Tim Farron has been writing for the Guardian about the extent of the practical problems faced by communities around the world as a direct result of climate change. Last week he met with someone from the Philippines who knows only too well what climate change means to their islands:
Last Thursday I chose not to avoid it – I was sitting in my office with a man who experiences climate change every day. Yet it wasn’t depressing. I count myself lucky to know Voltaire Alferez, a Christian Aid partner from the Philippines. Voltaire is surprisingly upbeat for someone whose job it is to coordinate 43 organisations in a country being swallowed by the sea to persuade the Patersons of the world that climate change really is the problem of this century. He jokes, he thanks the British government for the action we’ve taken to help his country deal with climate change. He has a young baby who he is looking forward to returning home to. He is clearly proud of the beauty of his country: “We have over 7,000 islands – you should visit before they all disappear!”
For Voltaire, the heart of the climate change debate is not political or psychological – it’s practical. How do we help people adapt to a lifestyle that has already been disrupted by environmental change? It’s a practical issue in this country too. Farmers in my own constituency know that the seasons are changing. Harvest is creeping backwards.
This is mild. In the Philippines there used to be around 25 typhoons a year. There are now more than 40 – and they are getting stronger. In Kenya, Christian Aid partners are sending texts to farmers to help them cope with increasingly unpredictable weather. When you are a subsistence farmer, this practical intervention is life or death.
What can we do about it, though? Tim has two major suggestions. Here’s the first:
The immediate practical action we need to take is clear. One: politicians need to keep our climate change targets reflecting the scale of the challenge we face. This Wednesday and Thursday, EU leaders will get together to agree the carbon reduction that the EU should achieve by 2030. NGOs tell me that 55% is a fair amount, and the UK government position is strong at 50%. But the deal is not even yet at 40%. The prime minister must push for an EU target of at least 40% so we still have some hope of an honest ambition.
To find out more, read the whole article here.
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
14 Comments
Renewables not Fracking
Except that the choice is not between renewables and fracking. its between imported gas and coal and fracking.
Simon, what about trying to replace as much as possible of this north sea or imported gas, or imported coal with renewables? In my patch, Conservatives and UKIP unite to try to kill off every renewable project they can. Fracking is the only option if you kill off the other options, and that political interest is well represented in UK politics for the moment.
If we care about climate change, our priority should be to minimise it and that means (among other things) that fracking should be a last resort, not a first choice.
My thoughts are:
1. We don’t talk enough about people at the sharp end of climate change. So this is welcome. Extreme weather also seems to be becoming more of a problem, so it concerns everyone.
2. Climate change is big business and plenty of people have a vested interest in whipping up a panic about it.
3. We must not get the poor to pay for climate change proposals and another reason why I think one day my wealth cap will come into fruition. Fewer private jets and a bit more solidarity at the top.
4. The article champions Liberal Democrat and Ed Davey’s achievements climate change action, which is good.
5. Farron needs to criticise the left a bit more strongly. Aspects of it verge onto madness and we need someone to emphasise with their concerns, but develop practical, sustainable and fair solutions. The right is the same when it comes to losing a sense of proportion. We see it now with banging on about the EU, when most of the country support it.
I’m with William Hobhouse.
Gas from fracking would improve the balance of payments but do nothing positive for climate change. The Tories and their UKIP spawn are ideologically opposed to renewables. On this as on most other topics they see and seek only short term gain and have scant regard for others living elsewhere in the world or who are yet to be born and who will inevitably face the problems of mass migration from Africa, increasing desertification in South America, increased flash flooding on the Indian sub-continent and on-going conflict over ever more scarce typically low-lying arable land and that most basic of all resources rain for agriculture and drinking.
And still they call out, ‘but I want my cheap fracked gas’… yeh right!
@Eddie Sammon 23rd Oct ’14 – 8:46pm
“Farron needs to criticise the left a bit more strongly.”
Yes, I’m sure that would help prevent oceanic islands and low lying coastal areas disappearing beneath with waves Eddie.
Energy security first please. Fracking, yes, Renewables, yes. Micro-generation built into all new buildings, yes. Ultra insulation, yes. Imported fossil fuels, no. Would it be technically possible to connect into Icelandic thermal and hydro power?
I’m not convinced totally as to the causes of (and therefore solutions to) climate change. After all the Thames used to freeze over and the Sahara was expanding long before the Industrial Revolution. But pollution is bad and reliance on finite fossil fuels is ultimately stupid.
One thing we should be doing is planting millions of trees for biofuels, for carbon capture, to protect land from erosion, and a few dozen other reasons.
Quite amusingly I was looking at LDV via a US based server and the ad panel in the centre of the main page was an ad for the North Carolina Republican Party that says “Fire Hagan & Reid. Democrats in Washington – led by Kay Hagen and Harry Reid – are crushing our economy”. This is the same Kay Hagen who said “North Carolina needs a senator who believes in climate change”.
William – because a) renwables are (at least at the moment) much more expensive than gas b) virtually all our domestic heating runs on gas
I am reluctant to “bang on” about the range of cheap and readily renewable sources of electricity because some people just seem incapable of grasping the facts.
So I will point to one very practical example of what could be done in every town with a school.
Please go to —
http://www.bristol-libdems.org.uk/2014/10/lib-dem-councillor-calls-on-bristol-schools-to-support-run-on-sun/
Here you can read aout what Liberal Democrats have already done with solar.
They say that the average school is £8,000 a year better off with solar.
Save the planet, save the local school £8,000 a year and demonstrate to the rest of the community that there is a very real a sustainable, risk-free source of energy.
@john Tilley
Solar power is not cheap – it (currently) requires high subsidies.
Otherwise (capitalism and self interest being very effective at changing behaviour) we would all be generating our power from solar energy
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/13/uk-britain-renewables-idUKKBN0DT10020140513
@Simon McGrath24th Oct ’14 – 11:11am
“William – because a) renwables are (at least at the moment) much more expensive than gas b) virtually all our domestic heating runs on gas”
= I still want my cheap gas and whats more I can’t be bothered to consider the alternatives that might signiciantly reduce the need for this fuel.
Simon, there are many alternatives that I am sure you will have seen discussed elsewhere on LDV. Its not all turbines and solar PV generating electricity. Solar thermal, geothermal and air to water heating would all reduce the use of gas to heat home spaces and water.
@Simon McGrath24th Oct ’14 – 12:32pm
“Otherwise (capitalism and self interest being very effective at changing behaviour) we would all be generating our power from solar energy”
Really? So why do so many people waste so much gas and electricity at home with old boilers, everything on standby and poor insulation and businesses leave doors wide open with air conditioning on in the summer and heaters on in the winter?
Large scale generation favours big business, smaller scale generation favours individuals and communities.
Once again, as William Hobhouse, John Tilley and myself have all said, it is not all about solar PV or any other single method of renewable generation. Wind, wave, solar, geothermal, biomass, energy from waste, hot air from climate change sceptics etc.
@Stephen Hesketh
I think you are being too harsh, Simon McGrath is correct, a real challenge is the change involved. Gas central heating and hot water systems are very common, the real challenge for alternative energy sources is coming up with an alternative that can utilise much of the existing installation.
For example, in my home, I could install a geothermal collection system, however the best way to utilise this energy would be is through under floor heating and not through my existing radiators, hence a major change is required which will cost me much much more than I will save from reduced energy bills for the next 20+ years. Similarly I could install a solar thermal system which s more compatible with radiators, but whilst this system can provide hot water the days you want the heating on high tend to be in winter when the solar input is much reduced.
This is one of the reasons why simple energy efficiency and saving measures have done so well is because the effort involved is small – swapping an incandescent light bulb for an LED bulb is straight-forward. And why solar voltaic is slowly taking-off.
Hence moving away from utility supplied electricity, gas and pressurised cold water requires some significant redesign of our homes; I’m not sure that even the proposed 2016 building regulations have fully taken this into consideration, because one of the reasons why so much in our homes is directly connected to the mains (pressured water) is to save on construction costs.