30 Aug 2024 Ian Campbell to UKHACC:

Re: UKHACC August Bulletin

Thank you for sending the August Bulletin from UKHACC.

I'm writing with a resource for the September Bulletin concerning the UK’s carbon budget.

The resource is published on the website of Scientists for Global Responsibility at https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-s-fair-carbon-budget-will-run-out-2026-here-s-evidence, with a longer version at https://www.carbonindependent.org/170.html.

In summary, the UK's fair share of the global carbon budget for 1.5°C runs out in 2026, i.e. much sooner than is being generally discussed, and requiring radical transformation of society.

The implication for the UKHACC is that its recommended timescale of emission cuts of Net Zero 2040 is not in line with the climate science, and so amounts to misinformation - so the recommendation should be withdrawn and replaced by one of emission cuts of over 90% by 2030.

Please get back to me if you have any queries on this vitally important subject.

Kind regards,

Ian

3 Sep 2024 UKHACC to Ian Campbell:

Re: UKHACC August Bulletin

Dear Ian,

Thank you so much for sharing this with us. Our policy recommendations are reviewed and updated as we work on individual policy positions and we will take note of all the evidence available when we are next reviewing the overarching calls.

Best wishes

4 Sep 2024: Ian Campbell to Richard Smith, Chair of UKHACC

Re: UKHACC August Bulletin - and the UKHACC’s target of Net Zero 2040 is the wrong target

Dear Dr Smith,

Please could you clarify the response that I have received from the UKHACC regarding the UKHACC's recommended target of Net Zero 2040 being the wrong target.

Does it mean that the UKHACC will continue to advocate Net Zero 2040 as an acceptable target for emission reduction despite knowing that it is the wrong target?

Given the gravity of the climate situation, would that not be a scandalous state of affairs?

Sincerely,

Ian Campbell MD FRCS FRCR

PS: I'm copying in Dr Stuart Parkinson, Executive Director, Scientists for Global Responsibility

6 Sep 2024 Richard Smith, Chair UKHACC to Ian Campbell:

From Richard Smith

Dear Ian Campbell,

Thank you for your letter.

You point out that Scientists for Global Responsibility calculate that the UK's fair share of the global carbon budget for keeping the rise in global temperature below an increase of 1.5C will run out in 2026. Although you will know that it's likely that other scientists may take a different view, the calculation seems plausible and broadly right. We made a similar calculation a couple of years ago.

I think it is now widely accepted that the world has little or no chance in keeping the increase below 1.5C.

Science is only one of the factors that is considered in setting a target. The best target is one that is not easily reached but at the same time not impossible.

You'll know that the UK target for net zero is 2050, and you'll know that the UK is not on track to achieve that.

A target of reaching a 90% cut by 2030 is sadly an impossible target. It's impossible because the radical changes you point out would be necessary will be politically impossible.

In that context it would make little sense for UKHACC to advocate a target of a 90% cut by 2030. We opted for 2040, and that's the figure that was approved by our trustees and members. As you know, even that will be a tough target.

Best wishes

Richard Smith

27 Sep 2024: Ian Campbell to Richard Smith, Chair of UKHACC

Re: The UKHACC's target of Net Zero 2040 is the wrong target

Dear Dr Smith,

Thank you for your reply of 6 September.

I am responding with some 'critical friend' questions and comments by means of annotations of your text.

In summary, I would say that the current UKHACC policy of advocating a target of Net Zero 2040 lacks precision, lacks transparency, contradicts and undermines the IPCC, is not in line with what UK academics say is needed, and encourages climate complacency - and so it may well do more harm than good.

It should therefore be reconsidered urgently.

Kind regards,

Ian

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Your letter with my highlighting and annotations:

Thank you for your letter.

You point out that Scientists for Global Responsibility calculate that the UK's fair share of the global carbon budget for keeping the rise in global temperature below an increase of 1.5C will run out in 2026. Although you will know that it's likely that other scientists may take a different view,

No, I know of no different scientific view. My understanding is that there is a clear consensus of all the UK academic sources [1][2][3], and that the article on the Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) website [4] is in accord with this consensus. The clear consensus is not surprising as the maths is so simple.

It is a tragedy that the clear consensus on the urgency of climate action has been so poorly disseminated, and is so little discussed.

the calculation seems plausible and broadly right. We made a similar calculation a couple of years ago.

Since UKHACC has made a similar calculation, can I ask why this is not prominently displayed on the UKHACC website, and in UKHACC communications? It is the small size of the residual carbon budget, and the short time before it runs out at current emission levels that shows that climate action is very urgent.

The calculations also show the UK Government's Net Zero 2050 timescale of emission cuts to be grossly inadequate. As UKHACC knows it is inadequate, why is it not speaking up about this?

I think it is now widely accepted that the world has little or no chance in keeping the increase below 1.5C.

No, that's not correct. The UN is not saying this, and it is not UK Government policy.

Even if it is true, that does not mean global efforts should cease or be scaled back - every fraction of a degree matters, and efforts need to be intensified.

And whatever happens globally, the UK gave a commitment in the Paris Agreement to pursue efforts to limit global waming to 1.5°C. If some other countries have failed to keep their commitments, this does not mean that the UK should abandon its own commitment. Vulnerable communities around the world are pleading for the commitments to 1.5°C to be honoured. With its large historical per capita CO2 emisssions, the UK has a moral responsibility to show leadership and make determined efforts to phase out emissions rapidly.

Science is only one of the factors that is considered in setting a target. The best target is one that is not easily reached but at the same time not impossible.

Yes, and my understanding is that this was the basis of the Paris Agreement commitments to keeping global warming to well under 2°C, pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C, together with equity between nations [5].

Why does UKHACC want to set a different target from what was agreed internationally? If UKHACC feels that the UK should abandon the targets that stem from the Paris Agreement, transparency dictates that it should state this clearly and explain why.

You'll know that the UK target for net zero is 2050,

Yes, I know that the UK Government has a target of Net Zero 2050 with a roughly linear decline in emissions, and also that it has a commitment to the Paris Agreement, and crucially that these are not compatible because the UK's Net Zero 2050 pathway would take three time the UK's fair share of the global carbon budget for 1.5°C [2][6]. This failure of policy making needs to be widely publicised and challenged.

and you'll know that the UK is not on track to achieve that.

Yes, and we should consider why that is.

One problem that has been identified by SGR is that many climate campaigning groups are advocating inadequate policies. This has resulted in SGR launching a Science Oath for the Climate which includes commitments to "explain honestly, clearly and without compromise, what scientific evidence tells us about the seriousness of the climate emergency" and "not second-guess what might seem politically or economically pragmatic" [7]

I am a signatory and that is one reason why I am challenging UKHACC to stop advocating an inadequate policy and start telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

A target of reaching a 90% cut by 2030 is sadly an impossible target.

No it is not impossible, since there are circumstances (e.g. wars and pandemics) where it would happen. If the UK had to cut its emissions by 90% by 2030 because conflict limited fossil fuel availability, then the UK would obviously do this.

It is important to be clear that if a target that is possible is not met, it will be because we have chosen not to meet it - otherwise we fall into the language of denial [8].

It's impossible because the radical changes you point out would be necessary will be politically impossible.

But the radical changes that would be necessary were in effect agreed by the signing of the Paris Agreement, so at that point they were politically possible.

The problem we have is that the implications of signing the Paris Agreement of the UK's fair carbon budget running out in the mid 2020's, and double digit percentage annual emission cuts being needed [1] have been ignored by politicians, media, and many climate advocacy groups. This has been termed implicatory denial by climate sociologists [8]. Instead, Boris Johnson's fallacy of "no hairshirt needed" [9] has gone largely unchallenged and has been allowed to dominate decision making. The widespread failure to challenge the UK Government's malpractice is currently making radical change very difficult.

It is wrong to say it is politically impossible, because what is politically possible can be changed by disseminating accurate information and by protest [10].

We don't know what might happen if there was a concerted effort of climate campaigners to expose the Government malpractice and puncture the current climate complacency.

UKHACC could have played a role in making people aware of the implications of the Paris Agreement ("rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems" [11]), but it seems from your reply that it gave up without even trying, and instead has been advocating a timescale of emission reduction that will result in hundreds of millions of additional climate deaths. Shouldn't UKHACC be doing better than that?

In that context it would make little sense for UKHACC to advocate a target of a 90% cut by 2030.

It would make a lot of sense for UKHACC to advocate keeping to the Paris Agreement, and to tell the full truth about the urgency of climate action, including that the UK's fair carbon budget for 1.5°C runs out in 2026.

UKHACC's failure to speak up makes it part of the problem. Telling the truth would make it part of the solution. It would help convey that climate change should be treated as an overriding emergency to organisations such as the BMJ whose mailing last week included advertisements for holidays in Japan and India - giving completely the wrong message about the situation we are in.

It would also help doctors engaged in protests such as those of Just Stop Oil (JSO). JSO is demanding Net Zero 2030 [12] and JSO activists see themselves as truth-tellers. Other climate advocacy groups should be saying that whether you agree with the protests, their demands are in line with the Paris Agreement and the science. But most climate advocacy groups are not saying this, which makes it easy for JSO protesters to be labelled 'fanatics' [13] or 'eco-zealots' [14] and to be treated harshly by the courts and the GMC.

UKHACC is currently failing doctors involved in radical protests by not saying clearly that they are whistle-blowers trying to raise awareness of Government malpractice.

We opted for 2040,

It's a mistake to define an emission reduction target purely by the net zero date. This is a common misception that UKHACC should not be promoting. What's needed is to also give the pathway of emission reduction over time, e.g. the UK Government's Net Zero 2050 is a roughly linear (i.e. steady) decline to zero in 2050.

If a target is given simply as a net zero date many years away, it encourages decision makers to conclude that little needs to be done during their term of office.

and that's the figure that was approved by our trustees and members.

Was there any independent outside scrutiny of the target-setting? Without independent scrutiny, decisions are vulnerable to many types of cognitive bias including overconfidence [15], groupthink [16], and implicatory denial [8].

The UK Covid-19 Inquiry found that the UK prepared for the wrong pandemic and that groupthink was an important factor [16]. The UK is currently working towards the wrong climate target, and again groupthink is an important factor.

As you know, even that will be a tough target.

Progress will be extremely difficult. But that is not a reason for misleading people by understating the seriousness of the situation, or the size and speed of changes that we promised to make in the Paris Agreement.

My references

1	https://carbonbudget.manchester.ac.uk/reports/
2	https://cusp.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/WP-29-Zero-Carbon-Sooner-update.pdf
3	https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00174-2/fulltext
4	https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-s-fair-carbon-budget-will-run-out-2026-here-s-evidence
5	https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/paris_agreement_english_.pdf
6	https://www.carbonindependent.org/carbonbudgets.php
7	https://www.sgr.org.uk/projects/science-oath-climate-text-and-signing
8	https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494421001365
9	https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6194dfa4d3bf7f0555071b1b/net-zero-strategy-beis.pdf
10	https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/22/john-mcdonnell-speaks-up-for-extinction-rebellion-during-trial
11	https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Headline-statements.pdf
12	https://juststopoil.org/2024/07/10/paint-the-town-orange-just-stop-oil-wins-first-demand/
13	https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/18/five-just-stop-oil-supporters-jailed-over-protest-that-blocked-m25
14	https://www.dailymail.co.uk
15	https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/18/daniel-kahneman-books-interview
16	https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/documents/module-1-full-report/
17	https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48126677

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

11 Oct 2024 Richard Smith, Chair UKHACC to Ian Campbell:

Re: The UKHACC’s target of Net Zero 2040 is the wrong target

Dear Ian,

Thank you responses.

We discussed changing our net-zero target at our trustees' meeting yesterday and decided to keep our present target. Your emails were shared with the trustees.

I'm sorry to disappoint you.

Best wishes

Richard

12 Oct 2024: Ian Campbell to Richard Smith, Chair of UKHACC

Re: The UKHACC's target of Net Zero 2040 is the wrong target

Dear Richard,

Thank you for your email and for UKHACC giving serious consideration to my concerns.

Can I ask if you have any objections to my publishing the correspondence, and also whether I will be gettting a response from UKHACC to the questions that I asked in my email of 27 September?

Kind regards,

Ian

12 Oct 2024 Richard Smith, Chair UKHACC to Ian Campbell:

Re: The UKHACC’s target of Net Zero 2040 is the wrong target

Dear Ian,

Feel free to publish the correspondence.

We won't be answering your questions of 27 September. We have to draw the line somewhere.

Best wishes

Richard