Brendan Hoban: This summer has taught us a difficult lesson                

Western People 8.8.2023

A few years ago when I served in Moygownagh parish, a huge community focus was on a proposed electricity connector line to the national grid – from a proposed Bellacorick Wind Farm on an area previously used for peat harvesting by Bord na Móna. The wind farm was a joint venture between Bord na Móna  and the ESB, planning permission was granted in 2016 and the wind farm is now up and running.

It was a divisive issue though, truth to tell, the fears generated surrounding it were generally accepted and presenting opposing views got very little purchase. One bonus of the debate was a new appreciation of what Moygownagh had to offer as a community as much time was given to reflecting on and articulating the benefits of the parish – in terms of what possible losses might ensue.

Now the parish of Lacken is facing the same period of reflection as an active proposal to situate a wind farm on the top (more or less) of Carrowmore Hill – between Lacken and Ballycastle – will, it seems, be coming before An Bord Pleanála in the near future. Hundreds, if not thousands, of other communities all over Ireland will one day face the same journey.

The extended spell of hot weather in Ireland in June followed by the dreadful extended period of rain in July (accompanied by high temperatures) has led to a terse prediction of Ireland’s future climate, ‘hotter and wetter’. And of course, the redder than red band – across almost all of southern Europe on the television weather maps designating record temperatures – confirmed not just the fears but the grim reality of the arrival of climate change.

The head of the United Nations captured the climate of impending despair in his description: ‘Europe is boiling’. And those who argue that climate change is a mirage or a conspiracy have got their answer in the last eight weeks or so.

Climate change is not something that will happen if carbon emissions are not reduced; climate change is here. It’s no longer a question of ‘If’ or ‘When’. It’s happening NOW and we’re watching the resulting devastation and loss of life on television every evening.

A few years ago, a group of economists from universities in the US and Canada pondered two possible paths into the future.

One was to continue with what are called ‘net zero’ policies. (Use whatever means we can to bring carbon emissions under control: electric cars; fewer cows; wind power; replacing fossil-fuel with renewable alternatives, etc.)

The other was to do nothing. (Abandon the efforts to control carbon and let nature decide: watch sea levels increase; severe weather episodes multiply; mortality rates escalate; crop yields decrease; cities under threat; migration levels increase exponentially, etc.)

Both paths are expensive, and in both cases people will be poorer. With the Net Zero path the expense is immediate but eventually the expense will be worth it. With the Do Nothing option the cost will gradually build until its terrifying consequences will make climate change impossible to control. 

So, comparing the two options – Net Zero and Do Nothing – the choice couldn’t be clearer. We have no alternative but to go the Net Zero route of doing everything we can to reduce carbon emissions as quickly as is feasible. This option doesn’t just make sense, it’s ultimately in the circumstances the only moral choice available to us. The common good trumps personal or family or community entitlement.

In simple terms, unless we opt for Net Zero the result will be catastrophic.

But, even with Net Zero, there are a number of problems. One is that even though we choose to go the Net Zero route, a number of generations will have to continue to make sacrifices until we reach a point when the carbon threat dissipates. The academics in Canadian and US universities have crunched the numbers and concluded that it will be 2080 before the benefit of our actions over the next 50-plus years bear fruit.

This is not something that appeals either to politicians or to the general public. Going the Net Zero way is politically toxic because what politician will want to ask the electorate to make sacrifices for the long term (2080)? Who wants to make sacrifices if they won’t live to see the benefits, even though their grandchildren will?

Another problem is that unless the business community can see in controlling carbon emissions – wind energy, wave energy, developing other sources of energy, etc – that there is a worthwhile dividend to be earned, they will invest their money elsewhere. Similarly, unless there is something in it for the general public, what Ed Conway described in the London Times as a ‘more carrot, less stick’ approach – making electric vehicles a more viable financial option, having sufficient charging points, improving grants for insulating homes, etc – the public will be reluctant to buy into it.

Changing behaviour is difficult, almost impossible, to achieve and selling the Net Zero optionneeds a positive spin that places an emphasis on bringing to bear imagination and creativity on the opportunities that accompany the fight against carbon. So much is possible now in terms of inventiveness and problem solving. Who would have thought just a few decades ago that Toyota would have stopped selling diesel cars? Or that electric cars would now be so common? Or that a breakthrough in battery technology is already revolutionising the car industry.

Meanwhile, the question for communities like Lacken is whether Net Zero or Do Nothing is the right option. Both carry losses with them, both have their limitations but it’s obvious what’s the right thing to do. And if we didn’t know it before, we know it now. It’s the difficult lesson that this summer has taught us.

Ed Conway’s book, Material World, is published by WH Auden.