Step 4 - We have made a list of the situations in which we are most likely to burn fossil fuels

This is a big one. Have I got the nerve to live by conclusions which I'm placing in a public domain? We shall see...

Please can I start by making a list of the situations in which I am NOT likely to burn fossil fuels? Such as:

• Walking
• Cycling
• Sailing
• Gardening & planting
• Repairing my boat
• Chatting face to face with family & friends
• Sitting in the garden
• Reading in daylight
• Sleeping
• Making love
• Running household appliances when the sun is shining (i.e. when our electricity is generated by our solar panels)

That's a positive start, anyway. Life doesn't have to cease altogether!
What about situations when I burn fossil fuels?

• Heating my house with gas
• Powered flying
• Driving a petrol, diesel or LPG vehicle
• Leaving electrical devices on standby overnight:
• Mobile phone chargers
• Telly, radio, CD player
• Computers
• Central heating/hot water control system
• Electricity monitoring sytem
• Electric lighting (by definition, in the dark)
• Cooking after dark (we use an electric hob)
• Buying food produced elsewhere
• Buying anything produced elsewhere
• Putting on the electric blanket before we go to bed
• Working at my computer after dark
• Sending emails, facebook updates - anything which other people view on their computer
• Talking on the phone (uses public electricity)

Conclusions:

1. Get up earlier
2. Walk, cycle or use public transport
3. Sail to other countries
4. Do as much as possible during the day
5. Charge phones & tablet during day
6. Switch off everything at night
7. Go to bed when it gets dark

Step 3 - We turn to our fellow men and women, particularly those who have struggled with the same problem.

The Carbonics Anonymous 12-step programme is about coping with the knowledge that burning fossil fuels causes irreparable harm to our planetary life support systems, while at the same time being habituated ("addicted" according President George Bush Jnr) to ways of living which totally depend on doing just that.

Step 1 and Step 2 "framed" the problem, now we're starting to look at the first practical action. Just who are our fellow men and women who have struggled with the same problem?

My first answer are the climate scientists, who have been obsessing over this issue since at least the 1960s and even earlier. All of my blogs in January, February and March were posted while working through Exeter University's excellent online "Climate Change" course. This brilliant TED talk by Gavin Schmidt is a good summary, describing how computer modelling allows climate scientists to predict "what if?" scenarios with increasing degrees of confidence.

But scientists have the comfort of knowing they're contributing what they do best: working on theories and mathematics until they match observations. Hotter droughts? Higher sea levels? Worse flooding? Stronger hurricanes? Ocean acidification? Yep - they all match scientists' assertions that climate change is real and happening now, and moreover, if we don't act things will get much worse.

They do a fantastic and essential job, but scientists don't seem to realise that addicts know all about living dangerously. Two recent and strongly worded  reports (IPCC Working Group 3,  US National Climate Assessment, have produced little more than a collective yawn.

Who then to turn to? Who are the people looking squarely at the overwhelming scientific consensus, while working resolutely towards solutions?

Here is a tiny list of such organisations, groups and people I've encountered. It doesn't seem to matter who you start with, they're all interconnected and any one leads sooner or later to others, according to your curiosity:

Transition Network - http://www.transitionnetwork.org/ - communities, books, films, workshops

Centre for Alternative Technology - http://www.cat.org.uk/ - zero carbon Britain

Friends of the Earth - http://www.foe.co.uk/

Greenpeace - http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/ - campaigns

Quakers - http://quaker.org.uk/minute-36

Charles Eisenstein - http://charleseisenstein.net/ - books & talks

Joanna Macey - http://www.joannamacy.net/ - workshops

End Ecocide - http://www.endecocide.eu/ - law to end ecocide

350 Degrees - http://350.org - divesting from fossil fuel industries

(There are many, many more)

Once I started looking, doors opened and I found my local Transition in Kings (TiK) group - http://www.transitioninkings.org - then I got involved in our local renewable energy co-op http://www.guceltd.org and now my world of fellow "Carbonics" just goes on expanding.

 

Learning by doing

Step 2 - We believe that we must turn elsewhere for help

If Step 1 of my Carbonics Anonymous' programme is to acknowledge that we have failed so far to stop burning fossil fuels, where does Step 2 take us?

Albert Einstein pointed out that:

"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them"

It's generally accepted that Einstein meant "problems in Physics" - that is, problems that arise when observations of natural phenomena appear to contradict theories that ought to explain them.

One of the problems Einstein tackled early in his career was the "photoelectric effect", where it was observed that metals bombarded with light give off electrons. The effect could be measured using a sensitive voltmeter, and the phenomenon is not explained by theories based on the wave characteristics of light. He proposed instead that light consists of units of energy or "quanta", and this led in turn to the principles of quantum mechanics, and eventually to today's mass production of solar photovoltaic panels.

At this point I must acknowledge that some steps in the AA's 12-step programme refer to God. I have deliberately adapted B F Skinner's humanist version for several reasons, but mainly to avoid any semblance of abdicating responsibility to a "deus ex machina" - the idea that somehow it will all turn out OK if we put our trust in the deity. (If it doesn't turn out, obviously that's because we didn't trust enough, and that approach sounds risky to me).

Nevertheless my own experience suggests that solutions to problems often appear after some kind of "letting go", sometimes by sleeping on them, or perhaps by taking time out to go for a walk. Here's a photo I took last Saturday:

I don't usually pick wild flowers, but this little posy on our table adds wonderment to every meal:

Step 2 simply acknowledges that we can't solve the problems created by burning fossil fuels with the kind of thinking that got us here. But what does it mean to "turn elsewhere"? Thinking about this led me to take a walk, and these pictures are reminders of how we might "turn elsewhere".

This in turn reminded me of long ago watching the film "To Be Alive" which was produced for the 1964/65 World Fair in New York. (This YouTube version doesn't have the fantastic colour and definition of the original, which was truly amazing in those days).

In the next blog, Step 3 will consider another place to turn.

Step 1 - We accept the fact that we have failed.

A little while ago it dawned on me that my attitude to climate change is not unlike that of a person who's been persuaded to go to Alcoholics Anonymous. We must cure ourselves of addiction to fossil fuels, but I'm still completely hooked on the stuff.

So I decided to work through a version of the 12-step programme. The first step is:

"We accept the fact that all our efforts to stop burning fossil fuels have failed."

This is obviously true both globally, and also personally. Globally all our efforts at international agreements have failed, and even nominal targets such as "no more than 2 degrees C" are clearly forecast to be exceeded.

I read recently that solar electricity is now cheaper than conventional generation in 19 markets around the world. In China and USA, the proportion of renewable energy installation is slowly increasing, but that means we're still emitting more and more CO2 every year. On present showing we're not going to reach "carbon neutral" which some scientists say we must achieve by 2036.

At the personal level, the solar hot water panels we installed 20 years ago, and the PV panels more recently have certainly reduced our energy demand, but they don't keep us warm in the depths of winter when our gas consumption is pretty much like everyone else. (OK, we turned the thermostat down). Have my wife and I stopped driving? Flying to my sister-in-law? Buying food from all over the world at the supermarket? Er, no. The fact is that our efforts to reduce our personal carbon footprint have shrunk it by perhaps 10% so far.

The thing is, I understand that climate change is threatening the lives of my children and grandchildren, but it's not "in yer face" a clear and present danger. Floods and storms didn't happen much around here, nor did the heatwaves and droughts further afield. I can only imagine how awful they were, but I can't imagine them for very long.

Meanwhile almost everyone around me seems to get along just fine without worrying over it. In fact many seem to get along much better than me because I bear personal scars from speaking out. Mankind has always turned its back on people who say how awful the future will be if we don't mend our ways.

Thus peer pressure doth make silent climate deniers of us all.

We have no choice but to accept the fact that all our efforts have failed.

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was released today, and it's been interesting to read how various organs of the UK media have dealt with it. The following observations all relate to the online press:

At last, the BBC - radio, television and BBC News website - presented the IPCC information in a clear, unbiased way, with a top headline article on the website. No more "it's all too complicated and there's nothing we can do about it anyway".

The Guardian also has a clear and thorough article, although they didn't make it a headline item. Maybe tomorrow?

The Independent placed their article 20th on the web page, after Firing Between N & S Korea, N. Farage's opinion of V. Putin, how Steve Jobs got a Google employee fired, and many more. Nevertheless, the IPCC article is lengthy and well illustrated.

The Times & Financial Times - nothing. Maybe tomorrow?

The Telegraph put it on the front page under the headline "Britain should prepare for an influx of 'climate change refugees'". Yes, that's the most important implication of the IPCC report. The article is full of quotes, rather than analysis, implying "can you believe this stuff?" with alongside links to older related articles such as Boris Johnson's June 2013 "The weather prophets should be chucked in the deep end".

Daily Mail & Sun - nothing.

Daily Express - "Climate change to bring more floods, UN warns" - in a brief article towards the bottom of the page, noting the discrepancies found in the 2007 report about glacier melting, and the proportion of Holland below sea level. "Sceptics have also seized on a slowdown in the rate of warming in the past 15 years." It's true, sceptics did seize on that rumour, but is it still relevant?

****
The big change (to my eyes at any rate) is the BBC. No more false "balance", just straightforward reporting. The Guardian has long been a strong advocate of action to deal with climate change. Perhaps the other serious newspapers are still digesting the report, maybe looking for more holes to pick instead of putting the message across.

Carbonics Anonymous

I recently discovered a version of the AA 12-Step Programme written by B F Skinner, the American behaviourist philosopher. The idea of substituting "fossil fuels" for "alcohol" came from reading Facing Up to Stealth Denial and Winding Down on Fossil Fuels by the Royal Society of Arts, and also the statement of President George W Bush that "America is addicted to oil".

1. We accept the fact that all our efforts to stop burning fossil fuels have failed.

2. We believe that we must turn elsewhere for help.

3. We turn to our fellow men and women, particularly those who have struggled with the same problem.

4. We have made a list of the situations in which we are most likely to burn fossil fuels.

5. We ask our friends to help us avoid those situations.

6. We are ready to accept the help they give us.

7. We honestly hope they will help.

8. We have made a list of the persons we have harmed and to whom we hope to make amends.

9. We shall do all we can to make amends, in any way that will not cause further harm.

10. We will continue to make such lists and revise them as needed.

11. We appreciate what our friends have done and are doing to help us.

12. We, in turn, are ready to help others who may come to us in the same way.
    
    I haven't yet met anyone willing to join me in forming "We". If you would like to do so please leave a comment or get in touch via my Profile.

Zero Carbon Britain

A couple of weeks after completing the course on "Climate Change challenges and solutions" I was talking to some representatives of neighbouring Transition Towns. I proposed we should adopt "Zero Carbon" as a goal on the premise that this might encourage more people to appreciate and become involved in Transition.

The responses were interesting:

"It's completely unrealistic..."
"It's not what Transition is all about..."
"We'll never persuade politicians...."
"Preserving bio-diversity is important too..."
"How would that encourage local food schemes..."
"Tailor your message to your audience..."

The last response was helpful, and as a start I'm using this blog to explain how I arrived at "Zero Carbon". (To be precise it should really be "Net Zero Carbon", but I don't believe in using three words when two will do).

I've always been a bit of an activist, in fact I believe we all try to persuade and justify our beliefs to others, one way or another, whether it's about religion, politics, how to rear children, diet or exercise regimes, or the latest gizmos. So why "Zero Carbon"?

The short answer is that none of the Transition aims listed above can be achieved - in the long run, for benefit of my offspring - unless we reach "Zero Carbon" in the shortest possible time. There's no chance of feeding a population of 9 billion or preserving bio-diversity unless we stabilise earth's climate.

The difficult thing for many people to grasp is that, even if we could completely halt carbon dioxide emissions today, earth's climate will continue warming for very many years to come. That means other natural processes which contribute to further warming will carry on too, such as: 

• Loss of ice cover reflecting sunlight back into space
• Rainforests drying out so they absorb less carbon dioxide
• Warming of permafrost which releases methane (another powerful greenhouse gas)

"Zero Carbon" is the only way we can start to slow these processes, and give ourselves time to discover how to manage them and take the steps needed to stabilise the climate. The scientific evidence shows that "80% cuts by 2050" just won't hack it. And anyway, even if 80% were enough, what then?

Chart from Zero Carbon Britain, Centre for Alternative Technology   

That's why I believe "Zero Carbon" should be our goal for Transition. Read more in Zero Carbon Britain - a recent report by the Centre for Alternative Technology.