human activity and the destruction of the planet

Leave a comment

Media Lens new article states the reality of the problem

…… Click here to view it online
30 January 2017

Deranged And Deluded: The Media’s Complicity In The Climate Crisis


In an important recent book, the Indian writer Amitav Ghosh refers to the present era of corporate-driven climate crisis as ‘The Great Derangement’. For almost 12,000 years, since the last Ice Age, humanity has lived through a period of relative climate stability known as the Holocene. When Homo sapiens shifted, for the most part, from a nomadic hunter-gatherer existence to an agriculture-based life, towns and cities grew, humans went into space and the global population shot up to over seven billion people.

Today, many scientists believe that we have effectively entered a new geological era called the Anthropocene during which human activities have ‘started to have a significant global impact on Earth’s geology and ecosystems’. Indeed, we are now faced with severe, human-induced climate instability and catastrophic loss of species: the sixth mass extinction in four-and-a-half billion years of geological history, but the only one to have been caused by us.

Last Thursday, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved their symbolic Doomsday Clock forward thirty seconds, towards apocalypse. It is now two and a half minutes to midnight, the closest since 1953. Historically, the Doomsday Clock represented the threat of nuclear annihilation. But global climate change is now also recognised as an ‘extreme danger’.

Future generations, warns Ghosh, may well look back on this time and wonder whether humanity was deranged to continue on a course of business-as-usual. In fact, many people alive today already think so. It has become abundantly clear that governments largely pay only lip service to the urgent need to address global warming (or dismiss it altogether), while they pursue policies that deepen climate chaos. As climate writer and activist Bill McKibben points out, President Trump has granted senior energy and environment positions in his administration to men who:

‘know nothing about science, but they love coal and oil and gas – they come from big carbon states like Oklahoma and Texas, and their careers have been lubed and greased with oil money.’

Rex Tillerson, Trump’s US Secretary of State, is the former chairman and CEO of oil giant, ExxonMobil. He once told his shareholders that cutting oil production is ‘not acceptable for humanity’, adding: ‘What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?’

As for Obama’s ‘legacy’ on climate, renowned climate scientist James Hansen only gives him a ‘D’ grade. Obama had had a ‘golden opportunity’. But while he had said ‘the right words’, he had avoided ‘the fundamental approach that’s needed’. Contrast this with the Guardian view on Obama’s legacy that he had ‘allowed America to be a world leader on climate change’. Writer Ian Sinclair noted the stark discrepancy between Obama’s actual record on climate and fawning media comment, notably by the BBC and the Guardian:

‘Despite the liberal media’s veneration of the former US president, Obama did very little indeed to protect the environment.’

And so while political ‘leaders’ refuse to change course to avoid disaster, bankers and financial speculators continue to risk humanity’s future for the sake of making money; fossil fuel industries go on burning the planet; Big Business consumes and pollutes ecosystems; wars, ‘interventions’ and arms deals push the strategic aims of geopolitical power, all wrapped in newspeak about ‘peace’, ‘security’ and ‘democracy’; and corporate media promote and enable it all, deeply embedded and complicit as they are. The ‘Great Derangement’ indeed.

Consider, for example, the notorious US-based Koch Brothers who, as The Real News Network notes, ‘have used their vast wealth to ensure the American political system takes no action on climate change.’ Climate scientist Michael Mann is outspoken:

‘They have polluted our public discourse. They have skewed media coverage of the science of climate change. They have paid off politicians.’

He continues:

‘The number of lives that will be lost because of the damaging impacts of climate change – in the hundreds of millions. […] To me, it’s not just a crime against humanity, it’s a crime against the planet.’

But the Koch Brothers are just the tip of a state-corporate system that is on course to drive Homo sapiens towards a terminal catastrophe.

Earlier this month, the world’s major climate agencies confirmed 2016 as the hottest since modern records began. The global temperature is now 1C higher than preindustrial times, and the last three years have seen the record broken successively – the first time this has happened.

Towards the end of 2016, scientists reported ‘extraordinarily hot’ Arctic conditions. Danish and US researchers were ‘surprised and alarmed by air temperatures peaking at what they say is an unheard-of 20C higher than normal for the time of year.’ One of the scientists said:

‘These temperatures are literally off the charts for where they should be at this time of year. It is pretty shocking.’

Another researcher emphasised:

‘This is faster than the models. It is alarming because it has consequences.’

These ‘consequences’ will be terrible. Scientists have warned that increasingly rapid Arctic ice melt ‘could trigger uncontrollable climate change at global level’.

It gets worse. A new study suggests that global warming is on course to raise global sea level by between six and nine metres, wiping out coastal cities and settlements around the world. Mann describes the finding, with classic scientific understatement, as ‘sobering’ and adds that:

‘we may very well already be committed to several more metres of sea level rise when the climate system catches up with the carbon dioxide we’ve already pumped into the atmosphere’.

It gets worse still.

The Paris Climate Accord of 2015 repeated the international commitment to keep global warming below 2C. Even this limited rise would threaten life as we know it. When around a dozen climate scientists were asked for their honest opinion as to whether this target could be met, not one of them thought it likely. Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of geophysical and climate hazards at University College London, was most adamant:

‘there is not a cat in hell’s chance [of keeping below 2C].’

But wait, because there’s even worse news. Global warming could well be happening so fast that it’s ‘game over’. The Earth’s climate could be so sensitive to greenhouse gases that we may be headed for a temperature rise of more than 7C within a lifetime. Mark Lynas, author of the award-winning book, Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet, was ‘shocked’ by the researchers’ study, describing it as ‘the apocalyptic side of bad’.



Burying The Climate Issue

Given all of the above, what does it say about the British government that it should bury an alarming report about the likely impacts of climate change on the UK? These impacts include:

‘the doubling of the deaths during heatwaves, a “significant risk” to supplies of food and the prospect of infrastructure damage from flooding.’

At a time of manufactured fear by ‘mainstream’ media about ‘fake news’ and ‘post-truth’ politics, how divorced from reality is the government when it would rather ignore such an important report, far less address seriously the urgent truth of climate chaos?

An exclusive article in the Independent noted that the climate report made virtually no impact when it was published on the government website of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on 18 January:

‘despite its undoubted importance, Environment Secretary Andrea Leadsom made no speech and did not issue her own statement, and even the Defra Twitter account was silent. No mainstream media organisation covered the report.’

The government said in the ignored report that climate change meant that ‘urgent priorities’ needed to be addressed, including a dramatic rise in heat-related deaths, coastal flooding and ‘significant risks to the availability and supply of food in the UK’. So, lip service at least. But Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in London, said he was ‘astonished’ that the government had done so little to publicise the report:

‘It’s almost as if they were trying to sneak it out without people realising.’

Leading politicians, intelligence chiefs and their media allies are forever warning the British public of ‘security threats’ which are so often blowback from Western foreign policy; or the warnings are overhyped claims to justify their own fearmongering agendas. But when it comes to the greatest threat of all – climate change – they are remarkably silent. This exposes as a lie the rhetoric from government and security services that they are motivated by genuine concern for the well-being of the population. The truth is that powerful forces are always driven primarily by the desire to preserve and boost their own interests, their own profits, their own dominance.

Amitav Ghosh rightly notes that the most powerful states derive their privileged position in large part by sitting atop a world-threatening carbon economy:

‘The fact is that we live in a world that has been profoundly shaped by empire and its disparities. Differentials of power between and within nations are probably greater today than they have ever been. These differentials are, in turn, closely related to carbon emissions. The distribution of power in the world therefore lies at the core of the climate crisis.’ (Ghosh, ‘The Great Derangement’, University of Chicago Press, 2016, p. 146; our emphasis)

Tackling climate change thus means tackling global inequity. This requires a deep-rooted commitment to not just ‘a redistribution of wealth but also to a recalibration of global power’. He makes the crucial point that:

‘from the point of view of a security establishment that is oriented towards the maintenance of global dominance, this is precisely the scenario that is most greatly to be feared; from this perspective the continuance of the status quo is the most desirable of outcomes.’ (Ibid., p. 143; our emphasis)


The Myth Of ‘Fearless and Free Journalism’

The ‘mainstream’ media is not somehow separate from this state-corporate status quo, selflessly and valiantly providing a neutral window into what powerful sectors in society are doing. Instead, the major news media are an intrinsic component of this system run for the benefit of elites. The media are, in effect, the public relations wing of a planetary-wide network of exploitation, abuse and destruction. The climate crisis is the gravest symptom of this dysfunctional global apparatus.

News reporting on the economy, for instance, is typically divorced from reporting on the climate crisis. Judging by the lack of attention given to climate in last year’s Autumn Statement, whether by Chancellor Philip Hammond himself or the media dutifully reporting on it, the global warming emergency had miraculously gone away. It is as if there are two separate planets: one where ‘the economy’ happens; and another one, the real world, which is beset by catastrophic climate change.

Some readers will say: ‘But surely the best media – the likes of the BBC, the Guardian and Channel 4 News – report climate science honestly and accurately?’ Yes, to a large extent, they do a good job in reporting the science (though the BBC has often been guilty of ‘false balance’ on climate). But they rarely touch the serious, radical measures needed to address the climate crisis, or the nature and extent of the climate denial ‘Beast’. This is taboo; not least because it would raise awkward questions about rampant neoliberalism addressed, for example, by Naomi Klein in her books The Shock Doctrine and This Changes Everything.

As Ghosh also observes, capitalism and imperialism are intertwined as primary drivers of the climate crisis. But when did a BBC environment, economics or business correspondent ever report this truth? Their silence is shameful; all the more so for their avowed responsibility to the public who funds them. Even the very fact ‘that we live in a world that has been profoundly shaped by empire and its disparities… remains largely unacknowledged.’ (Ibid., p. 146). It is certainly not acknowledged by the BBC and the rest of the major news media for which the public is supposed to be grateful. The BBC still reflects its origins in empire and the establishment while proclaiming falsely its ‘independence’ and ‘impartiality’. Consider, for example, that Sir David Clementi, former deputy governor of Bank of England, has just been confirmed as the new BBC chair. This, in a nutshell, is how the state-corporate media system operates. A former banker will become the new chair of the ‘independent’ BBC, appointed by the government. This is all part of the fiction of ‘media plurality’, ‘impartiality’ and ‘freedom’ from ‘political interference’.

Even when the Guardian recently ran a live page on climate change on the day that President Trump took office, with a follow-up titled, ‘So you want to be a climate campaigner? Here’s how’, the paper’s compromised worldview was all too apparent. The top of the Guardian‘s website proudly proclaimed:

‘With climate sceptics moving into the White House, the Guardian will spend the next 24 hours focusing on the climate change happening right now, and what we can do to help protect the planet.’

But you would have searched in vain for any in-depth analysis of how Big Business, together with co-opted governments, have hurled massive resources at stifling any real progress towards tackling climate change, and ‘what we can do’ about that. In particular, there was no Guardian commitment to drop any – never mind all – fossil-fuel advertising revenue. The proposal to reject ads from ‘environmental villains’ had been put to the paper by its own columnist George Monbiot in 2009, following a challenge from Media Lens. It got nowhere. Significantly, the Guardian‘s ‘focused’ climate coverage once again steered clear of its own questionable behaviour and its structural ties to elite money and power. Meanwhile, the paper continues to be riddled with ads promoting carbon emissions – notably short-haul flights and cars – ironically appearing right beside articles about dangerous global warming.

Even as such glaring contradictions, omissions and silences become ever more apparent to Guardian readers, the paper is ramping up its appeals for readers to dip into their pockets. When Trump triumphed in the US election last November, Lee Glendinning, the editor of Guardian US, pleaded:

‘Never has the world needed independent journalism more. […] Now is the time to support journalism that is both fearless and free.’

She deployed standard, self-serving Guardian rhetoric:

‘Because the Guardian is not beholden to profit-seeking shareholders or a billionaire owner, we can pursue stories without fear of where they might take us, free from commercial and political influence.’

In repeatedly churning out the myth about the Guardian being ‘free from commercial and political influence’, any public doubts about its pure nature are supposed to be dispelled. But there comes a point where the readers know their intelligence is being insulted. And we are now well past that point.

The Guardian‘s complicit role as a liberal gatekeeper of truth will not – cannot – be honestly addressed by the Guardian itself; nor by the well-rewarded journalists and commentators who appear regularly in its pages.

The current era of ‘great derangement’ will last as long as the public allows news and debate to be manipulated by a state-corporate media system that is complicit in killing the planet. We urgently need to consider alternatives for the sake of humanity.


This Alert is Archived here:

Deranged And Deluded: The Media’s Complicity In The Climate Crisis

Contact Us:

Leave a comment

Recent Events and how they affect climate change

I finished writing the book that is featured on this website in May 2016 and the EU referendum had not yet occurred.  Since then, there have been some momentous political events, many of which will have an effect on climate change.  Quite clearly, at the time of writing the last pages of the book, there was huge media attention on the referendum, most of which was attempting to influence people on the way they voted.  Much of what was written in the papers was lies.  At the time, I felt that all of this media attention was a distraction from the big issues facing the world and society as a whole.  In the book, I wrote that, in the light of the major issue of climate change, whether we stayed in or went out of Europe was neither here nor there.  It was not the biggest issue that required media attention.  Climate change was.

And yet, the media clamour over the whole issue has continued, distracting attention more and more away from the urgent issue of doing something about climate change.  It took a few months to get the book published and into print and I was able to write an addendum, which started to address these issues.  I now wish to build on them.

Firstly, there has been something of a panic in certain quarters about how leaving the EU will affect Britain’s economy.  This is mainly because favourable trading arrangements with EU countries may well be lost, leading to a reduction in the sales of British goods overseas and subsequent effects on the balance of payments. As a result, the new Prime Minister has been dashing hither and thither across the world, trying to establish new trading links with non-EU countries. Establishing trading links further afield will have an adverse effect on climate change because of the longer journeys that will need to be made to take British goods to these far-flung countries, leading to the burning of more fossil fuels on the way. What is now needed is a new radical approach, in which our thinking about the economy is completely rethought and overhauled.  I started to write about this in chapters 4 and 7 of my book but there are others, with much greater knowledge of economics than me, who have taken this further and who are writing about a new way forward.  One of these writers in Colin Hines in his book “Progressive Protectionism”.

Secondly, there has been a new president in the United States of America, Donald Trump. A man who is both ultra-racist and a misogynist.  A man with a big business background who has been a climate change denier for years.  He is placing in his team, other men from the big corporations, who also deny the existence of climate change, one of them being the former CEO of ExxonMobil, the largest corporation in the world, whose anti-climate actions are described in chapter 4 of my book. ExxonMobil leaders knew about fossil fuels and global warming as long ago as the 70’s yet, instead of spearheading research into finding new sources of renewable energy, they put their money into setting up a body which would publish false information about the effects of fossil fuels on global warming and climate change. They are the ones who are responsible for the danger that our planet is in at the moment – all of them climate-change-deniers.  It is also likely that Trump will revoke all of the progressive pro-climate measures that were introduced by the former President, Barack Obama.  Donald Trump also supports the concept of protectionism but in a regressive way, rather than a progressive way. In chapter 4 of my book, I indicate some of the ways in which each country can trade in order to protect both the environment and local economies.

Thirdly, there seems to be a global swing towards supporting populist extreme-right politicians and in discrediting “experts” opinions on a number of issues, including climate change.  I have posted a Media Lens article on this website, which gives more details on this.  As a scientist myself, it is important to me to have well-researched evidence to look at, when taking decisions about the stance I will take on particular decisions.  It would appear that the populist hoards have no such respect for expert opinion, especially if it does not support their own emotion-led and biased opinions on a number of issues, including climate change.

Fourthly, in chapter 6 of my book, I discuss the carbon footprint of war, including nuclear war.  In recent weeks there has been media reporting on a “failed” practice test of a British Trident warhead, which veered off course and had to be destroyed.  Fortunately, it contained no nuclear material but the incident has stimulated a discussion among scientists, who are part of the body, Scientists for Global Responsibility.  It would appear that this was not the first time a firing had gone wrong – there have been several before it – and it would appear that the whole system is outdated and dangerous.  And yet, Theresa May’s government have just approved a further renewal of the Trident missile, at a cost of billions of pounds. And only this week, there has been a report from Japan, that the Fukushima nuclear power station, which was destroyed in 2011 by a tsunami, is still emitting radioactivity that is way above the safe level for humans.  All of the evidence of the danger of nuclear weapons and the use of nuclear power is being ignored by politicians.

These are worrying times.

1 Comment

How to order copies of the book

“Three generations Left” can be ordered direct from the publishers, using the following link:

or can be ordered from the Amazon website, print on demand, as follows:

It is priced at £11.99 per copy.


Leave a comment

References by number from each blog

This is a listing by number of all the reference material cited in the chapter blogs of “Three Generations Left?”   Some of the references below, you will find are no longer available and I apologise for this.  The reason is that some are website references, which are constantly being changed by their originators.  If you do a further search, using the keywords in the title, you may find the updated reference.


  1. Christine Parkinson, “I will lift up my eyes” (2002) New Generation Publishing, UK. p.301-302.
  1. Jeremy Seabrook, Mark Tully and Molly Scott Cato, “Counting the Costs-1: an overview” (2005).
  1. James Lovelock, “Gaia” (2009) Oxford University Press.
  1. Winin Pereira and Jeremy Seabrook, Asking the Earth: the spread of unsustainable development (1996); The Other India Press, Goa, India.
  1. Richard Douthwaite, The Growth Illusion: How economic growth has enriched the few, impoverished the many and endangered the planet. (1999) Green Books, Totnes, Devon.
  1. Paul Rogers, Chances for Peace in the Second Decade – what was wrong and what we must do (2012) ORG Special Briefing, Oxford.
  1. George Monbiot. and numerous articles in the Guardian.
  1. Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything (2015), Penguin.

Chapter 1

  1. Secrets of our Living Planet (2012), presented by Chris Packham, BBC, London DVD.
  1. James Lovelock, Gaia – A new look at life on earth (1979), Oxford University Press.
  1. Gerardo Ceballos, Paul Ehrlich, Anthony D. Barnosky, Andres Garcia, Robert M. Pringle and Todd M. Palmer. Stanford Report (June 19th 2015) Science Advances, California, USA.
  1. Anthony Costello, Richard Horton. Health and Climate Change (June 23rd 2015) Lancet
  1. NIEHA Interagency Working Group (April 2010) A Human Health Perspective on Climate Change.
  1. Matt McGrath (2015, 9th November) Warming set to breach 1˚C BBC:
  1. Damian Carrington, Guardian, 15th April 2016. March temperature smashed 100-year global record.

Chapter 2

  1. Vehicle Data, Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) (2016) Registrations – Cars.
  1. Jeff Cobb (2014 and 2016) Top 6 Plug-in vehicle Adopting Countries. In:
  1. Peter Dockrill (13th April 2016) In: ScienceAlert.
  1. Pereira and J. Seabrook (1996), Asking the Earth; the Spread of Unsustainable Development. The Other India Press.
  1. Adam Smith (1776), An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations; Strahan and T.Cadell, London.
  1. Data and charts on electricity generation from
  1. Damian Carrington, Guardian (24th September 2015): Renewable energy outstrips coal for first time in UK electricity mix.
  1. Jonathan Watts, Guardian (3rd December 2015): Uruguay makes dramatic shift to nearly 95% electricity from clean energy.
  1. Dutch student’s cheap solution for clearing plastic rubbish from oceans:
  1. Molly Scott Cato (2005) Counting the Costs Report- 1.
  1. Damon Matthews, Quantifying historical carbon and climate debts among nations. April, (2015) Nature Climate Change:

Chapter 3

  1. Paul Rogers (2012) ORG Special Briefing, Oxford Research Group. Chances for Peace in the Second Decade – What is going wrong and what we must do.


  1. Financial Times (2016) London Breaks 2016 air quality rules, 175 hours into new year.

Chapter 4

  1. Shannon Hall, Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago. (October 25th 2015), Scientific American:
  1. Rupert Neate (23rd March 2016) Guardian: “Rockefeller Family Charity to withdraw all investments in fossil-fuel companies.”
  1. Guardian (20th November 2013) Just 90 Companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions. Study by Richard Heede.
  1. Greenpeace, 20th November 2013:
  1. Greenpeace Philippines:
  1. Car makers accused of ‘obstructive’ lobbying over emissions (November 2015) Exaro News.
  1. Carbon Brief, The Global Oil Trade (2015)
  1. Ian Fletcher (2010) Free Trade Doesn’t Work, US Business and Industry Council, Washington, D.C., USA.
  1. Caroline Lucas (2002) Stopping the Great Food Swap: Relocalising Europe’s Food Supply.
  1. Colin Hines, Localisation: a Global Manifesto, Earthscan (2000).
  1. Rianne ten Veen (2011), Global Food Swap, Counting the Costs -4;
  1. Local Futures Action Paper, Climate Change or System Change? (2015)
  1. Colin Tudge (2016) Six Steps back to the Land: why we need small mixed farms and millions more farmers. Green Books, Cambridge.
  1. Richard Douthwaite, The Growth Illusion: How economic growth has enriched the few, impoverished the many and endangered the planet (1999) Green Books, Totnes, Devon.
  1. Muhammud Yunus, Creating a World without Poverty (2007) PublicAffairs, Perseus Group, USA.
  1. Declaration on Green Growth (2009 and 2011) OECD. and
  1. Paul Tudor Jones II, Why we need to rethink Capitalism.
  1. Lee Williams, Independent (6th October 2015) What is TTIP? And six reasons why the answer should scare you.
  1. Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) and Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies: The Global Trade Slowdown: A New Normal? Edited by Bernard Hoekman.

Chapter 5

  1. Thomas Malthus: An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798), pamphlet published in London under the name of Joseph Johnson – see details in Wikipedia.
  1. Guardian (29th October 2015): China ends one-child policy after 35 years.
  1. Hans Rosling (2015), Don’t Panic – the facts about population:

  1. Humanity’s Last Stand (2015). In: Open Minds, a magazine of the Open University.
  1. Paul Ehrlich and Ann Ehrlich (2008). The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment. Island Press/Shearwater Books, Washington, USA.
  1. Paul Rogers (Sept.2012) Chances for Peace in the Second Decade – What is going wrong and what we must do. ORG Special briefing Series for the Oxford Research Group.
  1. Andrew Sayer (2014) Why we can’t afford the rich. Policy Press. And:

  1. Oxfam figures of richest 1%:
  1. Helena Norberg Hodge, The Economics of Happiness,
  1. The industrialisation for farming:

Legislation about this: 

  1. George Monbiot (27th May 2015) A Pre-History of Violence. Guardian and also on
  1. Carla Garnett (2008) NIH Record, Volume LX No. 15. A Review of Calhoun’s experiments on over-crowding with rats (Scientific American,1962).
  1. Richard Douthwaite (1999) The Growth Illusion, Green Books.
  1. Karen Jeffrey & Juliet Michaelson, New Economics Foundation (2015) Five Headline Indicators of National Success.

Chapter 6

  1. The Independent (Sunday 20th 2015) Ministry of Defence condemn army general behind Jeremy Corbyn ‘mutiny’ threat.

  1. Global Warming and the Iraq War (2008) Climate & Capitalism, March 19th.

  1. Paul Rogers (Sept.2012) Chances for Peace in the Second Decade – What is going wrong and what we must do. ORG Special briefing Series for the Oxford Research Group.
  1. John Greenberg (24th June 2014) Iraq war dollars could have ended world hunger for 30 years.

Chapter 7

  1. Pat Conaty (November 2015) A Collaborative Economy for the Common Good.
  1. Jonathon Porritt (2015) The Coalition Government 2010-2015; The Greenest Government Ever: By no stretch of the Imagination.

  1. Michael Le Page (2015) “Ungreen and not-so-pleasant land”. New Scientist 3042.
  1. Ben Warren (Ed.) (2015) Renewable energy country attractiveness index (RECAI) Issue 43.$FILE/RECAI%2043_March%202015.pdf
  1. Donald Braben (12 Sept. 2015) New Scientist 3038, p24-25.
  1. James Bloodworth (10th June 2014) Independent. “It’s time to bust some myths about benefit fraud and tax evasion.” myths-about-benefit-fraud-and-tax-evasion-9520562.html

  1. Heather Stewart, Guardian (21st July 2012), Wealth doesn’t trickle down, it just floods offshore, research reveals.

  1. Mark Carney (2015) Breaking the tragedy of the horizon – climate change and financial stability. Speech given at Lloyds of London 29th September 2015.
  1. QUNO Climate Change Science Report (2014)

  1. Justin Lewis (2014) How the BBC leans to the right. The Independent, 14th February 2014.
  1. Richard Douthwaite (1999) The Growth Illusion, Green Books, Totnes, Devon.
  1. Ian Fletcher (2010) Free Trade Doesn’t Work, US Business and Industry Council, Washington, D.C., USA.
  1. Paul Krugman (2009) How did economists get it so wrong? New York Times, 2nd 2009.
  1. George Monbiot (2015) Guardian, 24th November 2015. Consume More, conserve more: Sorry but we just can’t do both.
  1. New Economics Foundation:
  1. Jeremy Corbyn (2015) The Times, 9th December 2015.
  1. Colin Tudge (2007) Economic Renaissance: Holistic Economics for the 21st Schumacher College think tank, published by Green Books.
  1. Richard Murphy and Colin Hines (2015) Finance for the Future: Climate QE for Paree.
  1. Quantitative Easing:
  1. Carbon tax:
  1. OECD Environmental Performance Review: Sweden 2014.

  1. Carbon tax in Australia:

  1. Jan Rocha, Climate News Network (May 12th 2016), Brazil Prepares to Roll back Green Laws.
  1. Fergus Green (2015) Nationally self-interested climate change mitigation: a unified conceptual framework. Working Paper 224, Centre for Climate change Economics and Policy and Working Paper 199, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
  1. Nicholas Stern (2016) Economics: Current Climate Models are grossly misleading. Nature News 530, 407-409.
  1. Global Taxation System:
  1. Definition of a Green Economy:
  1. The Green Economy Coalition:
  1. International Agency for Solar Policy and Application. New Scientist, 3030.
  1. Narendra Modi (2016) The Economist; “Gathering Steam: the World in 2016”, p.70.

Chapter 8

  1. From Rio to Paris: UN Milestones in the history of climate change discussions. Taken from Wikipedia and summarised for this book in Table 7.
  1. Ed King, Climate Home (29th March 2016) Developing nations urged to boycott Paris Agreement signing.
  1. Signatories to the Paris agreement:
  1. Michael Le Page (2015) New Scientist, No. 3052, p8-9. Will Paris deal save our future? And: New Scientist, 3060, (2016) Signed, sealed……..Undeliverable?
  1. Reuters (22nd April 2016) Daily Telegraph: Record signatures in historic Paris climate deal.
  1. Kimberley Nicholas (2015) Scientific American, 19th December 2015. Limiting Global Warming will be hard but hardly impossible.
  1. Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) Newsletter, December 2015.
  1. Greenpeace:
  1. Nicholas Stern (2015) Why are we waiting: the Logic, Urgency and Promise of tackling climate change, MIT Press.
  1. Damian Carrington (2016) Guardian 9th June 2016: CO2 turned into stone in Iceland in climate change breakthrough, quoting from research report by Matter et al in Science, 352, issue 6291, pp 1312-1314: Rapid carbon mineralization for permanent disposal of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.
  1. Operation Noah:
  1. Pope’s encyclical on Climate Change (2015) and
  1. Desmond Tutu’s climate petition tops 300,000 signatures

  1. Baptist Union statement on climate change

  1. The Anglican Synod statement on climate change

  1. The Methodist Church statement on climate change

  1. The Quakers’ statement on climate change

  1. Eco-Church:
  1. Big Church Switch:
  1. Institutional Investors group on Climate Change:
  1. The Green Bible – Harper Bibles, published by Harper Collins Publishers:
  1. The statements of other faiths on climate change:

  1. Ohito Declaration on Religions, Land and Conservation (1995):

  1. Forum for the Future, Annual Report 2014, System innovation in action: our progress and achievements.
  1. Kyung-Ah Park, Goldman Sachs

Chapter 9

  1. Naomi Klein (2014) This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate; Allen Lane.
  1. James Lovelock (2010) A Final Warning: the Vanishing Face of Gaia; Penguin.
  1. Robert Gifford (2015) “The Road to Climate Hell”. New Scientist, 11th July 2015.
  1. Re-branded DECC, the Department for Extreme Climate Change. Quoted in its entirety from: