Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images
We are still receiving your excellent questions but I’m afraid we’re going to have to wind up the Q&A now. Many thanks to our amazing panellists for giving their time, and to you the readers for, as ever, keeping us on our toes with some incisive and probing questions.
Q: Why the preference for wind turbines over tidal turbines? As long as the moon orbits the earth, we have tides and the UK has a lot of coastline and some strong tides. Moreover, power generation is predictable. It’s a permanent source of energy. Why are we so slow to exploit it?
Professor Mary Gagen replies: Broadly, size of investment, the structure of our subsidies, the environmental impact and, always the elephant in the room with renewables, the grid. In terms of environmental impact floating offshore wind reduces impact on the marine environment and is often mentioned favourably by marine scientists. Tidal stream energy is also at a relatively early stage of development compared to wind and that is seen to limit its commercial competitiveness.
Fiona Harvey adds: Tidal power has proved more difficult technologically, not least as the turbines need to be under the sea and so more difficult to get at for maintetnance and subject to erosion and other problems. Siting tidal power schemes has also been controversial.
What’s the best case scenario outcome of COP?
Q: What’s the best case scenario outcome of COP? Tommy Quayle, Manchester
Professor Saleemul Huq replies: Whether COP26 is able to deal with Loss and Damage, which is now a reality.
Fiona Harvey adds: We know that Cop26 will fall short of a perfect deal that would reduce emissions by 45% by 2030 compared with 2010 levels, which is what scientists say is needed to try to ensure we stay within 1.5C of global heating. However, it can set out strong cuts to emissions and a pathway to fulfil the remaining gap. A crucial point about Cop26, often overlooked, is that at Paris many were focused on the 2C goal. But we know now that 2C would be severely damaging across the world, so the focus has moved to 1.5C, which is a tougher but much safer target.
Updated
Q: With the absence of China and Russia, is COP 26 still a worthwhile exercise? J Smith, South West, UK.
Professor Saleemul Huq replies: both China and Russia will be represented in COP26 for the full two weeks of the COP. The presence of their leaders is not at all essential for the outcomes of the COP. Their presence is really a PR exercise for Boris Johnson to have a photo opportunity only!
Q: Why isn’t a consumer carbon tax isn’t talked about more as a fairly simple way to incentivise consumers to demand and only buy green products? Our problem is not with fossil fuel producers - it is with the consumers of it. It is a very much a demand-side problem. After all, if nobody bought gasoline the oil companies would disappear. Scott Werden, 70 retired physicist, Ha’iku, Hawaii, US.
Lucy Siegle replies: I think this is an interesting question and there are some clues in the EU Green Deal and work around the taxonomy for green products. It’s hard not to consume petroleum products, because as an industry oil and gas infiltrates every part of the market from fashion textiles to healthcare products. By and large these are also cheaper as the market is skewed and the pollution and emissions are famously externalised – plastic fashion products for example are not charged for the non biodegradable waste they become or for any microplastic pollution they cause throughout their lifetime. A green tax on unsustainable products would price in this externalised pollution.
We have to be careful though. Manufacturers using limited life cycle analysis will insist these products are better for the environment on a pound for pound carbon basis and over emphasise the moral hazards of switching to other materials. The answer to this is to standardise the methodology around how you work out what is a sustainable product is and stop trade bodies lobbying!
We’re nearly done for the day - just picking up a few last questions which are still coming in thick and fast!
By the way don’t forget to sign up for our new environment newsletter, Down to Earth which will launch on Thursday! Very exciting.
Updated
Q: What will COP26 be aiming to achieve on boosting capacity to adapt to climate change - the often forgotten sibling to reducing emissions- and how likely is it to meet its aims?
Professor Mary Gagen replies: Keep an eye on November 8th which is ‘adaptation day’ at COP - a day of discussions around climate adaptation, loss and damage. That day will be about how the practical solutions needed to adapt to climate impacts, loss and damage can be delivered. Finance will be critical to adaptation and a major goal for COP is to sort out climate financing from the developed world, which currently runs at 20 Million Dollars a year under budget. A key goal is to ensure at the end of COP26 the climate finance commitment of $100 Billion per year from public and private finance is met. Funding is critical so that developing nations can do things like leapfrog over fossil fuel energy reliance and develop sustainably with renewables in place whilst they grow.
Q: What in your view are the MOST effective action(s) that grassroots organizations can now take to pressure fossil fuel extraction industries and the governments that support them? Jennie, North Carolina, US
Hannah Martin replies: There has been some incredible organising against fossil fuel infrastructure all over the world for many years. Indigenous communities have been leading the fight in North America against tar sands and oil pipelines for decades and local communities have been fighting fracking in Poland, Australia and the UK just as a few examples. Many of these fights have been led by either local communities or those at the sharp end of the pollution and devastation which fossil fuel projects bring to the local environment.
Inspired by these movements we should all be stepping up and supporting our local fights against fossil fuel infrastructure - in the UK at the moment there is a huge fight in trying to stop the new Cambo oil field in the North Sea. Check out the Stop Cambo campaign and sign up to find out how you can get involved!
And Lucy Siegle adds: An effective action remains to move your money. Check your investments, check your pension and divest from fossil fuel to renewables across the board. If you don’t have any money, use your influence (and everyone has this) to get others to move theirs.
Updated
Q: On an individual level, what would have more environmental impact: giving up air travel, or giving up eating meat? Or even reducing either of the above by, say, 90%, with individuals rationed to, say, one flight per year and/or meat once a fortnight?
Damian Carrington replies: This study ranks the carbon savings of individual actions of people living in rich nations as follows: Living car-free (2.4 tonnes a year saved), avoiding one transatlantic return flight (1.6T), buying green power for your home (1.5T), eating a plant-based diet (0.8T). It also suggests that by far the biggest action is having one fewer child, though that claim has attracted some criticism. But don’t forget, we need systemic change so that the right choice can be the easy and cost-effective choice for all individuals.
Updated
Q: What are the best trees to plant for maximising carbon sequestration? What role does tree age play? How important is it that we know the fate of any felled timber? Lorraine, North Wales
Professor Mary Gagen replies: This is such an important question for the UK because we’ve got ourselves in a bit of a mess with tree planting in the past and we are well below our planting targets. The best thing you could plant just to lay down carbon is a fast growing conifer, like a spruce, in a monoculture plantation. Unfortunately, this is absolutely the worst thing you could do for biodiversity and nature and for the long term stability of our environment. We’re getting much better at planting the right tree in the right place, for the right reasons, but we do need a mosaic with sensible planting of timber, native woodland protected and restored and the preservation of our urban woodland as well.
What about people who believe that climate change is just a fallacy?
Q: An acquaintance of mine told me the other day that the whole ‘climate change’ thing was a fallacy. This person holds perfectly average (though rather right-wing) views on most things, so I suspect she’s not an outlier. As long as enough people hold these views, nothing is going to change, is it?
Damian Carrington replies: I have good news. Your acquaintance is indeed an outlier. Many opinion polls have shown widespread acceptance and concern over human-caused climate change, largely irrespective of age, nationality and socio-economic status. For example, this huge global poll shows two-thirds of people think we are in a climate emergency. In the UK, this government poll shows 1% of people think there is no such thing as climate change, and just 4% think it is caused solely by natural processes.
Updated
Q: What will world leaders do right now to create the infrastructure necessary to reduce global dependency on automobiles? T-M Baird, Vermont
Damian Carrington replies: This comes down to prioritising pedestrians, cyclists and public transport over motorists when developing, or redeveloping, urban areas. In many places cars, and their parking spaces, dominate. But change is happening, for example, in Bogotá, Colombia, where there was a concerted effort to create a city “with more public space for children than for motor vehicles”, and in Pune, India, where a road redesign prioritised pedestrians and cyclists by building wide sidewalks and children’s play areas. You can read more here. Another example is the increase in cycle lanes - 1000km more in Europe in 2020. As well as climate concerns, the rising awareness of the huge harm caused by air pollution is also driving change.
Q: Does ending the manufacturing of plastic products enter into the Climate Change discussion? Amanda Bliss Taylor, Los Angeles, US.
Damian Carrington replies: The short answer is not really at the moment. Today, the overwhelming majority of climate-heating emissions comes from the burning of fossil fuels. But in coming decades plastic production is likely to account for most oil use and as that nears there will be more focus on the issue. In the meantime, plastic pollution of the planet is the key driver of plans to cut plastic production.
Why are we at code red alert for climate change after 25 previous Cop meetings?
Why are we at code red alert for climate change after 25 - yes twenty five! - previous Cop meetings? Tony Dowling, 64, Gateshead, UK
Fiona Harvey replies: Tackling the climate emergency is hugely complex, requiring a complete overhaul of the entire global economic system. Our prosperity, our modern lives, everything we see around us in the built environment, in technology, in the goods and services we consume, is built on fossil fuels. Changing that is an extraoardinary undertaking, the biggest joint undertaking humanity has ever taken on. Add to that the actions of the vested interests of the fossil fuel owners, and it is sometimes less surprising that we haven’t solved it yet.
Hannah Martin adds: We have seen some significant progress despite us being in ‘code red’ and we mustn’t take that for granted. Both in the broad global consensus that we are heading towards climate breakdown and that something needs to be done and in the huge public concern on the issue, we are miles ahead of where we were even a decade ago.
Of course that still means we are nowhere near where we need to be. That’s partly because of the different power bases at play in this debate. On one side we have people who are most impacted by existing climate threats like wildfires, floods, air pollution and extreme heat, huge numbers of concerned workers and citizens all over the world, the scientific community and some dedicated political leaders who are leading the way in pushing for the change we need.
On the other we have people in positions of power who are climate delayers or outright deniers and those corporations who might say they care about climate change but actually are more interested in protecting their bottom line and their shareholders, refusing to change their business models quickly enough. As people who care about this issue that’s why we have to keep working together and keep organising to build enough power that we can keep exposing the climate denial and delay and eventually build an unstoppable wave of momentum across all sectors and communities and elect leaders who have the moral backbone and political leadership to enact the change we need to see.
And Professor Mary Gagen adds: Because politicians respond to voters and voters all possess a social primate brain. Climate action taps into a really problematic bit of the human brain. We are not good at taking the long view; making small sacrifices in the short term to avoid terrible outcomes in the long term. We also do not like being made to feel like accepting something will challenge who we are. If I feel that accepting climate science requires me to change my ideology, my political or religious beliefs or to stop liking money and the things I value, or the things that I feel define me as a person, then my social primate brain, which values social networks above all things, will find ways to quite literally persuade me the science is fake. I will decide it is a conspiracy, I will decide I am being tricked, I will do anything to avoid what I see as being an attack on who I am.
There are many people who have written brilliantly on this ‘politically motivated reasoning’ and the psychosocial barriers to climate action it puts up. I can highly recommend George Marshall’s book Don’t Even Think About it: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change.
The best thing we can all do in the run up to COP26 is to stop and ask ourselves “why do my views on climate change frighten others”? If we can get around politics to find ways to take individual action on climate change regardless of our different political beliefs we stand a chance of reaching the end of the century with our climate on a pathway to returning to a position of stability.
Damian Carrington points out: The climate crisis is a slow motion disaster unlike, for example, the Covid pandemic or the 2008 financial crash. So action can be delayed, with the resulting damages impacting later. Therefore it has been difficult to generate the political urgency needed to make the big changes required. There has also been a decades-long campaign of denial and delay from vested interests, especially the fossil fuel industry. But it’s changing. The impacts of worsening extreme weather are now obvious and the global youth protests are creating political pressure.
And Lucy Siegle adds: There are so many reasons for this and none of them are good. For example in a UK context I was reading about ‘Climategate’ when emails from climate scientists were hacked and made use of by an influential group of denialists. That episode alone was thought to have pushed elements of climate policy back by a decade in the UK. There was an effective moratorium among some media on discussing climate as a settled science until relatively recently and you used to have to debate with a denier as a matter of course. I think communication is a big part of this, and it has been heart-breaking at times to have been part of that.
The COP process itself has had to adjust to the politics. Kyoto became the Paris agreement because countries like Canada at the time threatened to overturn the process. Many countries have behaved badly during this time.
For me, what we have now is a process that has weathered and had to adapt to hostile political and financial climates, right up until the 11th hour. I still think it’s impressive though and I feel optimistic on some levels.
Updated
Q: What changes can private citizens make to help mitigate climate change effects, in order of highest impact? Is reducing food waste x times more helpful than buying an electric car? I realise this depends on our current habits and specific situation but is there some general advice we can follow as we all go on energy diets? Does anyone offer an online tool to help us track our progress? Lisa Fernow, 64, Seattle, USA
Hannah Martin replies: It’s definitely true that we need lifestyle change which includes things like reducing food waste and choosing renewable energy options where possible. However, we shouldn’t forget that we need both radical lifestyle change and political action for systemic change. We cannot reach our climate targets without concerted political will, legislation, policies and the financing to make those things happen. We also need to transform our economy so the financial system serves the needs of people and the planet, with an accountable and democratic government in the driving seat. Our economy must work in the interest of everyone – with greater democratic participation, accountability and common ownership – empowering those communities currently marginalised and respecting natural ecological limits. This could include making sure we:
- End ‘austerity’ once and for all – we need to invest in our public services and end the transfer of wealth from public to private sector
- Change Treasury rules to ensure all public investment is aligned with climate targets
- Work internationally to end the ‘race-to-the-bottom’ on corporate tax, workers rights, and environmental standards
So, in order to win these things we need to engage in the political system. You could take action by attending a protest (like the marches happening around COP) or you could make sure you regularly engage with your local MP with these issues. But one of the most impactful things you can do is to organise with people around you in your workplace, community or with others to build power which we can use to influence the political system. At Green New Deal Rising we are organising as 16-35 year olds but there are loads of groups to join and get stuck in.
Lucy Siegle adds: I liked the recent report from Hot or Cool Foundation in Berlin, pathways to a 1.5 degrees lifestyle. Section 2 picks up on hotspots for those in rich countries and rather alarmingly says we must cut per capita footprints from 12.5 as we are here in the UK to 2.5 tonnes per capita. Obviously a lot of that must be system change but this report concludes it is a combination of personal and system change. So the personal targets are the usual: Diet (cutting down on meat and dairy), transport and home heating (and cooling for some regions). These are where the biggest gains are. Obviously anything that involves buying two tonnes of metal and a battery is going to be more impactful than retiring a behaviour (owning a car and driving it on short trips) and switching to a bike or public transport. As a rule of thumb anything that is shared – cars, houses, lawnmowers – is going to be far more efficient and help to dematerialise. Carbon calculators have a bad rap (some think they are a distraction instrument from the oil industry).I think the good ones are useful at keeping on track, but NOT at the exclusion of community activism. Always as well as.
Updated
Q: Hydrogen molecules are very small compared to natural gas so presumably will leak from pipelines much more easily. In that case will the hydrogen react and combine with other compounds in the atmosphere or simply escape into space. If it escapes surely there will be a risk of depleting the earth’s reserves of water? Mike Allen, 64, Altrincham, UK
Professor Mary Gagen replies: Great question! I checked in with physicist Dr Will Bryan and hydrogen engineer Dr Charlie Dunhill on this. Hydrogen molecules (H2) are in fact pretty similar in size to methane (CH4), which is the primary component of natural gas. They’re around double the length on molecules longest side, so this doesn’t make a big difference.
However, unlike methane, hydrogen is not a greenhouse gas and the other good news is that the UK’s gas supply network is already kitted up to delivery hydrogen – a clean fuel. Interestingly though, what does matter with hydrogen is the mass difference to methane. Methane molecules have a greater mass than hydrogen, so in terms of movement you can think of methane as being slower than hydrogen, so methane leaks less readily.
For the same reason a dedicated hydrogen pipeline can work at much higher pressures than a natural gas one. All the yellow plastic pipelines that we currently move natural gas around in are also H2 compliant and they use something called an electrofusion fitting to make sure they will not leak hydrogen. Let’s think about a serious hypothetical leak though. Hydrogen, being so light, can escape into space, as it is light and moves quickly but a lot of the hydrogen leaked would react to form water on the way up through the atmosphere. Pipelines monitor for serious leaks and shut down before they occur.
How do we ensure a ‘just transition’ to a net zero world?
Q: How do we ensure a ‘just transition’ to a net zero world? How do better off countries help countries and territories already experiencing the extremes of climate impacts and in the UK? How do we prioritise poorer communities and householders so they have solar panels and Teslas and not just the high net worth individuals who are insulated from the fuel price rise? Anon.
Fiona Harvey replies: A just transition to a net zero world can be achieved by redirecting the resources currently poured into fossil fuels into cleaner projects, such as renewable energy generation, electric vehicles, public transport, tree-planting and so on. Both short term and long term jobs can be created in this way, and it could be more profitable than pursuing a high-carbon future, research has shown. Here’s my piece on what a genuine green recovery from Covid-19 would look like, which gives an idea of some of the economic opportunites on offer in a just transition.
Professor Saleemul Huq adds: This is indeed a very important goal for countries, cities, companies and other organisations need to take up, but more important than setting a goal is to implement it honestly and effectively and not use greenwash for public relations only.
Updated
Q: Why is transition to clean energy slow ? Especially in bigger economies. Is the problem technical, financial or political? Anon
Hannah Martin: The problem is predominantly political - with renewables now the cheapest form of power generation in most places, and electric vehicles heading for being cheaper to buy, and definitely cheaper to run, than conventional petrol and diesel. Right now it’s really about governments and the vested interests of companies being removed so that things can shift more quickly. Governments need to ensure their planning processes and electricity system management is up to scratch for us not to move at a snail’s pace. Technically projects can be delivered and financially they make sense. That’s not to say there aren’t challenges in some areas like industry or old buildings, but there’s a huge amount that can be done where the main issue is Government’s and regulators not being willing to move fast enough, and resisted by vested interests like fossil fuel companies and big business.
Why is no one talking about the impact of animal agriculture?
Q: Why is no one during the lead up to COP26 talking about the huge ‘cow’ in the room, industrialised animal agriculture and its huge negative impact on the climate and planetary health because it is a leading cause of GHG production, climate change, rainforest destruction, biodiversity loss ,land and water pollution and of massive chronic diseases in humans? Doug White, US Virgin Islands, Eastern Caribbean
Damian Carrington replies: The issue of sustainable land use is part of the COP26 programme, but is not a key part of the negotiations between the 196 countries to boost cuts in emissions. I think that is for two reasons. The link between fossil fuel emissions and global heating has been intensely studied for decades leading to action in rolling out low-carbon energy and vehicles. The strong science linking methane from cattle and other emissions from farming and food to climate has arrived more recently, meaning action has been much slower. The second reason is that people’s diets are very personal and a difficult area for politicians to step into. But there is no doubt red meat eating in rich nations will have to fall significantly to beat the climate crisis, so I expect this to be an issue of rising prominence. I think the rise of plant-based alternatives to meat, and the possibility of cultured meat, will be important in shifting large numbers of people away from meat.
Saleemul Huq adds: A very important issue which is not yet an official topic in the negotiations but many groups are trying to raise it.
Updated
Q: With regard to the financing of climate change mitigation in the UK the Chancellor says that he is reluctant to impose a burden on future generations by borrowing to create the finance. Given that no such doubt was raised by him over the 400bn of Covid spend, do you think this evidences that he fails to see climate breakdown as an emergency or crisis? In fact has anyone heard either the E or C word pass his or other ministers’ lips? Paul Scholes, 67, Teignmouth, UK
Hannah Martin replies: We need to remember that emissions do not respond to targets. Emissions only respond to policy and the finance needed to make that policy a reality. With the Comprehensive Spending review coming up this week there are multiple reports in the press that Rishi Sunak and the Treasury are trying to appease the climate delayers in the Conservative party by resisting calls to invest properly and fully in the green economy and in the transition. This is extremely short sighted and shows a lack of real awareness from the Chancellor to both the opportunities of the transition and the risks of delay. We could be investing in a Green New Deal now to create millions of good green jobs, revitalise our economy and stop climate breakdown but what we are lacking is the political will to make it happen.
Updated
How is CO2 per country measured?
Q: How is CO2 per country measured? If we buy cars or anything really say from China is the CO2 produce to produce that product counted again us who bought it or China who made it. My own view is it should be against us because it would not have been made if we don’t buy /order it. How would this change the CO2 figures per country. Alan D Thomas, Barnstable, UK.
Professor Mary Gagen: Good question. Accurately developing emissions statements is hard but the good news is we are getting better at it, in part due to consumer pressure to do so. Some industrial processes can measure how much greenhouse gas they emit very accurately but for other emissions in product chains things get trickier.
The way we measure emissions is via ‘emissions scope’ categories. There are three scopes of emissions which counties and organisations are expected to return figures on. Scope 1 are emissions from sources which are owned, or controlled, by the reporting organisation. So, for example the emissions from a manufacturing process. Scope 2 emissions are those arising from the energy an organisation buys in. What you are referring to in your example are known as ‘scope 3 emissions’ and they are the hardest to keep track of, fairly and accurately. Scope 3 emissions result from activities which are not owned or controlled by the reporting organization. One problem is they can be the biggest source of a particular organisation’s emissions and they are also the greatest source of inaccuracy in emissions calculations.
Taking the example of the car purchased from overseas, the scope 1 and 2 emissions can be easily calculated in the country where the car was produced. We know how much emissions the production of steel creates, for example. The scope 3 emissions (which would include those from transporting the car to us) would then need to be accounted for in the country importing the vehicle. We are attempting to get better at scope 3 emissions calculations, although a report by EU clean transport campaign group Transport and Environment found that the car industry use all possible means to try and circumvent emissions regulations and have successfully done so for decades. The greatest push for improving clarity will come from consumers as we become more aware of total supply chain emissions and demand greater emissions accuracy. One thing we can do as a consumer is look for companies who are part of a certification process for their supply chain emissions, such as the Carbon Trust Standard.
Updated
What to expect from Cop? Our experts answer your questions
In a few days time Cop26, the largest diplomatic event to take place in Britain since the second world war, will be kicking off in Glasgow. This international climate summit will be attended by negotiators and political leaders from around the world, seeking to make progress on our global attempts to reduce carbon emissions.
So what will actually happen, and what can we expect? We’ve put together an expert panel to answer your questions:
- Fiona Harvey, Guardian environment correspondent
- Damian Carrington, Guardian environment editor
- Professor Saleemul Huq, director of International Center for Climate Change and Development and senior associate International Institute for Environment & Development
- Lucy Siegle, environmental expert and author of several books including, most recently, Turning the tide on plastic
- Hannah Martin, co-executive director of Green New Deal UK, and organiser with Green New Deal Rising
- Professor Mary Gagen, climate scientist, Swansea University
