.png)
7 hours ago
10
Thank you for Ajit Niranjan’s article (‘But we’re just 1% of emissions’: do smaller countries’ climate efforts matter?, 30 June). This helpfully examines arguments frequently used to undermine the UK’s and other nations’ plans for emission reduction. In my opinion this article misses an important counter-argument: carbon emissions per capita. This shows that, for example, the UK emits 4.5 tonnes of carbon per person per year, China 8.7 tonnes, United States 14.2 tonnes, India 2.2 tonnes and Vietnam 3.7 tonnes.
Many smaller European nations have similar or greater emissions per person than the UK, while remaining within about 1% of global emissions. If we accept the argument that smaller nations don’t need to limit their emissions because they only contribute a small proportion of global emissions, we are saying that small, wealthy nations with long histories of carbon emissions can carry on, but larger, poorer, recently industrialising nations such as India and China need to take all the costly and difficult measures to limit their emissions.
This is clearly nonsense and unjust, and would give developing nations ample reason to question why they should limit carbon emissions when richer nations consider themselves exempt. Climate change is a global problem, which can only be solved by every nation playing its part in reducing emissions.
Oliver Mason
London
After the recent heatwave, I welcome the analysis on whether it matters for us to reduce carbon emissions as a country contributing to less than 2% of the global total. Part of the picture that is missing here is leadership. The UK’s Climate Change Act 2008 was the first of its kind, setting out emissions-reduction targets to 2050, and we have made significant progress in reducing domestic emissions, particularly from electricity generation.
Our leadership on this issue is important on the international stage; we cannot ask developing countries, who have historically emitted less, to reduce their emissions without practising what we preach. Backtracking on climate action reduces our ability to build trust at United Nations Cop summits and international forums, undermining global progress towards a sustainable future. It will take all of us to reduce emissions to near zero – hypocrisy will get us nowhere.
Domestic emissions reported here do not account for emissions associated with goods we import, or domestic flights. Much of our progress on emissions reduction has come during a period where UK manufacturing has declined and imports have grown, and consumerism dominates much of our culture. The UK has disproportionately high emissions from aviation, despite about half the population not flying in a given year. We buy more cheap clothes per person than anywhere else in Europe.
There is a balance to be struck between individual action and the role of businesses and government, but I believe a major cultural shift is needed. We need to stop buying things we don’t need that don’t make us happy, and we need to be more thoughtful in our choices, from what we eat to how we travel. We all have a responsibility to ourselves, to all people and to future generations to protect our fragile planet.
Katie Williams
Sheffield
The government of this country has a duty of care to the people. The last two heatwaves have shown that we are woefully unprepared for what we know is coming. Perhaps we need to dump the term “net zero”, and instead call it “secure future plan”. The joint intelligence committee report says that climate breakdown is a national security problem.
We have to stop pretending that this is someone else’s problem and start to take it seriously. No one wants to be queueing for our bread ration, but that is what will happen in the not too distant future.
Molly Berry
Tring, Hertfordshire
