Dear Kemi
Green Christian member, Edward Gildea, wrote this open letter to Kemi Badenoch in response to her weakening of the Conservative’s Net Zero policy
Dear Kemi,
I am hoping that your Conservative Policy regarding Net Zero has been based on new, peer-reviewed science of which I am unaware.
It stands to reason that, until we reach Net Zero, extreme weather events are bound to get worse. We will be pumping net positive amounts of Green House Gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect and therefore subjecting ourselves to more floods, droughts, wildfires, droughts and harvest failures.
Have you based your policy on research that argues that such events will not get more extreme until we reach Net Zero? If not, how much more extreme does your policy calculate is acceptable?
It also seems clear to me that the cost of not addressing the climate crisis will be far, far greater that the costs of addressing it. The Los Angeles wildfires alone are set to cost $135 billion, and these figures are replicated on a weekly if not a daily basis around the globe. These are not ‘once in a lifetime’ costs. They will recur with greater intensity until we reach Net Zero, increasing food prices, making insurance more expensive, requiring more sea and flood defences and placing a greater burden on the NHS to treat the elderly for heat stress.
Can you pass on to me any evidence-based research that shows that this will not be the case?
It is often argued that technology will save us, such as carbon capture and storage (CSS). My understanding is that this is massively expensive and even at unprecedented scales will only remove a tiny fraction of our current output of GHGs. The cost will be far greater than the tax-payer can afford, so I imagine could only be funded by a hefty carbon tax.
I presume that delaying Net Zero means that you do not see CSS as a solution, or only as a very limited one, which would be a point we agree on. Or do you envisage a Carbon Tax?
One of my nightmares concerns Permafrost. The permafrost in Siberia and Canada is already melting at an alarming rate, releasing vast quantities of methane as it does so. Methane is 80 times more powerful as a GHG than CO2, and although it breaks down after 20 years or so, that is 20 years in which more permafrost melts, releasing more methane in an unstoppable feedback loop. One which I don’t think humanity could survive.
Before developing your policy, did you access any research to show how we might prevent this feedback loop kicking in and so prevent the massive acceleration global heating that would ensue? I would be very keen to be reassured.
Of course, Net Zero is only the start of the race our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will have to run to start removing the GHGs from the atmosphere and then, over decades and generations take the excess heat out of our oceans which drive the extreme weather events humanity must suffer.
Have you done any calculations around the increased burden you will be placing on our grandchildren as a consequence of your postponement of the Net Zero goal? Young people already struggle with student debt, high rents and massive problems in getting onto the housing ladder. Are you sure that your policy won’t make life even harder for them?
I look forward eagerly to your responses to these questions,
Yours sincerely
Edward Gildea
Edward Gildea writes magazine articles for his local church, St Mary’s, Saffron Walden in north west Essex, each month.
Comments on "Dear Kemi"
Edward Gildea:
Still no reply from Kemi 5 weeks on....
Judith Russenberger:
What an excellent letter. I do hope you get a reply from Kemi
Add your own comment to "Dear Kemi"
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Next: A Possible National Gallery Press Release
Previous: Introducing Rosemary Nakasiita
Leave a Reply