I'm a mum going to COP26 - AMA

[ParentsForFuture]

We're Charlotte and Rowan from Parents for Future UK, a growing group of parent climate campaigners. We're going to COP26 in Glasgow to demand ambitious action on the climate emergency and are planning what will be the biggest mobilization of parents ever on a single issue, with other parent groups. Mumsnet reached out to us to come on and answer your questions on COP26 and how parents can make their voice heard. Our work is led by parents and rooted in love (and fear). Charlotte (Mumsnetter) is from Bath and Rowan is from Oxford, and we each have two children, aged 3 and 7.

The biggest issue preventing agreement is trust

Humans trust much better face to face

Saving the planet does not mean stopping everything or being perfect

Saying everything must be done remote reminds me of the nursery rhyme. How the kingdom was lost for the want of a horse shoe nail

@MeatyTuck

OP: who are you planning to "hand deliver" this letter to? Don't all the bigwigs have security? I asked previously if you think an email might have been a more environmentally-sound means of communication. Not sure I received a response to that.

Of course no one will accept a letter from an activist, it could be anything inside. Seems very much token activism and then will share the achievements of someone else's work.

Because the truth is that the more humans consume, the more miserable they are

Hard disagree. Lived in a place where people didn’t have enough to consume. I assure you that’s much more miserable.

I’m completely opposite to you. I think fossil fuels are fantastic and the biggest poverty killer EVER. The third world needs more fossil fuels, and lots of them.

Here’s my question. What do you think of the idea that we can adapt to climate change? That it is cheaper and easier to adapt than try to figure out how to live without fossil fuels?

My evidence is that climate change always hits poorer countries with fewer resources hardest, and the richer and more productive a country is, the more they can actually withstand climate change.

Is this not a legitimate point of view?

The only way someone like you and myself could cooperate is to support nuclear. I would very much support you if you could push nuclear onto our leaders. Do you support nuclear power?

(I guess that was two questions)

@PumpkinsandTea

This is the most middle class thread I think I've ever read on Mumsnet!

OP - You're speaking in riddles without saying exactly what it actually is that you want the government to do? We're a tiny, tiny little island 🤣 Nothing and I mean NOTHING we do here is going to make a jot of difference to the overall climate of the planet. North America, Australia, Europe etc, on the other hand.... They could really make a difference.

Of course it is all the rage at the moment to be all 'eco' though so you're right on trend!

This is nineteen kinds of bollocks, I’m so surprised these tired old cliches that were first seeded by the fossil fuel companies PR machines keep getting trotted out.

We’re a massive economy. The sixth largest in the world. We consume way beyond the global average, and a lot of that consumption has the majority of its emissions abroad. We If we increased the standards to which we require those products to be produced to reflect the damage of the carbon, the sectors producing them in other countries will adapt. If we pass laws saying that no UK company can sell food that has deforestation anywhere in its supply chain, the market would adapt and the market for destruction in places like Brazil would decrease.

And then there’s what we fund. The carbon footprint of investments out of the City of London is greater than all of Germany’s. The absolute biggest thing the UK could do as a major financial centre is to stop allowing environmental destruction to be funded out of the UK. A recent report suggested the best thing any of us could do as individuals is to shift our pension funds into funds that are not paying for fossil fuel growth - which is mostly down to employers and the funds to make the shift.

Of course the UK doing that unilaterally won’t be enough, which is why we need these international negotiations and agreements.

As a developed economy who profited enormously from ‘dirty’ growth we also have a significant role to play in making sure the transition to a clean economy, globally, is just. We have to show that we are willing to go further and faster if we expect less developed economies to follow suit. We have to ensure finance is a available. That is how the politics of this has always worked.

The idea that individual changes can solve this is of course pretty nonsensical; we need big systems to change, in the same way as our energy sector has changed out of all recognition over the last 20 years. The big ones for a lot of countries, apart from power, are the food system, transport and heat. And the destruction of nature, which is depleting the earth’s ability to deal with even current levels of CO2.

And as for how to pay for it - a really superb start would be not giving massive subsidies to fossil fuel exploration and development and diverting that spending elsewhere. Not giving preferential trade deals that allow other countries to undercut our environmental standards. The last 20 years have shown that many of these technologies are getting cheaper faster than anyone had anticipated.

And ultimately it’s a question of whether we want our taxes to subsidise the transition to a clean economy or pay for cleaning up natural disasters, dealing with crippling food prices and shortages as global food crops fail thanks to drought, and the political and economic upheaval leading to instability, waves of refugees and war over things like water and food.

@Lookjaz

How do you explain the way the earths climate has changed since day one with millions of years with no humans around, going from very hot to ice ages and back

I would like to know the answer to this too 👆🏻

@Lilifer @Lookjaz If you’re actually interested, there are vast resources online that explain how the current heating is taking place at a speed and scale that has no comparison in any natural cycles of heating and cooling that we know about, and how the scientific consensus that current warming is man-made was arrived at.

@UsedUpUsername

Because the truth is that the more humans consume, the more miserable they are

Hard disagree. Lived in a place where people didn’t have enough to consume. I assure you that’s much more miserable.

I’m completely opposite to you. I think fossil fuels are fantastic and the biggest poverty killer EVER. The third world needs more fossil fuels, and lots of them.

Here’s my question. What do you think of the idea that we can adapt to climate change? That it is cheaper and easier to adapt than try to figure out how to live without fossil fuels?

My evidence is that climate change always hits poorer countries with fewer resources hardest, and the richer and more productive a country is, the more they can actually withstand climate change.

Is this not a legitimate point of view?

The only way someone like you and myself could cooperate is to support nuclear. I would very much support you if you could push nuclear onto our leaders. Do you support nuclear power?

(I guess that was two questions)

Yes what about nuclear power?

@Lilifer @Lookjaz in the past natural cycles tend to be over long periods which has given the planet time to adapt and evolve. The sun has recently been in a relatively cool or inactive phase, the current natural cycle would have the earth cooling. It isn't, it is warming faster than at any time our species has been around and we are responsible.

[quote JassyRadlett]**@Lilifer* @Lookjaz* If you’re actually interested, there are vast resources online that explain how the current heating is taking place at a speed and scale that has no comparison in any natural cycles of heating and cooling that we know about, and how the scientific consensus that current warming is man-made was arrived at.[/quote]
Thank you I would like to find out more. Can you point me to any good sources on this. I would have always supported recycling and looking after our environment reducing plastic waste and have always rejected over consumerism but I feel that the climate change movement has taken a turn in the wrong direction this last few years and that worries me. I see huge hypocrisy in the way that the world leaders traipse around to these summits in their private planes whilst lecturing the plebs about how to live. I see the Insulate Britain movement behave like an anarchist mob and I feel very alienated from what was once a movement I very much agreed with.

[quote Daftasabroom]**@Lilifer* @Lookjaz* in the past natural cycles tend to be over long periods which has given the planet time to adapt and evolve. The sun has recently been in a relatively cool or inactive phase, the current natural cycle would have the earth cooling. It isn't, it is warming faster than at any time our species has been around and we are responsible.[/quote]
Thanks for this. I will do some reading around this. I don't doubt that humans have abused the earth and that we could and should all make changes to how we live but there's a limit to what we can all do realistically, for instance does anyone actually believe we can or should achieve Net Zero ??

We’re a massive economy. The sixth largest in the world. We consume way beyond the global average, and a lot of that consumption has the majority of its emissions abroad

Britain should make its own stuff, yes, but this isn’t a charity. China profits handsomely from selling you crap, which is a good thing. The poverty level in China has plummeted, they’ve done far more to tackle poverty than any UN programme.

We If we increased the standards to which we require those products to be produced to reflect the damage of the carbon, the sectors producing them in other countries will adapt

Are you referring to some sort of global carbon tax?

If we pass laws saying that no UK company can sell food that has deforestation anywhere in its supply chain, the market would adapt and the market for destruction in places like Brazil would decrease

Has to be some sort of balance here, poorer countries do need to develop their economies to fight poverty. Some deforestation will be needed for that. No good to leave people in developing countries starving and miserable.

And then there’s what we fund. The carbon footprint of investments out of the City of London is greater than all of Germany’s. The absolute biggest thing the UK could do as a major financial centre is to stop allowing environmental destruction to be funded out of the UK. A recent report suggested the best thing any of us could do as individuals is to shift our pension funds into funds that are not paying for fossil fuel growth - which is mostly down to employers and the funds to make the shift

We need fossil fuels though. Why not invest in something that is necessary for daily life? Why should the UK depend on OPEC and Russia to supply natural gas?

As a developed economy who profited enormously from ‘dirty’ growth we also have a significant role to play in making sure the transition to a clean economy, globally, is just

It’s not just to deny poorer countries the opportunity to develop themselves using cheap fossil fuels. It’s the only route out of poverty.

We have to show that we are willing to go further and faster if we expect less developed economies to follow suit

Yes, please show us the folly of chasing the green dream.

And as for how to pay for it - a really superb start would be not giving massive subsidies to fossil fuel exploration and development and diverting that spending elsewhere

And ultimately it’s a question of whether we want our taxes to subsidise the transition to a clean economy or pay for cleaning up natural disasters, dealing with crippling food prices and shortages as global food crops fail thanks to drought, and the political and economic upheaval leading to instability, waves of refugees and war over things like water and food

I actually prefer the latter. A healthy and productive economy can deal with natural disasters, no evidence that CO2 increases will lead to widespread droughts (as u know plants thrive with more CO2 and some countries will have longer growing seasons than previously. It’s not all bad u know)

@UsedUpUsername are you suggesting that CO2 doesn't cause drought?

@Lilifer lots of data here: ourworldindata.org/search
And some science here:
skepticalscience.com/argument.php

@PearlclutchersInc

How are you financing your trip (sorry if this has already been asked)?

@PearlclutchersInc: We have managed to do almost all our work over the last 3 years with very very little funding (pretty much everyone works as volunteers) but going to COP is expensive so we have had to fundraise for this piece of work. We've had funding from 3 philanthropic foundations for our work around COP26 and have a few wonderful individuals who donate through our website. We're helped by the lovely people at the Social Change Nest CIC in managing all our finances transparently.

Britain should make its own stuff, yes, but this isn’t a charity. China profits handsomely from selling you crap, which is a good thing. The poverty level in China has plummeted, they’ve done far more to tackle poverty than any UN programme.

Literally not what I’m saying. I’m saying that we shouldn’t pretend our consumption emissions don’t exist, and that we don’t have control over them.

We already set standards for what can be sold on our shelves. We can include environmental impact in that if we want to, with a due diligence duty on suppliers and retailers for the sustainability of their supply chain.

Not disagreeing on China’s development, or that it’s a good thing. China will happily make us better things if we ask for and pay for them.

Has to be some sort of balance here, poorer countries do need to develop their economies to fight poverty. Some deforestation will be needed for that. No good to leave people in developing countries starving and miserable.

Totally agree. Which is why climate and clean development finance is so important but also why we should use our purchasing power and huge investment to fund pathways to clean growth. Improving standards on cotton hasn’t let to those jobs disappearing, it’s led to the growth of factories that develop more sustainable clothing, and our consumption money is funding more sustainable economic growth in those countries.

We consume a huge amount. We invest even more. We may as well do some good with it.

Are you referring to some sort of global carbon tax?

Not in this context, though carbon pricing may have to play a role. There are a huge number of levers at our disposal for the products we import and consume, from product standards to supply chain due diligence to preferential trade and tariff rates for sustainable products.

We need fossil fuels though. Why not invest in something that is necessary for daily life? Why should the UK depend on OPEC and Russia to supply natural gas?

We need them now. We shouldn’t be building an economy that relies on them in 20 years’ time and if the choice is between subsidising a commodity that is increasingly expensive and difficult to extract domestically (like North Sea O&G) or a available at the whim of not too friendly foreign states, or a commodity that is becoming cheaper as the technology develops, where storage is developing incredibly quickly to deal with intermittency and where non-fossil baseload is available anyway, where should we put that cash?

Build more nuclear plants and invest in storage. Renewables are already at market parity.

It’s not just to deny poorer countries the opportunity to develop themselves using cheap fossil fuels. It’s the only route out of poverty.

Nonsense. Not supporting them to develop through a clean energy pathway now would be utterly scandalous, as we’d be condemning them to the same transition costs in the future as we’re facing now, as well as the added health burden associated fossil fuel development. That’s what a just transition and climate finance is all about - giving those countries support to continue to develop without developing reliance on fossil fuels at the same time.

I actually prefer the latter. A healthy and productive economy can deal with natural disasters, no evidence that CO2 increases will lead to widespread droughts (as u know plants thrive with more CO2 and some countries will have longer growing seasons than previously. It’s not all bad u know)

The IPCC and economic forecasters disagree with you on all these. Droughts are one of the natural disasters already increasing in frequency. More frequent and severe natural disasters (including new diseases) have massive economic costs and undermine the health and productivity of an economy.

(Plants need water as well as CO2 to thrive… it’s been a thing for a while.)

But good that you’ve made clear that you know better than all those scientists.

@Embracelife

I clicked as I am also "mum at cop"...but am working here. Surely many of the male and female delegates to COP are parents? As activists or government or media or whatever. I am here with work. I have ( grown up) dc. I am a "mum" so I am a "mum at COP". My colleague is a "dad at cop".

Why "parents"4future and not just "people"for future?
Would a better title be "I am an activist " at COP? To distinguish from other "mums at cop" who may be working for whatever government or organisation?

See you there!!

You're absolutely right, lots of the delegates are of course parents and that's one part of our work: trying to connect to decision makers 'as parents' and speak to them parent-to-parent as that often helps to cut through some of the professional facade people hide behind. Rather than leaving emotions out of the negotiating spaces, our argument is we really need to do a better job of remembering the people we love, remembering what motivates us as individuals in the work we're doing at COP.

We've had lots of debates around people vs parents (and mums/mothers vs parents as most of the movement is women but dads are VERY much needed too!) but communicating that you can engage on climate 'just' because you love your kids/you care about their future is something that a lot of people don't get. Where as a lot of people don't identify as 'an activist' a whole lot of people do identify as a mum, or a parent, and they're the audience we're trying to reach with a lot of our work - to show that 'normal people' are going to COP too .

[quote Daftasabroom]@UsedUpUsername are you suggesting that CO2 doesn't cause drought?

@Lilifer lots of data here: ourworldindata.org/search
And some science here:
skepticalscience.com/argument.php[/quote]

Listen to this guy, co founder of Greenpeace on the subject of Co2 emissions and he strongly refutes the current thinking on this. He's has a degree in Biology and Forestry and led the green peace movement for many years before resigning from the movement due to their move towards what he saw as unscientific claims and beliefs.

@JassyRadlett I wasn't referring to economy! 🤣
I'm talking literal size in comparison to the rest of the world! In terms of climate change and the difference a tiny, tiny little island like ours can actually make to a massive planet like this. Nothing to do with money ffs

Did you know that since signing the Paris Agreement, the UK Government has paid £4 billion of public money to North Sea oil and gas companies? That is taxpayers money being spent supporting an industry that pays billions out to shareholders and that is wreaking havoc on our planet. And money that could be spent investing in green technology.

And yes, as we’ve said in other responses, both of us have made some changes to how we live to try to make our personal lifestyles more aligned with our activism - including things like diet.

Nonsense. Not supporting them to develop through a clean energy pathway now would be utterly scandalous, as we’d be condemning them to the same transition costs in the future as we’re facing now, as well as the added health burden associated fossil fuel development

My argument is that they need fossil fuels now to be more productive. Renewables really cannot replace fossil fuels. And what is the health burden you are mentioning here?

That’s what a just transition and climate finance is all about - giving those countries support to continue to develop without developing reliance on fossil fuels at the same time

A renewable economy hasn’t been realised at this time so why not give them the blueprint that has worked for both European and Asian economies? To deny that is not justice.

I actually prefer the latter. A healthy and productive economy can deal with natural disasters, no evidence that CO2 increases will lead to widespread droughts (as u know plants thrive with more CO2 and some countries will have longer growing seasons than previously. It’s not all bad u know)

The IPCC and economic forecasters disagree with you on all these. Droughts are one of the natural disasters already increasing in frequency. More frequent and severe natural disasters (including new diseases) have massive economic costs and undermine the health and productivity of an economy

They are models, not really worth undermining your economy for. Droughts increase but we are also able to produce drought-resistant crops and more carbon dioxide means that plants should thrive along with longer growing seasons.

Plants need water as well as CO2 to thrive… it’s been a thing for a while

😂 ok but more CO2 means they also need less water. Has been a thing forever

But good that you’ve made clear that you know better than all those scientists

Scientists say the earth is warming, I think so too. But scientists do not know how to translate their knowledge into policy. And we can debate over it, it’s debatable about what policies we should pursue.

I prefer mitigation over unreliable energy policies. We should explore what that could look like. I think we could agree on a lot really.

@ParentsForFuture

What is your thinking on nuclear power? I don’t believe you’ve answered

Forgot to @MatildaIThink in that response!

So good to have so many questions/comments etc here! Sorry if we've missed any questions/some people have had more than one response - we're both trying to jump in to reply.

We are trying to answer as many people as possible but are both also packing for going up to Glasgow and juggling childcare of 3yo's today so please bear with us if we don't reply immediately!

@MangoIce

Why couldn’t this be over video call? I bet most people took their private jets and big cars. No one used public transport.

And then the event itself. Loads of cars, energy from fuelling the building and making food etc.

All these rich people claiming to be environmentalists. If they really cared then they wouldn’t travel to conferences in other countries.

I think it's best in person. The message from those talking gets across so much better, it's harder to look someone in the eye and say no or be the only person not voting for something when the pressure is on when you are next to those people. It makes the issues, pressure and voting system better than hiding behind a screen. Much more able to reach agreements and persuade people face to face.

Thanks for attending and speaking up. I don't get the criticism you are getting either, crazy. Someone is trying to do good and they are getting a hard time- madness. I don't agree that environmentalists have to be perfect in order to care about the environment but they do need to practice what they preach somewhat.

My question- what is your take on the royal families and celebrities attending the conference given their carbon footprint?

My argument is that they need fossil fuels now to be more productive. Renewables really cannot replace fossil fuels. And what is the health burden you are mentioning here?

They need energy now to be more productive. Renewables now as cheap as fossil fuels for electricity - storage and/or base load become the issue. Driving those countries into total fossil fuel dependency rather than on a similar technological pathway would be criminal.

Poor air quality impacts of fossil fuel burning are fairly well documented, and the health impacts and burdens on health systems are pretty major (it was one of the big drivers for China on starting to move away from fossil fuels, tbh.)

Scientists say the earth is warming, I think so too. But scientists do not know how to translate their knowledge into policy. And we can debate over it, it’s debatable about what policies we should pursue.

But your argument on this wasn’t on the policy response, it was that the scientists are wrong about the physical consequences of that warming in the form of natural disasters including droughts, severe storms.

Please do let the Australian, Canadian and particularly the Madagascan farmers know about these magic crops that can deal with their recent droughts because all the CO2 means they can do without water.

Or the farmers in Uganda whose crops are now fucked because they’ve had too much rain and their yields are screwed.

Unstable weather makes farming incredibly difficult. And the amount of arable land overall is likely to shrink significantly with the current pace of heating.

I prefer mitigation over unreliable energy policies. We should explore what that could look like. I think we could agree on a lot really.

Mitigation is prevention. You’re talking about adaptation. At this point, we’re going to need both. But there’s only so much adaptation you can do. Might be ok for the ‘healthy productive economies’ you talked about earlier but the developing countries you claim to care about? How much adaptation can they afford, or is even practicable? How do they deal with ever-increasing floods and droughts, lower crop yields, rising sea levels?

And as for unstable energy policies… our reliance on gas is working out really well for us right now, isn’t it?

@DontGiveAFlyingFig

Can the things we do really change anything especially as it appears China and Russia in all honesty couldn't care less?

China and Russia are actually doing more than we are led to believe. @ @DontGiveAFlyingFig

China are actually doing more than we are led to believe. Especially around renewables. And we have to be careful when pointing the finger at other countries - China especially - when we import SO much from them. In fact if we included all that we import from other countries like China, our carbon footprint would double. So yes we can change things - and we absolutely have to start with ourselves. (Not meaning you as an individual, individuals alone can't do much at all, but ourselves as a collective.)