Speeches to the Climate March, London and Edinburgh, 3rd December 2005. Introduction by Duncan Law I think it is interesting to read these speeches now that Montreal has ended with Kyoto intact and a continuing commitment to binding targets even if they are as yet woefully inadequate. The US refused to negotiate beyond Kyoto, left in a huff and had to come back when the process did not collapse without them. That does not mean they will not continue to sabotage. But mayors representing 40 million Americans have effectively signed up to the Kyoto targets if not the ongoing process. Meanwhile the world has shown strength being prepared to exclude the US on this important issue. But this is the 11th Climate Talks and they still are only really agreeing to talk more! Notice the discrepancy even among the speakers on what has to be achieved: Meacher - 25% by 2025; Caroline Lucas - not 60% [by 2050 – the governments target] but 80-90%’; George Monbiot - 90% by 2030 to keep carbon concentrations down below 430 ppm to avoid unstoppable climate chaos. Monbiot is right. We have to come below the per capita sustainable level of 1.3 tonnes CO2 each very soon to prevent warming (which lags behind changes in emissions) going beyond the trigger or tipping points that take us over the edge of the climate change cliff. We don’t yet know where the edge of that cliff is so precaution is of the essence. The other principles which he brings out is the urgency and the need for the cuts to be sufficient. Going off the Climate Cliff at 45 degrees is still fatal. And he emphasised the responsibility of every one of us to achieve these cuts. Much of this was new news to many and he was listened to in almost palpable science. Read his speech if you read none of the others - or listen to it on podcast at http://www.xan.co.uk/volume_37.php Michael Meacher, MP and ex Labour environment minister (in London) Caroline Lucas, MEP, Green Party (In London) "we are gathered here outside the US Embassy because George Bush's refusal to act on climate change makes him guilty of crimes against humanity. If George Bush is guilty, lets not forget that our own prime minister Tony Blair is a vary active accomplice in that crime as well. and so we've got a message for Tony Blair, and our message is very clear : climate change is a far greater threat than international terrorism; climate change is itself a weapon of mass destruction". "Because to make cuts in green house gas emissions, not of 60% but of the 80 or 90 % that we need, we'll need nothing short of a revolution of our economies, our planning system our transport system, the way in which we produce and consume; but watch my lips Tony Blair, that does not mean Nuclear Power. " "Those who campaigned about the war in Iraq will find something strangely familiar about the tactics being used to persuade us that Nuclear is necessary; first we have the contrived panic, over energy crisis and gas supply; that's followed by a series of Downing Street’s anonymous briefings; and now the Energy Review, this dodgy dossier, full of misleading statements and lies designed to give Blair the pretext he needs to implement a policy on nuclear that he has already decided upon … and so our message for Tony Blair is simple; its uneconomic, it's unsafe, its unpopular, and its unnecessary. If nuclear power is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question!" Caroline Lucas, can also be seen speaking on a web tv site called www.bigpicture.tv. Ruth Jarman, Christian Ecology Link copyright Ruth Jarman 2005 I am a trustee of Christian Ecology Link and I am a mother. My son and I have a message for Tony Blair. Tony, you're into targets! Targets for the health service, targets for crime, targets for schools. Tony, the only target that I care about, the only target that my children will ultimately care about, the only target that your children will ultimately care about is a target on CO2 emissions that will ensure the viability of life on this planet for them and their children. We've all heard what you've said about climate change – that it is a major threat. But then you also say that we have to face political realities. Well, let the laws of the universe bow to your political realities! Let physics and chemistry just modify their laws in obedience to your god of economic growth. Let polar bears learn to love living in zoos while we sacrifice their habitat on the altar of unfettered consumption. Stop and think about it, Tony, believe it or not, economic growth is not god. We have bowed to this idol for long enough. Now is the time to look at how our beautiful world works and have the humility to fit into it, rather than pushing it beyond its limits in an attempt to satisfy our toddler attitude that we want it all now. We need you, Tony, to help the human race grow up! And it is possible. Studies have shown that we can cut our UK emissions by 60%. We can do it without waiting around for new technology. And we can do it without nuclear power. All we need from you is serious, and I mean serious, investment in renewables and energy efficiency and the vision, leadership and courage to break our culture's addiction to energy. At Montreal, Tony, we need you to negotiate a binding treaty that contracts our global emissions to a safe level and converges all countries to equal per-capita emissions. Go for that safe binding target, go for it as if your children's lives depend on it. And I've also got a message for President Bush. I too call myself a Christian. But the God I worship is more important to me than the economy. The Jesus I follow came down to this earth to redeem the whole of creation, to demonstrate its preciousness. How can you think it's OK to destroy the earth? And the Jesus I follow calls me to love my neighbour as myself, where that neighbour is of another race, from another country, fallen on harder times than myself. President Bush, your neighbour is a child in Bangladesh, losing his land and home to sea-level rise. And you, as an average American will have contributed 100 times as much CO2 than he to the cause of that sea-level rise. This is injustice on a huge scale. And the Bible I've got talks a lot about justice. The Bishop of London, Richard Chartres says: President Bush, we are asking you to protect life on this wonderful Earth by agreeing a binding international target for the emission of carbon dioxide based on the practical and ethical principles of contraction and convergence. George Monbiot, Journalist (in London): The Struggle Against Ourselves I want to take a moment to remind you of where we have come from. For the first three million years of human history, we lived according to circumstance. Our lives were ruled by the happenstances of ecology. We existed, as all animals do, in fear of hunger, predation, weather and disease. For the following few thousand years, after we had grasped the rudiments of agriculture and crop storage, we enjoyed greater food security, and soon destroyed most of our non-human predators. But the sword, the axe and the spear ruled our lives. The primary struggle was for land. We needed it not just to grow our crops but also to provide our sources of energy - grazing for our horses and bullocks, wood for our fires. Then we discovered fossil fuels, and everything changed. No longer were we constrained by the need to live on ambient energy; we could support ourselves by means of the sunlight stored over the preceding 350 million years. The new sources of energy permitted the economy to grow - to grow sufficiently to absorb some of the people expelled by the previous era's land disputes. Fossil fuels allowed both industry and cities to expand, which permitted the workers to organise and to force the despots to loosen their grip on power. Fossil fuels helped us fight wars of a horror never contemplated before, but they also reduced the need for war. For the first time in human history, indeed for the first time in biological history, there was a surplus of available energy. We could keep body and soul together without having to fight someone else for the energy we needed. Agricultural productivity rose around 10 or 20 fold. Economic productivity rose 100 fold. Most of us could live as no one had ever lived before. And everything you see around you results from that. We have been able to assemble here from all corners of the country because of fossil fuels. We have not been charged and cut down by the yeomanry - or not yet at any rate - because of fossil fuels. Our freedoms, our comforts, our prosperity are all the result of fossil fuels. Ours are the most fortunate generations that have ever lived. Ours are the most fortunate generations that ever will. We inhabit the brief historical interlude between ecological constraint and ecological catastrophe. I don't have to remind you of the two forces which are converging on our lives. We are faced with an impending shortage of the source of energy, which is hardest to replace - liquid fossil fuels. And we are faced with the environmental consequences of the fossil fuel burning which has permitted us to be standing here now. The structure, the complexity, the diversity of our lives, everything we know, everything that we have taken for granted, that looked solid and non-negotiable, suddenly looks contingent. All this is a great tottering pile balanced on a ball, a ball that is about to start rolling downhill. I hear people talking about the carbon cuts they would like to see. I am not interested in what people would like to see. I am interested in what the science says. And the science is clear. We need not a 20% cut by 2020; not a 60% cut by 2050, but a 90% cut by 2030. Only then do we stand a good chance of keeping carbon concentrations in the atmosphere below 430 parts per million, which means that only then do we stand a good chance of preventing some of the threatened positive feedbacks. If we let it get beyond that point there is nothing we can do. The biosphere takes over as the primary source of carbon. It is out of our hands. The notion that we can achieve this by replacing fossil fuels with ambient energy is a fantasy. It is true that we have untapped sources of energy in wind, waves, tides and sunlight, but it is neither so concentrated nor so consistent that we can plug it in and carry on as before. A cut like this requires massive reductions in our energy use. There are some techno-fixes available, but they are unlikely to take us more than halfway there. If carbon emissions are to be capped at 10%, energy use will have to be capped at under 50%. The only fair means of doing this is national rationing accompanied by global contraction and convergence. And we find ourselves in an extraordinary position. This is the first mass political movement to demand less, not more - the first to take to the streets in pursuit of austerity - the first to demand that our luxuries, even our comforts, are curtailed. These are the greatest political challenges any movement has faced. But we are rising to it. We are rising. But let no one tell you it will be easy. If it were just a matter of slagging off George Bush, we would have won by now. But we must struggle not only against him, not only against our own government, not only against each other, but also against ourselves. The struggle against climate change is a struggle against much of what we have become. It is a struggle against some of our most fundamental urges. We cannot call on others to stop flying if we still fly. We cannot ask the government to force us to change if we are not ready to change. The greatest fight of our lives will be fought not just out there, but also in here. [the speech as actually delivered] I’d like to start by reminding us of where we’ve come from. For the first three million years of human history we were entirely dependent on the whims of the environment. Like all other animal species we lived in fear, almost constant fear of starvation, of predation, of weather, of disease. For the following few thousand years when we had discovered the rudiments of agriculture and of crop storage, our global field security began to increase somewhat, began to improve. We disposed of most of our predators. But we were ruled by the sword, the axe and the spear. Our conflicts were fought mostly over land, over land not just because that’s where our food came from - and food was almost always short or threatening to be short – but also because that’s where our energy came from - that’s where our horses and bullocks grazed which we used for traction – that’s where our fuel grew in the form of wood or crop wastes. And then we discovered fossil fuels. And when we discovered fossil fuels everything changed. Suddenly there was a surplus. Suddenly the economy could start growing as it had never grown before. Suddenly the people who had been expelled from the land during the previous era’s disputes and conflicts could find employment in the growing cities and the growing industries. Having done so they were able to mobilise against power for the first time. They were able to force the despots who had ruled their lives to loosen their grip on power. And though fossil fuels also ushered in an era of warfare of a horror that had never been contemplated before they made the need for war less pressing than it was before because for the first time in human history, indeed the first time in biological history we had a ‘net surplus of energy’. That does not occur in nature. It had never occurred before. It is an extraordinary moment. A moment in which we live with a net surplus of energy, made possible by fossil fuels. Agricultural productivity rose because of fossil fuels by 10 or 20 times. Economic productivity rose by 100 times. And everything we see around us is a product of that. The fact that we have assembled here today is possible only because of fossil fuels. The fact that we have not been cut down by the yeomanry – or not yet at any rate – is only because of fossil fuels. Our freedom, our prosperity, our luxury, they all result from fossil fuels. Ours are the most fortunate generations that have ever lived. Ours are also the most fortunate generations that ever will. I don’t have to remind you of the two forces which are currently converging on our lives. The first is that the source of energy that is hardest to replace, more or less impossible to replace, - and I mean, liquid fossil fuels, - that source of energy is now running out. The second is of course that the consequences of the fossil fuel burning that has brought us here today, are now being visited on us. And everything around us, all this that seems so solid, that we took for granted, that we just lived with and expected always to live with, that was seen as non-negotiable, suddenly looks contingent. All this begins to look like a great tottering pile, balanced on a ball - a ball that’s about to start rolling down hill. Now we’ve heard something about the sort of cuts that people would like to see. I’m not interested in the cuts people would like to see. I’m interested in the cuts that science tell us are necessary. And those cuts do not equate to 20% of our current carbon use by 2020, they do not equate to 60% of our current carbon use by 2050. No-one will thank me for saying this but the science is now unequivocal. We need a 90% cut by 2030. That is the only way we have of preventing this whole thing, this whole edifice balanced on a ball from crashing down around us. And the reason for this is clear. If we do not cut carbon by 90% by 2030 then carbon emissions in the atmosphere reach 430 parts per million and that is the point at which, unequivocally, most of the world’s ecosystems go into positive feedback. The biosphere becomes a net source of carbon dioxide. And then the game is out of our hands. It’s got nothing to do with us any more because there is nothing we can do to stop it. The ecosystems upon which we have relied to absorb carbon dioxide – they start producing it. We have 25 years, ladies and gentlemen and not just to act a little bit. We have 25 years to cut carbon emission throughout our economies, the developed world economies by 90%. Now there are some people who believe this can be done by replacing the fossil fuels on which this great tottering pile has been built by ambient sources of energy. And that I’m afraid is in the realm of science fiction. Yes, there’s plenty out there – there’s plenty of wave and wind and sunlight which we’re not tapping. But every year we use the stored sunlight from 400 years of accumulation, every year 400 years worth of sunlight. And we simply cannot plug in our contingent ambient energy which exists at any one time, into the current grid into our current energy use patterns and expect live to carry on as it has carried on before. The only way the sorts of cuts I’m talking about can be brought about is by a massive cut in the amount of energy that we use. Yes, there are some techno-fixes; there are probably sufficient techno-fixes to allow us, if we are to have a 90% cut in carbon, to get away with a 50% cut in energy, but a 50% cut in energy that is one hell of a decline., We are talking not just about changing the fact that we can fly off to Seville for thirty nine quid for a weekend, we are talking about changing the very basis on which you and I and all of us live. If this problem can be solved by slagging off George Bush we’d have solved it by now. And of course we have to solve it partly by slagging off George Bush. But the problem does not stop with him. The problem does not stop with the US. The problem does not stop with out own government. The problem does not stop with those other people who are flying and driving and leaving their windows open while their heating is on. The problem also stops with every one of us. We are confronting something which no mass political movement has ever even attempted to confront before. In the past all the mass movements which have assembled - because of fossil fuels, that have been allowed to exist in the democratic space created by fossil fuels - have called for more. People riot for more. People have not rioted for Austerity. Never in human history have people rioted for Austerity. Uniquely we have gathered here with the help of our ‘more’ to call for less. We, unlike any mass political movements which have gone before us are calling for less of the things which have allowed the extraordinary outpouring of wealth and luxury that all of us have enjoyed. And we are calling for that not just from our governments – not just from each other - but also, extraordinarily, from ourselves. We recognise that that cut requires rationing – there is no other way in which it can possibly be done. Otherwise all that will happen is that the rich carry on using their fantastic, profligate, quantities of fossil fuel while the poor are left with none. There has to be rationing and distribution within our own economies, and there has to be rationing and distribution around the world. We need global Contraction and Convergence. So we are not only calling for something that nobody has ever called for before, we are calling for something that is incredibly hard to achieve because it requires a mass global mobilisation which then requires mobilisation from virtually everyone who is politically capable, who has the political space to act, on earth. So while we’re engaged in something big today, we’re going to have to be engaged in something a heck of a lot bigger tomorrow. And when I say tomorrow I don’t mean 2050, I mean tomorrow. But this fight, this unique historical fight at this unique historical moment, an interlude between ecological constraint and ecological catastophe, this interlude in which the most fortunate generation, ever, lived requires an extraordinary effort of confronting everything. I just want to leave you with this one thought. We are not just fighting against George Bush – but we are fighting against George Bush; we are not just fighting against the US – but we are fighting against the US; we are not just fighting against Tony Blair – but we are fighting against Tony Blair; but the biggest fight of all in which we are engaged is not a fight against George Bush, or Tony Blair or anyone else. It is a fight against what we have become; it is fight against our own inherent tendencies to desire and consume and grab more and more and more. The biggest fight of our lives, ladies and gentlemen, the biggest fight of our lives is not out there – it is in here. Mark Ballard, MSP (In Edinburgh)
|
|||
 |
Campaign against Climate ChangeUK activists portal |
|
|
|