The challenge of climate change is bigger, more immediate and will result in more human suffering than most people realise.  The practical solutions, however, are increasingly available and cost effective, from advances in energy efficiency to renewable fuels for electricity, heat and transport.  That is part of the solution, but the challenge is to build a broader constituency for change.

It is now time to push the moral dimension more strongly.

The moral dimension is crucial to key areas in the fight against climate change.  The first area is to help us alter our personal behaviour towards a more sustainable form of living, and the second is to create the necessary sense of solidarity, not only between this generation and the next, but between us and those living beyond our immediate experience in the Developing World. For it is those living in the Developing World who are likely to suffer first and most from the effects of climate change.

Something is wrong and something has to be done. We have a strong scientific case which outlines the problem of global warming. We have a strong economic and business case which illustrates clearly the price of inaction to the economy. But the problem of climate change has not yet been solidly framed in a moral context. That is the missing, overarching dimension.

Pragmatism alone won’t work because it is not sufficiently grounded. A pragmatic response must stem from a foundation of a strong moral analysis of the problem. To change habit, one could appeal to self interest, even utilitarian interest. But why should we not appeal to a higher interest, a more noble interest, which calls on people to act on the basis of an altruistic ethic which will bring little or no return to them, but will deliver returns for their children and grandchildren? The moral argument need not come at the expense of the self-interest; in this case, it can complement it. Largely people do want to do the right thing, but they need and want practical signposts. Governments have a key role in working with that sense of purpose to create a framework that can align the desire with information and price signals so that moral and rational choices point in the same direction.

But what is the connection between morality, faith and the tackling of climate change? It is not simply the need to posit climate change in a moral context, important as that is. But to tackle climate change we need a partnership between the global and the local. Religions are already such a partnership – indeed a hybrid of the global and local.

Our diplomacy at the Holy See has come to evolve over the years - indeed decades - to a point where the environment and climate change, and other multilateral policies, have displaced the more traditional issues.

The Holy See and its presence in the world

The Catholic Church is a unique player on the world stage: a global religious institution with over 1.1 billion adherents, a reach which extends into every corner of the planet, serious influence in dozens of countries, a privileged status as interlocutor with the two other Abrahamic faiths – Islam and Judaism – and two generations of experience in inter-faith dialogue. It has a highly respected diplomatic corps with eyes and ears, not only in 175 capitals, but also far closer to the ground than any other diplomats can get. The Vatican knows what is going on in the world at governmental and at grass roots level, and has extraordinary access at the highest political levels in most countries. Added to its global reach is the Vatican’s central role, not only in religion, but also in the intellectual and moral debate around where the boundaries between faith and politics should be placed.

One might well ask what the Holy See has to do with climate change. Can it seriously affect world opinion? What proportion of greenhouse gas emissions does it produce? But these questions miss the point. The centrality of the Holy See does not rest on its size, but on its global reach and influence. Its relevance on climate change and the environment are exemplified in the words from the Pope’s message for World Day of Peace from the 1 January 2007:

"Alongside the ecology of nature, there exists what can be called a ‘human’ ecology, which in turn demands a ‘social’ ecology (…) Humanity, if it truly desires peace, must be increasingly conscious of the links between natural ecology and human ecology. Experience shows that disregard for the environment always harms human coexistence, and vice versa (...)  If development were limited to the technical-economic aspect, obscuring the moral-religious dimension, it would not be an integral human development, but a one-sided distortion which would end up by unleashing man's destructive capacities."

The Holy See's commitment is clear, and through our diplomatic relationship the UK works with them to deliver change. Our Embassy to the Holy See identifies opportunities for cooperation between the two governments, and brings the senior officials concerned with climate change and environmental issues into direct contact.  We ensure that the UK's concern, action and policies are fed into the global grass-roots network enjoyed by the Catholic Church. Similarly, the Church's extensive network of local contacts, far beyond the reach of conventional diplomatic channels, provides essential feedback on the progress achieved on the ground across the globe.

The developing world

Over recent years we have learnt more about the impact of climate change on the essential natural resources on which we depend. Rising temperatures will see entire regions experience major declines in crop yields, up to one third in Africa, with rising numbers of people at risk from hunger. Rising temperatures will mean significant changes in water availability, with some areas seeing major water shortages, and sea level rises threatening major world cities. Whole eco-systems from coral reefs to the rainforests face collapse and many species will face extinction. Storms, droughts, forest fires, and flooding will have a major impact on human life.
 
We must also recognise that the most vulnerable developing countries will need substantial support to help them adapt to the unavoidable effects of climate change already in train. Elements of this should include increased access to climate data, co-operative research on key technologies for adaptation in agriculture and health, as well as investment in disaster prevention and improved resilience to climate variability.

As the Pope has observed, "in recent years, new nations have entered enthusiastically into industrial production, thereby increasing their energy needs. This has led to an unprecedented race for available resources. Meanwhile, some parts of the planet remain backward and development is effectively blocked, partly because of the rise in energy prices." We need to look in particular at the balance of responsibility between North and South; between Government, the private sector and citizens; and the extent to which we should help developing nations adapt to the now inevitable changes in climate that have resulted from our actions.

The diplomatic response

Climate change has become a national security and foreign policy issue: scarcity of natural resources, in particular water and food, could be a major source of future conflict, as we are already seeing in Darfur. Climate change has also become an international development issue. There is only limited value in funding development without helping countries onto sustainable low-carbon development paths.

International

The European Union in 2007 took the historic decision to set itself a series of targets. First of all, a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for the European Union by 2020. Second there is the 20% target on renewable energy. That target would increase to 30% as part of an international agreement. It is now for the European Commission to work out what the contribution of each member state should be, but the important thing is that the target has been agreed. These are a set of ground-breaking and bold targets for the European Union. They give Europe a very clear leadership position on this crucial issue facing the world, and it gives us the best chance of trying to make sure that when we come to the G8 countries and the G8+5 process, then we broaden the coalition for change.
 
It is to be hoped we can achieve a global consensus. We need a new international agreement on climate change. We are, potentially, on the verge of a breakthrough. China and India are participating constructively in the G8+5 process. They know that they will suffer if the environment deteriorates further. They have every reason to be part of a deal, provided it is one that allows them to grow their economies so that they can spread the prosperity they are creating to the millions in those countries still in poverty. Furthermore, the mood in the US is in the process of a quantum shift. President Bush's 2007 State of the Union address built on his "addiction to oil" speech of 2006 and set the first US targets for a reduction in petrol consumption, and president-elect Obama has put the ecology high up his list of priorities.
 
In 2006, the UK set out to get agreement on the scientific basis for climate change and the urgency of the need to address it. The debate has now moved on from whether climate change is happening to how it can be arrested and how quickly. Our aim is now to promote debate about a goal for stabilising climate change, the fundamental objective of the Framework Convention on Climate Change to which almost every nation on earth is signed up.
 
The personal response

Climate change is a personal and local issue as well as a national, European and international one. One of the key levers of change will be personal action. The choices we make as consumers, as businesses, as local electors, shape the transport, waste, and planning decisions that impact on greenhouse gases. We need to look further at how we decentralise power and responsibility within national and international frameworks.  We must accept more personal responsibility and make modest changes to our lifestyle - whether this is through recycling waste, buying eco-friendly products or conserving energy in our homes.

The moral dimension

Action can be motivated in any number of ways.  Some will be persuaded by self-interest through the economic or scientific evidence, but historically it has always been the moral argument that shifts the momentum toward political and social action in righting a wrong. In the case of climate change, the moral purpose is not opposed to self-interest. Stern proved that. The cost of inaction is greater than that of action, so in this case the moral and the self-interest point in the same direction. We have recently seen a shift in discussions away from national interest toward a moral obligation for the world to act. While the Kyoto agreement conceptually addressed the need for change, there was still a vacuum of concrete action due to one’s national interest and fear of acting alone. This is where faith communities should be vocal and active in developing the arguments for action.

The struggle against global warming involves life and death issues. We have to act now to prevent a situation which will affect our children and their children. Our response has to be selfless. The Archbishop of Canterbury put it this way: "The choice is stark: either we change, or people die."

That calls for global moral and spiritual leadership and engagement. Faith groups have a key role in providing that leadership and engagement. Climate change cannot be confined to the realm of politics, economics or science. It is at heart a moral issue. A moral dimension for climate change can encourage us to alter our behaviour to a way of life which is more sustainable. We have to explore our selfish choices and their consequences for the world in which we live. A moral dimension can create bonds of solidarity, which have been strained of late by our globalised society. That is an urgent task because it is the poor and the marginalised all over the world who are most at risk from global warming. They are the least equipped to respond and adapt to the hazards of drought and floods. To tackle global warming we need a mixture of the global and the local. Catholic teaching on subsidiarity – which emphasises the need to find the most appropriate level of decision making, including the local – is highly apt when it comes to encouraging local solutions to global problems. Faith groups are by their nature a hybrid of both global and local.

In the 21st century, we face a challenge similar to our forbearers in the 19th and 20th centuries as they struggled to develop the social contract, which now underpins much of our western society. One of the landmarks in that development of the social contract was the publication of Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891. Some have said that now is the time for an environmental contract, one which would speak to our rights and responsibilities towards each other, the Earth and our future bearers. What is certain is that faith communities have a central role in guiding our way, just as they did in previous times of crisis. It is often the case that concepts which emerge in a Catholic academic theological context have the habit of becoming the vernacular some 20 years later. Take for example subsidiarity, which first appeared in a papal encyclical, and yet today is an often cited principle of the European Union’s structure of governance. Or Rerum Novarum and the impact it had on the new social compact that developed across much of Western Europe in the early 20th century. Perhaps the time is right for a similar prophetic voice on environmental degradation.

In conclusion

Climate change could cause a greater financial meltdown than the two world wars and the Great Depression put together: leave coastal areas uninhabitable, and cause famines and droughts: lead to conflict over access to natural resources; and hit the poorest hardest – it is no longer an issue for “the others”, but for us all.

There is also the curious mix of moral cause and strategic interest. We know we have a clear interest in combating climate change; but we feel it, too, as a moral duty to successive generations as well as our own. As the Pope said in his message for World Day of Peace in 2007, "respect for Nature is closely linked to the need to establish, between individuals and between nations, relationships that are attentive to the dignity of the person and capable of satisfying his or her authentic needs." From personal empowerment to the correction of market failure to international issues of social justice, climate change asks fundamental questions of us all, irrespective of nationality, faith, race, or class. No political philosophy was designed with this problem in mind. But earlier challenges were tackled on the basis of shared values; those values can now also serve as a platform for change.

The WWF has calculated that if everyone in the world were to consume natural resources and generate carbon dioxide at the rate we do in the UK, we'd need three planets to support us. We are depleting our natural resources at a far faster rate that we are replenishing them. The key economic indicators are telling. Forests are shrinking, water tables are falling, soils are eroding, wetlands are disappearing, fisheries are collapsing, rivers are running dry, temperatures are rising, coral reefs are dying, and plant and animal species are disappearing. We need to move towards a one-planet economy and one-planet living – where there is balance between what we give and what we take. Getting the moral argument right is crucial and the world’s faith communities have a central role to play in that.