The year is 1970, and the issue of climate change is a small cloud on the horizon

It’s a matter for special interest groups, really – such as the activists who persuade the United Nations to hold its first Earth Day and the scientists who found the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as America’s “intelligence agency for the environment”.

Over the next 30 years the data accumulates, satellite images are examined and calculations lead to projections. The best cases are bad, the worst cases calamitous, and as far as timetables go, it’s later than anybody had thought.

Howard Covington

Howard Covington, a physicist and investment banker, and member of the Scotia Group’s Inception Commission, gave a concise explanation of what this framework has to achieve: halving global carbon emissions by 2030. Anything less would be, in his words, yet another step on the road to a hot, sour, stormy, flooded, burned and barren world.

Firstly, there are the agreements that have been at the heart of previous climate summits: binding, quantified commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Since this is more feasible for developed economies, this should be done by coalitions of the willing and able.

Regulatory targets can be backed up by market mechanisms such as carbon pricing and carbon border taxes, both areas in which the EU has shown leadership, and where the US can add its economic heft. And market mechanisms should be adjusted so that clean technologies are affordable for developing countries – a logical rather than an altruistic goal, since carbon reduction anywhere benefits everyone everywhere.

A special case are the hydrocarbon economies who have a vested interest in maintaining fossil fuel use: they should be encouraged to invest their resources in hydrogen production, as well as wind and solar energy.

Reverend Johnnie Moore

The first main speaker of the event was Reverend Johnnie Moore, President of the Congress of Christian Leaders. He has made a point of amplifying the voices of unconventional and marginalised groups and individuals, who spend just as much time thinking about the climate issue as do the conventional and the well-platformed. These include activists, evangelicals, scientists and the intensely bothered. They should be able to make a contribution without being side-tracked by the political distrust so common between people who, as it were, drive bulldozers and those who lie down in front of them. 

Dr Kirsty Duncan

The second speaker was to take the floor, was Dr Kirsty Duncan, Deputy Leader of the Government in Canada’s House of Commons. Her message: we have nine years to avert the worst consequences of the climate crisis. This means that 2021 can be reclassified as T-minus-nine. This deadline has created a sense of urgency among young people, as the spontaneous Extinction Rebellion demonstrations showed in 2018 (or T minus 12).

It is not necessary to be an advocate of civil disobedience to see that this level of engagement is valuable, and Ms Duncan stressed the importance of incorporating the voices of the youth – from all backgrounds, cultures, orientations, and abilities – in the decarbonisation plan.

This point leads to the need to fight climate change at community level and in the domain of everyday life, where cycling and recycling are both encouraged, and children do not go to school with asthma inhalers in their lunch boxes.

A healthy environment is a basic human right.

It is also something that communities can design themselves, and pass what they’ve learned on to others – if they are given the voice and tools to act. Glasgow is a chance to move from design to delivery.

Professor Niall Ferguson

The last of the speakers was Professor Niall Ferguson, renowned historian and a senior academic at the academic holy trinity of Stanford, Harvard and Oxford. He noted that the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that the worst-case scenario – in which emissions continue to rise throughout the 21st century – has grown more probable, because only a handful of countries are on track to meet the Paris emission reduction targets.

He outlined two fundamental points that, in his opinion, do not receive sufficient attention in the climate change discourse. Firstly, we should disregard the extremists in the environmental movement. We are unlikely to achieve a workable consensus if we attempt to meet unrealistic carbon targets under the pressure of an impending apocalypse. There is more than one way to wreck an economy, and as the Covid-19 pandemic has demonstrated, an end to economic growth means an end to employment and the start of serious social disruption.

Secondly, we have to consider whether China can meet its target of becoming carbon neutral by 2060. Its credentials as a world-beating maker of wind-turbine and solar panels is matched only by its success in building coal-fired power stations. This matters because China contributes nearly half of the increase in global emissions since the 2015 Paris Agreement, whereas emissions from the EU, the UK, and the US have been declining.

Dr Sailele Malielegaoi

Finally, a special message was delivered from the former Prime Minister of Samoa, the Honourable Tuilaepa Dr Sailele Malielegaoi. Of all the future victims of climate change, none are more innocent than the Pacific islanders, who produce negligible carbon but face existential threats within a generation. Dr Sailele Malielegaoi stressed the importance of financing the advanced infrastructure that will be required for the energy transition, since the uptake of renewable energy is not increasing at the scale and pace needed to save the thousands of island from inundation.

He concluded by urging the international community to revise principles of development cooperation and create pathways to sustainable financing for developing countries through the climate and social agenda. If any crumbs of comfort are to be found in the long agony of the coronavirus, it is that we have learned the importance of international cooperation, and how much we need to do to achieve it. 

The closed session that followed the public dialogue was attended by 30 members and observers of the Scotia Group.

This majlis – taken from the Arabic term for council of deliberation – explored some of the ideas raised in the public session.

For practical action, combination of short and long-term planning is necessary. We have to pace ourselves, because it is just as easy to overestimate what can be achieved in one year as it is to underestimate what is achievable in 10. There was an additional view from the private sector calling for greater corporate involvement in global climate action. It was proposed that the involvement of institutions, actors and ideas were as necessary as that of technology, policy and consumers.

The open discussion emphasised the need for legally binding targets – governments should be open to judicial challenge if they fail to keep their commitments, and they should be sufficiently transparent about their progress to make this possible. This gives lawyers and judges important roles in the struggle against climate change. How sure are we that the legal sector is ready to become involved – from the expertise of judicial officers to the adequacy of case law?

Greater investment is required in the renewable generation, smart distribution, innovative storage systems and action to cut consumption. This is not simply a question of more money: the renewable systems from the turbine to the plug socket needs to be more innovative and inclusive.

Although the EU Green Deal was lauded, we need a climate investment mechanism that can be extended to cover all major sources of carbon.