Now a truism, for all but Bush and Exxon Mobil scientists, that in climate change the world faces the most dangerous and destructive threat in human history, although there are two other problems – exponential increase in world population in the last century, which is not sustainable, and over-exploitation and over-consumption of the Earth’s resources which WWF estimated by 2050 will require two Earths.

So what should be done?    Let’s look at global/national/local growth.  Scientists (99%) say by 2050 we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% or more, probably 80%+ compared with 1990.  Are we on track?  You must be joking.  If the Kyoto Protocol succeeds (which is far from certain) it will reduce greenhouse gases by 5% by 2010.  But the Kyoto Protocol only applies to 30 industrial countries, out of 185, and the other 155 include China and India which make up half the global population.  If they are included, as they must be, we are not looking at 5%, but +75% by 2025.  So globally, we are way off target.

So, how do we get China, India and the others on side?  Only be setting an example: they say – you caused it, so you take the lead, don’t expect us to bail you out when you’ve already got wealth and prosperity that we have the right to get too.

So, are we taking the lead?   Well, sort of, because the EU has the best record of any continental bloc, but most EU states are still likely to miss their targets by a large margin.

What about the UK?   Well, the Government talks a lot about giving the lead (good), and sets bold targets (good), but then keeps missing them.

The UK position is this.   The UK emitted approximately 160 million tonnes of carbon per year in 1990, so a 60% reduction by 2050 means we have to cut approximately 100 million tonnes of carbon by then, i.e. by approximately 2 million tonnes or carbon each year to 2050, but since 1997, instead of going down by 20 million tonnes of carbon, greenhouse gas emissions have actually risen, so we’re in trouble.

The good new is that, for all our failures so far, there are huge benefits to be had from cutting greenhouse gas emissions in creating new jobs, opening the way for cleaner industrial products, saving costs and increasing exports.  As John Gummer said in his report, “people haven’t yet realised the scale of challenge and size of opportunities”.

So what should be done in the UK?   In the UK greenhouse gas emissions come from four main sources:
1. Power generation, responsible for 35%.  At present, electricity generation comes overwhelmingly from coal and gas (high on CO2) because our renewables are the lowest in the EU at 4%.  What we should not be doing is fighting wars in the Middle East on behalf of the US to extract the last deposits of oil and gas to prop up an unsustainable economy and unsustainable way of life.  What we should be doing is launching a massive new initiative in renewables, especially wind energy (of which we have more than any in the EU), wave and tidal power, and solar feed-in tariffs.
2. Transport, responsible for 25%, but rising fastest, especially air travel.  What we should not be doing is doubling/trebling airport capacity, and actually subsidising air travel by 1-2% in real terms per year.  What we should be doing is requiring airlines (exempted from the Kyoto Protocol) to cut greenhouse gas emissions, via EU emissions trading system or Kyoto Protocol Mark II, and phase out short-haul flights and replace by high speed trains.  With cars, we should substantially widen vehicle excise duty with less for small vehicles and more for SUVs; introduce feebate (say £3k) on car sales and fast-develop Tesla electric car (which has nearly the same performance as petrol driven, but no greenhouse gas emissions).
3. Industry and public & private services, responsible for 20%.  What we should not be doing is de-regulating industry and commerce from environmental and sustainable obligations.  What each major industrial and commercial sector should be regulated to do is publish each year, company by company, not only greenhouse gas emissions, but their record on energy efficiency, waste generation, water consumption and transport impacts, so we can all see progress made, where failings are, and where and how they can be put right.
4. Households,  responsible for 20%.  What the Government is failing to do is tell people in very plain terms what they/we are responsible for, and therefore what they/we can/should do about it.  The facts are these – the Earth’s plant life can absorb about 12 billion tonnes of CO2 per year from human activities.  At the moment, humans produce about 36 billion tonnes of carbon per year.  Clearly sustainability is no more than 12 billion tonnes of carbon per year, i.e. on average, 2 tonnes for every man, woman and child on the planet.  Now the average UK carbon output is 10 tonnes of carbon per year per person, so each of us in the UK needs to cut greenhouse gas emissions from 10 to 2 tonnes of carbon per year and to do this we need to cut CO2 emissions by 3% per year so that we reach sustainability in 27 years, which is a good practical target.  The fact is it should not be difficult for us to reduce CO2 emissions significantly because currently so much is wasted, e.g. in a car, only 15-20% of the energy from the petrol reaches the wheels; in an oven, only 25% of gas cooks the food.

A lot can be done. 

A fifth of UK emissions are due to domestic heating, and if we had fully insulated houses, they would require no heating at all.

Large CO2 emissions caused by transporting goods for long distances (especially food) that can be produced locally (e.g. milk).

Half of the electricity we produce is lost from electricity lines across the country which we could avoid by renewables and micro-generation locally.

We manufacture many products to last five year, when it would take little more energy to make them last 25 years. 

How do you wake up people to the scale of this and what is required of them?  The  key policy needed is introducing for each family, according to its size, a carbon allowance which then has to be reduced per year, so as to reward the conscientious who reduce by more and penalise the wasteful who reduce by less.  That would teach people e.g. commuting to work 20 miles per day by car would generate one and a half tonnes of carbon per year; having a holiday, parents + two children, in France by plane would generate 4 tonnes of carbon; one return trip to New York by one person would generate 8 tonnes of carbon; cooker, fridge, washing machine, dishwasher would generate 6 tonnes of carbon.  That is nearly 20 tonnes of carbon per year for a family even before heating costs for their home are included and it will concentrate minds on what can and cannot be environmentally afforded.

This is neither a hair shirt nor a utopian vision.  Whether it is fundamentally new forms of power generation, transportation systems, industrial processes or individual life-styles, they are the only means to secure a sustainable world economy and a sustainable human civilisation.  They are the only means to stop us cheating on our children.  It’s up to us: are we ready?