The Challenge of Transport in Sub-Saharan Africa

ImageTRANSPORT is a key challenge for Sub-Saharan Africa. It is critical importance to the delivery of sustainable cities, healthy citizens, poverty eradication and achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. So how can Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries address the challenge of sustainable transport?

Road safety in Africa as a whole is extremely poor having approximately 3 per cent of the world’s motor vehicles yet accounting for 11 per cent of global road fatalities. Traffic congestion in SSA cities is on the rise with some cities approaching gridlock. The urban populations of SSA are growing rapidly, faster than in all other regions of the world, and this situation is expected to continue over the next two decades.

Urban air pollution in major SSA cities is rapidly worsening due to vehicle fleet growth, increasing distances travelled, and high rates of polluting vehicle emissions from vehicles. Globally, transport accounts for approximately 25 per cent of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions and reducing emissions from the on-road transportation sector can yield rapid and longer-term climate benefits. Yet published data on traffic congestion, air pollution, including greenhouse gases, and road safety tend to be of poor quality in SSA.

This is an issue which is partly being addressed by the Transport Environment-Science Technology (TEST) Network. A EU funded Network led by the Stockholm Environment Institute Institute and European Institute for Sustainable Transport working in partnership with universities in South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe and Zambia. The TEST Network aims to support Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries in formulating and implementing sustainable transport policies which contribute to poverty reduction and sustainable economic development.

ImageA new report written by a panel of international experts, examines the transport and environment challenges in SSA countries. The report states that transport policy decisions and the detailed spatial, sectoral and social beneficiaries of transport spending and strategies have a hugely important impact on the lives of hundreds of millions of people in SSA.

There are a large number of well documented ways in which we can improve the quality of life of Africa’s citizens. We can improve air quality and public health, remove the scourge and distress caused by death, injury and disability as a result of road crashes and increase the likelihood of widely disseminated economic gains to all sections of society.

In this social-technical-economic complex there are important democratic considerations. What do African citizens want for the future of their families, their communities their regions and their country? Given a choice of living in poverty, pollution, traffic danger and poor quality access to important health, education and training opportunities or living in a thriving, opportunity-rich, clean and safe environment it is already very clear that the latter is preferable to the former.

ImageThe TEST report argues that transport policy for SSA must be embedded in a poverty eradication policy and poverty eradication must deliver real gains in transport as it affects 800 million SSA citizens. This policy synergy provides a huge opportunity to deliver successful outcomes and they will not deliver if they move along in non-communicating parallel tracks.

The report  makes recommendations for the development of sustainable transport policies in SSA based on five central principles:

  1. Maximizing transport accessibility for all social groups, genders and income levels, so that all citizens can access health care, education, training and jobs with minimal effort, costs and journey time;
  2. Creating a safe, secure urban environment with the minimum possible risk of death and injury from road accidents;
  3. Ensuring that all public health measures deal with the debilitating and costly consequences of air pollution on human health;
  4. Freeing up urban road space by improving traffic flow conditions in a way that stimulates economic activity and job creation and avoids the generation of new traffic; and
  5. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

SSA has some very serious transport problems but these present all decision-takers and policy makers with opportunities to re-shape traditional policies to produce a step-change improvement in quality of life for citizens and to deliver the urgently needed poverty alleviation outcomes already agreed.

Policies and interventions can be re-shaped and the task now is to orchestrate the political and professional support and unwavering commitment to deliver all these virtuous outcomes.

© Gary Haq 2012

Can Economic Growth Deliver the Future We Want?

With Britain’s economy slipping into a double dip recession there is an urgent need to stimulate economic growth. This is widely seen as a panacea that will save us from austerity but can the pursuit of economic growth deliver the future we want?

The post-war period saw many nations equating economic growth with progress driven by technological innovation. While capitalism and the quest for economic growth have produced many benefits, this has come at a cost to the natural environment which is often not reflected in the balance sheet. The expansion of the production of good and services has required large amounts of labour, materials, energy and capital. Economic production has produced pollution and waste, degraded natural habitats and depleted natural resources to an extent that our future survival is now under threat.

In 2008 the world experienced multiple crises with regard to finance, fuel and food that contributed to the worst international economic recession since the 1930s Great Depression. The global financial crisis led to global per capita income contracting and the volume of world trade declining. It demonstrated serious flaws in our current western economic model of development and highlighted the need to reconsider the principles that have guided our economic policy making.

It is now time to think again about economic growth and how we actually measure it. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has been used as a key indicator to measure the sum of all goods and services produced in a country over time. However, this national indicator of economic progress does not consider inequality, pollution or damage to people’s health and the environment. Critics have called for GDP to be replaced with new indicators that better measure how our national policies can truly deliver a better quality of life for all.

Economic debate has tended to imply a choice has to be made between going green or going for growth. Yet we have no choice if we are to address simultaneously the current crises in global economic and environmental systems. The traditional pursuit for growth has expanded the economy to such a size that it now must conform to global environmental constraints.

Further growth will be uneconomic because it will produce more social and environmental costs than it does benefits. The only option is for ‘green’ growth that meets the dual objectives of economic growth and environmental protection with a focus on better outcomes not more outputs – a shift from quantity to quality.

In Prosperity Without Growth Tim Jackson argues that this will require a different kind of economy for a different kind of prosperity – one where human beings can flourish within the ecological limits of a finite planet. Our growth economy is driven by the consumption and production of novelty which locks society into an iron cage of consumerism. Change at the personal and societal level is necessary to make the transition to a new form of prosperity that does not depend on unrelenting growth.

In June world leaders were called upon to commit to a revolutionary paradigm shift from traditional quantity-oriented fossil fuel dependent growth towards green growth. More than 100 heads of State and government attended the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero to shape new policies to promote prosperity, reduce poverty and advance social equity and environmental protection. The Summit marked twenty years since the original 1992 Rio Earth Summit that set out the framework to address climate change and implement sustainable development into practice.

A transition towards a greener economy requires long-term sustainable growth and the efficient use of natural resources, reduction of carbon emissions, and eradication of poverty. This will require developing a green economy in the UK and working at an international level to tackle long term challenges.

In the short-term the transition to a green economy will involve additional costs and difficult choices. We will need to transform what we produce and how we produce it and take advantage of resource efficiencies. This will be achieved by using new technologies and adopting different ways of living and working, and investing in infrastructure. All economic sectors will need to grow without undermining the capacity of the environment to support our future quality of life. They will need to develop greater resilience to future environmental challenges such as climate change, material, energy and food insecurity and natural disasters.

The transition to a green economy will allow businesses to benefit from resources efficiencies and market opportunities and contribute to creating new green jobs. UK business could save as much as £23 billion a year through efficiency savings by improving the way they use energy and water, and by reducing waste. In addition, they could take advantage of the global market for environmental goods and services which has been estimated to be worth about £2.27 trillion, with forecasts predicting 4 per cent growth on an annual basis.

However, a recent report by the Institute Public Policy Research (IPPR) examined the views of over one hundred British industries on the transition to a green economy, particularly in the energy, transport and manufacturing sectors. Despite David Cameron’s Coalition government claiming to be the greenest government ever, IPPR found that industry was critical of the Coalition due to a perceived disconnect between the rhetoric of ministers and the policies they were pursuing.

Recent policy changes such as the feed-in tariffs for solar photovoltaic installations were seen as shifting the goal posts and doing little to maintain business and investor confidence in the green growth agenda. The report highlighted the need for policymakers to taken on a more active role in addressing the barriers to green growth faced by many manufacturing and energy-intensive industries.

Greening the economy will undoubtedly be good for business, people and the planet. The Earth Summit resulted in the International community simply affirming the need to achieve a green economy. However, the rhetoric contained in the final report of the conference needs to be matched by action. Clear financial incentives are need to encourage greener investment and behaviour in government, businesses and consumers.

If we are to create the future we want we need to need to develop a new form of prosperity that is not dependent on continual growth. Fundamental change to the structure of society and the market economy is needed if real environmental gains are to be achieved. Change on the scale achieved in the industrial revolution is required driven by clean, efficient and sustainable renewable energy technologies. The only solution to austerity is to ensure the UK is firmly placed at the forefront of this new global green revolution.

© Gary Haq 2012

What Do Older People Think About The Environment?

We are all getting older. There are now approximately 760 million people globally aged 60-plus compared to just 200 million back in 1950. By 2050 people aged 60-plus are predicted to reach 2 billion people.

We are all getting older. There are now approximately 760 million people globally aged 60-plus compared to just 200 million back in 1950. By 2050 people aged 60-plus are predicted to reach 2 billion people.

Increased lifespan demonstrates the success of modern medicine particularly in developing countries. However, an ageing population will have major implications for health care, pensions and working practices.

An older society will require a cultural change in how we perceive and treat older people and policy makers will need to prepare for the challenges of an ageing population. Not just in terms of need but also the contribution older people can make to society in later life.

Evidence shows that some older people in certain regions of the world can be disproportionately affected by environmental problems such as air pollution, climate change-related heat waves and other natural disasters.

In addition, recent research, surveys and consultations have exposed the missed opportunities associated with the lack of closer engagement of the over 55s in general discussion on environmental issues.

It is therefore important that seniors around the world make their voices heard so that policy makers can take action to better prepare for the needs of an ageing population.

In June 2012 the environment will once again be in the international spotlight as world leaders descend on Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) for the United Nations Conference for Environment and Development or “Earth Summit”.

In an attempt to address the “missing voice” of older people and to encourage wider involvement, an consortium led by the Stockholm Environment Institute is seeking the views of older people around the world on the environmental issues of primary concern and their ideas for tackling them.

This survey is being conducted by an international consortium of older people organisations and universities. The consortium is led by SEI at the University of York (UK) and the Simon Fraser University Gerontology Research Centre (Canada) and includes Help Age International, Age UK, Community Service Volunteers’ Retired and Senior Volunteer Programme (RSVP) and the Council On The Ageing (COTA) – Victoria (Australia).

If your are over 55 then make sure your voice is heard by completing the On-line survey at before the 30 April 2012.

© Gary Haq 2012

A New Age of Green Localism

A greater focus on grass-roots action and ‘green localism’ could re-engage a public that is sometimes disinterested and suspicious of environmental issues.

As the world enters an age of natural resource scarcity and climate change, food and energy insecurity will affect the way of life of local communities.

A greater focus on grass-roots action and ‘green localism’ could re-engage a public that is sometimes disinterested and suspicious of environmental issues.

The notion of ‘decentralisation’ is not a new concept and has been at the heart of the environmental movement reflecting its commitment to localism balanced by global responsibility.

Empowering community groups and strengthening community bonds could deliver multiple social and environmental benefits. People could be encouraged to take action to tackle issues that are local priorities and within their immediate sphere of influence.

There are already many groups and projects that are ‘acting locally and thinking globally’ such as cooperatives, transition towns and neighbourhood schemes. One such initiative is the York Green Neighbourhood Challenge that was undertaken by the Stockholm Environment Institute at the University of York and the City of York Council (UK).

The York Green Neighbourhood Challenge developed a targeted social marketing approach to engage selected areas of the City of York in Yorkshire and work with residents to reduce their carbon emissions.

Using national data on household expenditure and green attitudes as well as data on local infrastructure (e.g. proximity to local services, potential of housing stock for energy conservation and access to transport links), the initiative targeted neighbourhoods which had the greatest potential for behavioural change.

These were York neighbourhoods where households considered themselves to be ‘green’ but had a high carbon footprint.

Six teams from the targeted areas were recruited: three neighbourhoods, two primary schools and one church. Over a six-month period each team was supported by a green mentor. Team members received expert advice on home energy, recycling, travel and other action they could take to meet their target of a 10 per cent reduction in carbon emissions.

The participants who successfully completed the challenge achieved an estimated average carbon footprint reduction of 2.0 tonnes of CO2e a year. This is a total reduction of 11 per cent – which equates to an estimated total emission reduction of 98 tonnes of CO2e a year.

The largest reduction was seen in the area of shopping and home energy use.

The initiative demonstrated the benefits of taking a targeted approach in reducing household carbon emission. With support and encouragement residents can saved money, met new people and reduced their environmental impact.

The York Green Neighbourhood Challenge was effective in achieving a statistically significant reduction in the carbon footprint of households. The initiative has provided a legacy of a tried and test model of engagement. It helped to foster community spirit by giving a reason for neighbours to work together. Two of the winning teams have merged to establish one large local community group which is continuing to promote local neighbourhood change.

The ‘York model’ has now been adopted sub-regionally. The North Yorkshire Green Neighbourhood Challenge will work with community teams in seven local authorities in 2011.

People are disillusioned with the broken promises of politicians and the inertia of government in implementing the measures that can guarantee a transition to a low carbon society. A age of green localism will empower individuals to take action to create change at the local level. For many years a handful of doorstep champions have campaigned locally and raised local awareness, there is now a need for more sections of the community to get involved and to help improve the local quality of life and increase feelings of wellbeing and happiness.

More projects such as the York Green Neighbourhood Challenge are needed to encourage and foster local activism. By working in partnership with local authorities and businesses local groups could contribute to building community resilience by becoming more self-sufficient. This would enable local communities to tackle climate change, improve health and well being, secure a healthy natural environment and make their neighbourhoods safer and more cohesive.

© Gary Haq 2011

Selling Off Our Green Heritage

WHEN UK Premier Margaret Thatcher’s government privatised various public utilities in the 1980s she was criticised for ‘selling off the family silver’.
Now the ‘children of Thatcher’ want to sell off the family’s ‘green heritage’.

WHEN UK Premier Margaret Thatcher privatised various public utilities in the 1980s she was criticised for ‘selling off the family silver’.

Now the ‘children of Thatcher’ want to sell off the family’s ‘green heritage’.

As the UK Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition government proposes to ‘flog off the forests’ and dispose of 85 per cent of England’s public forest estate, they are receiving increasing opposition from cyclists, horse riders, ramblers to dog walkers and Oscar winning celebrities.

But will a government that wants to empower local people and communities, listen to what they have got to say?

The Forestry Commission currently manages 18 per cent of England’s woodlands. This includes a number of the most sensitive and protected wildlife habitats that form some of our greenest and most pleasant landscapes. The rest are privately owned and cover 931,000 hectares.

The Coalition government believes that other sectors of society might be better placed to own and manage the estate than the Forestry Commission, which has been in operation since 1919.

The public estate currently produces 70 per cent of England’s home grown softwood timber from its holding of 40 per cent of England’s conifer forests.

However, the Environment Minister, Caroline Spelman, argues that the Forestry Commission must be reformed to avoid conflict of interest as it is both a regulator and participant in the market.

By selling off its holdings the Forestry Commission can focus on its regulatory role by providing expertise on a range of tree-related matters.

On 27 January 2011 the Coalition government published a consultation document on the future of the forest estate in England.

In which it proposes a mix-model approach where charitable organisations, community groups and commercial operators buy or lease forests they would like to manage.

The government has divided English woodland into four categories based on their economic value and their social and environmental benefits. These range from ‘large’ and ‘small’ commercially viable forests and woodlands to ‘multi-purpose’ and ‘heritage’ forests.

The heritage forests such as the Forest of Dean and the New Forest will only be sold to charitable trusts.

The Head of the National Trust, Dame Fiona Reynolds, has described the government’s proposal to withdraw from the management and of England’s forests and ancient woodlands as a ‘watershed moment in the history of the nation’.

Another ‘watershed moment’ occurred with the enclosure of common land that took place in the eighteenth and nineteenth century.

This involved enclosing a field with a fence or hedge to prevent others from using it. The process allowed the supply of natural raw materials that was essential for the industrial revolution. Peasants were dislodged from their lands and forced to migrate to cities and work in factories.

This resulted in a fundamental shift in the economic relationship between people and their natural environment that dispossessed many while enriching a few, replacing collective rights with private property.

Forests are a large publicly owned asset. And some critics see the Coalition government’s decision to sell them off as being ideologically driven. Those who put their faith in the role of markets to bring social and environmental benefits endorse the selling off of nature.

They see that nature needs to be privately owned and turned into a commodity if its potential is to be realised and the common good is to be served. Yet this brings with it potential risks.

Campaigners against the Coalition government’s plans fear that those woodlands that are sold will not have the same guarantees of access as they have today.

They are concerned that the privatised forests will follow the fate of Rigg Wood – a 16 hectare wood in the Lake District which was sold in October last year. To the local residents dismay the new owner reduced access for visitors by shutting down the car park and dismantling the picnic area.

The forest sell off is part of David Cameron’s Big Society initiative to shift the balance of power from government to society. This will mean that financially strapped charities and communities groups will have to compete with commercial companies and wealthy inheritance tax dodgers, if they want to buy particular woodlands and forests to protect.

There is also no guarantee that a community-owned forest will have sufficient resources to maintain ownership over the long-term.

A Big Society requires politicians big enough to listen and respond when people tell them they have got it wrong. In the International Year of the Forests that celebrates ‘forests for people’ the Coalition government is in danger of preventing many from enjoying England’s most precious natural assets.

Nearly 500,000 people have signed the 38 Degree Save Our Forests petition. However, leading UK Environmentalist, Jonathon Porritt, has criticised Britain’s ten most powerful green groups for betraying the public and making themselves look irrelvant by not supporting the campaign to halt the sale of the England’s forests.

More recently, the Government has announced it would postpone the sell off of 15 per cent of forestland because of concerns over access rights.

However, the government claims that this will not affect its broader proposal to sell nationally owned woods, which is still the subject of public consultation.

Forests offer a vital connection with nature in an increasingly urbanised world. Even those who rarely venture into the woods take comfort in the fact that they exist and are accessible to all.

To sell of our green heritage is to deny future generations the freedom to roam in our woodlands and discover the wonders of nature.


In a statement to the Commons on 17 February 2011, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman, who oversaw the controversial proposals, announced the u-turn, saying: “I am sorry, we got this one wrong.”

She said she took “full responsibility” for the climb-down, which was required after it became clear “the public and many MPs are not happy with the proposals”.

“If there is one clear message it is that people cherish their forests and woodlands and the benefits that they bring,” she told the House.

Lets see what happens next …

© Gary Haq 2011

Photo credits: Shutterstock

Rediscovering Nature in 2011

MANY of our New Year resolutions will probably not last more than a few weeks.

However, there is one resolution that we should all make to deal with the stress, anxiety and depression that inevitably come with economic uncertainty.

This is to enjoy nature more. After all, our natural environment is not only free but it is good for our health too.

Like other animals that inhabit the planet, we are intimately connected with, embedded in, and inseparable from nature. We have an innate emotional and physical dependency on our natural environment.

Unfortunately, we seemed to have forgotten this basic tenet of our existence as we have developed our industrial and globalised society.

We are increasingly replacing nature with artificial man-made creations, which has led some thinkers to suggest that our separation from the natural world is having a negative impact on our overall mental health and wellbeing.

Depression affects approximately 121 million people worldwide. The World Health Organization predicts depression will be the second greatest cause of ill health globally by 2020. In the UK depression affects one in 10 people each year, with more than half of those experiencing more than one episode.

According to a 2007 national mental health survey, the percentage of people with a “common mental disorder” that causes marked emotional distress and interferes with daily function increased from 15.5 per cent in 1993 to 17.6 per cent in 2007.

This is approximately an additional million extra unhappy people. The largest increase was observed in women aged 45-64 whose rate rose by a fifth, while people living in low- income households were more likely to have a common mental disorder than those living in high-income households.

In 2008, there were 2.1 million more prescriptions of antidepressants in England than in 2007, leading to concerns that doctors are increasingly supplying the drugs as a “quick fix” without attempting to address the underlying cause of the problems.

In total, 36 million prescriptions were given out, an increase of 24 per cent over a five year period. The use of anti-depressants such as Prozac or sessions of cognitive therapy are increasingly seen as failing to deal with the root cause of many modern day mental health problems.

One approach that has been developed to deal with the stresses and strains of modern living is ‘Ecotherapy’, which can be defined as healing and growth nurtured by healthy interaction with the earth. It addresses common difficulties such as anxiety, depression and stress using nature-based methods.

Cynics will probably see these methods used to connect with nature as New Age mumbo jumbo, as they include working with plants and animals, detaching oneself from rigid artificial time schedules, changing home and working environments, dream therapy and wilderness retreats.

However, we should not forget that the belief that the natural environment is good for our mental and physical health is nothing new. Many medical professions, including Florence Nightingale, encouraged people to go the country to convalesce. The natural environment is seen as being a beneficial restorative environment that enhances mental energies and reduces stress.

Research has shown that prisoners whose cells overlooked farmland and trees had 24 per cent fewer sick visits than those in cells facing the prison yard. A 10-year comparative study of post-operative patients found hospital stay for patients with tree views was significantly shorter and patients required fewer painkillers and used less medication.

A study by the mental health charity, Mind, found that 90 per cent of people who took part in Mind green exercise activities said that the combination of nature and exercise is most important in determining how they feel.

A total of 71 per cent of respondents reported decreased levels of depression following a green walk compared to increased feelings of depression following an indoor shopping centre walk that was experienced by 22 per cent of respondents.

One way to deal with the stresses that lie ahead in 2011 is to make the most of nature. This requires replacing retail therapy with ecotherapy and the city gym with the green gym. We should abandon the characterless shopping centres, windowless gyms for natural vegetation and attractive landscapes.

We should enjoy gardening, cycling and walking more. In particular, making the most of those parks, green fields and lanes in our local neighbourhood we have passed many times but never bothered to explore.

In a world that focuses on “doing” rather than “being”, it is easy not to find the time to nurture our spirit and feed our soul. Reconnecting with nature in the New Year could just be the pathway that guarantees a fitter, happier and more prosperous 2011.

© Gary Haq 2011

Photo credits: Shutterstock

No Pressure: Confusing the Climate Message

ON 1 October 2010 the 10:10 Campaign, which aims to reduce carbon emissions by 10 per cent in 2010, launched a short film to encourage people to take action on climate change.

The depiction of children, office workers and footballers being blown up for not taking action has taken climate change communication to a whole new level.

The 10:10 No Pressure film was written by award winning British screen writer, Richard Curtis, known for his romantic comedy, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill and TV comedy Black Adder. The movie was removed from the 10:10 website on the same day due to the negative response received and an apology was issued:

Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called ‘No Pressure’. With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain’s leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis … agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.
As a result of these concerns we’ve taken it off our website. We won’t be making any attempt to censor or remove other versions currently in circulation on the internet.

The film entitled No Pressure depicts a series of scenes where people are asked if they are going to participate in the 10:10 initiative. Those who indicated that they were not planning to participate were told “no pressure” and blown up at the press of a button.

The short film set out to be edgy and to shock people into sitting up and start taking the urgent action needed to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, the film back-fired and instead has upset many climate change campaigners and the public. It has also given ammunition to climate sceptics who are now claiming climate change campaigners are eco-fascists.

While some people may see the 10:10 movie as harmless fun, its message is lost in the blood and guts. The key question after watching the film is: Are you inspired to take action (if you are not already doing so) to reduce your carbon emissions?

The film has used scare tactics to communicate its climate message. Scaring the public into taking action, whether this be with regard to giving up smoking, not drinking and driving and safer sex, does not always work.

The film portrays the environmentalist as the “agressor” – pressing a button and causing the explosion of an individual who refuses to conform with the rest of the group and take action on climate change. It presents the environmentalist an uncompromising, eco-terriorist who is willing to harm individuals who do not do what they want.

While this may appeal to many people who are sympathetic with the cause, it has probably had the opposite effect on the intended target audience and has distracted attention from the main focus of the 10:10 campaign.

Environmental campaigners have used many different types of events and stunts to get the public’s attention and to increase awareness, and they will continue to do so.

However, it is clear that at time when environmental issues are dropping down the political and public agenda, new approaches are needed to inspire the public to take action.

The approach taken in the No Pressure film is new, but the wrong one.

We need to sell an aspirational vision of a low carbon society and the many benefits it has to offer to inspire individuals to take action to achieve a better quality of life. We need to sell a “green heaven” rather than a “climate hell”.

If climate change campaigners continue with threats of climate hell then the public will switch off and ignore the message.

The No Pressure fiasco has put pressure on 10:10 and other climate campaigners to think more carefully in the future on how they communicate climate change.

Lets hope they do so.

© Gary Haq 2010