Report produced by Andrew Charlesworth

return to main index

Contextual summary

This was the broadest category dealt with in the workshops but its breadth should not imply diffuseness. It could be argued that it takes us to the heart of questions about societal change in response to climatic change. For it considers cultural and political value systems and how these might dramatically shift under the impact of climatic change. This is not environmental determinism rather the focus was on how society and political structures will respond to such changes in a variety of ways. A variety of scenarios of response are possible.

Scoping studies seem to miss two important points:

1. To date, they seem reluctant to look to other societies that are experiencing climates similar to those we will by 2080. What will we have in common with Mediterranean societies? What tensions will be produced by becoming more Mediterranean in our outlook and values? The ongoing debates over Englishness and Britishness has been given a political twist by the Conservative Party's Eurosceptic stance. Cultural resistance lies at the heart of certain positions taken in those debates. Climate may be set to challenge taken for granted values and attitudes to landscape and social organisation. Can we envisage a time when we abandon our green lawns or take a siesta?
   
   
2. In many of the scoping studies there is a strong conservative/conservation strand. Saving species, ecosystems and heritage landscapes seems higher priority than economic effects of climate change. The UKCIP scoping study for south east England for example seems preoccupied with species change and water resource problems rather than the consequences of a greater use of air conditioning on electrical supply in the region which is the growth engine of the English economy. The ongoing power crisis in California should alert us all to the importance of guaranteed electrical supply for industry. In that case Intel Corp. the world's largest producer of microchips have stated that they have halted all further in vestment in California till the crisis is resolved.

Introduction to the four scenarios

In October 1999 the Science and Technology Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex in Brighton, produced a report entitled "Socio-Economic Scenarios for Climate Impact Assessment". This report presented four "socio-economic futures scenarios" which were intended for use in conducting assessments under the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP). The scenarios portrayed distinct pictures of the social, political and economic background against which adaptation to climate change might take place in the UK in the 2020s and 2050s. Taken together with climate scenarios developed by the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, these socio-economic scenarios offered the opportunity to take a consistent approach in the conduct of UIK impact studies co-ordinated by UKCIP. The aim of these scenarios is to describe social and economic conditions in a range of possible futures that can be used to assess vulnerability and policy responses to climate impacts at the UK regional level. In the case of this workshop this shall be the South West. The four scenarios are entitled "National" Enterprise, Local Stewardship, World Markets and Global Sustainability. Each of these scenarios is described briefly below.

"National" enterprise

Under this scenario, biodiversity is under pressure from habitat fragmentation, industrial/housing development and weak environmental controls. Ecosystems are therefore vulnerable to climate impacts. The policy will to combat biodiversity loss is also unambitious. The capacity to adapt to climate change in the agricultural sector is constrained by poor economic conditions in the sector and low levels of investment. Water systems are stressed, especially in the South-West, because of a failure to curb demand and constraints on the financial resources available for investment in water supply. Water quality is also poor. The economic and organisational capacity to protect coastal zones, where there is continued investment, is also weak. In the latter part of this scenario, in the 2050s, the climate signal is also strong because of a failure to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Local stewardship

Under this scenario, there is both the will and the capacity to protect biodiversity from the impacts of climate change. Economic development is controlled so that the fragile ecosystems are protected, although there is some threat from the expansion of agricultural areas. Housing developments on the edges of smaller towns may also have local impacts on the countryside. Extensive agriculture focused on small-scale, diversified and organic production provides an alternative route to high adaptive capacity in the sector. There is less pressure on water resources due to lower demand, but local difficulties continue where there is resistance to development of new water resources. The vulnerability of coastal zones will be decreased because resources are made available for protection. There is a willingness to contemplate managed retreat where protection is too expensive.

World markets

This is a scenario in which biodiversity is vulnerable as a result of fragmented habitats, particularly under pressure from housing development, high-intensity farming and leisure industry uses of the countryside. There is little public concern about biodiversity loss. Conversely, the capacity to adapt in the agricultural sector is high because technology offers the opportunity to introduce new varieties and techniques in response to climate changes. Pressure on water resources is very high, especially in the South-West, but prices provide incentives to use water efficiently and cut leakage. The vulnerability of coastal regions increases because of continued investment in housing and infrastructure. There is a demand to protect these investments from coastal flooding.

Global sustainability

In this scenario, natural ecosystems are considerably less vulnerable than in the "world markets" scenario but are less well protected than under "local stewardship". Demand for access to the countryside increases while on the other hand, pollution levels are lower. Technology allows agriculture to adapt to climate change, but there are tighter controls on the use of genetically modified crops for example than under the "world markets" scenario. More efficient end use means that there is less pressure on water resources. Existing coastal infrastructure continues to be vulnerable to sea level rise but new developments are strictly controlled.

So to amplify and extend the four scenarios in two directions:

1. If we were to take the World Markets scenario we could start to envisage our own west coast Californian type society emerging based on individualistic hedonism. This might be a cooler Britannia than even New Labour would envisage and certainly not a Third Way cool. Here our adaptation would involve major cultural shifts.
   
   
2. But there is another scenario where mitigation rather than adaptation would shape the nature of the society and where the tensions of change would lead to a call for an ordered society. This is only touched on in the four scenarios. With climate changing people's taken for granted world, as in periods of economic dislocation, people seek for certainty. Under such circumstances mitigation may be offered as a way of controlling the elements of change whilst conservation is offered as a way to hold on to certain features in society, for example, iconic landscapes that express national identity. With certain expected levels of dislocation it would require strong state action to achieve this. Thus one could envisage the rise of a green fascist state that renationalised public utilities to ensure public transport ran on time, set in train public works such as flood defences, enacted draconian mitigation laws with a green police to ensure that we did turn out that light and ensured the true English landscape/soil was preserved for the future generations. (Just think how much would you be prepared to pay for the verdant landscape garden of a stately home to be conserved?)

Workshop Discussion

A group of over 20 people from a variety of backgrounds attended the session and took part in a lively debate. Some of the discussion carried forward the provocateur's big ideas. The possibility of an ecological quasi-religious revival with millenarian overtones was put forward. It was felt that once the consequences of climate change were felt certain groups in society would seize upon this as an opportunity to proselytise for a greener society.

Certain scenarios were thought by some to be untenable particularly the World Markets laissez-faire scenario with its assumptions of unlimited economic growth. Even on a planet not experiencing climatic change growth will be unsustainable.

It was recognised that there needs to be a change of values and attitudes but there was no consensus on how this was to be achieved. To some it was a problem of the language of debate. Weasel words had entered the vocabulary. For example sustainability had become corrupted in to sustainable development with its sense of a compromised sustainability. Similarly mitigation doesn't really address the issue. It has a sense of almost being able to halt climate change and that is not so. If we were to show that we cannot prevent climate change is a given then perhaps we can face the consequences more squarely. Granted we will want to reduce emissions from cars and so on and hence we must not stop that but the effects of that are way down the line the consequences of climate change are with us now and daily increasing. That is the agenda to focus on.

We were divided on political solutions. Democracies taking the lead is compromised by the electoral cycle unless you have a strong charismatic leader and we know where that usually ends. Indeed that is the advantage of strong centrally controlled states in perceived crises or as someone put it in the group they are able to achieve 'an uncontested consensus across the political spectrum.'

Some believed it was the subject of climate change itself that makes it difficult to make an emotional connection with people. 'Education, education, education' sprang to some of the group's minds but to others the lead that politicians and scientists could give is compromised because both groups have lost credibility over the past three decades.

Mitigation

The need is to change the language of the debate so words are less obfuscating.

Adaptation

We need the widest possible range of scenarios so we can in a favourite phrase of Dame Janet Trotter 'think the unthinkable.'

Barriers etc

Our first optimistic reply was an individual can make a difference. But then we began to slide by changing that to 'the informed individual can make a difference.' That now smacks of 'we know best' arrogance which scientists appear to have more than their fair share of. Let this rapporteur like Napoleon in Animal Farm rephrase it to read 'The informed individual who has a great deal of humility may make a difference.'

Andrew Charlesworth
Geography and Environmental Management Research Unit
Cheltenham & Gloucester College of Higher Education
March 2001