Examination of witness (Questions 60 -
76)
TUESDAY 30 JUNE 1998
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER,
MP
60. You would not allow it to be used as
a soft option to enable countries not to reduce emissions in circumstances
where they should be expected to do that as well?
(Mr Meacher) There is no question that carbon
sequestration via forests would be sufficient to meet targets.
We think it should be allowed under tight and clear and agreed
rules as part of meeting those targets but it certainly requires
considerable effort in other respects for every country.
61. Can you tell us something else about
what is going to be on the agenda in Buenos Aires because there
is a great deal of uncertainty about that? The whole issue of
contraction and convergence, the whole question of allocating
the right to emit to countries, are these matters going to be
on the agenda in Buenos Aires in a serious way?
(Mr Meacher) The central issues are the flexible
mechanisms, the rules for emissions trading, and arrangements
for joint implementation and the clean development mechanism.
We are still only in the initial stages of having agreement about
rules and indeed there are significant differences between the
European Union and the United States, particularly on the interpretation
of the word "supplemental". Flexible mechanisms should
be supplemental to domestic action and that, in our view, should
be interpreted as less than or subordinate to action which is
taken domestically.
62. Are you going to be pushing for a cap
on flexible mechanisms?
(Mr Meacher) We believe that there should be a
relatively tight cap on emission reductions under the clean development
mechanism and we would look to have a broader ceiling on the use
of all three mechanisms. That position is not the same as the
Americans who tend to regard "supplemental" merely as
"additional to". I should like to take this opportunity,
if the Americans perhaps read the proceedings of this Committee,
to say that I think the Americans are acting against their own
best interest. They need the support of the developing countries
in order to achieve a global solution, we all do. The Americans
have made that very clear. Unless the Americans are seen to be
taking action in their own back yard primarily, I do not believe
that the developing countries are going to be very convinced.
Let us not forget—and I do not say this pejoratively, it
is just a fact—that America with four per cent of the world's
population has 25 per cent of the world's CO2 emissions.
There is no question and this is very much a European view, that
the primary emphasis of US action must be on domestic reductions
in carbon. We believe that emissions trading makes a lot of sense,
it is economically efficient, we support joint implementation,
but the primary action should be domestically. That is the only
way of reversing this colossal excess of emissions by one country
and above all getting the rest of the developing world on side.
Chairman
63. Do you have the European figure to hand?
You said America has four per cent of the world's population and
25 per cent world's emissions. Is there a similar figure for European
Union countries?
(Mr Meacher) I do not have the exact figure.
64. Presumably we also have greater emissions
than GDP.
(Mr Meacher) Certainly, but by very much less.
The difference in emissions per head is six-fold for the US and
I suspect in the case of Europe it is about two-fold.
Mr Dafis
65. Allocating the right to emit really
has to be at the heart of the whole thing, has it not? It would
be bizarre if Namibia had to purchase the right to emit from the
United States. It would not be unreasonable for the United States
to purchase the right to emit from Namibia, in fact that would
provide a very useful mechanism for the transfer of resources
to developing countries which is the kind of thing we need. So
we come back again to the contraction and convergence principle.
You did say in a speech in the Grand Committee Room that you believed
that ought to be an option in considering what the basis for emissions
trading ought to be. Where are things at currently in that debate
of what the basis for emissions trading ought to be?
(Mr Meacher) At a very early stage I did say that
the three principles are the principle of equity and how exactly
you interpret that. Whether it is convergence and contraction
towards similar or identical per capita emissions is frankly at
the moment just politically unrealistic. The world will gradually
move in that direction. How far and how fast has yet to be decided.
66. What do you think is politically realistic
then? If that is politically unrealistic, what is politically
realistic? What is going to bring the developing world on board
and at the same time persuade the Americans that they have to
do something serious?
(Mr Meacher) If I knew the answer to that question
I would be over at the White House straightaway.
67. I keep on hearing that things like contractions
and convergence are idealistic or politically unrealistic. Nobody
has yet told me what is being regarded currently as politically
realistic.
(Mr Meacher) What is politically realistic changes
over time. What was seen as politically realistic five years ago
was much less accepting of the kind of ideology which exists today
than it is now. In five or ten years' time countries and individual
citizens within them will have a very different attitude. As this
whole process gathers momentum, people's perspective, people's
vision of where they are going and how far and how fast we can
go alters in the kind of direction you want.
68. Contraction and convergence is not seen
as something which should be implemented immediately. Nobody is
advocating that there should be convergence in 1999 or 2000 but
that there should be a process of moving towards convergence over
a period of time. Is that politically realistic? What are the
politically realistic stages or actions which put us on the journey
towards that destination over time? What is politically realistic
in Buenos Aires at the end of this year? What is politically realistic
in determining the basis for emissions trading? There is no doubt
that emissions trading is going to be part of the formula is it
not?
(Mr Meacher) One of the policies we have in Europe,
and the UK very strongly supports this, is that there should be
a review of commitments by 2002, 2003. In our view—this
is not agreed but in Europe's view—it would be very helpful
if there was also a general review of obligations of all parties.
One of the items on the agenda could at that stage be contraction
and convergence. I have to make clear to you, first of all it
is not agreed by all the Annex 1 countries and secondly, the group
of 77, who are the key to this, are at this moment still continuing
to refuse the idea of a review of all obligations in the first
place.
69. We are going to have to wait then, are
we, until November before we have any idea at all about what the
basis of the allocation of emission rights might be or the basis
of emission trading might be? There is presumably a process, is
there not, leading up to November in which all of this is being
considered and elaborated and horse trading is going on. Do you
have any confidence that there will be some kind of agreement
on the basis of it by November?
(Mr Meacher) My own view is that Buenos Aires
is very important but it is only going to discuss some of the
outstanding issues. That is primarily a work programme to determine
the details for emissions trading and joint implementation and
the clean development mechanism, so-called flexible mechanism.
The issue you are referring to is more likely to be discussed
in detail, as opposed to en passant in the margins of the
agenda, as a main item when we come to a review in whatever form.
My belief is that there has to be a review post Kyoto and in the
course of that review it will be looking at progress in achieving
the targets we have agreed but then also looking at what the next
round of targets are going to be and how we involve developing
countries. Hopefully developing countries will be part of that
review.
70. Hot air trading. This fell off the agenda
in the G8, did it not? Everybody was expecting that it might be
discussed and agreed at that time. What is the position in relation
to that at the moment, that is that the Americans, for example,
might be buying the right to emit from those countries whose emissions
have gone down because of industrial collapse, the former Soviet
Union countries?
(Mr Meacher) The rules do have still to be established.
The principle of emissions trading is that if I can reduce my
emissions more efficiently than you and I have a surplus, then
I can sell to you if you are less efficient. I gain the advantage
of making a profit out of it. You, by being less efficient, have
to pay a price. That gives a strong incentive to improved efficiency
and better achievement of targets. That is a very sensible process,
linked in with the whole concept of permit trading. The exact
rules by which that operates are yet to be decided. We have to
reach agreement about the whole question of hot air, which you
are referring to, and Russia is part of that agreement.
71. The awkward thing about that of course
is that we could end up with increased emissions because countries
would be able to sell those emissions which they are not currently
making because they have been reduced since 1990. Do you accept
that really that would be certainly contrary to the spirit of
the Kyoto agreement, although it might be compatible with the
technicalities of it?
(Mr Meacher) I agree with that entirely.
Joan Walley
72. As this huge task is now something in
which we are taking a leading role and as the world shrinks in
our attempts to bring everybody on board for this issue, I wonder,
given that there is going to be Buenos Aires and then there is
going to be the conference which is going to have the review at
a later stage, what role you see for parliamentarians and committees
such as our own, not just here in the UK but worldwide and actually
forcing governments everywhere to look at how we can get the agendas
we want at Buenos Aires and at the follow-on conferences from
that. Do you have any view on what role we could play with other
parliamentarians elsewhere?
(Mr Meacher) Perhaps the best way I can answer
that is to refer, as you did a few moments ago, to the fact that
you and a number of other parliamentarians were at Arhus last
week for a meeting of Parliamentarians for the Globe. Mr Baker
was there as was——
73. The Committee was represented.
(Mr Meacher) I thought that was a very useful
meeting, although I must say the questions were somewhat biased
away from the main subject of the discussion, but that is another
story. I do think Globe does have a very real role to play here.
It is an increasingly effective organisation. It has membership
which is extremely wise and I think its muscle is growing. If
parliamentarians worldwide, who have a special platform and a
privileged position in respect of their own governments, can coordinate
action amongst themselves at international meetings, they can
be a potent force.
Mr Savidge
74. How confident are you that all parties
to the Kyoto Protocol will in fact ratify it? What do you think
the implications will be if one of the key players did not?
(Mr Meacher) There is no question the key to this
is the United States. There is a double trigger for ratification.
There have to be 55 states ratifying and there have to be developed
countries with at least 55 per cent of total Annex 1 emissions.
The United States has 35 per cent and is far and away the most
important. We cannot succeed without the United States. It is
too early to say with absolute certainty that the United States
is going to ratify. What I do believe is that the American Government,
and I suspect the majority of American business, firmly accepts
that this needs to be done and I do not believe that a country
of the political and economic weight of America and the world
leadership role it has will walk away from a legally binding target
which it has made at Kyoto. My belief is that countries will ratify.
We have already had a signing at New York. All the EU countries
have signed up. My belief is that they all will.
Mr Shaw
75. We will have the presidential elections
coming up and the campaign for that. One of my colleagues referred
earlier to populist measures. What can we do to lance the lobby
which will obviously be taking advantage of that and actually
could jeopardise the Kyoto agreement and future world summits?
(Mr Meacher) Democratic politics is always inconvenient.
Having to have elections, as we all know round this room, is a
mighty inconvenience.
76. But the elections can be influenced.
(Mr Meacher) I am sorry, I am being a little flippant.
After all one of the main contestants, as I understand it, for
the next presidency of the United States is Al Gore and he is
always regarded as one of the key players in terms of environmental
politics. He has written a book or books about it. My own belief
is that by the time of that election there is a gathering momentum
about this and it is not reversible because there is such a consensus
about this. The science is so compelling and increasingly television
in the programmes and the newspapers and the media and the way
that this is put across continually means that those people who
decry it are an increasingly tiny group. I believe that it will
be very difficult for populism to derail this process.
Chairman: Thank you
very much indeed. I hope you are right about America; we shall
see. In the meantime thank you for answering our questions. We
look forward with interest to your consultation document setting
out how the UK Government intends to contribute to this process.
Thank you very much indeed.
| 
