All the talking, all the documentaries, all the international negotiations about climate change have resulted in a net achievement of less than nothing: Global emissions just keep going up and up. As Pete Postlethwaite’s character says in the film The Age of Stupid, “We wouldn’t be the first life form to wipe itself out. But what would be unique about us is that we did it knowingly.”
That’s the crux of it. We are the most intelligent creature yet to evolve. The first to understand how the overstretching resources to extinction pathway works, and the first with the potential to use our big brains to jump off that pathway before it’s too late.
To maximize our chances of preventing runaway climate change, we must quickly and massively cut global emissions. To do that, we need a binding international treaty, and the last chance we have to get that within the timescale of the physics of the planet is the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen in December. Hence the “Most important meeting in human history” moniker.
Clearly the treaty isn’t just made up on the spot: they’ve been working on it for years. The best deal currently on the table is that from the EU, which calls for a 30 percent reduction by 2020 (compared with 1990 levels). If this deal were to be accepted — which is a very big if, given that Japan argues for 8 percent, Australia for 5 percent and the US for between 0 percent and 6 percent — and if the emission cuts were then carried out — which is an even bigger if — this would give us about a 50/50 chance of not hitting the dreaded 2°C. Two degrees is where we trigger runaway climate change: two leads to three, three to four, four to five, five to six ... by which time it’s about over for life on Earth.
In other words, our elected leaders are giving us — at best — a coin-flip chance of avoiding catastrophe. It is hard to imagine a more total failing of our political system. Imagine if they were standing at a plane door. “Come on citizens, get on this plane — 50-50 chance of a safe landing: ... ”
All of which means that we non-politician humans who depend on the climate remaining habitable had best jump into action.
By signing up to 10:10, you will commit yourself, your school, your hospital, your church, your business, to cut 10 percent of your emissions next year. Which is easy. It’s at the level of changing lightbulbs, turning down heating, driving a bit less and maybe sticking in some insulation. Four of the big six energy companies in the UK have already signed up to help their customers cut their energy usage over the course of the year. Groups from E.ON to the Women’s Institute to Tottenham Hotspur Football Club to the Science Museum started rushing to sign up before we’d barely formulated the plan.
As well as being achievable for the vast majority of the population, 10 percent in one year is the kind of cut the science tells us we need.
Once we have a sizeable chunk of the UK signed up then the next step is to challenge the government to follow suit: to commit to reduce the whole country’s emissions by 10 percent next year. If one of the biggest historical culprits — that’s us — stepped forward and made the first move, it just might change the outcome at Copenhagen. International negotiations have long been hamstrung by “It’s all China’s fault,” or “We’re not playing if America’s not playing,” and so the UK going 10:10 may break the deadlock.
Two weeks after the talks in Denmark finish — whatever their outcome — on Jan. 1 next year the people of Britain will start getting on with solving the problem, supported by the Energy Saving Trust, the Carbon Trust and tonnes of online resources. Everyone who successfully completes their 10 percent cut should find themselves richer, as a result of saving money on their energy bills; fitter, as a result of the walking and cycling replacing some car trips; and with more friends — the colleagues they car-pooled with or the neighbors who helped walk all the kids to school. More important, everyone who takes part will know that their efforts are part of the nationwide effort to prevent catastrophe.
I was born in the early 1970s, part of the MTV generation who were told by a million advertisements that the point of our existence was to shop more. Daunting though the task ahead may be, I feel enormously inspired and quite relieved that it turns out that we have something important to do. The people who came before us didn’t know about climate change and the ones who come after will be powerless to stop it.
So it’s down to us. Other generations came together to overturn slavery or end apartheid or win the vote for women. There is nothing intrinsically more useless about our generation and there is no doubt about what we have to do. The only question that remains is whether or not we give it a go.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
RSS