Ten ideas to save the planet: climate of apathy

What idea policy or technology holds the greatest promise for tackling climate change? That was the question Channel 4 News posed to the scientific community over the past few weeks.

Thanks to the extensive contacts of the Science Media Centre at the Royal Institution Channel 4 News was able to email hundreds of scientists across various fields of expertise to sound-out their opinions.

From the responses we received it was clear that many felt climate change was not about technology – it was about society.

Professor and author Tim Jackson argues that economic growth is the root cause of climate change. Growth in the already affluent world does not offer the solution; it represents the problem, he believes.

So in the developed world should the climate debate be about changing our quality of life? Should we be taxed for carbon emissions? Is government climate policy lenient because it is worried about upsetting crucial voters? Or is the answer to the world’s problems as simple as, “the condom”?

Climate change: 10 ideas to save the planet

Lifestyle change The more money we make, the more we consume; the more we consume, the more we emit.

So in order to tackle climate change in developed countries behaviour needs a dramatic overhaul, said a number of experts who contacted Channel 4 News.

“There is a need for a widespread, intensive public education programme on the realities of climate change” said Alastair Chisholm from the Charted Institute of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM).

Prof Hugh Montgomery from University College London agreed that public knowledge and understanding were the way forward.

“The first big need is for the general public to grasp the immediacy and gravity of the threat,” he said.

“Without this, politicians and businesspeople are denied the permissive environment in which to act.”

Prof Joseph Giacomin from Brunel University said he was researching ways the general public could better understand climate change. He believes the public must find a way to relate to the problems in order to act upon them.

“In a democratic society, significant behavioural change can only be achieved through a combination of measures which inform, facilitate and legislate.

“A fundamental difficulty, however, is that people do not become active with matters unless there is a high degree of emotional engagement.” Professor Joseph Giacomin

“A fundamental difficulty, however, is that people do not become active with matters unless there is a high degree of emotional engagement.”

The government have already begun a campaign urging people to act in order to prevent “profound effects that will alter our quality of life.” They say that together the actions we take every day create over 40 per cent of the UK’s emissions.

Reducing water and food wastage, insulating houses, eating less meat, and reducing car travel are all ways to cut society’s carbon footprint.

But this is a lifelong lifestyle change. Can governments rely on individuals to voluntarily do enough to make a difference?

Taxing carbon
Decide on the appropriate unit price for carbon (and other green house gas) emissions and make sure everybody pays it.

“This is the only way to give the millions of decision units (individuals and enterprises) the real incentives to change behaviour appropriately.

“Without this it will be almost impossible to achieve real change on the necessary scale.”

That is the conclusion of Prof Stephen Glaister from Imperial College.

He and many of the other scientists who contacted Channel 4 news believe that taxing people and businesses on carbon emissions is the way forward. They also agreed that this should be a global initiative.

“Setting a global price for carbon is the most important outcome for the engineering sector that we should be looking for,” said Scott Steedman.

“Once carbon is understood to be a real cost for engineers to manage, then it will have a major impact on the cost benefit analysis of different solutions and hence on investment decisions.”

Malcolm Newell from the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology said that putting a global tax on carbon would lower emissions and encourage companies to build carbon free alternatives to providing energy.

“A heavy and immediately applied tax on the use of Hydrocarbon fuels…would have an immediate effect on reducing emissions,” he said.

“The tax must be applied to all carbon loaded or carried (as fuel) so that emission reductions are achieved in both national and international waters. “At least part of the tax income must be applied to developing the technology needed to develop low carbon (or no carbon) fuels and the infrastructure needed to handle and distribute them.”

Nick Bardsley from the University of Southampton suggested that “cap and share” would work as an alternative or extra part to carbon tax.

“Cap and share is a way to mitigate climate change, effectively and fairly,” he said.

“It requires fossil fuel suppliers to buy permits for the greenhouse gas content of their fuels before selling.

“Permits are purchased from citizens, who receive equal shares of the economy’s supply, and permit quantities reduce over time.

Prof Hugh Montgomery from University College London said: “Progressive tax is the best offering available.”

“Tax energy production at source. This would add a direct and proportionate tax cost to every manufactured item or service. The neat bit is that all that tax would be given to the populace.

“Instantly, market forces create green activity.”