Our war on the climate

 Last week I caught a news item on BBC radio telling us that our spanking new (relatively) aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, was now in the Gulf of Oman having returned from the South China Sea where it had been carrying out exercises - presumably to frighten the People's Rebublic of China. Now our Defence Minister was saying it could also be useful in fighting terrorism.... Rather a blunt weapon, I'd have thought. However the part of the report that most caught my attention was that during its voyage there had been daily sorties by the 'elite' F-35 fighter-bombers. Whether these are UK or US planes I don't know.

But I thought, "Every day? Are you joking? When in Glasgow world leaders are talking about climate change..." I imagine each of those planes burns a load of fuel each time it takes off. Well, today I find I wasn't wrong. In fact I was thinking far too small. Will de Freitas, Environment and Energy of the admirable Conversation wrote this.

"At full speed, a fighter jet can burn through hundreds of gallons of fuel per minute. When you add up the emissions caused by all the planes, ships, tanks and missiles used by militaries across the world you get a substantial “carbon bootprint”. But though every country in the world is represented at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, their militaries are not. That’s despite the total emissions of armed forces and their suppliers being larger than civil aviation and shipping combined. In fact, thanks to exemptions written into the Paris Agreement, militaries don’t even need to report how much carbon they are emitting or where. One group of academics has done their best to track these emissions." So I of course looked at the article referred to: "COP26: how the world's militaries hide their huge carbon emissions". I think this is what a former would-be US president would call an inconvenient truth, but it's one governments and media would prefer us not to dwell on. Maybe the world won't be destroyed by nuclear weapons, as we used to fear in my younger days, but by our attachment to being global superpowers.

Modern magnificat

I hardly ever attempt to write poetry - as will become obvious. However on Sunday, which was still within the Christmas season, I was provoked to do so. Over the past year one of my joys, of which there have been a number, has been regular engagement with a church which lives out the good news to the marginalised in a way that I find resonates with my understanding of Christ, or, if you prefer, real love. So here it is.

Child of our time, God of eternity,
pity our dreadful extremity
terrors of plague, horrors of war
refugees drown, glaciers melt.
nurses and carers drop
peacemakers killed
mindless mobs follow demagogues
down self-interest’s hell hill

Child of single girl, God of humanity,
here in our world, knowing infirmity,
looks with compassion
where we dare not look.
he does not turn away
from society’s prey
holds the hand of men dying of Aids
hugs the child who daren’t say she’s gay

Child of our flesh, God of infinity,
here in our pain, knowing fragility,
walks through the brambles
where we dare not go.
he does not avoid
the depths of our fears
nightly he sits in the cell on death row
watches with the widow in tears

Child of seeking, God of identity,
at home in the halls of complexity,
and muddy streets of poverty
yet homeless himself
careless of debate
he embraces all
colours and children, beggars or rich,
‘love, love,’ is his call.

Child of the world, God of diversity,
silenced not by all our perversity
speaks through autistic girls,
old men in suits and in robes.
Christ, give us eyes to see
your compassion to be
in our streets where you are, aching to bless
with our presence his beloved.

11th January 2021  

Sculpture Safe in His Hand by Sarah Lomas

 

Coronavirus complacency

I am, regrettably, as readers of this blog will have realised, increasingly becoming that unattractive creature, a grumpy old man. Perhaps it's exacerbated by the frustration of lockdown added to disability. My usual sunny disposition seems to hide beneath the clouds. But I hope you'll allow me another moan.

One recent Sunday night as I brushed my teeth I heard this unpalatable interchange between Stephen Nolan and his guest on his Radio 5 Live show. It went something like this. Esther Rantzen, who was his guest, she of Childline and Silverline and That's Life had been arguing, I gather, that people over 70 whatever their state of health or fitness should confine themselves to their homes even when others were being allowed out as the epidemic eased off. She advanced good reasons for her thesis, and of course callers agreed and disagreed. Then Stephen Nolan asked:

"SN How tough are you finding it all?

"ER  Do you want the truth...? Promise you won’t tell anyone...? 

Like Michael Palin this morning, Michael Palin said. Getting up and finding you haven’t got an alarm clock waking you at 7, suddenly finding you haven’t got to get up and do this and that and the other, suddenly being able to reflect a little bit, about the crucial things in life, the most precious things in life, having an opportunity just to write things down for your grandchildren, it’s such an extraordinary opportunity. 

The Queen talked about having time to reflect, and I’m hoping we come out of this with some idea about what life is really for and about, who the people are in our lives, about what the world is for. (You know when someone quotes Michael Palin and the Queen it's a weak idea that needs propping up.)

"SN  I’ve spoken to you a number of times over the years… Here’s the truth about me. I agree with you. I’m working 7 days a week around the clock for the last 20 odd years. You know what this business is like….

I’ve seen more of my house in the last 5 or 6 weeks than in 5 or 6 years. And do you know what? I kinda enjoy it. I enjoy the simplicity of not rushing out to work, and looking up and seeing the colour of the sky, and having a bit of time for me and a bit of time to think. Now I wouldn’t want it to go on for ever, but actually it’s not that bad - for me.

"ER. And we’ve watched a beautiful spring, the sunniest April since records began. I know it’s a disaster because it’s global warming and all that, but it’s been so beautiful…. I think it’s the workaholics like you are and I used to be this is a very useful splash of cold water to make us recognise that actually we were cutting out of our lives the things that make life worth living."

Well, it was a very lovely piece of homespun philosophy - with which I partly agreed - but I'm afraid it annoyed me. It was so coy and complacent. These very well-fed broadcasters who without doubt have very nice houses (probably more than one), investments and savings, and who are continuing to earn and can look forward to triple-locked pensions as well as occupational schemes, can afford to enjoy "the extraordinary opportunity" of lockdown. But there are many more who can't. There are millions more who are struggling and will be much worse off after this whole thing is "part of history".

March saw a rise in rainforest deforestation in the Amazon of 30% in March compared to last year, while the rest of the world was distracted with COVID-19. Also contributing to the problem of climate change, large areas of blanket bog in Northern Ireland were set on fire last week. As Ms Rantzen, put it, lightly, "it’s global warming and all that". The virus will be nothing compared to the effects of global warming. That would the real "disaster".

Photo: BBC TV

And the ones who will suffer from it are not the generation of the post-war baby boomers or the preceding generation. It's the very ones who are bearing the brunt of the present enforced restrictions, and will for decades to come be paying for the necessary but seemingly unending stream of £ billions of government expenditure in the face of the virus. I can understand why the government toyed with the idea of "herd immunity" which would have at least culled many of us pensioners and perhaps shortened the pandemic's grip here. (However I'm glad they changed their tune since it seems a particularly unpleasant way to die.)  

To give him his due, before the news Stephen Nolan did give a nod to the younger generation who are hit hardest: the single parents' restricted to their urban flats, workers in the gig economy, the millions whose work had suddenly gone, those hoping to buy their first home. They can't afford to admire the spring-time; they have to work all hours merely to survive. They can't rely on foodbanks and charity for ever. Their lives will never be the same. Their personal economies will not recover. We have personal security but we have very probably impoverished the next generation and their children. The least we can do for them is to act as decisively as we have been scared by COVID-19 into doing in the face of climate change - "led by the science". We may yet be able to save them at least from climate catastrophe.

A wise man named Alexander returns to earth

Alexander Gerst has twice been an astronaut with the International Space Station, once 2014 and once this year. He returned to earth this morning in Kazakhstan. Earlier this year, the 42-year-old geophysicist and volcanologist was shocked by the difference he witnessed as he viewed the earth from space. A month ago he recorded a message for his unborn grandchildren. It should be listened to, by everyone.

Alexander Gerst's message to grandchildren

“Dear grandchildren,

“You have not been born yet, and I do not know if I will ever meet you, so I’ve decided to record this message for you. I’m on the International Space Station in the Cupola Observation Module gazing down at your beautiful planet. And although I’ve now almost spent a year of my life in space and looked at Earth every single day, I just can’t get enough of this view.

“I know it probably sounds strange to you, but at the time the Space Station was built and was up here in orbit, not everyone was able to travel into space and see the Earth from a distance. Before me, only around 500 people had the chance. At this very moment, there are 7 billion people living down there on Earth and only three of them live in space. And when I look down at the planet, I think I need to apologise to you.

 

“Right now, it looks like we – my generation – are not going to leave this planet in its best condition for you. Of course, in retrospect many people will say they weren’t aware of what we were doing. But in reality, we humans know that right now we’re polluting the planet with carbon dioxide, we're making the climate reach tipping point, we’re clearing forests, we’re polluting the oceans with garbage, we’re consuming the limited resources far too quickly, and we’re waging mostly pointless wars.

“And every one of us has to take a good look at themselves and think about where this is leading. I very much hope for our own sake that we can still get our act together and improve a few things. And I hope that we won’t be remembered by you as the generation who selfishly and ruthlessly destroyed your livelihood.

“I’m sure you understand these things much better than my generation. And who knows, maybe we’ll learn something new, such as: taking a step always helps; this fragile spaceship called Earth is much smaller than most people can imagine; how fragile the Earth’s biosphere is and how limited its resources are; that it's worth getting along with your neighbours; that dreams are more valuable than money and you have to give them a chance; that boys and girls can do things equally well, but that every one of you has one thing that he or she can do much better than all the others; that the simple explanations are often wrong and that one’s own point of view is always incomplete; that the future is more important than the past; that one should never fully grow up; and that opportunities only come along once. You have to take a risk for things that are worth it, and any day during which you discovered something new – one where you gazed beyond your horizon – is a good day.

“I wish I could look into the future through your eyes, into your world and how you see it. Unfortunately, that is not possible and therefore the only thing that remains for me is to try to make your future the best one I can possibly imagine.

International Space Station – Commander of Expedition 57, Alexander Gerst – 25 November 2018 – 400 km above the Earth's surface”

What a great perspective! Politicians generally have such short-term vision. If they could only see what’s needed for their grandchildren’s and great-grandchildren’s good! And if only we, who elect them, would - while we can!

I am voting REMAIN

I'm a bit upset to find that my post in which I expressed my doubts about the EU has widely been taken as an indication that I was in favour of Brexit. It is true that I was leaning that way, but all in the end I said was that "I ha'e my doots". Since then I have clearly said that I am going to vote to Remain. That however has not had such wide circulation.

So I want to make my position quite clear. As the final days of the campaign have unfolded, the barely disguised racism and xenophobia of the Brexiteers has more than saddened me, appealing as it does to the basest tribal instincts in us. Moreover, although they talk about the fear tactics of the Remain campaign (with a modicum of justice), their scaremongering is even worse. As a Christian one of things that most saddens me is to hear other Christians implying that the middle-east refugee crisis is an Islamic plot to flood "Christian Europe" with Muslims, and thus imperil the Church in this country. The corollary of this that they would choose a religion-based immigration policy (similar to Donald Trump's "no Muslim" policy). It seems to me that this totally fails to see the fact that the refugees are not seeking to invade but to escape unimaginable destruction and suffering caused in part by so-called Christian powers. It seems to me utterly inhumane. It's also a failure of faith in  Christ's promise that not even the gates of hell would prevail against his Church.

That is to say nothing of the immorality of the Brexit cure-all for immigration, the quota system. This is based on a points system such as the one used in Australia, which is designed to limit entrance to those with skills that are needed here. Skills like doctors, nurses, teachers, for example. Sounds sensible - until you take the trouble to think of the consequences for the émigrés' nations. These will generally be poor and developing countries who have funded these professionals' training and who need their skills more than we do. In fact their development depends on such people far more than on aid. What the quota system does is contribute to increasing the rich/poor divide in the world. It is the epitome of unneighbourliness.

It is a pity, it seems to me, that we have not heard more of the positive reasons to remain, which I briefly alluded to previously. The best summary I have come across is this.

"We are convinced that working together is vital for our human family. Our vision is for a world where all people live in peace with the opportunity to thrive. We believe that Britain’s membership of the European Union is a key way we can help make that happen. Here are five reasons why:

1. Peace and security. The European Union was established in the aftermath of two world wars to build and maintain peace in Europe. In 70 years, it has made European war unimaginable by bringing together leaders in co-operation, not conflict. Against the borderless threat of terror, the people of Europe are stronger together. By remaining in the EU, Britain will not only continue to be a part of this project but help lead it.

2. Community. Through our membership of the EU, Britain belongs to a community that crosses national borders to work for our mutual benefit. A community that celebrates inclusion and diversity enriches all its members.

3. The environment. Climate change and air pollution do not stop at borders. Every nation needs to take action to tackle them and protect our environment worldwide. The EU has taken a strong lead through binding agreements that commit its members to specific action leading to lasting change. Our membership of the EU has the welfare of all humanity in its sights by protecting the planet that is our common home.

4. Human dignity and social justice. The EU was founded on a strong emphasis on the solidarity that promotes and protects human rights. By being part of the EU, many basic rights we now take for granted have been protected. The EU also stands up for justice for those outside the EU, for example in relation to international development and human trafficking, matters that can only be tackled with international cooperation.

5. Prosperity. Inside a free trade area with access to its markets, British businesses – small and large – are able to export goods and to prosper. Millions of jobs have been created, and hundreds of billions of pounds of investment have helped strengthen our economy." (from Christians for Europe)

That the future of the planet could be affected might seem far-fetched, and yet it is true that global warming knows no boundaries. A friend, Martin Hodson, who's a leader in environmental studies, wrote this, "I work a lot in this area, and the EU has been very good for the environment. We need to work together to tackle problems like climate change." 

I watched John Snow interviewing the war veteran, Franklin Medhurst, on Channel 4 last night. His message was clear. He wrote it in a moving letter to the Guardian. 

"It is helpful to be old, for in my lifetime I have seen world population increase threefold; a stable seasonal climate become wildly unstable with drought, forest fires and floods; the pollution by humanity of the planet’s earth, air and waters to a stage where all life is threatened; and violence become a permanent, continuous tragedy in a world of great uncertainty.

The only stable community in this universal upheaval has been the European Union, formed from the wreckage of a continent for which I and millions of others fought six years of war. I write as a former airman, having flown well over 2,000 hours against three despotic enemy nations. That victory for the democracies has given Europe 70 years of peace and security in a widely unstable world. The “leave” chancers are campaigning to abandon this steady progress, citing values false or irrelevant, while they have no plan of what to do after jumping ship.

If the nation should fall for this deceit I can only conclude that the lives of my comrades – Irish, Scots, Welsh and English – were lost in vain. They will be rattling their bones, wherever in the world they fell, at the loss of the beliefs for which they fought.

Britain in Europe will enhance progress to higher values in the greater world; Britain out means a return to the early-20th-century chaos of warring states against each other.

I am 96. I remember how far we have come. I know what we stand to lose.
Franklin Medhurst, DFC (RAF 1939-46)
Carlton, County Durham"

It seems to me tragic that so many are now wishing the break-up of the union that rose from the ashes of two dreadful wars and has been the basis for peace and stability since then. I know it is dressed up in jingoistic language, like taking back control and Britain being great again. But actually it is such a little vision. As the great poet said, "No man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Manor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee." The fact is that Europe needs us - and we need Europe. It's not that the EU is perfect. No one on either side of the Channel believes that. So we need to be a part of it in order to be part of the discussions which will contribute to its reform and improvement, for our neighbours' and for our own sake. We will be better remaining together. 

Hence I shall be voting that we Remain.

Struggles

We were delighted to discover that our visitor this weekend, Tony, is addicted to 'Strictly Come Dancing' - which means of course that instead of an evening of polite conversation we'll be able to indulge our Saturday night habit of ignorantly commenting on the merits of the dancing celebrities.  Ever since I learned of Ricky Whittle's taking dancing lessons in preparation for the series and especially since Chris Hollins' highly entertaining Charleston, I've been rooting for Chris and Ola - in a passive sort of way (none of this wasting money on phoning).  I'm told they're the people's favourite 'because of the journey', whereas Ricky's the judge's favourite because of his skill.  Interesting that: reminds me of the phrase, 'not because of works lest any man should boast'.

Meanwhile on a rather different level of significance the fortnight-long UN summit on climate change has come to an end.  I suspect the hope of achieving 'a legally binding agreement' at the end was always a pipe dream.  With 190+ states wanting to protect their own interests, only the most optimistic idealist could have hoped for a universal agreement.  And I've always wondered what sanctions in law would have been imposed on transgressors.  So there are some people bemoaning the talks as a complete failure, while the UN Secretary General, Mr Ban told journalists: "It may not be everything we hoped for, but this decision of the Conference of Parties is an essential beginning."  Robert Bailey, of Oxfam International, said: "It is too late to save the summit, but it's not too late to save the planet and its people."
I was interested by the quasi-religious terminology he used.  Religious fundamentalism is an accusation often made by the climate sceptics, I've noticed.  "We're not allowed to question the scientific orthodoxy on the subject," they complain.  Well, personally, I agree with Ban Ki-moon in his determination to press on towards something more concrete.  It seems to me that having brought China, the USA, Brazil, India and South Africa into the mainstream process was no mean achievement.  And it's up to us to keep praying for our political leaders.

The future of life on earth

Today two of my grandchildren, aged 5 and 4, are going on their first public demonstration in London, to do with climate change. So look out for them on the TV reports, with their mum, all wearing blue wigs, I'm told! And it's fair enough it seems to me. It will be their world that really suffers if we don't manage to curb our rampant consumerism. It's a pity, though not surprising, that the East Anglia University email leaks have proved that scientists are not always so objective and 'factual' as Prof Nutt and his supporters had us believe. Jonathan Sachs on the other hand did another good Thought for the Day on Friday, suggesting among other things we reduced our consumption by taking one day a week off. May not be an original idea, but it has supreme credentials. God knows what's best for the world.

As promised here is the letter I wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions about assisted suicide, or more specifically about his interim guidelines. I very much hope that there is no back-door alteration of the law as it stands. That, it seems to me, would be undermining the primacy of Parliament.

Assisted Suicide Policy Team
Crown Prosecution Service Headquarters - 6th floor
50 Ludgate Hill
London
EC4M 7EX

Dear Mr Starmer

I’d like to respond to your Interim policy for prosecutors in respect of cases of assisted suicide. Before enclosing my replies to the questionnaire, I have some important preliminary points to make, which I hope will bear as much weight as my proforma answers.

First, I suffer from Primary Lateral Sclerosis, an uncommon and protracted form of Motor Neurone Disease. This means I come into all three categories of ‘a terminal illness, a severe and incurable disability and a severe degenerative physical condition’ from which there is, at present, 'no possibility of recovery'. Although I am not convinced that this gives me a peculiar right to be listened to, it does at least mean that I am among those whom this redefinition of the law is intended to benefit.

Secondly, it seems to me that the Law Lords, from the best of motives, have put you in the invidious position of effectively redefining the law, which is not your role. Whatever policy guidelines you enunciate ought, I believe, to define the present law as it stands and not in fact redefine it in such a way to change its original intention - which would be to create a new law. I realise that what you are seeking to do is to define what ‘public interest’ is in such cases, but I think you have been set an impossible task in doing that without changing the law.

Thirdly, there is a danger, I feel, that in attempting to deal with a hard case we will end up with bad law. There is no doubt that end of life decisions for people like Debbie Purdy and myself are hard cases. But those are decisions for us to wrestle with. The role of this law, as I understand it, is to protect the vulnerable. Any erosion of this protection would be an undermining of the law. It seems to me the guidelines especially run into this danger by specifying victims with terminal illness, permanent disability or degenerative conditions as public interest factors against prosecution, while avoiding it well in specifying minority and special needs as factors in favour. Would it not be better to leave the absence of terminal illness, disability and degenerative conditions in the factors in favour alone, rather than give the appearance of inviting people to assist the suicide of people with those conditions?

Fourthly, I am concerned by the use of ‘compassion’ as a mitigating factor. My reservation is not with the concept, but with the problem of definition. Although it’s a profoundly noble virtue (‘suffering with’), it can easily be debased to mean ‘feeling sorry for’ and even ‘not being able to bear watching any longer’. ‘I acted wholly out of compassion,’ seems to me too easy a defence, which is very hard to disprove. Although it will be probably be genuine in nine cases out of ten, I can see it being used as a pretext by the unscrupulous abuser.

Fifthly, whilst I can see the logic of the close long-term relationship of the suspect to the victim being a mitigating factor against prosecution, most abuse, I believe, takes place within domestic contexts, where it is never witnessed. Again the overriding need for the law to protect the most vulnerable is in danger of being compromised. (Incidentally I should have thought that there is some internal inconsistency between factor 7 for and factor 6 against, as a spouse or partner will normally benefit financially.)

So far I realise I have been negative in my comments, but as my completed questionnaire shows I’m not totally so! I agree with some of the factors against, and all for. For instance, I strongly agree that any business or campaign with the aim of promoting euthanasia should know it runs the risk of prosecution if it actively involves itself in ending an individual’s life. I am sure no one is more aware than yourself of the minefield you’ve been instructed to walk through. I must say that I have admired the way that you and your predecessors have handled this painful issue. Personally I am sorry that your judicious discretion is not being left intact. I very much hope that the deterrent effect of the law as it stands is not diluted. I believe that it’s important that we signal the ultimate value of life in every way possible. I wish you well as you work out the final guidelines.

Yours sincerely