(C4 = Climate Change Conference and Concert)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Working Group 1 (WG 1):How to create and invest in a Green business.
Co-Chairs: Barbara Horspool & Rupert Meadows. Others: George Weston (CEO, BA Foods); Hugo Spowers (Founder & CEO, Riversimple).
This was the only WG that failed to reach a consensus. Perhaps this was inevitable, but it was also a great pity as the four people involved all brought considerable experience and expertise to the table. They drew up a series of recommendations designed to make businesses more sustainable, as follows:
Recommendations
1. It should be mandatory that all businesses listed on the UKSE should climate report. 2. Create a staggered timeline to mandatory climate reporting for all listed and large
companies, to include scope 3, as well as Scope 1 & 2 emissions.
3. Boards must identify ESG priorities and report on them annually in line with their financial reports. They must critically link executive compensation to the ESG priorities and achieved results (This could be rewarded on a sliding scale)
4. Government legislation to identify and tax the highest carbon emissions from raw materials (ie polyester). This would by-pass the loopholes in the proposed Fast fashion taxation scheme in France.
5. Government funding to be increasingly directed to Green business start-ups away from current regimes and plans that support existing incumbents.
6. Governments to create a long-term strategy to phase out badly behaving environmental organisations. (Letting old businesses die if they won’t adapt and change)
7. Governments to work on a cross-party basis to create sustainable plans that can exist beyond electoral cycles. Green strategies to be multi-year or decadal processes
8. Allocation of public-sector funds to be scrutinised by multiple stakeholders (academics included) rather than incumbent industry leaders with their own agreed agendas
9. Government to design educational systems to encourage the very best minds into Green businesses. Variation in academic fees to secure the very best minds
10. Use the tax regime to encourage Green innovation11. Government to offer a loan guarantee for circular businesses to ensure a transition for
companies in the circular industry and help to fund markets in the circular businesses.
RRJ’s view was that the recommendations did not go far enough. They were appropriate for creating and investing in a sustainable business, within the constraints of a free market, with profit as the priority, but that they were inadequate for the creation of a steady state economy, which must be the ultimate goal if we are to live within planetary resources.
RRJ suggested an addendum to the report by WG1, but the ensuing debate revealed a fault-
line within WG1, with two members refusing to sign up to the new document, and two more
unhappy about the process. A further attempt was made to produce a consensus report with
just three members participating, but again it failed to address the essential problem which is the Companies Act of 2006 which reads as follows (Section 172): ‘Directors are legally required to promote the success of the company’.
The term ‘success’ is not defined, but guidance supplied by the now-defunct Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) equates success with the ‘long-term increases in value’. In other words, success is defined in purely monetary terms.
RRJ had discussed this issue in his book, The Gilgamesh Gene Revisited in 2021, so this was not a new concept as the following quotation demonstrates:
‘Directors are also required to ‘have regard’ to a list of factors which includes environmental impacts, but the term ‘have regard’ is a far weaker legal requirement than other possible terms such as ‘prioritise’. As the late Polly Higgins has pointed out in her book, Eradicating Ecocide, the net result is that whenever there appears to be a conflict of interest between the financial health of a company and protecting public health or the environment, profit trumps the planet every time. There is no possibility of persuading or forcing Boards of Directors to act responsibly until this Act is repealed and replaced with a legally-binding UN mandate to prohibit damage to ecosystems’
It should be added that there is even less chance of persuading the managing boards of oil companies, where executive pay is often linked to maximising profits from fossil fuels, as demonstrated by BPs repeated failures to go “Beyond Petroleum”.
The problem was addressed in an email from RRJ sent on Oct 4, 2024 to the remaining members of WG4:
Who says that it’s not the job of Government to dictate business models? Is not the Companies Act doing precisely that?
And since it’s being slavishly followed by corporations who actually hide behind it as an excuse for not addressing environmental issues Then it either needs to be repealedor amended
Or am I missing something here?
This prompted further debate amongst the 3 remaining members of WG1, who drew up an agreed position which included the phrase “prioritising profit over utility”. RRJ objected to the ambiguous nature of the term “utility”; which was then clarified by Hugo Spowers as follows:
Dear Robin,
I think we are disagreeing here for no better reason than we haven’t agreed on what we mean by various terms. I am covering various objections in your recent emails!
For better or worse, this is what I mean by:
1. Business model. This is the strategy that a company adopts, what is is offering and what it charges for. This is enormously important because it dictates where profits come from. If I sell cars (in the conventional way), I make more money from obsolescence (market can absorb more cars) and high running costs (average markup of 1500% on spare parts). This means I focus on lowest possible unit cost, to be competitive and maximise margin, with no thought for anything that really matters. This applies to the sale of most manufactured goods. However, it is a company decision not a matter of legislation and nothing to do with the Companies Act.
2. The expression of ‘Utility’ is a mainstay of economics and I think is widely understood. In the case of cars, it is mobility, the service of getting about in a personal freedom machine, as opposed to the physical asset, the car. We can use the word ‘services’ if you prefer but it is not the correct term and it means something else – the service sector.
3. Profit should not be a dirty word but I quite understand why it is currently. Maximising profit if your profit comes from consuming resources and is maximised by externalisingall sorts of cost on society is obviously bad – but that is a consequence of a ‘business model’ that rewards the wrong thing. Most of our large and troublesome corporatesare structured in such ways. We have no hope of shifting the private sector from profit maximisation any time soon, so the quickest route to sustainable outcomes is to develop and encourage (as recommended by WG 1) business models that profit from maximising the economic utility for minimal use of resources and energy, locking up finite resources on the balance sheet so that revenue gradually decouples from virgin material extraction.
4. Circular Economy. This is designed to do the above – make more money from doing the right thing than business as usual makes from doing the wrong thing. There is nothing wrong about profit in that instance. And circularising is a necessary but not sufficient condition for sustainability. But it’s a good way of harnessing the undoubted vigour of the private sector to help us out of this mess.
However, I do believe that Circular Economy is a misnomer, and it has led to a few problems, because it is really a business model.
– An Economy is an aggregation of the activity, for example, of a nation; it can be a smaller or larger region but it is not a company. We live in a Growth based economy, and economists see growth as a measure of health, and I agree that we need to aspire to a Steady State economy if we are to live sustainably – it’s logically the only way we can be sustainably. Herman Daly is the most serious proponent of a Steady State economy and he unfortunately sees the Circular Economy as a threat to his work, an excuse for a Growth- based economy to continue, slowing down the decline of capital. But the circular economy supports rather than challenges the Steady State economy and I am sure he sees it as a threat simply because it is called an ‘economy’.
– We are choosing to adopt a Circular business model, and I think it should be seen as that. We need to move from linear to circular business models for companies and from a growth- based to a steady-state economy.
Hope this is helpful, Hugo.
Working Group 2: How to control global populations
Co-Chairs: DR Robin Stott (UKHACC) & Dr Robin Russell-Jones (Founder Help Rescue the Planet; Organiser Mayday C4 Events) Others: Dr B Chandramohan
(Institute Commonwealth Studies); Abhiir Bhalla (CHEC); Geraint Davies.
This WG report was authored by Dr Robin Stott, founder of the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change. Ben Stallworthy (Population Matters); Robert Attenborough, Dolapo Fasawe (LASEPA) & Prof Matthew Connolly (CSER) all failed or declined to contribute.
Contrary to the pessimistic assumptions of the 1950’s, fertility rates are now plummeting on all continents except for Africa and the Middle East. So, although the global fertility rate of 2.3 is still above replacement, (the commonly agreed replacement number of births to achieve an ultimately steady population is an average of 2.1 children per child bearing woman), the UN predicts the Global fertility rate will be below 2.1 by 2030, falling to 1.8 by 2050 and 1.6 by 2100.
Because of the increasing life span which accompanies a fall in fertility rates, it takes around 30 years for population numbers to stabilise (ie when annual death rates will equal the annual live birth rates). Thus, there is a strong likelihood that global population will peak at around 9 billion in 2060 and decline thereafter. The current global fertility rate of 2.3 disguises a remarkable division between Africa plus the Arab countries and the rest of the world, as the most recent 2024 fertility rates below illustrate.
Table 1.
Below Replacement rate of 2.1. | Above Replacement rate |
Asia - 1.90. | Africa - 4.1 |
Australia - 1.70 | Arab Countries - 3.1 |
Europe - 1.46. | |
Latin America (+ Caribbean) - 1.80 | |
North America - 1.75 | |
Russia - 1.49 | |
South America - 2.02 |
This geographic divide will have major consequences with Africa and the Middle East needing to provide for a young population, whilst the rest of the world will need to provide for an ageing population.
Recommendations
1. A major effort is needed to give greater agency to women in Africa and the Arab world, enabling all women to have access to secondary education and access to family planning. This will then translate into equal access to the work place and political process. Whilst carbon emissions and consumption are not presently problems in Africa, a reduction in population is essential so women can play a full part in guiding humanity to a
sustainable future
2. The cost of providing secondary education for all according to UNESCO is 20 billion dollars per year. Access to contraception for all those in low emitting countriesis estimated at around 10 billion dollars per year. The UN should make these funds available as a matter of the utmost urgency.
3. A major push for renewable energy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions for the high emitters, and a provision of non-fossil fuel energy for the low emitters. The best mechanism for achieving this reduction is the Global Carbon Incentive Fund, a financial instrument for achieving Contraction and Convergence as laid out at COP 3 (See WG 9A)
4. The UN needs to persuade its member states that reducing CO2 emissions on its ownis not enough. Growing an economy by using increasing resources in a finite world is a mathematicalimpossibility. Wemustmovetoasteadystateeconomy.Thisisaneconomy with stable resource used within ecological limits. Achieving a steady-state economy requires a range of policies and practices, including setting limits on resource extraction, implementing strict environmental regulations, promoting sustainable consumption
and production patterns, and investing in renewable energy and green technologies. Additionally, it may involve re-thinking taxation policies, such as taxing pollution on an incremental scale so that the high users end up paying more per unit of energy, whilstalso subsidising sustainable practices. Policies that encourage equitable distribution of wealth and access to essential services are also fundamental to ensure a fair transition to a steady-state economy. The UN needs to address these issues, and create Treaties that will see them implemented.
5. The only countries close to a steady-state economy are Cuba, Columbia, Romania and SouthAfrica,allofwhichhavearrivedtherefortuitouslyratherthanintentionally. Toachieve a steady-state economy, let alone a de-growth one, we need to recognise the impossibility of pursuing our present course, and committed leadership to achieve the change. This is where the Commonwealth and the UN have a vital role to play
6. Constraining consumption in times of difficulty in the past has only been achieved by rationing, and it’s likely that some form of rationing, perhaps best called entitlement, will have a role to play in achieving a steady state economy. The UN needs to take the lead in deciding how an “entitlement system can be developed and applied.
Working Group 3: A better economic model
Co-Chairs: Prof Steve Keen (UCL); Ann Pettifor (Director Prime Economics); Others: Josh Ryan-Collins (UCL); William Hynes (World Bank); Oliver Betts
(Faculty of Actuaries).
Recommendations
None of the existing economic models is fit for purpose. They must be replaced by new models which:
• Must use “Global Circulation models” (GCMs) developed by scientists, rather than having their own amateur climate models as current IAMs do, to predict the change in climate— including precipitation as well as temperature rise—resulting from economic activity;
• Must include the role of energy and raw materials in production, which current IAMs ignore;
• Must not assume equilibrium outcomes. Equilibrium, if it occurs, should be an output of the models rather than an assumption made by them;
• Must state their predictions in terms of impacts upon the rate of economic growth, rather than comparing two hypothetical numbers (future GDP with and without global warming) as current models do;
• Must not rule out potential catastrophic outcomes, as current models do;• Must include how climate change mitigation and management can be financed, which
current models ignore;
• Must include the role of the State, whereas current IAMs assume that change will occur only through market mechanisms;
• Must consider non-market distribution mechanisms—such as those that were used during WWII (rationing, etc.)—in the event that climate change causes catastrophic collapses in essential foodstuffs, as some GCMs predict. Society will not survive climate change if the poor do not survive climate change.
References
Barrage, Lint, and William Nordhaus. 2024. ‘Policies, projections, and the social cost of carbon: Results from the DICE-2023 model’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS, 121: e2312030121-e21.
Keen, Steve. 2023. “Loading the DICE against pension funds: Flawed economic thinking on climate has put your pension at risk “ In. London: Carbon Tracker.
Xu, Y., and V. Ramanathan. 2017. ‘Well below 2 °C: Mitigation strategies for avoiding dangerous to catastrophic climate changes’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114: 10315-23.
Working Group 4:What can journalists do better?
Co-Chairs: Paul Atherton (Freelance) & Dr Robin Russell-Jones (Founder Help Rescue the Planet; Organiser Mayday C4 Events)
Others: Jonathan Leake (Energy Correspondent Sunday Telegraph); Fred Pearce (Columbia Edu); Jon Fuller; Dr Chandramohan (Institute
Commonwealth Studies) and various others.
Recommendations
1. We recommend that scientific and environmental correspondents receive regular scientific updates, and that they undergo Continuous Professional Development (CPD), with formal assessments on an annual basis.
2. We recommend that institutions such as the BBC employ recognised experts in climate science and the environment to advise senior editors about the reality of climate change and the threats to ecosystems posed by climate change, chemicals, and over-population etc.
3. We recommend that journalists are far less deferential towards the rich and famous, and recognise that the richest 1% of people on the planet have the same carbon footprint as the poorest 50%.
4. We recommend that Ofgem is far more robust in its role: to protect the public from falsehoods.
5. We recommend that media channels and print media employ tactics such as those used by Stephen Sacker on “Hard Talk”. People who are destroying the planet need to be put on the spot, and forced to account for their eco-criminality.
6. We recommend that the BBC and other broadcasting services make it their priority to report the truth; and not worry so much about complaints.
7. Journalists in many fascist countries are hounded and sometime killed for reporting the truth about environmental destruction and industrial pollution. We recommend that the full protection of international law is used to protect these courageous individuals, that the law of ecocide is used to prosecute the perpetrators including governments, and that the journalists’ families are compensated generously in the event of a killing.
Working Group 5: Transport Fuels for the Future: H2 versus LNG
Co-Chairs: Hugo Spowers (Founder & CEO of RiverSimple). Dr Robin Russell- Jones (Founder Help Rescue the Planet; Organiser Mayday C4 Events)
Other members of WG 5: Prof Bill McGuire (UCL); Neale Smither (BP); Prof Tom Wigley (NCAR); Nawaz Haq (ZESTA); Madadh Maclaine (Founder ZESTA).
Recommendations
1. The use of LNG is incompatible with the Paris Agreement, and should be heavily taxed. 2. No more permissions should be granted for gas drilling licenses anywhere
3. No permission should be granted for LNG terminals or any other infrastructure related to the sale and distribution of LNG
4. The use of Hydrogen as a transport fuel is compatible with the Paris Agreement and should be promoted.
5. Hydrogen can be burnt in an Internal Combustion Engine, or utilised in a hydrogen fuel cell. In general terms the use of hydrogen fuel cells is more fuel-efficient than combustion and should be promoted.
6. Legislation should encourage the promotion and sale of hydrogen-fuelled vehicles for all forms of transport: planes, trains, ships and automobiles.
7. The hydrogen to be used does not matter greatly during the initial stages. However, as time passes, grey and blue hydrogen should be replaced by green and pink hydrogen.
8. Pink hydrogen is generated by nuclear reactors. We recommend that a network of small modular reactors (SMR’s) manufacturing hydrogen be established globally on remote islands (for safety reasons) so that ships can collect and distribute compressed hydrogen.
9. Hydrogen, not ammonia, should be viewed as the fuel for the future. References
1. Wigley TML. Coal to gas: the influence of methane leakage Climatic Change 108, 601-608, 2011 (Published Aug 26).
2. Russell-Jones R. FT Letters June 12, 2024: “Let’s debunk the myths about LNG as clean energy”.
3. Howarth R. The greenhouse gas footprint of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exported from the United States. Energy Science & Engineering, Oct 3 2024.
Working Group 6: How to reduce the carbon footprint of Bitcoin and computers
Co-chairs: Billy Richards (CEO Changeblock Global) & Dr Robin Russell-Jones (HRTP).
Others: Lily Russell-Jones (Senior Financial Journalist Times/ST); Josh de Vos (CryptoCompare); Charles Hayter (Chair; CryptoCompare).
Introduction
Using the internet, mobile phones, generative AI projects such as Chat GPT, and cryptocurrencies has become interwoven into the fabric of everyday life for billions of people worldwide.
However, the volume of data being captured, stored and accessed presents significant environmental challenges. The World Economic Forum puts it as follows: “Rising amounts of data require ever higher computational power, which will, in turn, raise electricity demand both in data centres and across communication infrastructure such as telecom and data networks.” 1 In order for the growth of these activities to be consistent with existing climate commitments, industry and governments will need to ensure sustainable electricity is used to power them.
However, the rising power demands of large data centers could slow down the transition away from fossil fuels. In 2020 the crypto mining company Greenidge Generation Holdings boughta disused coal power plant in New York, converted it to a gas plant and used the electricity generated to power thousands of bitcoin mining machines. Three Mile Island, a power plant inPennsylvania,US,whichwasthesiteofanuclearaccidentin1979,isbeingre-opened to servicedata-centresforthetechcompanyMicrosoft. TechgiantssuchasAmazon,Google and Microsoft control two thirds of cloud and computing services globally while Meta and OpenAI compete in the provision of software.
OpenAI is actually backed financially and operationally by Microsoft, whilst Anthropic is backed by Amazon.
Unfortunately the tech firms sometimes seem more interested in downplaying their energy demand, and pretending that AI holds the answer to climate change. A recent publication by the RSA (Issue 3, 2024), devoted to climate change, featured the following question on its front cover: “Will AI help solve the climate emergency”. The answer to the question posed in “No”. AI is just a tool that consumes vast quantities of energy (and water to keep the supercomputers from over-heating). AI is a cause of global heating; and not really a solution, let alone
“The Solution”.
References
1. Stark,J;Valkhof,B;Kemene,E.(2024)“Datavolumeissoaring.Here’showtheICTsectorcansustainably handle the surge“, World Economic Forum, online, accessed: 20 September 2024. [https://www.weforum.org/
agenda/2024/05/data-growth-drives-ict-energy-innovation/]
Working Group 7: How to reduce the carbon footprint of cement, concrete & steel.
Co-Chairs: Kevin Robinson BSc CEng & Dr Robin Russell-Jones (HRTP)
Other members of WG 7 were contacted by LinkedIn but never responded: eg KellyBecker(MDSchneiderLLP)&JonathanDavies(TataSteel). Otherswere added when the topic was discussed at the conference. Geraint Davies & Hugo Spowers.
Recommendations: Cement and Concrete
1. Use green electricity to power manufacturing.
2. Employ two types of waste heat recovery: High temperature heat for direct process requirements and low temperature for district heating. This works best when the factory is close to the district.
3. Carbon capture could be employed using the waste heat from the manufacturing process. This is easier to do than carbon capture with a coal-fired power station, but it is not a viable option until we have a totally green electricity supply.
4. Recycle used concrete as clinker.5. Use specific clinker additives to reduce the percentage of calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2
in the final product.
6. Use specific clinker compounds which absorb CO2 in the kiln and reduce the amount emitted.
7. Positive results have been found when CO2 gas has been pumped through the fluid concrete prior to curing. The concrete has absorbed the CO2 and locked it into the concrete. Therefore, introduce carbonisation of concrete in curing.
8. Cement pricing. This has to balance the costs of green energy vs fossil fuels, the modernisation of the manufacturing plants, and the acquisition of specific clinker additives. Clays which have attractive properties may have to be transported long distances in comparison to locally found clays.
9. Legislation and subsidies should be introduced by Government to drive decarbonisation of cement and concrete manufacture.
10. We recommend recycling of concrete on a global scale, so that the production of cement should gradually lessen and ultimately require no new cement to be produced from raw materials.
Reference: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352710224004297 Recommendations: Steel
1. We recommend the eventual closure of all blast furnaces and switching to electric arc furnaces.
2. Legislation and subsidies should be introduced by governments to accelerate the switch from blast to electric arc furnaces.
3. Electric arc furnaces should use scrap metal and employ green hydrogen in the process. This provides full decarbonisation of the steel making process. The technology is available17
at competitive cost.
4. We recommend recycling of steel on a global scale, so that the production of steel slabs should gradually lessen and ultimately require no new steel to be produced from raw materials.
Reference: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/metals-and-mining/our-insights/decarbonization- challenge-for-steel
Working Group 8: The role of institutions in promoting effective action on climate change.
Co-Chairs: Gonzalo Alvarez (United Nations Association: Chair, Climate and Oceans) & Dr Robin Russell-Jones (HRTP). Others: Jon Fuller; Dr Chandramohan (Institute Commonwealth Studies); Titus Alexander (Democracy Matters).
Introduction
It is abundantly clear that the ambition of the Rio summit, to stabilise the level of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere at a level that would “prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system” has not been realised. Furthermore the 28 COP events have conspicuously failed to control the remorseless upward trend in annual GHG emissions. More CO2 has been emitted since 1990, the base-line year for the Kyoto Protocol, than in all years previous, going all the way back to 1750.
One can argue over the reasons for this failure, but the need for unanimity, and the non- binding nature of any resolution have both played a large part. However, the UN needs to develop a coherent plan for addressing these issues as a matter of the utmost urgency, because we will breach the Paris limit of 1.5C of warming in 2029.
We feel that systemic change is now required, and that the UN processes need to be radically overhauled, whilst still adhering to its four founding principles, and the fifth principle added in 1972:
Recommendations.
1. A representative from the UN Environmental Programme, the WHO and from the IMO should all have permanent seats on the UN Security Council.
2. The UN General assembly should authorise the UNFCCC to implement the GCIF proposal and related financial instruments as set out in the conference briefing document: “Hiatus in the Greenhouse. Has the IPCC helped or hindered?”
3. The UNFCCC should persuade the big 6 emitters, or failing that the big 10 emitters to form a Coalition of the Willing (As set out in WGs 9A & 9B).
4. The Commonwealth should adopt the GCIF proposal and related financial instruments 5. The Commonwealth should implement the Sunrise Scenario as set out in WG 9A.
6. Countriesshouldeitherencourageandfundcitizensorbringlegalchallenges themselves against the fossil fuel industry.
7. Replace current legal obligations on Company Directors with a legally-binding UN 18 mandateprohibitingdamagetoecosystems.
8. TheenforcementoftheBorderCarbonAdjustmentTax(BCAT)shouldbethe responsibility of the UN Security Council (See WG 9B).
9. The UN should establish an International Carbon Monitoring Agency (ICMA) to verify emission data from individual countries, analogous to the International Atomic Energy Authority.
10. The IPCC should concentrate its efforts on producing special reports on scientific issues where knowledge is evolving or needed. eg Plastic pollution in the SML. Rising methane concentrations etc
11. WHOshouldexamineurgentlythephenomenonofmaleinfertilityandfallingsperm counts , and extend the studies to other mammalian species
Working Group 9A: The GCIF Proposal
Co-Chairs: Titus Alexander (Democracy Matters) & Dr Robin Russell-Jones (Organiser Mayday C4 Events; Founder HRTP) PLUS two IPCC members who wish to remain anonymous Others: Prof Raghuram RAJAN (Chicago Business School & Former Chief Economist IMF); Prof Steve Keen (UCL); Geraint Davies.
Recommendations
1. The idea of a redistributive carbon tax, whereby high emitting countries pay a carbon levy into a fund that is then redistributed to low-emitting countries, was first suggested in 2019 by Prof Raghuram RAJAN in the FT. Subsequently the idea was picked up and renamed the Global Carbon Incentive Fund (GCIF) by Dr Robin Russell-Jones through articles on the CEN (Conservative Environment Network) website, the Guardian and ORF, The Observer Research Foundation in India. The basis of the levy and benefit calculation was changed from a production to a consumption-based system. We recommend that the GCIF proposal is presented to CHOGM & COP this year for ratification in 2025.
2. The GCIF proposal deals with industrial emissions of CO2 only, and the average global emissions of industrial CO2 per capita is 4.8 tonnes per annum. Countries with per capita emissions above 4.8 will pay into a UN-administered Fund that will redistribute the funds to low-emitting countries. We recommend supporting this proposal as the best financial instrument for achieving Contraction and Convergence which was itself regarded as the most equitable solution to climate change at COP 3 in 1995.
3. The calculation is based on the difference between the global average of 4.8 tonnesof CO2 per capita and the per capita figure for the country in question; multiplied by the population of that country; times whatever sum is placed on a tonne of CO2. In view of the dire situation in which we now find ourselves (we are on course to breach 1.5C of warming in 2029), we recommend an initial price of $60 per tonne of CO2 doubling every 2 years until decarbonisation is achieved.
4. On this basis the US would pay roughly $240 bn per annum, whilst India would receive roughlythesameamount.Werecommendthattheschemeistrialledby highand low- emitting countries (The Sunrise Scenario) in order to road-test the proposal, and iron out any wrinkles in the system. Suitable high-emitting countries could be Sweden, Iceland and Switzerland. Low-emitting “partners” could be Samoa, Namibia or Barbados. These are examples only
5. TheGCIFproposalcoversindustrialemissionsofCarbondioxideonly.Separatefundsare 19
required for industrial methane, (The Global Methane Incentive Fund or GMIF), and non- industrial emission of CO2 (AFOLU & Transport). These are covered by GOATIF, which stands for the Global Ozone Agriculture Transport Incentive Fund. In addition there needs to be a fourth Incentive Fund, GABCIF: The Global Aerosols and Black Carbon Incentive Fund. We recommend that the UNFCCC adopts these proposals ASAP and establishes task forces to study how these schemes will work in practice.
References
1. Raghuram Rajan, “A fair and equitable way to tax carbon,” Financial Times, December 17, 2019, https://www. ft.com/content/96782e84-2028-11ea-b8a1-584213ee7b2b.
2. Russell-Jones R, “The case for a global carbon tax,” Conservative Environment network, July 13, 2020, https:// www.cen.uk.com/our-blog/2020/7/13/the-case-for-a- carbon-tax.
3. Russell-Jones R. “Will the COP 26 climate conference be a national embarrassment for the UK?” Guardian, September 7, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/ commentisfree/2020/sep/07/cop26-climate-conference- britain-un-glasgow.
4. Russell-Jones R (2021) The Global Carbon Incentive Fund as a response to the climate crisis. Observer Research Foundation: Issue No. 488
5. Lall S, Rajan R, Schoder C. A Global Incentive Scheme to Reduce Carbon Emissions. World bank(Development Economics). Policy Research Working paper 10759.
6. Russell-Jones R & Wigley T. Hiatus in the Greenhouse. Has the IPCC helped or hindered? Available as a booklet at the C4 Events (Under Review Oxford Open Climate Change)
Working Group 9B: Border Carbon Adjustment Taxes (BCAT)
Co-Chairs: Titus Alexander (Democracy Matters) & Dr Robin Russell-Jones (Founder Help Rescue the Planet; Organiser Mayday C4 Events)
Others: Prof Steve Keen (UCL); Prof Raghuram Rajan (Chicago Business School); Nawaz Haq.
Introduction
The UNFCCC process has been thwarted by the need for unanimity. Thus, any proposal put forward by the UN can be vetoed by any reluctant nation with a vested interest in promoting the export or import of fossil fuels in large quantities. Thus, in 2018, four countries refused tosign a special report by the IPCC on the consequences of breaching 1.5C: namely Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia and the US (under Trump). Three years later, Saudi Arabia, Russia and China joined forces with India Turkey and Australia, to vote down a G20 proposal to phaseout coal, which then did not get approved at COP 26 in Glasgow four months later. One way forward would be for the UN to form a coalition of countries that have been persuaded tosign up to the GCIF proposal, comprising the six, (or, if necessary, the 10) largest CO2 emitters: namely China (24%), the US (14%), the EU (10%), India (7.5%), Russia (5%) Japan (2%). These six countries represent almost two thirds of industrial CO2 emissions. If they could be persuaded to cooperate by adopting the GCIF and related proposals, then they would form a Coalitionof the Willing, and remaining countries in the world would simply have to fall in line. If not, then they could be subject to Border Carbon Adjustment Taxes; set at a level to raise revenue equivalent to what they would have had to pay had they fulfilled their obligations under the GCIF proposals. Of the six biggest emitters, all countries apart from India will pay into a UN administered fund under the GCIF proposal, as their per capita emissions are above the global average. Whilst cooperation might seem difficult, it is important to recognise that China is paying considerably less under a consumption-based system (Consumption = production minus exports plus imports), whilst Russia will gain from its vast reserves of untouched forests under the Global Ecosystem Incentive Fund--Terrestrial (GEIF-T proposal). So, all countries have a strong incentive to make this scheme work. It is literally our last chance before we hit irreversible climate tipping points.
Recommendations
1. We recommend that the UNFCCC abandon its requirement for unanimity.
2. We recommend that the UNFCCC persuades 6 or 10 countries to join a coalition of the willing; if one of the big six defaults, then the UNFCCC extends the search to the top 10. Lack of cooperation threatens global security.
3. We recommend that the imposition of the Border Carbon Adjustment Taxes (BCAT) is enforced by the UN Security Council.
4. We recommend that the UNFCCC include 5 low-emitting countries (in addition to India) so that the ultimate composition of the Coalition is balanced between the Global North and South.
5. We suggest Bangladesh, Kenya, Namibia, Indonesia and a small island state such as Samoa or Barbados. But this will depend on the willingness of these countries to collaborate.
Further Reading
Russell-Jones R & Wigley T. Hiatus in the Greenhouse. Has the IPCC helped or hindered? Available as a booklet at the C4 Events (Under Review: Oxford Open Climate Change)
WG10A: How to implement the GMIF,GOATIF & GABCIF proposals (Reducing agriculture and transport’s carbon footprint)
Subgroup A. Reducing methane emissions.
Co-Chairs: Dr Joshua Dean (University of Bristol), Prof. Euan Nisbet (Royal Holloway), Dr Semra Bakkaloglu (Imperial College London); Dr Robin Russell- Jones (Founder HRTP).
(GMIF equals all industrial methane emissions. GOATIF includes all other GHG emissions plus secondary GHGs such as ozone, minus GCIF & GMIF. GABCIF is aerosols and black carbon).
Introduction
Methane is the second most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas after carbondioxide. Over 60% of methane emissions can be directly attributed to human activity suchas agriculture, fossil fuel extraction and waste. Recently, the fossil fuel industry has worked to reduce methane emissions, which represents a potential loss of revenue since methane is the main component of natural gas. Although it is urgent that fossil fuel emissions should be reduced further, it is important that other anthropogenic emissions are also tackled. These are primarily from agriculture and waste. There are many opportunities to reduce emissions from agriculture. These include cutting emissions from manure and biowaste, from biomass burning, and encouraging dietary changes to reduce consumption. Methane emissions from waste, which are growing rapidly around large population concentrations in Africa, South and East Asia and South America, are relatively easy to mitigate and present obvious targetsfor reduction.
Emissions from many natural methane sources, particularly tropical and boreal wetlands maybe increasing rapidly. Other emissions, such as from Arctic methane sources, may also increase dramatically in the future, with major potential positive climate feedbacks. As it is largely impractical to reduce natural emissions, efforts to reduce human-driven methane emissions are increasingly urgent.
Because methane is naturally oxidised in the atmosphere, it has a lifetime in the atmosphere of about a decade, depending on definition. Thus, significant reductions in anthropogenic methane emissions will lead to a relatively quick reduction in radiative forcing, on a decadal timeline. This positive outcome would represent a quick climate “win” which could contribute to an air of positivity in addressing climate change, something sorely needed right now since there is a lot of doom and gloom understandably surrounding the state of current climate change.
Recommendations
1. Reduce landfill emissions. Landfills, particularly in the African tropics and in South Asia,are large methane emitters. Many landfills are still simply open to the atmosphere – simple fixes such as covering landfill with soil would dramatically reduce methane emissions. In the longer term, more sophisticated landfill design would be required to further reduce landfill emissions, but simple coverage with soil would already make a big difference. This would have the added benefit of improving air pollution and public health. Furthermore, a gas collection system should be installed at all landfill sites to capture landfill gas and utilise it for energy production through combined heat and power (CHP) engines.
2. Reduce methane emissions from waste more broadly. This includes reducing food waste and agricultural waste. Avoiding large manure ponds which are large methane emitters, and instead allowing biowaste to decay in the presence of oxygen which will promote microbial oxidation. The diversion of biodegradable wastes to anaerobic digestion can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from landfill. Utilising anaerobic digestors to convert biowaste into renewable natural gas (biogas and biomethane) for energy generation is another positive alternative, provided leaks from biodigesters are rigorously controlled.
3. Increase the number of independent measurements of methane emissions – independent of industry-led accounting exercises. Ground based methane measurements, aerial (UAV based technologies, such as drone) and tower-based atmospheric observations are increasingly affordable, available and relatively simple to manage. This would allow many countries to have simple systems for monitoring for methane leaks, which can then be quickly identified and fixed relatively easily. Satellite measurements can be combined with ground-based and airborne measurements to enhance the accuracy and detail of emission estimates.
4. Reduce biomass burning and deliberate fire emissions. This also has environmental, public health and property risk benefits. Incomplete burning releases both methane and many other air pollutants, so reducing burning not only reduces methane emissions but also widespread health-damaging pollution, especially in tropical Africa and South Asia. In particular, crop waste burning should be eliminated as it is largely unnecessary and is a potentially large source of methane emissions.
5. Avoid reopening old coal and natural gas power plants to power new technologies such as cryptocurrencies and AI data centres. Require new energy hungry technologies to establish wholly greenhouse-zero energy sources before they are developed.
22
Further Reading
1. Russell-Jones R & Wigley T. Hiatus in the Greenhouse. Has the IPCC helped or hindered? Available as a booklet at the C4 Events (Under Review: Oxford Open Climate Change)
2. Nisbet, E.G., Fisher, R.E., Lowry, D., France, J.L., Allen, G., Bakkaloglu, S., Broderick, T.J., Cain, M., Coleman, M., Fernandez, J. and Forster, G., 2020. Methane mitigation: methods to reduce emissions, on the path to the Paris agreement. Reviews of Geophysics, 58(1), p.e2019RG000675.
1. UN Environment Programme and Climate and Clean Air Coalition, 2021. Global Methane Assessment Benefits and Costs of Mitigating Methane Emissions, accessed at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210015658/ downloads/GFaluvegiUNEPGlobMethaneAssessReprint.pdf .
2. R B Jackson et al 2024 Human activities now fuel two-thirds of global methane emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 19 101002
Working Group 10B: How to implement the GMIF,GOATIF & GABCIF proposals (Reducing agriculture and transport’s carbon footprint)
Subgroup B. Transport Emissions.
Co-Chairs: Nawaz Haq & Dr Robin Russell-Jones (HRTP). Others: Prof Tom Wigley (NCAR); Gonzalo Alvarez (Chair UN Association Climate and Oceans); Trudi Seneviratne (Sec Royal College Psych); Jonathan Ramsay FRCS.
(GMIF equals all industrial methane emissions. GOATIF includes all other GHG emissions plus secondary GHGs such as ozone, minus GCIF & GMIF. GABCIF is aerosols and black carbon).
Introduction
This is a complex subgroup of WG10 as it contains not only primary GHGs, but NOx and particulates from transport, as well as tropospheric ozone a secondary transport pollutant which is also a GHG. Agriculture overlaps in many respects as it is also a source of NOx and particulates, but here the particulates are secondary particulates formed after the releaseof ammonia from nitrogen-based fertiliser. It is conventional practice to assume that all particulates are similar in terms of their biological effects, and health impacts, but there is growing evidence that particulates from different sources have different biological effects. Nanoparticles, for example are potentially the most dangerous biologically, but are not routinely measured: firstly, because it is simpler to measure PM2.5; and secondly because nanoparticles rapidly aggregate into larger particulates. So, pregnant women or children directly inhaling traffic fumes, particularly from diesel exhausts, may suffer far greaterhealth effects than children in the countryside inhaling secondary particulates. Although nanoparticles are not measured, in London and some other cities which have gone down the diesel route, 80% of NO2 comes from diesel exhausts, and NO2 levels are therefore a good surrogate for nanoparticle exposure. 35 years ago, the Swedish Transportation Board showed that diesel exhaust is 10 times more potent biologically than exhaust emissions from a petrol driven engine running on leaded petrol, and 100 times more potent than a car running on unleaded petrol and fitted with a catalytic convertor (Ames Testing which is a surrogate for carcinogenicity).
Black carbon is important as it exerts a greenhouse effect opposite to that of sulphate aerosols (which cool the planet). Specifically, it can reduce the albedo of the cryosphere (snow and ice) and lead to increased heat absorption in the oceans. On land, black carbon
come from a range of sources including power generation, heavy industry, transportation. In order to capture all black carbon contributors, we propose that countries that are above the global average for black carbon and particulate emissions pay a levy based on their total consumption of petroleum products, on a per capita basis. We would recommend that the levy for diesel and dirty marine fuels are 10 times the rate for gasoline.
Already there is sufficient evidence to show that black carbon and particulates have a negative impact on the environment. Whilst it may be short-lived in the atmosphere, it may forexample,bestoredinoceansforalongtimewithlastingeffects. Actionmustbetaken on the basis of the ‘precautionary principle’ as the consequences of inaction are so serious. Furthermore, any delay will result in the fossil fuel industry and other bad actors downplaying the environmental damage in order to keep selling their life-threatening products.
With regards to shipping, discussions around carbon taxes have been under discussion at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for some time, based on the climate impactof shipping. The thinking here is to raise capital to spur the uptake of ‘zero’ or ‘near zero’ carbonfuelsandtechnologies. Itshouldbenoted,however,thatmanycountries,particularly developing countries, have concerns around the economic impact, food security and other political reasons, and have objected to such taxes as being unjust.
For clarity, the redistributive system that we are proposing in relation to GCIF and other financial instruments is not an alternative to the above-mentioned tax. We are seeking to directly penalise the high emitters of black carbon and particulates, and reward those who produce amounts lower than the global average (per capita).
Recommendations
1. The UN should draw up detailed plans as to how GOATIF and GABCIF will operate in practice, using black carbon, particulates and aerosols as the bench-marks
2. Encourage drivers to walk or cycle, particularly for short journeys.
3. Introducepedestrian-onlyareasintownsandcities
4. Installcyclenetworksforbicyclesandforelectricbikesandscooters
5. Encourageuseofpublictransport;ifnecessary,bysubsidisingfares
6. Introduce Clean Air Zones and penalise diesel vehicles by introducing a toxicity charge (As has been done successfully by Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London).
7. Introduce increased parking charges for high-polluting vehicles, particularly SUVs which generate microplastics from the tyre degradation on heavier vehicles
8. Reduce congestion by use of variable speed limits
9. Get rid of speed bumps
10. Identify and fine high-polluting vehicles at the road-side
11. Display air quality readings in public locations
12. Giveprioritytoairqualityinplanningapplications,andpromotemicrogeneration projects.
13. Increase Vehicle Excise Duty on diesel vehicles
14. IncreasetaxondieselandphaseoutsubsidiesforRedDiesel
15. PhaseoutTransportRefrigeratedUnits(TRUs)andbanthemfromcitycentres16. Restorethe2030dateforthephase-outofallnewpetrolanddieseldrivenvehiclesin
the UK Make this date universal (The EUs phase out date is 2035 which is too late) 17. Introduce testing regimen for new cars that reflect real-world driving conditions
18. Ensure that the annual MOT includes NOx and small particulates in emissions tests, particularly for GDIs.
19. Make it illegal for garages to circumvent pollution control technology, for example by removing particulate filters or catalysts.
20. Incentivisetheintroductionofcleanfuelssuchashydrogen.21. Make sure that the contribution of renewables to electricity generation is increased in line
with climate change commitments
22.EnsurethatthenewWHOannuallimitforPM2.5(of5microg/m3)isimplemented from 2030, and not 2040 as stated in the Government’s Environment Bill.
23. Aviation accounts for 6-7% of global warming, and shipping accounts for 3-4%, but international aviation and maritime operations are not captured in a country’s territorial emissions. The UN needs to apportion aviation and marine emissions to individual countries using a consumption-based system.
24. Airlines and their business-compromised governing body, needs to recognise that biofuels are not the answer to transport going forward. They should promote hydrogen
25. Airline operators need to stop pretending that their businesses are sustainable through the use of carbon offsets. Planting trees in Africa does nothing to reduce the global warming impact of aviation (6-7% globally).
26. VAT should be levied on airline fuel at the highest rate possible. The operators, and passengers, have got away with this tax-payer funded subsidy for far too long.
27. There should be a frequent flyer levy so that the most profligate users pay more per mile than the occasional user.
28. Selling tickets at less than cost should be prohibited. This should discourage the idiotic craze of organising hen parties and stag weekends in east European countries.
29. Airports are major sources of local air pollution, not just related to the traffic congestion that they cause. At Heathrow, for example, diesel generators are used extensively to power planes on the tarmac. Sustainable alternatives are available. The airport authorities should provide these, and oblige operators to use them.
30. Shipping ports are also major sources of local air pollution. Again, diesel generators are often used to power ships that are in harbour. Port authorities should provide clean alternatives, and ensure that they are used.
31. Ships are permitted to use higher sulphur fuels when away from the coastlines of Europe and North America (The legal limit for the sulphur content of maritime fuels is 0.5% globally versus 0.1% near to port). However, filthier fuels such as bunker fuel can still be burnt provided that the ship has fitted desulphurisation equipment (DSE). In practice however the DSE is sometimes turned off, or, more frequently, the captured sulphur is simply tipped into the ocean. The IMO needs to urgently ban all maritime fuels with a sulphur content > 0.5%.
Further Reading (Refs 2 & 3 were made available at the Conference)
1. Russell-Jones R, Walter C, Kelly F, Holgate S. Air Pollution: the public health challenge of our time. Ramphal Institute Policy Brief: Vol 2, No 2, Jan 27, 2021.
2. Russell-Jones R Wigley TML. Hiatus in the Greenhouse. Has the IPCC helped or hindered?3. Russell-Jones R. Hazards to Health in the Greenhouse. Why is global warming so intractable?
Working Group 11: The Global Ecosystem Incentive Fund –Terrestrial (GEIF-T)
Co-Chairs: Ulrich Loening. (Centre for Human Ecology, Edinburgh) & Alistair Gould (Chair; Carbon Free Group); John D Liu (Founder; Ecosystem Restoration Camps Movement / Ecosystem Ambassador, Commonland Foundation), Edmond Rube (Director, Carbon Free Group).
“Restoration needs to be the central intention of human civilisation.The value of ecological function is vastly higher than the value of things.If we make restoration the basis of a living economy we will be aligning human understanding with the miracle of life. That is in everyone’s interests”
John D Liu
Introduction
The Ocean is by far the biggest store and sequester of atmospheric carbon. Land, as 1/3rd ofthecoverofEarth,issmaller,butverysignificant. Onland,soilholdsthelargeststore.More carbon is bound in soil than in all life above ground, including all fauna and flora. Thesoil that all terrestrial life depends on is being destroyed by current farming practices and deforestation. Theresultismorecarbonemissionthanabsorption,leadingtogreaterclimate impacts and reduced food security. This situation can be easily reversed and must be.
Soilcouldgrowforever,andfixcarboncontinuouslywithnolimits. Appliedworldwide,this constitutes the largest biological carbon sink on land.
There are a wide range of land management practices and specific interventions that can demonstrably draw down significant amounts of CO2, in turn providing sustainable crop yields fromagriculturalsystems. CurrentlyagricultureisresponsibleforsignificantGHGemissions and could become a carbon sequestration activity if suitably developed. There are many methods to bring this about, under the various names of organic farming, agro-ecology, permaculture, and others. They have in common that soil is allowed to grow. In so doing, many other benefits accrue, including better health for crops, improved human nutrition (and therefore health), restoration of biodiversity, minimisation of flooding and resilience to drought. To significantly accelerate CO2 drawdown and the restoration of soil, improvers can be applied to soils; ; in particular ‘biochar’ a modern development of ancient controlled burning of dry agricultural and forestry waste (Green waste must not be used as this produces copious amounts of methane. In addition to burying carbon, the resulting carbon-rich material is
then added to the soil, sequestering 3 kgs of CO2 (atomic weight 44) for each kg of carbon (biochar) buried (Atomic weight 12). The buried biochar improves plant nutrition, reducing needs for irrigation, fertilisers and pesticides etc. Additionally, it can regenerate degraded farmland and improve crop yields. The role of fungi in the healthy functioning of soil should be protected; chemical inputs degrade the ability of fungi to absorb an estimated one third (13 GigaTonnes) of the annual fossil fuel generated CO2 and the potential to increase this sink could be significantly enhanced.
Recommendations
There are several technical interventions that can assist soil restoration and CO2 sequestration, which are supported by many pilot projects. Governments and businesses should encourage the development of
a) perennial crops.b) no-till farming with mulches, not herbicides (the latter kill soil fauna as well as weeds).
c) appropriate farming practices that allow crops to grow with a “natural” nutritional resistance to pests and disease organisms.
d) the use of biochare) Conserving and encouraging the planting of traditional and indigenous crops to provide
resilience, diversity and cultural continuity.
In addition, the UN should draw up detailed plans as to how the GEIF-Terrestrial will operatein practice. It requires a “good guy” to team up with a “bad guy” and develop a method of penalising and rewarding different approaches to forest management etc. as exemplified, for example, by the Caribbean island of Hispaniola, where the Haitians have cut down virtually
all their trees, whilst the Dominican Republic has preserved theirs. The ultimate aim is to incentivise countries such as Russia to preserve its forests and other terrestrial carbon sinks.
Working Group 12. How to implement the GEIF- Marine ecosystems proposal, (and deal with plastics in the Oceans).
WG 12A. Marine Carbon Sinks. Co-chairs: Nawaz Haq & Madadh Maclaine (ZESTA)
Others: Jonathan Ramsay FRCS. Gonzalo Alvarez (Chair UN Association: Climate & Oceans); Nathan Robinson (Oceanographer/TV).
“A study published in the scientific journal Nature, estimates that without radical transformation, ocean ecosystems will collapse this decade. The researchers estimate that abrupt food web collapse will begin before 2030 in the tropical oceans and spread to the tropical forests and higher latitudes by 2050 (Trisos et al. 2020). The impact of such collapse will be all-encompassing, endangering the majority of life on Earth. And while most of usstill believe such a scenario is inconceivable —primarily because we fail to understand the features of living systems, like interconnectedness and interdependency and because ofa host of subconscious cognitive biases that taint our perspective— there is no shortageof scientific evidence underpinning the outlook that Earth’s life-supporting systems are collapsing (Steffen et al. 2015, Bologna & Aquino 2020, Heleno et al. 2020, Linn et al. 2022, Ripple et al. 2022, Penn & Deutsch 2022, IPCC 2022 report and many others).”
Recent blog by Leen Gorissen, the founder of Centre4NI.
Recommendations
The aim of our recommendations is to identify “good actors” and “bad actors” in the field of marine pollution. Black carbon and particulate pollution are covered in 10B (Transportation). Here we target the producers of marine pollution in the form of “Forever” chemicals (PFAS & PFOS) plus other chemicals such as Bisphenol A that contaminate the marine Surface Micro- Layer (SML) but do not degrade.
1. Countries with above average production of Forever chemicals will be penalised, and those with production figures below the global average (on a per capita basis) will be rewarded. The beneficiaries will direct the monies towards the regeneration of nature and biodiversity with a particular focus on the oceans, marine ecosystems and habitats such as mangroves and coral reefs.
2. The UN should draw up detailed plans as to how the GEIF- Marine will operate in practice.
3. We recommend that the IPCC undertake an urgent review of all factors affecting ocean health with specific recognition of the role that the marine SML has on global climate change.
4. This must be the subject of IPCC Special reports so that policy makers are informed and cantaketimelyaction. Continuingstudiesarerequiredurgentlytomonitorrapidchanges in ocean composition and health, and their impact on climate.
For full list of references, see the report from WG 12A.
Working Group 12. How to implement the GEIF- Marine ecosystems proposal.
Subgroup 12B. How to deal with plastics in the Oceans.
Co-Chairs: Evelyn Barth (Truth about Plastics) & Bob Hogben (Chair: Truth about Plastics). Others: Gonzalo Alvarez (Chair UN Association: Climate & Oceans); Jonathan Ramsay FRCS; Robin Russell-Jones (Organiser Mayday C4 Events & Founder HRTP), David Gomez (Director Ramphal Institute); Abhiir Bhalla (Youth Rep CHEC); Madadh Maclaine (ZESTA); Alistair Gould (Chair: Carbon Free Group); Edmond Rube (Carbon Free Group).
Unlike other WGs, the looming catastrophe to planetary and human health posed by plastic pollution is so serious and so imminent that it was decided to produce a detailed analysis of the problem that was authored initially by Evelyn Barth from Truth About Plastics (TAP), and then modified by RRJ, Bob Hogben and others. However, this report is a C4 document, not
a TAP document. The analysis below contains proposals for taxing plastics at source. This is separate, and does not replace the need for a redistributive system whereby “bad actors” pay a levy into a UN-administered fund called the Global Ecosystem Incentive Fund-Marine; whilst “good actors” will receive financial rewards. This was detailed in 12A with Forever chemicals being the yardstick. “Countries with above average production of Forever chemicals will be penalised, and those with production figures below the global average (on a per capita basis) will be rewarded. Hopefully the beneficiaries will direct the monies towards the regenerationof nature and biodiversity with a particular focus on the oceans, marine ecosystems and habitats such as mangroves and coral reefs.”
The same principle applied to 12B, except that the measure on which the levy is to be based is the discharge of microplastics into the ocean. It is hoped that the beneficiaries will again use the monies towards regeneration schemes within the marine environment.
With regard to the “eco-taxes” suggested below; these should be seen as a means for a country to raise the monies needed to pay any levy imposed on that country by the UN- administered fund.
We recommend that the UN draw up detailed plans as to how the GEIF-Marine proposal will operate in relation to reducing plastic pollution of the oceans as a matter of theutmost urgency.
For full list of references, see the report from WG 12B
Working Group 13: How to implement the GCHRF Proposal?
Co-Chairs: Titus Alexander (Democracy Matters) & Abhiir Bhalla (CHEC); Others: Geraint Davies; David Gomez (Ramphal Institute); Nawaz Haq.
GCHRF represents the Global Carbon Historical Reparation Fund as delineated in the briefing document provided at the conference:“Hiatus in the Greenhouse: Has the IPCC helped or hindered?” by Robin Russell- Jones and Tom M.L. Wigley
Recommendations
1. Responsibility for historical carbon emissions needs to be recognised by major contributors and the world community, through the UN, UNFCCC, G20 or CHOGM.
2. Representatives of countries that contributed most to historical carbon emissions (USA, UK, EU, Russia) and countries that have contributed least or are most affected by climate damages (Africa, small island states) should set up a scientific commission to establish historic liability for global heating and recommend a fair and effective mechanism for reparations.
3. Accountancy firms might be asked to calculate historical liabilities, but it is not possible to use consumption-based data before 1990 since this is not available. Furthermore the moniespaidcannotequaltheadvantagetotheGlobalNorth insocietalprogressthat was facilitated by the burning of fossil fuels. The sums paid should therefore be seen as a substantial reparation rather than full compensation.
4. We recommend that industrial emissions before 1990 are priced at $30 per tonne of CO2 using production-based data.
5. We recommend that consumption-based emissions from 1990 are priced at $60 per tonne of industrial CO2 since countries could no longer claim ignorance of what they were doing to the planet.
6. Accounting firms such as PWC, KPMG, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Munich Re, Swiss Re, Lloyds, Berkshire Hathaway and investment firms should include the risks of litigation and liabilities for climate damages in their reports on fossil fuel producers and associated industries, drawing lessons from the legal settlement with US tobacco companies in 1998 and ongoing compensation for asbestos,
Annexes
Estimates of responsibility for climate change:
1. Simon Evans, Historical responsibility for climate change is at the heart of debates over climate justice, Carbon Brief, 05.10.2021
2. Hannah Ritchie (2019) - “Who has contributed most to global CO2 emissions?” Published online at OurWorldinData.org: ‘https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2’
29
3. Fanning, A.L., Hickel, J. Compensation for atmospheric appropriation. Nat Sustain 6, 1077–1086 (2023). https://doi. org/10.1038/s41893-023-01130-8
Working Group 14: Does nuclear have a role in mitigating climate change?
Co-Chairs: Eugene Shwageraus (Professor Nuclear Engineering, Cambridge) & Dr Robin Russell-Jones (Founder Help Rescue the Planet; Organiser Mayday C4 Events) Other members of WG 14: Michael Bluck (Imperial); Philip Thomas (Bristol); Richard Wakeford (UM); Peter Bryant (Sizewell C); Mike Middleton (former ETI); Prof Tom Wigley (NCAR); Prof Andy Stirling (SPRU).
Section D The Conference
The case for nuclear was presented by Prof Shwageraus (Professor of Nuclear Energy Systems Engineering at Cambridge University), with support from Prof Philip Thomas (Bristol University; and Master of the Worshipful Companies of Scientific Instrument Makers) on the health issues, and from Prof Michael Bluck (Director of the Centre for Nuclear Engineering at Imperial College London) on reactor design issues. RRJ and Nawaz Haq were in the chair and undertook a detailed examination of the claims made by the nuclear protagonists, who also fielded questions from the audience. It is unfortunate that Andy Stirling was unable to attend at such short notice.
Thefollowingitemswerediscussed byconference,andaconsensusreachedonthefollowing points:
1. Nuclear is low carbon compared with fossil fuels.
2. Historically nuclear is expensive (Strike price of £93/ kWh at Hinckley Point C compared with less than half that price for on-shore wind not accounting for the system costs). In addition, HMG has agreed to cap the insurance costs in the event of a nuclear accident. However, much of the cost at Hinckley Point C is due to the financial arrangements. No firm conclusions were reached as to how that could be reduced in future, but presumably it would require a different business model. In addition, the deployment of SMRs will reduce costs and steepen the learning curve.
3. Powering the grid using mainly nuclear has been done before (France) and is being attempted now by South Korea.
4. The dangers of nuclear need to be set against the dangers of other technologies. 5. Renewables may be cheaper to instal, but will incur system balancing costs.
6. Renewables are intermittent and will require substantial volume of energy storage, some will have to be long duration. The first battery is fully utilised, but adequate capacity to maintain reliability of the grid requires more batteries, and subsequent batteries are under- utilised, and therefore, more expensive.
7. Nuclear is useful as it provides a non-fossil fuel baseload. In addition, the price for renewables varies with the extent to which it has dominated the energy supply. Thus, when wind is supplying more than certain fraction of demand, it attracts a negative electricity price. In Germany, negative pricing began to appear when renewables provided only 30% of the Grid. Current wind generation capacity in Germany is about twice the size of their grid, yet, the grid carbon intensity barely changed over the last decade, with coal still supplying substantial fraction of electricity.
8. The cheapest system overall is more important than the cheapest next MW of installed generation. Having nuclear in the mix avoid excess renewable capacity (curtailment), and therefore keeps costs to a minimum.
9. The atomic bomb survival data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki may be the largest cohort to sustain lethal and sub-lethal doses of ionising radiation, but it is of dubious relevance to lower doses of exposure.. Ionising radiation is a recognised cause of cancer, , but the effects need to be kept in proportion.
10. Philip Thomas was a PI of a multi-disciplinary study on coping with major nuclear accidents (NREFS http://www.nrefs.org/) , which examined the proportionality of response to actual and hypothetical accidents. The question of evacuating civilians was discussed. The study concluded that the displacement of whole populations carries major risks in terms of unemployment, separation from communities etc. and that there is a survival risk to displacement in terms of suicide or decreased life expectancy (from drinking alcohol or taking drugs which were observed following Chernobyl accident). With Chernobyl 335,000 people were relocated, of which 97,000 received a life-long pension as they were unable to find work which contributed to their sense of anxiety and depression. NREFS concluded that only 30-70.000 should have been evacuated. However, the decision not to evacuate people exposed to nuclear fall-out is not necessarily something that the authorities can controlin a democratic country, particularly during the early stages of an accident when likely exposures have yet to be calculated.
11. The “Not to evacuate” thesis seems more persuasive when applied to Fukushima, where the experience of local residents might have been coloured by the events at Chernobyl 26 years earlier. In all, 111,000 persons were evacuated, and a further 49,000 elected to move elsewhere, possibly to protect their children who are known to be more vulnerable to the effects of ionising radiation. Pregnant women would also tend to be overcautious. The NREFS generated a J (= Judgement) Value in conjunction with the NRPB, and concluded that the nuclear accident at Fukushima had resulted in 2 months loss of life expectancy. This should be compared with air pollution which costs Londoners to lose 9 months of life expectancy.
12. Regardingthedisposalofhigh-levelnuclearwastefromacivilreactor;thiscanbekept in a cooling pond for 5-10 years before being vitrified into a glass compound for burial at a suitable geological site or kept in passively cooled (dry) storage casks for over a century at minimal expense before the decision on recycling or disposal is made. Concerns expressed by RRJ that cooling ponds were inherently dangerous if the power supply was interrupted (in the event of a terrorist attack for example, or in the event of a conventional war) were not accepted by Prof Thomas who claimed that the ponds were “self-cooling”. Spent fuel cooling ponds comply with the most stringent safety and security regulations, without which the nuclear plants would not be given a licence to operate. These requirements are significantly more stringent than those of other industrial installations handling substances which pose similar level of risk.
13. Vitrification of high level wastewas the practice in the UK but not anymore. Pond cooling now is followed by a dry-cask storage which is apparently accepted as “best practice” worldwide. The waste is passively cooled and only needs monitoring. This type of storageis extremely compact and can easily last for over a century. See for example: https://www. belfercenter.org/publication/economics-reprocessing-vs-direct-disposal-spent-nuclear- fuel_Bunn, Matthew, Steve Fetter, John P. Holdren and Bob van der Zwaan. “The Economics ofReprocessingvs.DirectDisposalofSpentNuclearFuel.” December2003.
Conclusions and Recommendations
1. There is a role for both nuclear and renewables in our low carbon, and even zero-carbon energy future.
2. Nuclear will be particularly useful in providing base-load, especially whilst renewables have limited back-up in terms of storage.
3. The public, and the financial world are reluctant to support large centralised nuclear power stations, and the delays and costs of Hinckley Point C may harden their hostility to similar schemes in the future. Streamlining of permission and other regulatory approvals would help to reduce delays and therefore costs. More creative financing schemes should be used in future to minimise costs.
4. There is public acceptance of small modular reactors (SMRs). Such reactors provide multiple avenues for cost savings through standardised, high-volume manufacturing in factories and modular construction. The nuclear industry should pursue these avenues of development to demonstrate shorter construction schedules and cost reductions.
5. One possible use is the utilisation of SMRs to generate pink hydrogen since this can then be used in many industrial processes and for powering transport (See WG 5)
6. The questions surrounding nuclear waste disposal have certainly been addressed by HMG and its advisors, but we are still some way from a solution. Near-surface dry cask storage is a developed technology which is cheap and provides an opportunity for easy recovery of the remaining energy stored in spent fuel should the government or industry decides to do so. Disposal in deep bore-holes is also being developed as a viable option.
Working Group 15: CCS, CDR & Methane Capture: Are they viable?
Co-Chairs: Prof Bill McGuire (UCL) & Dr Robin Russell-Jones (Founder Help Rescue the Planet; Organiser Mayday C4 Events) Others: Tom Wigley (NCAR); Phil Jones (UEA); Prof Euan Nisbet (Royal Holloway); Prof Josh Dean (Bristol).
ORGANISER’s NOTE. A considerable number of experts refused to contribute to this WG including the current Chair of the IPCC Jim Skea; the past chair of the IPCC Bob Watson; and the Government’s advisor Professor Chris Stark. In fact, Stark refused to even acknowledge any of the numerous emails that were sent inviting him to participate. Readers may draw their own conclusions as to what is going on here, but it seems that the IPCC have formed a consensus with the Fossil Fuel Industry to promote CCS and CDR, even though they are clearly non-viable without a totally Green electricity supply. And if the electricity supply is completely green, then why bother to waste it on capturing carbon from fossil-fuel powered facilities.It makes no sense. Yet, despite this having been discussed by RRJ in the correspondence columns of the FT in March, HMG announced on Oct 4 2024, that it was investing £20 billion on developing CCS: presumably so that the technology can be tagged on to the new generation of ‘capture-ready’ gas-fired plants announced by the Sunak administration earlier this year.
Recommendations
1. We recommend that all CCS projects attached to fossil-fuel powered plants are abandoned.
2. We recommend that the Fossil Fuel industry (FFI) stop promoting CDR as a solution to climate change.
32
3. We further recommend that research on CDR continue, since the technology may become viable once the world’s energy supply is no longer reliant on the burning of fossil- fuels. However, it cannot be expected to reverse Climate Tipping points (CTPs).
4. We recommend that research into the use of CCS with biomass and cement production continue, as the technology may become viable once the world’s energy supply is no longer reliant on the burning of fossil-fuels. However, the same proviso applies with regard to CTPs.
5. We would like to see a judicial review of the UK Government’s decision to invest £20 billion in CCS (Announced Oct 4, 2024)
6. WerecommendthattheIPCCabandontheuseofGlobalWarmingPotentials(GWPs), and that the UNFCCC recommend a more reliable method of aggregating non-CO2 GHGs for the purposes of calculating Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).
7. We recommend that research efforts are intensified in order to establish the relative contributions of different sources to the rising levels of atmospheric methane, and into the consequences of significant methane-outbursts from thawing permafrost and other natural methane sinks that might transition rapidly into sources.
8. Werecommendthateveryeffortbemadetolimitmethaneemissionsbothfrom industrial and non-industrial sources.
9. We recommend that research into the use of direct methane capture from the atmosphere be supported in order to establish whether this is a viable technology.
10. We recommend that the contribution of methane releases to the current acceleration in global warming be ascertained, and becomes the focus of a Special report by the IPCC.
11. We recommend that all FFI plants responsible for fugitive methane releases be subject to strict emission limits and rigorous inspection globally.
12. CurrentlytheIPCC/UNFCCCrelyonindustryforground-updataonmethanereleases, and there is evidence that these are under-reported by the FFI. This problem could be solved by the creation of a new UN inspectorate: the International Carbon Monitoring Agency (ICMA) supplemented by satellite data from instruments such as MethSat.
Further Reading
1. Russell-Jones R. FT letters March 27 2024: “Industry ignores the stark realities of climate change” 2. Russell-Jones R Wigley TML. Hiatus in the Greenhouse. Has the IPCC helped or hindered3. Russell-Jones R. Hazards to Health in the Greenhouse. Why is global warming so intractable?
Working Group 16: The lethal and non-lethal effects of burning fossil fuels.
Co-Chairs: Jonathan Ramsay FRCS & Dr Robin Russell-Jones (Founder Help Rescue the Planet) Others: Prof Frank Kelly (Imperial); Dr Trudi Seneviratne (Sec Royal College Psych); Prof Sir Stephen Holgate (Soton).
(Organiser’s Note. Professor Gillian Leng, President of the Royal Society of Medicine, declined to contribute. Dr Anna Hansell, Chair of COMEAP, contributed but declined to have her name on the document).
Recommendations
1. We recommend that institutions such as the Royal Society, the Royal Society of Engineering, The Royal Society of Arts, The Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Royal Institute of British Architects devote similar effort as the medical profession in warning the public about the health effects of unchecked global warming, but in their own areas of expertise.
2. In order to ensure the survival of the human race, we recommend that combustion of fossil fuels is prohibited whenever and wherever possible.
3. We recommend that Forever chemical are banned immediately and forever. 4. We recommend that the IPCC and/or UNEP begins an urgent investigation into
plankton numbers
5. We recommend that WHO conduct urgent research into the chemicals responsible for falling sperm counts
6. We recommend that Governments world-wide legislate against the policies adopted by waste and water companies; that the Solution to Pollution is Dilution, by making them legally responsible for not discharging substances harmful to human or ecosystem health into our waterways, rivers and oceans.
7. We recommend that Governments world-wide prioritise air quality, and introduce WHO recommended limits by 2030.
8. Whilst most medical studies have concentrated on PM2.5, it is likely that nano-particles are even more hazardous to health, but are not routinely monitored. We recommend urgent research in this important area.
9. We recommend that the postponement to 2035 of the diesel/petrol phase-out in the UK be reversed and the original date of 2030 be reinstated.
10. Werecommendthaturbanschoolsshouldbefittedwithparticulatefilterstoprotect children from the mental health impact of particulates.
11. We advise parents to not purchase diesel vehicles.
12. We recommend that CO2 scrubbers are fitted to buildings routinely to prevent sick building syndrome, and so that indoors can provide sanctuary from high ambient levels of CO2 out of doors in the second half of the century.
13. WerecommendthattheUNdesignateareasthatarelikelytoreachawetbulb temperature of 35C (or equivalent combinations) as unfit for human habitation.
Further Reading
1. Russell-Jones R. Health in the Greenhouse. Lancet editorial (Anon) April 15 1989 2. Jones D S. Still Seeking Health in the Greenhouse. Lancet April 13, 2024
3. Russell-Jones R. Hazards to Health in the Greenhouse. Why is global warming so intractable? (ORF; Under Review)
4. Dryden H, Duncan D (2022) Climate disruption caused by a decline in marine biodiversity and pollution. Int. J. Env. Climate Change 12(11), 3414–3436.
5. Russell-Jones R, Walter C, Kelly F, Holgate S. Air Pollution: The Public Health Challenge of our Time. The Ramphal Institute Policy Brief Vol 2, No 27, Jan 2021.
6. Azuma K, Kagi N, Yanagi U et al 2018. Effects of low-level inhalation exposure to carbon dioxide in indoor environments: A short review on human health and psychomotor performance. Env Int, 121: 51-56.