Representation by Daniel J Wimberley
- Date submitted
- 19 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
1 Climate loss and damage, of every type identified by the IPCC in its reports, in every region of the world in varying degrees, again as identified by the IPCC, is, with minor caveats, proportional to cumulative GHG (Green House Gas) emissions. 2 It follows that every single additional tonne of CO2 and other GHG's adds to loss and damage all over the world. We are all directly and indirectly affected. 3 It follows from this that any project or policy or activity which adds to GHG emissions is directly responsible for increasing loss and damage all over the world, in ways, as mentioned above, which have been spelt out exhaustively by the IPCC. 4 The argument for projects such as the proposed expansion of Gatwick’s operations – and for BAU (Business As Usual) or scenarios similar to BAU in their effects, in general - frequently includes the idea that one tonne of GHG’s or even several hundreds of thousands of tonnes “does not add much,” and therefore “does not make much difference” to global heating and its effects. 5 However paragraphs 1 to 3 above show that this is a false argument. The loss and damage is already huge each year. Much more loss and damage is ALREADY BAKED IN to our planetary future. To add to it knowingly, as this project does, and thereby make the situation WORSE, is perverse. 6 It is worth spelling out the risks. tipping points 6.1 As the quantity of GHG emissions increases so does the risk of reaching tipping points. These are quite literally terrifying. They include but are not limited to • the melting of certain key glaciers which supply services to communities downstream such as a steady supply of water; • the melting of ice in the Antarctic and Arctic with consequences for sea level, ocean currents and wildlife some of which have been predicted and others which are no doubt unknown; • the change in tropical forests such as the Amazon from being steady carbon sinks to ceasing to act as sinks to becoming net emitters of GHG’s; • changes in the climate impact of the permafrost in the Arctic; • and others 7 It is worth spelling out the impacts. actual impacts 7.1 As the quantity of GHG emissions increases so does the risk of harmful climate impacts. We have already seen many of these actually happen, but many are threats as yet hidden but which will become more and more destructive with each additional tonne of GHG emissions. These impacts include but are not limited to • increased frequency, intensity, duration and scale of wildfires, excessive heat events, and droughts; • increased frequency, intensity, duration and scale of floods, winds, storms; • and therefore increases in the CONSEQUENCES of these extreme weather-related events. I will not detail them here. I ask any reader merely to rewind in their mind’s eye any of the reports of these events in the media. 8 These risks and impacts ON THEIR OWN should lead to the abandonment of this project on economic, international cooperation and moral grounds. The world faces an emergency and the decision on this project must reflect that. 9 IN ADDITION, these risks and impacts are often summarised in the formula adopted by the world that we must strive to keep the global temperature increase over pre-industrial levels to 1.5 degrees. This is an entirely inappropriate and inadequate figure, and should not be the standard to which this project should be held, for reasons which I will state to any examination of this project. Put very briefly, the figure of 1.5 degrees is a political figure, arrived at because it was at least a proposed LIMIT, and was seen as “achievable”. However, but risks which are built into this figure are totally unacceptable, as can easily be shown.