Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
WEDNESDAY 24 OCTOBER 2001
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER
AND SARAH
HENDRY
Mr Jack
80. It is the Grimsby man. (Mr Meacher)
Some of the NGOs have been asking for that: WWF and others have
been stressing the need for that. We are looking at our role in
terms of marine stewardship. The Government is giving some quite
high profile attention to that this year. If there is justification
for something like legislation in terms of our responsibility
towards the wider oceans then we are perfectly prepared to look
at it. As I say, I am not making any commitment here at all. I
am saying it is an important issue and if there is an issue it
is one which I think needs to be raised in the international forum.
Chairman: Blue Planet, 9pm, BBC1, David
Attenborough, every Wednesday, big on plankton.
Mr Borrow
81. I want to follow on from what Patrick has
just said. I think Patrick has raised issues which are not at
the heart of the Kyoto Agreement and obviously at the meeting
in Marrakesh you will be focussing on the Kyoto Protocol and what
follows from that. I wonder to what extent you are looking now,
or will be looking in Marrakesh, or when you will be considering
the need for another protocol to take the whole process forward
from Kyoto? It may be looking a bit too much in the distant future.
Are we beginning to think about what follows on from Kyoto? (Mr
Meacher) Well, Kyoto is, I think, historic in the sense that
I cannot recall any other precedent where there is agreement which
is worldwide, with the possible exception at the moment of the
United States, which of course is a very important exception,
but they did sign up at Kyoto in 1997 and they still may come
back. There is no precedent for an international agreement of
such overriding importance with such profound and detailed implications
on which there has been a global consensus. Having achieved that
I think we would be very cautious about casting it on one side,
maybe that was not what you were suggesting. We clearly need to
advance further but I did refer to an article which—I forget
the number—is about the adequacy of commitments. The five
per cent agreed at Kyoto is merely the start. We can expand the
coverage of Kyoto and we can amend the Kyoto Protocol as long
as we get consensus. I think the potential for developing it towards
the ultimate target of stabilising CO2 in the atmosphere is quite
consistent with the Kyoto Protocol. Given the difficulty of getting
agreement with the umbrella group, who have never been very keen,
the G77, who are probably still more concerned about growth than
they are about world climate, Saudi Arabia and OPEC, who have
their own very powerful vested interest, Sub-Saharan Africa which
is desperate to get more done in terms of poverty, I mean the
disparate interests are so great that if we have got a consensus
for that I think we should stick with it and develop the existing
mechanism.
82. If I could move on to what is the more difficult
issue, you have touched on it slightly, which is the concept that
if we are seeking to limit carbon emissions across the planet
then you could have the argument that every man, woman and child
on the planet is allowed a certain amount of emissions and, therefore,
there are per capita emissions for each nation state and the extent
to which the developed world at the moment have emissions per
head way above those in the developing world. Now obviously there
is going to be an argument that the differences in terms of emissions
between the developed world and the developing world needs to
narrow. (Mr Meacher) Yes.
83. And to what extent we could reach, if you
like, an ideal stable situation where carbon emissions in each
nation state are the same on a per capita basis. We are looking
very much in the long term but is that a concept which appeals
to you as something to aim for, even if we never achieve it, or
is it a philosophical argument that you would prefer to ignore
and not engage in? (Mr Meacher) I find it an appealing
concept. It is obviously absolutely profound in its implications.
It is normally known under the title of Contraction and Convergence,
in other words the developed countries contract their emissions,
which is what Kyoto is all about, and we get convergence with
the developing countries as they industrialise and increase their
emissions. So in a sense we are in that process already. The question
of whether it should be pressed as a serious negotiable proposal
has not been discussed. I am one of those who share the view that
whilst we are moving remorselessly and inexorably in that direction,
it is not practicable politics now. If the most important thing
in the process is to get the United States back into the process,
I think if we were to say that we are proposing that within a
certain timescale every citizen of the United States will have
no more, on average, carbon emissions permitted than in Bangladesh,
I do not think that would be very appealing to them. I do not
think it is immediately negotiable but I do think that its time
is coming, it is a very powerful idea. The level of global emissions
in 1990 was about five billion tonnes of carbon and that was consistent
with about 370 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere. If that
doubles or trebles that level in the atmosphere is going to rise
remorselessly. There is a view which is not scientifically precise
that if we get over the 450-500 parts per million level we are
in serious potential trouble. Therefore to find a way by which
we can ensure we do not get above that level, in the pre-industrial
age in the 18th century it was about 280, so the question is is
it safe for the world—where it has been at 280 for millennia—within
a very short period of time to double that and to go beyond it,
bearing in mind that we continue to accelerate at an unstoppable
rate if we take no action. It is not a cyclical matter where you
go up and at some point you start coming down, that is not the
point, it can go on increasing indefinitely. At what point, therefore,
do we try and limit the damage and the general view is 450-500
parts per million. Now if we are going to do that and the developing
countries are going to industrialise, we are going to have to
make exceedingly sharp cuts, not just 60 per cent but in terms
of the developed countries there are arguments for 80 to 90 per
cent cuts. If we do that we are beginning to force down the level
of per capita emissions to something beginning to approach what
convergence and contraction wants. I do not think it is pie in
the sky, it is certainly not just a conceptual philosophy. It
is for real but it has to organically develop and I do not think
it can be enforced on the umbrella group at the present time.
84. On a related point. The developing world
themselves, most of the developing world as they develop, will
obviously increase carbon emissions. Part of the protocol is to
provide a mechanism whereby resources are transferred from developed
countries to developing countries to enable them to become more
energy efficient. Do you think it is going to be more difficult
to get the developing countries to sign up to an agreement which
could lead them to limit their own emissions if we have not actually
got the United States signed up on the developed side? Do you
see the United States being crucial to getting long term commitment
from the developing countries to the whole process? (Mr
Meacher) The absence of the United States obviously inhibits
the whole process, there is no doubt about that. I think the developing
countries are far more concerned about the increased levels of
funding under whatever heading it might be than they are about
whether the United States is part of the process. I perhaps could
take this opportunity to make clear if I did not before that there
is no agreement yet on burden sharing aid to developing countries.
I did say in my earlier remarks that it is a political declaration
and the signatories of the political declaration will have their
first discussions on the formula in Washington in December as
Sarah Hendry said. The important thing is the amount of this money.
I do think at each successive Conference of the Parties the developing
countries will probably up their bid and we will just have to
see what we can afford and the justification for more money whilst
they still are not signatories to the target. The point is the
Americans are very strongly opposed to giving money unless countries
sign up to the target. The developing world will not sign up to
the target but is still insisting on money in order to give their
consent at each annual meeting, that is the problem.
85. I have one final question that is unrelated
but I wanted to find a slot to put it in. The Kyoto Agreement
did not say very much about what would happen for the transport
system, particularly aviation and sea transport, and certainly
whereas fuel used in cars and on the roads is taxed, and heavily
taxed in some countries, it is not taxed in terms of aviation.
I recognise that the aviation industry is going through a difficult
period at the moment and no doubt there will be a reduction in
emissions as a result from aviation over the forthcoming period
but do you think that the question of emissions from the aviation
industry in particular is something that needs to be examined?
Certainly I am aware that work is taking place in terms of research
working on more fuel efficient passenger aircraft and rather than
simply targeting fuel there may be scope internationally for actually
putting in place mechanisms to bring about more fuel efficient
aircraft rather than seeking simply to reduce the total volume
of aircraft movements. Is that something that you think needs
to be looked at in the years ahead even if it is not something
of immediate importance? (Mr Meacher) The Kyoto Protocol
has not given sufficient attention to the impact of aviation,
I think that is certainly true. Carbon dioxide is something like
two-thirds of greenhouse gases but there are the other ones: nitrous
oxides, methane and then the smaller ones, chlorofluorocarbon,
hydrofluorocarbons and sulphur hexachloride. The nitrous oxides
are the key ones with regard to aircraft. The latest figures I
have seen suggest that as a proportion of all greenhouse gases
the aviation sector is responsible perhaps for three per cent
at the present time but within the first commitment period that
could be expected to rise to five or six per cent. These are all
fairly uncertain estimates but I am sure that is of a reasonable
magnitude. It is something that we do need to take seriously.
How do you do that? Either by a tax on aviation fuel on the ground
that in order to get civil aviation off the ground, literally,
in the 1950s they were exempted from a tax on aviation fuel, but
that might seem rather odd today. That is one way. The European
Union has been pressing the United States for consideration of
this issue through ICAO without much success, the Americans remain
wholly opposed. Another way of proceeding, of course, would be
by having some cap on aircraft emissions. These have been suggested.
I am not saying the UK Government is coming forward, let us be
quite clear, this is an idea that has been proposed, but one way
or another we do need to look at ways of reducing the contribution
of the aviation sector, which is also increasing exponentially,
that the number of passengers is causing to the global environment
in terms of CO2. It is an important issue and it is unresolved.
I would hope that once we have got COP-6 bedded down and COP-7,
in COP-8 and COP-9 I think it is one of the most important issues
to look at.
David Taylor
86. A day or two ago, it being the tabling day
for the Cabinet Office questions, I browsed the Cabinet Office
website to check what the responsibilities of the Deputy Prime
Minister were and I tabled a question linked, I thought unambiguously,
to what it said there, which was that the Deputy Prime Minister
will continue to have a role in international climate change negotiations
and discussions on behalf of the Prime Minister. I was therefore
a bit disappointed to get that question bounced back a day later
saying it had gone on to DEFRA. Who is in charge? Who will be
leading for the United Kingdom in Marrakesh? What is the rationale
for a split responsibility between DEFRA and the DPM? Is there
not the possibility that we will get some confusion and it will
be fertile ground for recriminations in the event of any difficulties
arising from your discussions? (Mr Meacher) The responsibility
for the climate change negotiations lies unquestionably and unequivocally
with the Secretary of State for DEFRA. You have correctly described
the role that the Deputy Prime Minister is playing. He does have,
I think, an important role in international discussions and negotiations.
When he was Secretary of State at DETR for the last four years
he had contact with a lot of world leaders. He is a person who
I think has a real close relationship with many of the key players
in this and he continues to meet them, at the request of the Prime
Minister, to improve the opportunities for the UK to exert world
influence. I think he performs that role very well. I do not think
it is incompatible at all with the fact, as I say, that DEFRA
and the Secretary of State are responsible and in control of these
negotiations.
Phil Sawford
87. A recurring theme in science fiction is
that of a dead planet and one where life ended in a way that was
perhaps preventable. As we march lemming-like towards that doomsday
scenario there are probably those who think it is futile to think
that humankind can actually get to grips with this huge problem.
On the optimistic side, assuming that we do, how would you like
your contribution to be remembered? (Mr Meacher) First
of all, I do not think that we are marching lemming-like towards
ultimate destruction. I think we are the main cause of it, the
anthropogenic generation of this problem is now almost universally
accepted, but if we are foolish enough to have caused this problem
we are also intelligent enough to know how it happened and to
be able to reverse it. There is no question that the Kyoto process
is central to the future of mankind on this planet, I think, and
I would put it in those terms. Whether in the absence of adequate
action being taken the human species will survive over the next
three to five hundred years I would say is a matter of doubt.
The role of all of us who are privileged at this time to take
part in this process is to try and increase awareness amongst
all of our peoples in our own respective countries to the nature
of this problem, to the responsibility that all of us without
exception have, the need for a change in culture and in the running
of our economy and, I think in the way the UK has, in the time
of the Deputy Prime Minister in the previous four years and now,
to play a lead role in these negotiations, not only in achieving
the Kyoto process, where I think the UK responsibility was crucial,
but also continuing to play a lead part within the EU which is
itself, I think, the main player in the whole process. That is
a tremendous challenge which I think, and maybe I am being immodest
here, the UK has played extremely well and is determined to continue
to do so.
Chairman: You seem to be caught between Apocalypse
Now and Professor Stephen Hawking who says we have got to
migrate to the stars in order to survive. I think we might get
back to something slightly less apocalyptic, which brings us to
Austin.
Mr Mitchell
88. Minister, if we migrate to the stars no
doubt you will be responsible for it. Sorry, given ministerial
responsibility for the process. In terms of meeting Kyoto commitments
we seem to be the good guys but it has clearly got to be a European
achievement, given the package, it will be a collective commitment.
So how confident are you that the EU as a whole is going to be
able to deliver on the reductions necessary? Please feel free
to be as critical as you want of the EU in your answer. (Mr
Meacher) I have mixed views about the EU without the absolute
clarity of Austin Mitchell. I think the EU will deliver in this.
I have already earlier I think really answered this question.
I think the bubble system, the allocation of responsibilities
for each of the parties, the system for annual monitoring and
tracking, the fact that the Commission is being instructed to
take action where necessary to ensure that all countries meet
the commitments that they have made, I do not see what more the
EU could actually do. I do actually expect that we will deliver.
It is always good to be in a position where you are over delivering
yourself. The fact the UK has a legally binding target of minus
12½ per cent compared with 1990, I think it is good to record
that we are on track to a reduction in the six greenhouse gases
of around 23 per cent by 2010 and for carbon dioxide alone a figure
not far short of the 20 per cent which we made a domestic unilateral
target in 1997.
89. Why did we stand with Spain in blocking
the move to harmonise energy taxes? (Mr Meacher) Because
the UK Government has taken a view that taxation, as all Members
of the Committee will be extremely well aware, is a matter for
individual governments. It is not a matter for decisions at the
EU level. I am sure that Austin Mitchell would very much agree
with that view. Our view, however, is that it does make sense
to talk about common policies and measures with regard to meeting
the climate change targets and we do regularly have discussions
within the Environmental Council about how we can standardise
the mechanisms between us by which we do that, partly because
it achieves, of course, a level playing field economically.
90. So we will, will we, be supportive of the
emerging European Climate Change Programme? (Mr Meacher)
That sounds to me like a slightly loaded question and I am trying
to think what lies behind it. I think we are, yes.
Mr Mitchell: Will we be supportive of it and
will we go on to enact any necessary legislation internally which
arises from it?
Chairman
91. Competence. (Mr Meacher) We are,
of course, a partner in the preparation of that programme. We
would not agree, of course, to a programme where there were significant
items which we did not agree with. For that reason I would expect
that we would be behind it but in terms of taxation measures,
that remains again a matter for the UK. The fact that we are not
just achieving our target but on track to achieve almost twice
as good a result is a reason I think why we should be content
with our position. We will take the decisions on the basis of
subsidiarity and we will deliver fully on our commitments.
Mr Mitchell
92. Given the fact that half the Member States
have some form of energy or carbon tax, are we going to be more
co-operative in supporting the Community proposals for the harmonisation
of minimum duties on energy products? (Mr Meacher)
Again, the same answer applies. Successive governments, including
the one before the present one, have taken a very firm view that
taxations and duties, including on energy products, is a matter
for the UK Government. We have no intention of changing that but
we are co-operative and supportive of the general effort. We have,
of course, a Climate Change Levy, which is about improving energy
efficiency in industry. We are just about to put in place next
year an energy efficiency commitment in regard to households whereby
energy suppliers have to provide gas or electricity on a more
fuel efficient basis and there are a number of other drivers,
not least the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, whereby we are trying
to achieve the agreed targets. What we do not accept is a taxation
measure should be taken by Brussels.
Mr Mitchell: Delighted to hear it.
Mr Jack
93. Who is going to be responsible for monitoring
if the Climate Change Levy is actually delivering? (Mr
Meacher) There will certainly be reports on its success. We
will be looking on a sectoral basis for reporting by industry
about its impact. We would certainly hope that companies would
be extending their environmental reporting. I am constantly asking
that there should be environmental reporting by all major companies
on key issues, of which energy efficiency is one. I would expect
them in their annual reports to talk about the efforts that they
have made to meet the target, no doubt they will make their own
comment about the effect it has had on them. We will try to draw
that together on a systematic basis.
94. That is very lordly in terms of what it
wants to do. Are you saying that there is actually nobody responsible,
if you like, for producing an annual UK report of target versus
achievement for the CCL across all the areas where it applies? (Mr
Meacher) No, I am not saying that. We are keeping very careful
track of performance in every sector and certainly in the industrial
sector, of course, the impact of CCL is absolutely crucial. I
am just trying to think. I am quite sure we will be looking for
an annual estimate of the impact of CCL which, of course, will
also be published.
95. If I said to you bearing in mind next April
is the first anniversary of it, what would you expect to achieve
by that? (Mr Meacher) The putting in place of the negotiated
agreements under CCL whereby the main intensive energy users are
able to negotiate agreements to get an 80 per cent reduction in
the impact of the levy but only on the basis of improved energy
efficiency plans which are acceptable to my Department. There
are, as I say, in excess of 40 sectoral agreements which have
now been agreed and we will be looking, of course, for those to
be rolled out on the basis of the fine detail of these agreements.
They are very detailed and technical agreements.
96. Would you have preferred to have an agreement
based approach to this whole matter rather than having to have
a tax? Because it does seem to me, just looking a little wider,
we have now got an aggregates tax, we have got the Climate Change
Levy, whereas perhaps what we should be doing is a bit more carrots
and less stick? (Mr Meacher) The question is whether
we could have on a carrots or voluntary basis achieved the level
of reduction in carbon use by industry through those means. I
would beg leave to doubt it. It has always been in industry's
interest to do this, they have not done so. Energy efficiency
is a sufficiently small part of their total cost that it does
not feature, I fear, on the radar screen of many chief officers
of companies. We do need to do something which requires them to
take action. At the same time, when you say it is a tax, of course
it is a tax. You called it a levy, it is a tax but it is not a
tax which is designed to increase revenues to the Exchequer. It
is a tax which is designed to change behaviour. It is being recycled
back to business in the form of reduced employer national insurance
contributions. I accept that varies between sectors and it varies
between companies so it is the case that some companies are only
going to get back a small part of the outlay that they make. That
simply shows there is a lot of room for improved energy efficiency.
97. Do you want it to remain fiscally neutral
as a tax for the lifetime of the Levy? (Mr Meacher)
Yes.
98. Can I just ask you one other question about
the strategy in the UK. This line of questioning illustrates that
we are well on track to meet our targets. I asked a question some
time ago about the impact on our ability to meet those targets
of the reduction in magnox power stations and was told that had
been factored in. What I had not realised was that during this
period it is likely that we will see the shutdown of some of the
advanced gas cooled reactors. How does that affect our ability
to meet our targets in the future? (Mr Meacher) The
magnox reactors, of which I think there are nine or ten remaining,—
99. Ten. (Mr Meacher)—are expected
to close down by about 2012 and that certainly has been factored
into the equation. The number of advanced gas cooled reactors
is far fewer, I cannot immediately recall the number.
|
