What is more obscene, a word or the killing of 340,000 infants?

It is no secret that I don’t hold the Labour Party candidate, Julian Ware-Lane, in high regard but his inability to grasp the implications of the greatest threat humanity faces (climate change) is breath-taking. In this article you will see his attack upon me for daring to speak up for the most vulnerable people on the planet: –


Julian completely ignores the many speeches by his party leader, Ed Miliband, who like me recognises that the science on climate change is now certain and all debate on the core facts ended with the landmark IPCC report in 2004. Here Ed sets out his concerns: –


But it is not just the main three political parties that reject Julian’s bizarre anti-science assertions, we are also receiving some incredibly powerful comments from our religious leaders, including the Pope and the CofE: –



Indeed all the main religions have begun to speak out vehemently on the threat posed by climate change and demand action by both citizens and governments.
Julian also fails to grasp the implications of climate change upon our national security. Is he seriously suggesting that the eco-intelligent should ignore warnings such as these from the Pentagon: –


And what of the implications for the global economy? The IMF, OECD, World Bank and The Bank of England have a lot to say on the threat posed by climate change. Indeed the latter two bodies are now warning investors to take very great care to divest before they are left with worthless fossil fuel reserves. The pace of climate change is forcing the governments of the world to realise that 80% of fossil fuels are going to have to be left in the ground. Marks Carney’s point (Governor of the Bank of England) is that pension funds & other large investors may think they are sitting on a £10 Billion asset, but in 20 years time it may be worthless.


Is Julian seriously suggesting that people like me should ignore the warnings from those charged with maintaining global economic stability?


The Climate Change Holocaust

While each of these points all deliver fatal blows to Julian’s thinking, for me the overriding, core issue is the mass loss of human life. The World Health Organisation told us nearly 15 years ago that hundreds of thousands of people are being killed each year. The WHO explained that the largest number killed are infants under the age of 1 year, dying as a result of the increased spread of disease in our rapidly warming world.

A number of scientific bodies have looked at this research, confirmed it is accurate and the deaths are increasing. This is the latest: –


The number of infants now being killed is 340,000 per annum and this will increase rapidly: –


The UN body charged with informing the governments of the world on the science and implications of climate change is the IPCC. Julian’s leader, Ed Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg all accept the findings of the IPCC. This body has warned that parts of Africa will suffer a 50% reduction in agricultural production by the 2020s and parts of Asia will suffer a 30% reduction in production by the 2030s. Julian, indeed all in government, should take a few minutes to read the summary reports on mitigation & adaptation for policy makers. These were, after all, published for people in his position: –


Is killing 340,000 infants immoral, particularly when you don’t need to? After all we now have the technology to do everything we do now, but with zero carbon technologies, or to capture and sequester those greenhouse gas emissions that cannot yet be stopped. When I read that so many children were being killed it seems my reaction was very different to Julian’s – I went and read the reports published by the authors. I then checked the scientific journals to see if this number was challenged and found that the world of science accepts this.

Having established that so many people, in the world’s very poorest countries, are being killed principally so that the wealthiest can drive, fly and consume as much as they like, it seemed obvious to me that I should speak out. I thought long and hard about what the NASA scientist James Hansen had to say about this loss of life. In 2007 he described it as a ‘Holocaust’. But this ‘Holocaust’ is principally an attack upon the world’s youngest and most vulnerable children. Over the coming years the hundreds of thousands will turn into millions and then hundreds of millions. Is that a ‘Holocaust’?


What is now certain is that because politicians like Julian Ware-Lane continue to support the expansion of polluting industries (he is particularly keen on the expansion of aviation), humanity will witness a loss of life greater than that inflicted by all the 20th Century dictators.

Julian and other pro-pollution politicians may want people like James Hansen and me to fall silent, to keep quiet as millions die, but we will not. I recently had an article published in the local paper, The Echo, in which I argued that this was not manslaughter – it is murder. Our politicians don’t want to kill vulnerable children but they know they will, and will do so in very large numbers.

In 5 years time we will all be using the word ‘Holocaust’, arguing that we should have heeded the warnings from history. But for all those politicians who support expansion of polluting industries I have another word; a word they will probably consider to be even more obscene than ‘Holocaust’. After the word ‘Holocaust’ comes the word – ‘Prosecution’ !

The holocaust begins

In the late 1980s the science relating to climate change was unproven but there was sufficient concern that this could lead to mass loss of human life that I decided to take a change in direction in my life and campaign on environmental issues. There are lots of associated issues; for example – road safety (if people cannot walk and cycle in safety they are trapped into ever greater use of the family car). So I joined and began to initiate campaigns both locally and nationally, tackling road safety and fossil fuel use. I also worked to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency measures. I had some great experiences, some noteworthy successes and have a great story to tell – but that will have to wait until another day.

By the late 1990s the world of science was certain that climate change was caused by human activities; lives were already being lost due to increasing extreme weather events and matters would get a lot worse. In the year 2004 a landmark UN report ended all doubt. It was now vital that humanity take dynamic and immediate steps to reduce fossil fuel use and slash greenhouse gas emissions. The evidence was clear – if humanity did not change we faced the prospect of mass loss of human life as a serious of positive feedbacks kick in (albedo, release of methane hydrates, etc.) raising planetary temperatures to the point where agricultural production would plummet.

I worked with a number of eco-campaign groups and some political parties, but the awful truth was that we in the UK and humanity at large were not making the scale of change that was needed to avert calamity. By 2013 we were told that around 400,000 people a year were being killed by climate change, with the bulk of deaths amongst the most vulnerable people on the planet – 340,000 deaths were of infants under the age of 1 year; killed by the increasing spread of disease in our rapidly warming world.

In 2014 the UN body with responsibility for advising the governments of the world on the science relating to climate change warned that parts of Africa would suffer a 50% reduction in agricultural production by 2020 and by 2030 large parts of Asia, and particularly India, would suffer a 30% reduction in agricultural production.

To quote the famous NASA scientist, James Hansen, the holocaust had begun.

In October 2014 I was sufficiently certain that we now face mass loss of life that I wanted to give people the chance to at least say “not in my name”. I desperately didn’t want to go near the world of party politics but I joined the Green Party and asked for permission to stand in Southend West. There were lots of reasons why the Green Party was the best party to join and to make this stand (e.g. the tuition fees betrayal, the need to reintroduce fair taxation, the need to save our NHS from privatisation, the need to end austerity politics) but I won’t go into detail now.

By far the greatest issue on my mind was that the other candidates and parties standing in the Southend West constituency either supported the expansion of polluting industries or were determined not to take the steps that are necessary to prevent the mass loss of human life. So I made what was for me a huge personal sacrifice – I went into party politics.

As the holocaust begins I have at least given everyone in Southend West the chance to say: No!