I am an octogenarian grandfather worried about the future of my grandchildren. I read about the concerns of the public or at least of the journalists and politicians and marvel at their blindness. What on earth is the importance of identity politics in this time of crises? There are so many more important issues.
Top of my list is climate change. I accept the forecasts of the IPCC are realistic and that we have to reach net zero before 2050. If we don't, irreversible changes will occur and those changes will create a much more hostile world with mass migration, hunger, drought and, later, rising sea levels. It is an awful prospect and may mark the end of our civilisation. Polls show that 33% of Britons are very concerned about the effects of climate change, with a further 42% expressing that they are somewhat worried. 80% have changed their lifestyles to some degree because of this concern. Those expressing apprehension have gradually increased over the last decade. Therefore, there is a will to avert the crisis.
We have to realise that climate change is only the most dangerous symptom of the illness gripping Mother Earth. The world's population was one billion in 1800 when Malthus published his famous theory. Then came the agricultural and industrial revolutions and the world's population grew and grew. Some 25 years ago, it was six billion; 12 years ago, it reached seven billion, and last year we passed the eight billion mark. Population is not directly related to CO2 emissions but increasing prosperity for increasing numbers of the world's population is and, despite all present efforts, atmospheric CO2 is still rising.
Even, if by some miracle, we cut our output of greenhouse gases to net zero in time, our leaders still plan for a future that is unsustainable. We are told that clean green energy will simply replace dirty energy and that we will go on comfortably. Green energy will not resolve other problems such as degraded soil, species loss and excessive use of rare resources like rare metals, used in many electrically-powered tools, including cars. Since they are rare and difficult to recycle, they will cause the next bottleneck to constrain our lives. As the environmentalists say, we are using about five planets' worth of materials. It is unsustainable. Too many people consuming too much!
Yet, our politicians prioritise the prosperity of their voters and plan for more growth, just fuelled by green energy. Tomorrow can take care of itself.
Which is more ethical: cut present day consumption to safeguard future generations or despoil the planet to keep voters happy? The answer is obvious to me but too many think that the ingenuity of man will find a solution and thus we do not need to change.
The next question is why should we take the pain when the rest of the world continues as before? Clearly, a country the size of the UK cannot save the planet alone but it can set an example just as we did at the beginning of the industrial revolution. If we make a success of lives lived within planetary boundaries, other countries may be emboldened to follow our lead. Perhaps, more importantly, we can make changes to ensure that here in the UK as many people as possible survive climate change in some sort of functioning society. Although we will be less prosperous, it doesn't mean we will be less content with our lot.
What could that look like?
An answer to this question was prompted by a story that Javed Diamond told. Polynesians arrived on their various islands bringing cereals, hens and pigs. On one smallish island, the population realised that the island was not big enough to support both them and their pigs so they made a decision to slaughter the pigs, thus sacrificing all hopes of roast pork at weekends. Their foresight ensured the survival of their community for generations.
What is our equivalent of their pigs? What can we give up that significantly increases our chance of weathering the storm? My answer is cars and aircraft. Yes I know that cars have been a fantastic bringer of liberty of movement, of pleasure and of employment. But remember that before the railways, most people spent their lives within about 30 miles of their home. Now we drive anywhere we want, and we do – often in choking traffic jams.
Cars are responsible for about 25% of UK greenhouse gas emissions, to which should be added the gases emitted during their manufacture. Aviation is responsible for about 6% of UK emissions. Yes, foreign holidays, sunshine, exploring different cultures are something that almost every family looks forward to every year. But why is it still so much cheaper to fly than to take the train? It is outrageous: governments that allow this are not taking the problem of climate change seriously. If necessary, passenger duty should be set at a level that makes the plane twice as expensive as the train.
Cars and aircraft generate about 30% of our emissions. Cutting that to 10% would make it much easier to meet our legally binding targets.
It would be politically impossible to ban cars in the same way as those Polynesians decided to kill their pigs. But steps in that direction could be taken with minimum turmoil. Car use is already much reduced in areas with good pubic transport. Therefore, a necessary precondition is to invest heavily in an integrated transport system. Families who choose not to buy or use a car should be allowed to use public transport without charge. Those who choose to continue with their cars should have to pay for road miles at a level which would fund the investment in public transport.
As roads become emptier, cycling would become more attractive, health would improve and local social networks would become stronger. This could lead to a surge in well-being but GDP would fall.
Talking about GDP, isn't it time to stop measuring it? Bobby Kennedy said over 50 years ago that producing explosives increased GDP, but looking after your children did not. That is still true but now GDP is taken as a measure of a government's competence and encourages policies that are damaging sustainability. We know that increasing GDP above a certain level does nothing for well-being. By restricting car use and foreign holidays, GDP will inevitably fall but families could have an extra £3,000-£4,000 to spend elsewhere in the economy.
The shape of the economy would have to change. Planning for surviving in a world in turmoil should be the prime objective. Manufacturing should be repatriated and encouraged to build things that are necessary, reliable, reparable and recyclable; functional rather than sophisticated. Bicycles and electric buses come to mind. Smaller buses could belong to isolated communities lacking public transport. Investing in flood protection and insulating houses would create jobs and strengthen our defences against the storm.
Before the pandemic, I would probably not have dared to suggest that we give up cars and foreign holidays, but the experience of lockdown showed how society can continue to function. Indeed, this would be much easier than lockdown because contact with your neighbours and friends would be allowed and schools would not be closed. It would be more like lockdown in No.10 and that looked fun.
Doing without cars would be no great tragedy once we overcome the initial shock. And we could even be happier.
Michael Boulton-Jones was Nephrologist in Glasgow Royal Infirmary and wrote Glasgow Works
, an account of the economy of the city
