Sir, – Cliff Taylor's piece "Climate action will cost us – that's why it is difficult" is to be welcomed in terms of contributing to the public discussion on addressing the climate crisis (Opinion & Analysis, December 28th).
However, the framing of climate action (and not forgetting about the interconnected ecological emergency) solely in terms of “cost” is at best unbalanced and partial. And at worst casts the necessary and inevitable need for urgent action in negative terms likely to lead to resistance.
It is undoubtedly the case that a “just transition” beyond carbon energy will be costly, but here three issues need to be considered.
The first is the cost of climate inaction – the damage to our economy from the risks posed by climate and ecological breakdown.
The second, and at the heart of the just transition, is the distribution of the costs of the transition, to ensure the most vulnerable are not disadvantaged. It is inevitable that we need to plan the retirement of the carbon energy system (here we should reframe “fossil fuels” as fossil resources, that is not to view them solely as energy sources), and this will require divestment from fossil energy and associated impacts on jobs in that sector. Hence the importance of ensuring no community will be left behind and unfairly disadvantaged. And this will require financing compensation, retraining and relocation of displaced workers, as has recently been done in Spain in relation to the closure of its coal mines. In short, while the transition beyond carbon energy is inevitable, that it will be just is not.
The final point, and perhaps most important in terms of framing our public discussion of climate action, is that while we need to be upfront about the costs involved, let us not forget about the multiple benefits. These benefits include not just the reduction of the existential risks posed by climate and ecological breakdown (there are no jobs or investment opportunities on a degraded planet), but also cleaner air, improved health outcomes, improved energy security (as more electricity is produced from indigenous sources) and a more geopolitically stable world (a renewable-energy future reduces the risks of oil wars).
So, while we need to be clear about the costs (but here an analogy might be useful: if we think education is expensive, we should try ignorance), to generate popular support for climate action we need to also outline the multiple benefits this will bring.
After all, what if climate breakdown is a hoax and we create a greener, cleaner and more prosperous economy for nothing? – Yours, etc,
JOHN BARRY,
Professor of Green
Political Economy,
School of History,
Anthropology,
Philosophy and Politics,
Queen’s University
Belfast.