsas estimated by IEA

Em

issi

ons

(Gt C

O2 )

12

Biomass – a renewable resource

Biomass is a renewable resource. The carbon dioxidethat is emitted when biomass is burnt or digested is‘fixed’ in the next crop as it is grown. When fossilfuels are burnt no such replacement occurs. Becausebiomass is bulky, transport costs can be large.Biomass is best used therefore to provide localenergy or relatively small additional feed to largepower stations (for instance, it is planned that 7% ofthe feed to the Aberthaw power station in SouthWales should be from biomass).

Biocrops can also be used for the productionof biofuels. In Brazil, sugar cane has beensuccessfully grown to produce ethanol for manyyears. A strong focus of recent work is commercialscale production of what are called second generationbiofuels from lignocellulose from grasses, woodymaterial or from the residue from cereal or othercrops. Decisions regarding large scale biofuelproduction need to be guided by comprehensiveassessments that address not just their effectivenessin reducing carbon emissions but also their use ofland that may be competing with food crops oradding to deforestation.

In the developing world, if rural areas are not to bedepopulated by large scale migration to mega cities of thefuture, local renewable and sustainable energy sourcesmust be given priority. These are vital to theimprovement of local quality of life and to thedevelopment of small and medium sized industrieswithin rural communities. There is large potential inbiomass energy schemes (see box on page 15) and also inlocal solar energy schemes (Figure 10).

Fig 10 Solar energy schemes – a small solar home system

Fourthly, energy security must be part of thestrategy and is increasingly being addressed bygovernments in many countries. How safe are gaspipelines crossing whole continents? How safe arenuclear power stations from terrorist attack or nuclearmaterial from proliferation to terrorist groups? It is such

considerations that put into question large expansion ofthe contribution from nuclear energy. However, there arehundreds of tonnes of plutonium now surplus frommilitary programmes that could be used in nuclear powerstations (and degraded in the process) assisting withgreenhouse gas reductions in the medium term34. Forcountries such as China and India with rapidly increasingenergy demands, abundant coal provides a cheap andsecure energy source. A high priority is to work towardsall new coal fired power stations being substantiallycarbon neutral by using the latest technology coupledwith carbon capture and storage underground.

Diversity of source is clearly important. But thinkingabout security could be more integrated and holistic.Admiral Sir Julian Oswald, First Sea Lord, suggested overten years ago that defence policy and spending could bebroadened to consider potential causes of conflict suchas the large scale damage and insecurity that increasinglywill arise from climate change35. For instance, funding onthe scale of the many billions of pounds or dollars spenton the Iraq war, if directed at combating climate changewould accelerate enormously the realization ofgreenhouse gas reductions on the scale required.

Finally, fifthly as is both stated and implied in theFramework Convention on Climate Change of 1992,partnerships of many kinds are required. All nations(developed and developing) need to work closelytogether with national, international and multinationalindustries and corporations to craft solutions that areboth sustainable and equitable. Technology Transferfrom developed to developing countries is vital if energygrowth in developing countries is going to proceed in asustainable way.

Can we wait and see?I now address those who argue that we can 'wait

and see' before action is necessary. That is not aresponsible position. The need for action is urgent forthree reasons. The first reason is scientific. Because theoceans take time to warm, there is a lag in the responseof climate to increasing greenhouse gases. Because ofgreenhouse gas emissions to date, a commitment tosubstantial change already exists, much of which will notbe realised for 30 to 50 years. Further emissions just addto that commitment. The second reason is economic.Energy infrastructure, for instance in power stations laststypically for 30 to 50 years. It is much more cost effectiveto begin now to phase in the required infrastructurechanges rather than having to make them much morerapidly later. The third reason is political. Countries likeChina and India are industrialising very rapidly. I heard asenior energy adviser to the Chinese government speakrecently. He said that China by itself would not be takingthe lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. When thebig emitters in the developed nations take action, they34 Nuclear Power in the 21st century, Interdiscipinary Science Reviews,26, 2001, Especially paper by W.L.Wilkinson, pp 303-306.35 Oswald J, Defence and environmental security, 1993, in Prins, G(ed) Threats without enemies. London, Earthscan

Car batteryRefrigerator

T.V.

LightSolarcell array

~1 m2

~100 W peak power

Local solar energy supply

+ -

13

will take action. An example of the effective leadershipthat is so urgently required can be seen in the EuropeanUnion plans to build jointly with China the first carbon-neutral Chinese coal fired power station employingcarbon capture and storage.

The diagram of waymarks on the energy road map(Fig 8) shows that, to achieve a rise in global averagetemperature of less than the target of 2ºC above prein-dustrial, global emissions of carbon dioxide have to peakwithin the next seven years (2015 or 2016) and thendecline at an average of 3% p.a. until 2050. To ignorethe 2015 peak and to aim at a later peak will reduce theprobability of achieving the 2ºC target to well under 50%.But a more serious consequence of delay is the increasein likelihood of the actual rise being around 4ºC forwhich the damaging impacts would be very large indeed,much greater than described in the earlier sections of thisbriefing paper. The UK government’s Climate ChangeCommittee points out this danger in its first report ofDecember 2008 (www.theccc.org.uk ) and emphasisesstrongly the vital importance of the world finding thedetermination and resolve to continue to aim at a 2015CO2 emissions peak.36 The urgency of action requiredcannot be stressed too strongly.

Stewards of creation: an ethical andChristian challenge

People often say to me that I am wasting my timetalking about Global Warming. ‘The world’ they say ‘willnever agree to take the necessary action’. I reply that I amoptimistic for three reasons. First, I have experienced thecommitment of the world scientific community(including scientists from many different nations,backgrounds and cultures) in painstakingly and honestlyworking together to understand the problems andassessing what needs to be done. Secondly, I believe thenecessary technology is available for achievingsatisfactory solutions. My third reason is that I believe wehave a God-given task of being good stewards ofcreation.

What does stewardship of creation mean? In theearly part of Genesis, we learn that humans, made inGod’s image, are given the mandate to exercisestewardship/management care over the earth and itscreatures (Gen 1 v26,28 & 2 v15). We therefore have aresponsibility first to God to look after creation - not aswe please but as God requires – and secondly to the restof creation as ones who stand in the place of God. Toexpand on what this means, I quote from a document ‘ABiblical vision for creation care’ developed following ameeting of Christian leaders at Sandy Cove, Maryland,USA held in June 200437.

According to Scripture only human beings were made in thedivine image (Gen. 1:26-27). This has sometimes been taken tomean that we are superior and are thus free to lord it over all othercreatures. What it should be taken to mean is that we resembleGod in some unique ways, such as our rational, moral, relational,and creative capacity. It also points to our unique ability to imageGod’s loving care for the world and to relate intimately to God.And it certainly points to our unique planetary responsibility. Thesame pattern holds true in all positions of high status or relation-ships of power, whether in family life, education, the church, or thestate. Unique capacity and unique power and unique access createunique responsibility. Being made in God’s image is primarily amandate to serve the rest of creation (Mk 10:42-45).

Only in recent decades have human beings developed the tech-nological capacity to assess the ecological health of creation as awhole. Because we can understand the global environmentalsituation more thoroughly than ever before, we are in a sense betterpositioned to fulfil the stewardship mandate of Genesis 1 and 2than ever before. Tragically, however, this capacity arrives severalcenturies after we developed the power to do great damage to thecreation. We are making progress in healing some aspects of thedegraded creation, but are dealing with decades of damage, and theprospect of long-lasting effects even under best-case scenarios.

We are only too aware of the strong temptations weexperience, both personally and nationally, to use theworld’s resources to gratify our own selfishness andgreed. Not a new problem, in fact a very old one. In theGenesis story of the garden, we are introduced to humansin with its tragic consequences (Genesis 3); humansdisobeyed God and did not want him around any more.That broken relationship with God led to broken rela-tionships elsewhere too. The disasters we find in theenvironment speak eloquently of the consequences ofthat broken relationship.

We, in the developed countries have alreadybenefited over many generations from abundant fossilfuel energy. The demands on our stewardship take on aspecial poignancy as we realize that the adverse impactsof climate change will fall disproportionately on poorernations and will tend to exacerbate the increasingly largedivide between rich and poor. Our failure to be goodstewards is a failure to love God and a failure to love ourneighbours, especially our poorer neighbours in Africaand Asia. The moral imperative for the rich countries isinescapable.

Some Christians tend to hide behind an earth thatthey think has no future. But Jesus has promised toreturn to earth – earth redeemed and transformed38. Inthe meantime earth awaits, subject to frustration, thatfinal redemption (Rom 8 v 20-22). Our task is to obeythe clear injunction of Jesus to be responsible and juststewards until his return (Luke 12 v 41-48). Exercisingthis role provides an important part of our fulfilment ashumans. In our modern world we concentrate so muchon economic goals – getting rich and powerful. Recent

36 The IEA in their World Energy Outlook published in November2008 emphasise the degree of urgency and determination that will berequired to achieve the 2ºC target with some significant probability butconsider that an emissions peak earlier than 2020 will not beachievable.37 From an unpublished statement ‘Biblical Vision for Creation Care’prepared by participants at a conference of Christian leaders at SandyCove Maryland, USA in June 2004.

38 See Bishop N.T.Wright, ‘New Heavens, New Earth’, GroveBooklets B11, Ridley Hall, Cambridge, 1999

14

events have illustrated the fragility, even the unreality, ofmany such goals.

Stewardship or long-term care for our planet andits resources brings to the fore moral and spiritual goals.Reaching out for such goals could lead to nations andpeoples working together more effectively and closelythan is possible with many of the other goals on offer.

Aiming at goalsTo make progress towards sustainability we need

goals or targets to aim at. Any commercial companyunderstands the importance of targets for successfulbusiness. Targets are needed at all levels of society - in-ternational, national, local and personal. Often, there is areluctance to agree or set targets. A common question is,‘Can we not achieve what is necessary by voluntaryaction?’ Although voluntary action has achieved a fewsuccesses, in general, it fails badly to bring about changeon anything like the scale that is required.

Even when international targets have been agreed,they are frequently not met. It seems likely that somecountries will not meet their Kyoto greenhouse gasemissions targets by the final date of 2012.

At the World Summit on Sustainable Developmentat Johannesburg in 2002, some new targets wereestablished, for example: to halve the proportion ofpeople without access to clean water and basic sanitationby 2015; to use and produce chemicals by 2020 in waysthat do not lead to significant adverse effects on humanhealth and the environment; to maintain or restoredepleted fish stocks to levels that can produce themaximum sustainable yield on an urgent basis and wherepossible by 2015; to achieve by 2010 a significantreduction in the current rate of loss of biologicaldiversity. Many felt these targets were too vague or tooweak. Even so, progress with their realization is provingto be extremely slow... and there is real danger that manyof these targets will be missed—although it might beargued that it is better to have something rather thannothing to aim at! What is vital, however, is thatemissions targets set at the FCCC conference at the endof 2009 will be taken seriously and backed up withappropriate sanctions for non compliance.

New AttitudesNot only do we need goals but also new attitudes

and approaches in the drive towards sustainability – againat all levels of society, international, national andindividual. I mention two particular examples. First, weneed to look seriously at measures of sustainability andaccounting tools to apply those measures. For instance,economic performance of countries is currentlymeasured in GDP, a measure that takes no account ofenvironmental or indeed many other concerns; it is ameasure that increases with more conflict or more crime!Although considerable effort has been put into othermore appropriate measures for instance the HumanDevelopment Index (HDI), the idea of Natural Capitalor the Environmental Footprint, they are inevitably more

complex and none are widely used by policy makers. Inmany respects considerations of the economy have totake second place to those of the environment39. Thedominance of the ‘market’ is often also allowed to rideover environmental considerations. The economy, themarket and the principles of free trade are ‘tools’ –important tools, but they must not be allowed to be inthe position of ‘masters’.

New attitudes: SharingA second example of a new attitude to be taken on

board, again at all levels from the international to theindividual, is that of ‘sharing’. At the individual level, a lotof sharing often occurs; at the international level it occursmuch less. Perhaps the most condemning of worldstatistics is that the rich are getting richer while the poorget poorer – the flow of wealth in the world is from thepoor to the rich. Considering Aid and Trade addedtogether, the overwhelming balance of benefit is to richnations rather than poor ones. Nations need to learn toshare on a very much larger scale.

We often talk of the ‘global commons’ meaning forexample air, oceans or Antarctica – by definition theseare ‘commons’ to be shared. But more ‘commons’ needto be identified. For instance, there are respects in whichLand should be treated as a resource to be shared or fishand other marine resources. Or, in order for internationalaction regarding climate change to be pursued, how areallowable emissions from fossil fuel burning or from de-forestation to be allocated? How do we as a world sharethese natural resources between us and especiallybetween the very rich – like ourselves - and the verypoor?

One of the biggest ‘sharing’ challenges faced by theinternational community is how emissions of carbondioxide can be shared fairly between nations. Fig 7illustrates the great disparity between emissions by richnations compared with poorer ones. The FCCC has nowstarted negotiations including all countries regardingemissions allocations. One proposal is that the startingpoint is current emissions, so that it is reduction levelsfrom the present that are negotiated. That is called‘grandfathering’ and tends to perpetuate currentinequities. A proposal by the Global CommonsInstitute40 is that emissions should first be allocated toeverybody in the world equally per capita, then transferof allocations being allowed through trading betweennations. The logic and the basic equity of this proposal isin principle quite compelling – but is it achievable?

Sustainability will never be achieved without a greatdeal more sharing. Sharing is an important Christianprinciple that needs to be worked out in practice. Johnthe Baptist preached about sharing (Luke 3 v11), Jesustalked about sharing (Luke 12 v33), the early church wereprepared to share everything (Acts 4 v32) and Paul39 See for instance Jonathon Porritt, Capitalism as if the WorldMatters, Earthscan 200540 called Contraction and Convergence - for more details see<www.gci.org.uk>

15

advocated it (2 Cor 8 v13-15). The opposite of sharing -greed and covetousness - is condemned throughoutscripture. The sharing of knowledge and skills with thosein the third world is also an important responsibility (seebox).

Sharing Skills with the Developing World

An aspect of ‘sharing’, the importance of whichis increasingly recognized by agencies concernedwith aid and by others, is not just to share our foodor other goods with the third but to share our skills,for instance in science and technology.

I give an example from my experience as aTrustee of the Shell Foundation41, a large charity setup by the Shell company particularly to support theprovision of sustainable energy in poor countries. Ingeneral, this is not being done through grants forindividual projects. It is often said that it is better toprovide a hungry man with a fishing rod than with afish. It is even better to find someone who will set upa fishing rod factory! So the Foundation’sprogrammes are increasingly concerned with thecreation of local enterprises and the loan financingto enable them to get started. Examples of suchenterprises are some that build and market simpleefficient stoves using traditional fuels that will sub-stantially reduce the amount of fuel that is used andalso reduce indoor air pollution with the seriousdamage to health that it causes, and others thatprovide sustainable and affordable energy to poorcommunities often from the use of readily availablewaste material (e.g. rice straw in China, coconutshells in the Philippines etc). The potential for themultiplication of such projects is large. An aim of theFoundation is to catalyse other bodies and agenciesin the creation of mechanisms for the large scale-upof such programmes so that they can becomesignificant on a global scale both in the provision ofenergy to poor communities and also in reducinggreenhouse gas emissions.

These new attitudes are not just to provide guidanceto policy makers in government or elsewhere. They needto be espoused by the public at large. Otherwisegovernment will not possess the confidence to act. Forthe public to take them on board, the public have tounderstand them. To understand, they have to beinformed. There is a great need for accurate and under-standable information to be propagated about all aspectsof sustainability. Christian churches could play asignificant role in this.

You may ask, ‘but what can I as an individual do?’There are some actions that all of us can take42. Forinstance, we can ensure our homes and the appliances orthe car we purchase are as energy efficient as possible.

We can buy ‘green’ electricity, shop responsibly, usepublic transportation, car-share more frequently, recycleour waste and create as little waste as possible. We canbecome better informed about the issues and supportleaders in government or industry who are advocating ororganising the necessary solutions. To quote fromEdmund Burke, a British parliamentarian of 200 yearsago, ‘No one made a greater mistake than he who didnothing because he could do so little.’

Partnership with GodWe may feel daunted as we face the seemingly

impossible challenge posed by care for the Earth and itspeoples and the need for sustainability. But an essentialChristian message is that we do not have to carry theresponsibility alone. Our partner is no other than GodHimself. The Genesis stories of the garden contain abeautiful description of this partnership when they speakof God ‘walking in the garden in the cool of the day’ –God, no doubt, asking Adam and Eve how they weregetting on with learning about and caring for the garden.

Just before he died Jesus said to his disciples,‘Without Me you can do nothing’ (John 15, 5). He wenton to explain that he was not calling them servants butfriends (John 15, 15). Servants are given instructionswithout explanation; as friends we are brought into theconfidence of our Lord. We are not given preciseprescriptions for action but are called to use the gifts wehave been given in a genuine partnership. Within thecreation itself there is enormous potential to assist us inthe task; the pursuit of scientific knowledge and theapplication of technology are an essential part of ourstewardship. Both need to be approached and used withappropriate humility.

An unmistakable challenge is presented to the worldwide Christian church to take on the God-given responsi-bilities for caring for creation and caring for the poor. Itprovides an unprecedented mission opportunity forChristians to take a lead and demonstrate love for Godthe world’s creator and redeemer and love for ourneighbours wherever they may be – remembering thewords of Jesus, ‘From everyone who has been givenmuch, much will be demanded’ (Luke 12: 48).

41 <www.shellfoundation.org>42 see, for instance, For Tomorrow Too, booklet from Tearfund,www.tearfund.org where other Tearfund material relevant to ClimateChange can be found.

16

Sir John Houghton CBE FRS was co-chairman of the ScientificAssessment for the IPCC from 1988-2002. He was previouslychairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution(1992-1998), Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office (1983-1991) and Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Oxford(1976-1983). He is currently Honorary Scientist at the HadleyCentre, a Trustee of the Shell Foundation, and President of TheJohn Ray Initiative.

Sir John Houghton receiving the Japan Prize in 2006

The John Ray Initiative is an educational charity dedicated to pursuing the connections betweenscience, environment and Christian faith, with a special concern for sustainable development, working throughconferences, publications (online and printed) and distance-learning courses.

For more information, write to us atJRI, Room QW212, University of Gloucestershire, Francis CloseHall, Swindon RdCheltenham, Gloucestershire UK, GL50 4AZ.

Email admin@jri.org.ukOr look at our website

www.jri.org.uk

The John Ray Initiative Ltd is a Registered Charity and a company limited by guarantee. Charity Registration Number 1067614,Company Number 3420063. Registered Office as above.

University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham

JRI Briefing Paper No 14Global Warming, Climate Change

And Sustainability: Challenge toScientists, Policy Makers and ChristiansThird edition, January (revised September) 2009