Spring at Last

Thursday just gone marked the point at which the Sun’s meridian crossed the meridian of the Earth and day and night were of equal length, before the hours of daylight begin to exceed the hours of darkness (in the Northern Hemisphere that is: our Antipodean cousins have things the other way around. The Spring Equinox in many ways marks the arrival of Spring and is the focus of Pagan seasonal rites as well as setting the date of Easter – Easter Sunday is of course the first Sunday after the full moon following the Equinox in case you had forgotten.

All around the land is waking up. Daffodils, primroses and celandine have taken over from the snowdrops that seemed to cling on for so long this year; the first blossom is decorating the bare hedgerows and the grass is beginning to grow. The ducks on our pond are beginning to demonstrate courtship behaviour and the gander is getting decidedly stroppy. It is fascinating to watch people exhibiting a deep-seated urge to get outdoors after what has been a mild but so wet and seemingly never-ending winter. Whenever we have had a dry or sunny day during the last few weeks, people have appeared at the park in their droves and you can almost sense the pent-up urge to go outside and feel the sun and wind on their skin that drives them here.

My vegetable garden is on a North-facing slope with an outbuilding shading it from the low Spring sun. My crops are, therefore, usually several weeks behind everyone else’s. I have learned over the six seasons that we have been here that there is no point in starting plants off at the times recommended by the seed packets and gardening books. This year, the constant rain that we have experienced over the past few months and the subsequent water-logging of the soil has meant that I have been unable to get on the ground to do the usual Winter work of soil preparation and compost incorporation until today. I therefore spent part of the afternoon forking over two of the beds, pulling out the roots of perennial weeds in the hope that this might slow their march towards total domination and transferring the contents of the compost bins onto this year’s potato ground. Elsewhere other gardeners with the benefit of more temperate micro-climates are sowing and transplanting, something that I cannot contemplate doing until at least the beginning of May. However, something we have in common is that I am sitting here typing this with a windburned face, sore back and a sense of satisfaction.

A sure sign that Spring has arrived.

I’ve Made up my Mind – Don’t Confuse Me with the Facts

The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published last autumn contains the earnestly considered and peer-reviewed opinion of the world’s leading climate scientists that there is a 95% probability that human activity is affecting the climate.

According to research posted on quora.com Out of 617 members of Parliament:

27 have science and technology degrees
15 environment studies and geography
12 engineering and architecture
10 medicine and allied subjects

So a grand total of 64 MPs (10.3%) have degrees in subjects that that can, stretching the point a bit, be defined as “Science”. There is one sole Member of Parliament (Julian Huppert, Lib Dem MP for Cambridge) who has practised science past PhD level (he was a research biochemist).

So why is it that MPs such as Peter Lilley, Christopher Chope, Andrew Tyrie, John Redwood and David Davis along with former Thatcher Chancellor Nigel Lawson and Environment Secretary Owen Paterson feel they can present the whole climate change debate as being a finely balanced one in which the sceptical view deserves as much credence as any other?

If Education Secretary Michael Gove is so keen on restoring rigour and factual learning in schools, perhaps he should start with his Parliamentary colleagues.

He could do worse than setting them homework that includes enrolling on a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) such as the Future Learn course run by the University of Exeter on “Climate Change: Challenges and Solutions” that I am currently studying. The current course has closed to new entrants but I am sure they will run it again if Mr Gove asks them to. It only takes a few hours a week, there are no entry requirements and the course explains the fundamental science behind planetary systems and how human activity is affecting them.

Of course, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. But profound ignorance among those responsible for making policy on these issues is potentially lethal. For all of us.

Is Dredging the Answer?

January 2014 was the wettest since records began, according to figures from the Met Office1

The persistent heavy rainfall has led to flooding across many parts of the UK, some of the worst being in Somerset where the communities of the Somerset Levels have been inundated since Christmas with so prospect of relief in sight.

The situation in the Levels represents a microcosm of the plight facing populations in many low-lying areas of the world as sea levels rise as a result of climate change. These are communities founded on land the very edge of what is habitable and therefore uniquely vulnerable to any small change in the delicate balance of climatic factors that made settlement possible in the first place. In the case of the Somerset Levels, much the area actually lies below sea level and is an artificial landscape created by drainage and water management since Roman times2 The Levels, like the East Anglian Fens on the other side of the country, are dependent on drainage and pumping to prevent them reverting to their natural state of marsh and swamp with areas of open water and isolated islands of dry land, such as the Isle of Ely in the East and Glastonbury in the West. Other parts of the country have been subjected to coastal flooding where sea defences have been breached or have been submerged beneath floodwaters where rivers have burst their banks.

There has been a bitter debate locally and in the pages of the regional and national newspapers about the supposed failure of the Environment Agency to keep up with the dredging of the main rivers that drain the Levels, thus condemning the people living there to suffer a catastrophe that should have been averted3. The ‘to dredge or not to dredge’ debate is one of those that seems simple on the surface – which appeals to politicians who like a clearly defined moral high ground that they can occupy – but that becomes more complex on further investigation. It seems common sense that a watercourse will be able to carry a greater volume at a more rapid rate if it is provides a clear, deep, straight channel than if it is silted up or partially obstructed with vegetation. Indeed, all things being equal, a watercourse in the former condition will indeed operate more efficiently as a conduit for water than one in the latter state. Therefore, is it not blindingly obvious that regular dredging is essential and, if the government agency responsible fails to carry out this work, is it not clearly guilty of appalling negligence?

The key phrase here is ‘all things being equal’. In conditions such as those currently prevailing on the Somerset Levels, the dredged and canalised watercourse and the un-dredged river with its naturally occurring silt deposits and vegetation may be equally ineffective in preventing flooding.

The problem is explained by Professor Roger Falconer, Professor of Water Management at Cardiff University:

 “To reduce significantly the peak water levels one needs to increase the hydraulic gradient, i.e. the water surface slope, and thereby increase the flow from the marshes to the sea. This will not be significantly achieved by dredging.  What dredging will do is to increase the area of flow, which will marginally increase the flow over the short term.  Furthermore, the dredged bed will rapidly readjust itself with time to the natural hydraulic conditions – over a relatively short time – and one is then back to square one, i.e. more flooding and more dredging.  Added to this one has climate change and rising sea levels, thereby reducing the hydraulic gradient even further and making the problem worse.”4

The fact is, given the vastly greater capacity of a river floodplain to hold water than the channel of the river itself, even doubling the capacity of the river is going to have  very marginal benefit in terms of flood alleviation especially if this ‘hydraulic gradient’ is small. The problem, says George Monbiot, is the way in which the upper reaches of river catchments have been stripped of their ability to mitigate the flow of water from the hills into the rivers. To address this, he says:

“That means, broadly speaking, the following:

–          more trees and bogs in the uplands

–          reconnecting rivers with their floodplains in places where it is safe to flood (and paying farmers to store water on their fields while the danger passes)

–          making those floodplains rougher by planting trees and other deep vegetation to help hold back the water

–          lowering the banks and de-canalising the upper reaches, allowing rivers once more to create meanders and braids and oxbow lakes. These trap the load they carry and sap much of their destructive energy.”5

Former Director of Friends of the Earth, Tony Juniper, agrees that we need to look at the management of whole catchments and floodplains rather than only starting to think about the issue once rivers have burst their banks. Writing in the Guardian, he like Monbiot points to the way in which the ability of the uplands to hold rainwater and slow down the rate at which it flows into the rivers has been compromised by generations of mismanagement:

“In upland areas, the degradation of peat soils by burning, drainage and the cutting of peat for fuel means that the many areas of blanket bog that clothe Britain’s hills and mountains can no longer serve their function as giant sponges that catch and hold rain. Instead, water runs off the land, exacerbating flood risk downstream.”6   

As with many instances of human interaction with the environment, cause and effect are not always linked in the most obvious way. In this case, the misery caused by the floods on the Somerset Levels, as well as in other parts of the country, may have less to do with the Environment Agency’s supposed failure to dredge the River Parrett and River Tone and more to do with farming and land management practices on the Quantock and Mendip Hills. Unfortunately, these are subtleties that do not readily lend themselves to memorable soundbites at Prime Minister’s Questions or snappy headlines for the front pages of the papers.

References:

  1. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2014/Early-January-Stats
  2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-26080597
  3. http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Commons-debate-cost-flooding-Somerset-Levels/story-20453023-detail/story.html
  4. http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-somerset-flooding/
  5. http://www.monbiot.com/2014/01/30/dredged-up/
  6. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/05/how-to-stop-flooding-soil-water-farming-dredging

The Davos Summit – How have we done since 2011?

Speaking at the Davos World Economic Forum in January 2011, Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon did not mince his words when he addressed the assembled world leaders, central bankers and CEOs on the challenges in front of them:

“For most of the last century, economic growth was fuelled by what seemed to be a certain truth: the abundance of natural resources.  We mined our way to growth.  We burned our way to prosperity.  We believed in consumption without consequences.

Those days are gone.  In the twenty-first century, supplies are running short and the global thermostat is running high.  Climate change is also showing us that the old model is more than obsolete.  It has rendered it extremely dangerous.  Over time, that model is a recipe for national disaster.  It is a global suicide pact. So what do we do in this current challenging situation?  How do we create growth in a resource-constrained environment?  How do we lift people out of poverty while protecting the planet and ecosystems that support economic growth?  How do we regain the balance?  All of this requires rethinking.” 

Dutchman Ralph Thurm’s is one of many voices calling for a renunciation of this “global suicide pact” and a shift in the mindset of business leaders from thinking of sustainability as just another set of boxes to be ticked and KPIs to report against to shareholders. Thurm calls for governments and corporate managers to lift their eyes from the obsession with measurement and micromanagement of initiatives designed to make their operations marginally less bad and embrace the definition of sustainable development that came out of the Rio Earth Summit over 20 years ago in 1992. This definition, which is often parroted without much understanding by the ‘sustainability industry’ is:

“The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.” Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: Principle 3 

In an article published at the end of 2013, Thurm observes:

What we can conclude more than 20 years after the first conference and more than 25 years after the Brundtland report is simply unsatisfactory, even more it has cemented our path to a slow death of humans on this planet.”

Thurm advocates replacing the concept of sustainability with ThriveAbility and urges business leaders, economists, accountants and statisticians to play their part in the move to a new paradigm that addresses the big picture problems of how we can collectively find a way of structuring global economic activity that is in accord with the Rio Declaration and is compatible with the long-term survival of human civilisation.

In stark contrast to this talk of an urgent need to find an alternative future for humanity, UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s address to this year’s Davos gathering was an object lesson of short-sighted, business-as-usual empty rhetoric dressed up as some kind of grand vision. The PM appeared to be pinning his hopes for the UK’s recovery on ‘re-shoring’ jobs that have in recent years been ‘offshored’ by companies seeking cheaper locations for their call centres and his new-found enthusiasm for shale gas:

There is no doubt that when it comes to re-shoring in the US, one of the most important factors has been the development of shale gas, which is flooring US energy prices with billions of dollars of energy cost savings predicted over the next decade.

Taken together, I believe these trends have the ability to be a fresh driver of growth in Europe too.

I want Britain to seize these opportunities.”

He was clear that the only way to achieve prosperity is to liberate the wealth creators from the shackles of regulation when he added:

“And above all, we need an unashamedly pro-business regulatory environment – with labour market flexibility, low jobs taxes and a willingness to pave the way for new business and new business models.”

All of which sounds worryingly like a prescription for business as usual, or certainly a return to business as it was before the 2008 crash.

Shale gas exploitation is associated with well-documented local environmental issues around land and groundwater pollution, together with risks of earth tremors and a range of other issues. It is also a fossil fuel so is represents a continuation of the problem rather than being a genuine solution. Furthermore, the US experience as documented in Richard Heinberg’s 2013 book Snake Oil: How Fracking’s False Promise of Plenty Imperils Our Futuresuggests that the volume of shale gas that is economically recoverable is significantly less than the vast amounts promised by the fracking industry’s hype. What shale gas does, however, along with nuclear power, is provide a bridge between our oil-fuelled present and a renewable future. It gives a narrow window of opportunity in which the world leaders who gather at Davos each year can decide to abandon the global suicide pact and make the shift to a future built on genuine sustainability (or ThriveAbility).

The danger is that they will instead continue to choose business as usual and it is becoming increasingly clear where that is leading.

Normal Service Has Been Resumed

Just for a brief moment we thought “maybe, just maybe, he does get it after all”. At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday 8th January, David Cameron, talking about the flooding that has affected large parts of the country, said he did believe that Britain was experiencing more abnormal weather events that could be linked to climate change.

He was hardly effusive on the subject but, all of a sudden, with the words: “Colleagues across the house can argue about whether that is linked to climate change or not. I very much suspect that it is” we were back to Hug-a-Husky-Greenest-Government-Ever Dave rather than the “Get rid of the green crap” PM playing to his climate change denying gallery of backbenchers. Oh, and the climate change denying Secretary of the State for the Environment of course.

However ,it turned out to be but a monentary blip and by yesterday the green crap had been well and truly jettisoned once again as the Prime Minister vowed to “go all out for shale” as he announced increased bribes, sorry incentives, for local councils to accept shale gas exploration in their areas.

Much has been said and written about the local environmental impacts of fracking – the possible earth tremors, pollution of groundwater and the effects of the industrialisation of rural areas. Ministers preach the economic benefits of newly created jobs, cheaper heating bills and energy security. Both sides of the arguments seem to overlook the elephant in the room; shale gas is a fossil fuel. It may be less carbon intensive than coal as a fuel for power stations but it still emits half a tonne of CO2 for every Mega Watt-hour of electricity generation. With the Climate Change Act 2008 introducing a commitment to reduce the UK’s CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050, this is not the time to be opting for the ‘slightly less bad’ option.

When the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report says that we can be 95% confident that human actvity is affecting the world’s climate, it is a disgrace that even the very guarded acknowledgement by the PM that climate change may be affecting our weather was met with groans from the Government benches in the House of Commons.

It is also disgraceful that the man in charge of the Department for Environment is a climate sceptic, that the Minister for Energy appeared on the Today Programme on Radio 4 on 13th January referring to shale gas as a renewable source of energy and that the Conservative politician who aspires to be the next Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee is a Director of a petrochemical company who was one of only 3 MPs to vote against the Climate Change Bill. I refer of course, in that order, to Owen Paterson, Michael Fallon and Peter Lilley.

The wilful ignorance of the science behind climate change by Government Ministers and their decitful and irresponsible enthusiasm for fracking whilst painting all those who oppose it as scaremongering Luddites who want to deny the country the chance of prosperity would be comical if it were not so insidious. The next thing you know, the Education Secretary will say that World War One was a just war competently fought and that anyone who says otherwise is an unpatriotic leftie. Oh wait…

From Badgers to Biodiversity Offsetting – the Trials of Owen Paterson

Fresh from the badger culling debacle, Secretary of State for the Environment Owen Paterson has once again provoked the anger of environmentalists, this time with his support for the controversial policy of ‘biodiversity offsetting’ where development is granted planning permission even if it leads to the loss of important wildlife sites so long as new habitats are created elsewhere. In a move that has provoked outrage among campaigners and even less-than-wholehearted support in The Daily Telegraph, Paterson has said that proposals that involve the destruction of ancient woodland could be allowed with appropriate offsetting, although he sought to downplay the likelihood of this happening.

The Secretary of State suggested that up to 100 new trees could be planted for each existing tree that is destroyed

Whilst this may sound on the face of it like a good deal for the environment and for the communities in whose neighbourhoods these proposals take effect, it demonstrates appalling ignorance, wilful or otherwise, of the importance of ancient trees and the web of life that they support. Conservationist and author, Oliver Rackham wrote in his The History of the British Countryside: “10,000 oaks of 100 years old are not a substitute for one 500 year old oak”. Due to the history of exploitation of their timber resource and the ravages of two world wars, our continental neighbours do not have the same opportunity that we do in Britain to appreciate these historic specimens. “In much of mainland Europe, you would be hard pushed to find a tree much more than 200 years old” according to the North York Moors National Park Authority. The Ancient Tree Forum exists to protect and raise awareness of our oldest trees and their Founder President Ted Green MBE has told me in conversation that he believes that the 900 acres of Leicestershire covered by Bradgate Park  contains more ancient trees than the whole of Germany. Environmentalists often bemoan the fact that we live on a crowded and over-developed island so an ecological resource such as this that many neighbouring countries simply do not possess is surely something to be treasured not trashed.

During his 15-month tenure at DEFRA, Paterson has probably done more than any other politician to unite the disparate strands of the environmental movement. Sadly, they have been united in horrified opposition to the policy pronouncements emanating from the Department. This support for biodiversity offsetting follows in the footsteps of the Secretary of State’s climate change scepticism and his assertion that the badgers ‘moved the goalposts’ when asked to explain the failure of the badger cull to reach its targets.

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett  said of the offsetting policy: “The concept of biodiversity offsetting betrays a failure to understand the complexity of nature and the inter-related nature of different ecological elements. It suggests that animals, plants and microbes are simply like Lego blocks, to be moved around at will, when in fact they exist in complex inter-relationships of which we frequently have only the dimmest understanding, or none at all.”

The National Trust, viewed as being one of the more conservative voices in the countryside, is not impressed either. Its spokesman told The Daily Mail: “Offsetting the losses of wildlife that usually accompany development by creating replacement habitats could be a useful addition to the planning system but it mustn’t mean mature irreplaceable habitats being replaced by low-quality habitats that will take decades to develop the character and complexity of those that have been lost. There will be some habitats that are effectively irreplaceable and should not be part of any offsetting scheme.”

Environmental campaigner Arthur Pendragon, veteran of the Newbury and Twyford Down protests against the driving of infrastructure projects through important wildlife sites added:  It’s all about money. The government is relaxing the laws so developers can make a killing.”

Owen Paterson has conceded that the present generation will lose out as they will suffer the loss of wildlife sites but the benefits of the new sites established as a result of offsetting will take longer to be felt. He also conceded that replacement sites will not necessarily be in the same locality as those lost but could be up to an hour’s car journey away. He did however insist that the fact that more trees would be planted was good news as he told The Times: “The point about offsetting is it will deliver a better environment over the long term”.

His opponents, on the other hand would argue that the Environment Secretary is seeking to espouse the virtues of quantity over quality or, in the words of Oscar Wilde “is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing”. Interestingly, this was Wilde’s definition of a cynic. Is the current DEFRA figurehead guilty of cynicism as well as scepticism?

Don’t Succumb to the Winter Blues

This article was first published in The Magical Times magazine in December 2013

The concept of balance is one that is central to the way in which Nature works. Day and Night, Male and Female, Summer and Winter, Life and Death: all reflect the fact that the best way to define an idea is often in relation to its opposite and that holding these opposites in equilibrium leads to balance and harmony.

It is often said that one of the major differences between our modern Western way of life and that of those indigenous societies that have not become detached from the rhythms of the Earth in quite the same way is our concept of time. The conventional way of visualising time in our culture (just try it!) is as a straight line, always progressing from past to future. Conversely, many tribal societies view time as moving in a circular fashion, living as they do in close contact with the changing of the seasons as the wheel of the year turns and with little concept of material advancement. The first concept of time reflects an obsession with the idea of progress that is absent from the second. Other thinkers have combined these two ways of viewing time into a third approach and express its passage as a spiral, which takes into account both the cyclical and progressive aspects of time passing.

No matter how we may conceptualise time on an intellectual level, there is no escaping the fact that living as we do on a group of islands that lie between 50 and 60 degrees north of the equator of a planet that is tilted some 23.5 degrees away from the vertical and is prone to wobble as it orbits the sun means that the length of the days varies very considerably between summer and winter.

This has been an undeniable fact of life in what we now call Britain since our ancestors first settled here many thousands of years ago. Having evolved in a part of the world where the length of the days hardly changes with the passing of the seasons, early humans had to make lifestyle changes to accompany the more obvious physiological adaptations to their slow migration northwards, such as the paler skins that enabled a more efficient synthesising of Vitamin D from sunlight.

Each year, once we pass the Autumn Equinox the nights begin to draw in as the days grow shorter. The first time that many people nowadays will really become aware of this is the last weekend in October when the clocks go back, accompanied every year by ritual grumbling and confusion over whether they go back or forwards and whether or not we get an extra hour in bed.

Our society has a problem with this onset of the dark part of the year. We do not like the fact that there is less light around for us to travel, work or play in and the long-running debate about the movement of the clocks reflects this. We do not like the fact that the shortening of the days is beyond our control and we want to have the long, light days of summer all through the year. As society has become more urbanised and we have become remote from the changing of the seasons then we have succeeded in almost turning night into day with streetlights, headlights and our incandescent bulbs and fluorescent tubes.

However, our current civilisation is such a brief few words (syllables even) in the long story of human history and evolution that our physical bodies have not yet caught up with what our progress-hungry brains want. We are hard wired to increase and decrease our levels of activity in response to the changes in the length of the days. When our ancestors could not be hunting or foraging as there was little food to be had, Nature let them conserve their energy by resting and sleeping more than in the summer months. When we attempt to live our busy lives at breakneck speed for 12 months in every year we are going against the natural rhythms of life that we have been programmed to respond to for millennia. It is no wonder that so many people succumb to SAD syndrome, the “winter blues” or suffer from one minor ailment after another all through the winter months. We need to slow down and reconnect.

As the trees and other perennial plants withdraw into themselves in order to wait out the cold time, we too feel the urge to do likewise. Many animals take this path as well and sleep through the winter in a state of hibernation that places the absolute minimum demands on their bodily systems consistent with actually staying alive. Of course, a large number of bird species opt out altogether and fly south to overwinter in gentler climes. Although we may be tempted by the prospect of either hibernation or flying south to avoid the winter chill, these are not viable options for the vast majority of us. There are pleasures to be found in wintertime – a brisk morning walk well wrapped-up on a crisp, clear morning or lighting the fire and snuggling up on the sofa on a dark evening – and we are more likely to be able to find and embrace these if we learn to accept the changing of the seasons as a natural, vital and inevitable part of Nature’s way rather than an inconvenience to be battled and overcome. Winter follows summer as surely as day is followed by night and life is followed by death.

This is very much a time of dying. But, as the wisdom of native traditions tells us, that is all part of the nature of existence. If there is no death in the autumn, there can be no rebirth in the spring and no hope for the future. The nature of existence is circular and birth and death, summer and winter, night and day are all points on the same circular path.

Death is the final frontier of human exploration and one that we approach with fear and trepidation. To know and to transcend death has been the objective of mystics and seekers throughout the ages. Whilst we may not be able to do this, to contemplate and to meditate upon death during the dark time of the year is a worthwhile spiritual exercise. To descend in our mind’s eye into the darkness, to be plunged into the cauldron of beginnings and emerge reborn with the experience of the sheer potential of the darkness enables us to fully appreciate the light of inspiration. To experience this divine light, the Awen of the Celtic tradition that is often obscured by the brightness of the summer sun, is certainly to transcend the living death to which the modern world can so easily condemn us. In the darkness, all things are real and everything is possible. It is only in the daylight that our vision is narrowed to that which our eyes can perceive.

To fully understand and appreciate the light, we need to experience the darkness and how different the world looks when viewed through a dark lens. This can be compared to walking through the forest at night: when the sun goes down our eyes, which had relied on the sunlight to see the path, struggle to provide our brains with the information we need and we stumble and trip in the twilight. We slow our pace as we struggle to discern what lies ahead. After a while, our vision adjusts to the darkness and we begin to see the world around us in a different way. The faintest glimmer of moonlight casts shadows from the trees and rocks and reflects brightly off streams and puddles. Our other senses become heightened and we hear and smell things that we would probably never notice in the full light of day. However, it is not the forest that has changed, but the way in which we perceive it, and that is an important lesson to learn if we are to endeavour to live in a way that keep these opposites in balance.

So this winter season, embrace the darkness, immerse yourself in it and learn the lessons it has to teach you. If, like most people today, you do not work on the land or in an occupation that is naturally curtailed by the shorter days, make an effort to slow your level of activity and withdraw a little into yourself. Consider the plants who have taken the energy from the summer sunshine and stored it and now lie dormant ready to burst into life again in the spring. No plant can blossom all year round: they do not have the energy reserves to do so and neither do we. For the sake of our physical and spiritual wellbeing we need to heed the pulse of the Earth as it slows for a while before quickening again as the light returns after the Winter Solstice and life begins anew.

The IPCC Report

In a blaze of media coverage the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been released. Well, almost. Someone in the IPCC’s PR team knows what they are about as the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ (realistically about as much as most people are going to get anywhere near reading) was released last Friday to give the editors of the Sunday papers time to organise thorough coverage and the meat of the report itself is out today.

One of the key headlines of the report is an increase in the level of confidence the human activity is affecting the world’s climate from 90 to 95% (about as much certainty as scientists are ever going to commit themselves to).

Other chilling (surely the wrong word in this context) highlights include:

1. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

2. Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent

3. The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia.

4. The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification.

Those are just some snippets from the first seven pages of the summary and they paint a picture of a planet whose systems have been stressed almost to breaking point by human activity. However, the IPCC scientists cannot be accused of hysteria or doom-mongering and, whilst the situation is undeniably serious, there is still time for concerted action to allow us to avoid the worst-case scenarios.

All in all, a balanced and thorough piece of science that paints an objective, if bleak, picture of the current and likely future situation and leaves no room for doubt that urgent action is required.

The response of the UK Government’s Secretary of State for the Environment? I paraphrase here but essentially: “Look on the bright side – at least you won’t have to put the heating on so often”