Download `HUMANITY AND NATURE: A NEW BALANCE`

‘HUMANITY AND NATURE: A NEW BALANCE’
SPEECH BY RT HON DAVID MILIBAND MP
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL
AFFAIRS
THE VATICAN
26TH APRIL 2007
I am deeply honoured to be able to address this conference on climate change and
development. Climate change is not just an environmental or economic issue, it is a
moral and ethical one. It is an not just an issue for politicians or businesses, it is an issue
for the world’s faith communities. The common thread that underpins my speech today
is a belief that it is our moral duty to protect future generations, particularly those in the
poorest countries who will experience the most acute suffering, from the effects of
environmental degradation. I think it is appropriate to address these themes at the
Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace.
Across the world, we are now beginning to see a change in attitudes to climate change.
But well before climate change gained the profile it currently holds, the Catholic Church
was warning of its consequences. In 1990, Pope John Paul II in his address to celebrate
the World Day of Peace warned us of the dangers of irreversible damage caused by the
greenhouse effect.
“In our day, there is a growing awareness that world peace is threatened not only by the
arms race, regional conflicts and continued injustices among peoples and nations, but also
by a lack of due respect for nature, by the plundering of natural resources….
“Today the ecological crisis has assumed such proportions as to be the responsibility of
everyone…its various aspects demonstrate the need for concerted efforts aimed at
establishing the duties and obligations that belong to individuals, peoples, States and the
international community.”
Seventeen years on, the warnings are reaching a crescendo. A chorus of scientists and
economists, entrepreneurs and politicians, across each country are voicing their concerns.
Our challenge now is to translate the growing awareness of global warming into a
sustained movement that changes the way we live, work and travel.
We need to mobilise governments, businesses and citizens across the world to act – what
Pope John Paul II described as an ‘ecological conversion’. Our call to action can be
guided in part by scientific evidence, by economic analysis, by illustrating that it is in our
self-interest to act. But the foundations of a new climate change coalition must be deeper.
They must be grounded in morality and ethics: in a sense of solidarity with the
developing world and future generations; a belief that humankind has a duty of
stewardship towards nature, and perhaps most critical of all, a belief in securing a socially
just balance of responsibility between rich and poor, and
The Catholic Church and the world’s faith communities have an opportunity to help
nurture these shared values. You first invited the Chancellor Gordon Brown to address
this conference. I know he has worked closely with you on international development,
most recently in respect of the International Finance Facility bond, and I know he sends
his good wishes to this conference and your continued engagement in this agenda. Let
me also pay tribute to the work of particular individuals – Cardinal Martino who has
played a long and distinguished role in developing the moral arguments for tackling
climate change and mobilising grass roots activity. I would also like to note the presence
of Archbishop Patrick Kelly of Liverpool representing the Catholic Church in England
and Wales and Bishop James Jones, the Church of England Bishop of Liverpool who
have both played a critical role in the UK in forging the links between faith and the
environment.
Today, I would like to begin by discussing the scientific, economic and ethical case for
action on climate change.
I then want to talk about the international response and domestic response required to
address climate change.
I want to end by looking at the role of religious groups and civil society in forging a
climate change coalition.
My view is that while we have underestimated the scale, urgency and impact of climate
change, so too have we underestimated our capacity to address it. The technologies,
policies and institutions exist or are emerging. The public support to sustain political
change is also rising. Global warming can be addressed.
Case for action
We are now close to a scientific consensus on climate change. The climate is changing,
and it is man-made. We are, in the words of Tim Flannery, ‘the weathermakers’.
The scientific journey began nearly two centuries ago with the great French
mathematician, Jean-Baptiste Fourier. Fourier hypothesized something in the atmosphere
must be acting like the glass in a greenhouse – letting sunlight in, but trapping it – what
he called ‘the greenhouse effect’. Otherwise the earth would be a frozen block of ice.
In the 1890s, a Swedish chemist called Svante Arrhenius linked the greenhouse effect to
carbon dioxide. Arrhenius predicted that C02 levels would double over 3000 years if
coal-burning continued at the same pace, and this would bring a hotter climate.
But though theories of global warming have a long history, since the millennium, the
debate about climate change has begun to shift: from whether it is happening, to the scale
of the challenge we face, and how fast we need to move to stop it.
The fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the
most definitive assessment of the scale and impact of climate change ever published.
2000 scientists involved, six years in the making. The conclusions are clear, and go
further than the third report published in 2001.

Evidence on global warming is ‘unequivocal’. The earth has warmed by 0.7
degrees C since the beginning of the century; about 0.4 degrees C of this has been
since the 1970s. Climate change is with us now.

We can have ‘very high confidence’ that global warming has been caused by
rising greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels, deforestation and
agriculture. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere has
risen from the pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 in 2005.

We must ensure that global emissions peak and then decline within the next ten to
fifteen years, if we are to avoid warming of above 2 degrees C. Above this
threshold, the impact on people and nature is dangerous. Rising temperatures will
see entire regions experience major declines in crop yields, up to one third in
Africa, with rising numbers of people at risk from hunger. Rising temperatures
will mean significant changes in water availability, with some areas seeing major
water shortages, and sea level rises threatening major world cities. Whole ecosystems from coral reefs to the rainforests face collapse and many species will
face extinction. Storms, droughts, forest fires and flooding will have a major
impact on human life.

The poorest countries will suffer the most from the effects of climate change. The
costs will fall on the countries who have done least to cause climate change, and
least able to adapt to its effects.
The wealth of evidence on the scale and impact of climate change has produced a major
shift over the last 12 months. Paradoxically, the most urgent environmental challenge
facing the planet has stopped being primarily an environmental issue. Climate change is
not just as Al Gore puts it, ‘a planetary emergency’ but a humanitarian one.
Climate change has also become an economic issue: catastrophic climate change will,
according to Sir Nicholas Stern, have a greater economic impact than two world wars and
the Great Depression put together. Dealing with the consequences of climate change will
cost between five and twenty times more than arresting climate change.
Climate change has become a national security and foreign policy issue: scarcity of
natural resources, in particular water and food, could be a major source of future conflict.
Climate change presents a major risk to these essentials, and could trigger unprecedented
migration.
Climate change has become an international development issue: much of the developing
world will have to adapt to the climate change already in train from the developed
world’s emissions. Unless we prevent further climate change, the economic prospects of
the developing world will be severely damaged. Our development funding must help
countries become low-carbon economies and support adaptation.
We must also recognize that climate change is an issue that that raises profound moral
and ethical questions. Economic or scientific analysis cannot tell us what value to place
on the lives of future generations; or how far the developing world should help the
poorest nations to adapt to the effects of climate change, and develop low-carbon energy.
These are questions that must be guided by values as well as facts.
The first principle is sustainability. As the Bruntland Report, Our Common Future, set
out two decades ago, our goal must be ‘development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.
The second principle is social justice. As the Kyoto Protocol recognizes, we need
‘common but differentiated’ responsibilities – common because we are all affected by
climate change and all bear a responsibility, but differentiated because richer nations who
have contributed the most greenhouse gas emissions have a duty to help poorer nations
through the transition to a low-carbon economy and to adapt to the effects of climate
change.
The third principle is stewardship. My concern is born primarily out of a concern to avoid
human suffering but we must recognize that we have a duty to protect our common
resources – to act as stewards of the natural environment.
International framework
2007 must be the year when the international community injects new momentum into the
development of an international framework that can follow the end of the first Kyoto
commitment period in 2012. The truth is that without global confidence in the
commitment of governments to put a price on carbon, to agree a set of long term
commitments for long term emissions reduction, to live up to the commitments in the
1992 Rio Convention to prevent dangerous climate change, initiatives by individual
governments, businesses or citizens will not have the drive and the critical mass to arrest
the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
That framework must promote sustainable economic development, develop the
technologies of the future, and help countries cope with climate change that is here today.
A framework must be based on five key elements.
First, we need to make concrete the 1992 commitment to avert dangerous climate change.
That means committing to the idea of a long term stabilisation goal for the amount of
greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
Second, we must establish carbon markets which put a price on carbon emissions and
stimulate a transformation in energy efficiency and low carbon technology.
Third, we need greater technology investment and transfer: a carbon market in which
credits are bought overseas will help enormously. But we need increased collaboration to
stimulate research and investment. We need to help poorer countries become ‘leapfrog
economies’ that move straight to low-carbon development.
Fourth, deforestation. Emissions from deforestation in developing countries amount to
about 20% of global carbon dioxide emissions. A future agreement must contain
incentives for sustainable forestry management.
Fifth, adaptation: we must also recognise that the most vulnerable developing countries
will need substantial support to help them adapt to the unavoidable effects of climate
change already in train.
We will not conclude an agreement in these five areas this year. But we must develop the
international political consensus that can form the basis of a new set of commitments for
the post 2012 period.
The G8+5 will be critical to that process. We need the engagement of the major emitters;
we need that engagement to take place among Heads of State, Prime Ministers and
Finance Ministries; and we need practical and short term action alongside long term
agreements, including the development of low-carbon demonstration projects and
agreements for particular sectors. This will be part of the agenda at the G8 + 5 Summit in
Heiligendamm in June, leading to the Gleneagles Dialogue with Energy and Environment
Ministers in September, and building towards discussions at UNFCCC in Bali.
Domestic action
Alongside work to forge an international framework, every country needs domestic
action. The UK has successfully broken the link between economic growth and pollution
growth. Our economy as a whole has grown by over 25% since 1997, but our greenhouse
gas emissions have been cut by 8%.
That is why we are introducing a Climate Change Bill which will ensure the UK becomes
the first country in the world with legislative framework designed to manage the
transition to a low-carbon economy – it will put into law our commitment to reduce C02
emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, and by 26 to 32 per cent by 2020. Our aim is to
demonstrate to other countries, particularly the developing world that we, as the world’s
first industrial nation, are prepared to make our contribution to reducing global emissions.
The Bill also aims to minimize the economic costs of moving to a low-carbon economy
through early, but gradual action with long term clarity for business, rather than later,
more abrupt changes.
The majority of greenhouse gases produced in the UK come from three main sources:
electricity, heat and transport. In each area, it is possible to see how light, warmth, and
mobility can be provided in a low-carbon way. In each we are adopting policies that will
drive the transition.
In housing, we know it is possible to create homes that emit zero net carbon emissions.
This can be done by minimising the amount of heating and electricity required by the
homes, and producing renewable energy within or near the home that can be exported to
neighbouring communities or onto the grid.
A third of the homes that will be standing in 2050 are yet to be built, so a radical
approach to new homes can make a major contribution. We will therefore shortly be
publishing the detail of proposals to make all new homes ‘Zero-Carbon’ by 2016.
In power generation, it is possible to see a shift from gas and coal that emit high levels of
carbon emissions to low-carbon sources. This will include renewables such as solar, wind
and wave power with our aim of increasing the proportion of electricity from renewables
four-fold by 2020. Nuclear power is also a low-carbon source, and in the context of
climate change will continue to make a contribution.
But at a time when China builds a new coal-fired power station every week, we have to
look at ways of using fossil fuels, which are still in abundant supply, in a way that lowers
carbon emissions. Carbon Capture and Storage does exactly that. It is a technology which
reduces carbon emissions from a coal-fired power station by up to 90 per cent.
We will shortly be holding a competition to develop the UK's first full-scale
demonstration of carbon capture and storage, the result of which will be announced next
year. And to help share expertise we are currently working with China on a Near Zero
Emissions Coal project. The EU is also currently considering a proposal to ensure all new
coal-fired power stations built from 2020 are fitted with carbon-capture and storage, and
those built before then, are made ‘capture ready’.
Finally, in transport, the most ambitious approach to a low-carbon society has emerged
from Sweden. In December 2005, the then Prime Minister Goran Persson appointed a
Commission on Oil Independence. The primary rationale for the Commission was to
address climate change. The first milestone towards an oil-free economy, proposed by
the ‘Commission on Oil Independence’, and agreed by the Government was to reduce
petrol consumption by 40 to 50 per cent by 2020.
A post-oil economy is not an unrealistic prospect. Over a generation, it is possible to see
the evolution of road transport initially towards much greater fuel efficiency, greater use
of biofuels and hybrids, and ultimately fully-electric cars. Over a twenty year period, it is
possible to imagine the car industry providing the investment and innovation required to
move to a post-oil economy, if governments, preferably across a major market such as the
EU, can provide a clear long term signal about the regulatory landscape.
The EU has already proposed to replace the current voluntary agreements to reduce
emissions from new cars, which expire in 2008-9, with a mandatory scheme. Under the
proposal, new car CO2 emissions would be restricted to, on average, 130 grams per km
by 2012, compared with the average of 167 grams today, reducing new car emissions by
20 per cent. Our view is that the objective beyond 2012 should be to reduce average new
car emissions to 100 grams per kilometre. Beyond that we are setting up a review to
examine the vehicle and fuel technologies which over the next 25 years could make the
transition towards low-carbon transport.
Personal and social responsibility
Governments and business must show leadership. But ultimately, the world’s fate will
rest on the actions of citizens around the world – whether they are prepared to buy
products from companies with high environmental standards, reduce the amount of
energy they waste, and support governments that are prepared to put a price on pollution.
The task ahead is to forge what one could call an ‘environmental contract’ – a shared
understanding of the rights and responsibilities of citizens and business in relation to the
natural environment. In the same way that in the 17th and 18th centuries, the great theories
of their time wrote of the need to forge a social contract which limited some of our
freedoms in return for social order, so too in the 21st century we need to forge an
environmental contract to safeguard the environmental order. None of us have a right to
pollute and compromise the welfare of future generations, particularly those in the
poorest countries.
The world’s political leaders have a unique responsibility in helping to forge an
environmental contract. But leadership must come from all parts of society. Civil society,
especially faith communities, has a huge opportunity and responsibility, particularly in
addressing the moral and ethical questions posed by climate change. You have a global
reach and influence that individual governments do not. And far from being an add-on to
the values and work you do, climate change is integral, particularly to the work you do on
development.
In the Pope’s message for world day of peace from 1st January 2007, he said:
‘Humanity, if it truly desires peace, must be increasingly conscious of the links between
natural ecology, and human ecology. Experience shows that disregard for the
environment always harms human co-existence, and vice versa….if development were
limited to the technical-economic aspect, obscuring the moral-religious dimension, it
would not be an integral human development, but a one-sided distortion which would end
up by unleashing man’s destructive capacities’.
Let me finish with an observation by an organization called the WWF. They have
calculated that if everyone in the world were to consume natural resources and generate
carbon dioxide at the rate we do in the UK, we’d need three planets to support. We are
depleting our natural resources at a far faster rate than we are replenishing them. The
challenge is to move towards a one-planet economy and one-planet living – where there
is a balance between what we give and what we take. I am optimistic we can meet that
challenge, but we can only do so by appealing to a combination of moral duty and selfinterest, by engaging a coalition of the world’s faith communities, by developing an ethic
of environmental stewardship. It is an endeavour around which I hope the world can
unite, an endeavour that I believe we must work on together.