APPENDIX 14
Memorandum submitted by the Tyndall Centre
for Climate Change Research
The Tyndall Centre brings together scientists,
economists, engineers and social scientists, who together are
developing sustainable responses to climate change through trans-disciplinary
research and dialogue on both a national and international level—not
just within the research community, but also with business leaders,
policy advisors, the media and the public in general.
The Tyndall Centre welcomes the opportunity
to submit evidence and would like to be kept informed of the development
of the inquiry and the committee's responses to it.
The overall objective of the inquiry will be
to assess the feasibility of emissions trading systems (including
Contraction and Convergence) as a framework for negotiating a
post-Kyoto agreement. It will examine whether such systems can
be enforced and the practical difficulties involved, taking account
of what has been learned from the development of the EU ETS and
the growth of carbon trading initiatives such as the Chicago Climate
Exchange. From this perspective, the Committee will examine the
objectives to be pursued by the UK during its presidencies in
2005 of both the G8 and the EU, and the contribution of the various
departments involved such as the FCO, DEFRA, HMT, DfT, and DFID.
In particular, the Committee is interested in:
— whether an international ETS is feasible,
given that targets and compliance penalties would need to be rigidly
enforced and bearing in mind the political pressures to which
an international ETS would be subject;
— what other alternatives to an international
ETS exist; and whether an ETS would be more effective than such
alternatives in maximising carbon reductions worldwide and in
channelling investment in low-carbon technologies into less developed
countries;
— what approach and specific objectives
in relation to climate change the UK Government should adopt during
its presidency of the G8 and EU in 2005; and
— what contribution individual departments
can make (eg FCO, DEFRA, HMT, DfT, and DFID), and whether they
are sufficiently "joined-up" in delivering a coherent
UK agenda.
1. Is an international ETS is feasible, given
that targets and compliance penalties would need to be rigidly
enforced and bearing in mind the political pressures to which
an international ETS would be subject?
The Tyndall Centre considers that the essential
point here is that any effective international climate regime
will need both "push" and "pull" elements.
By "push" we refer to policies that
are able to promote the development and commercialisation of innovative
low-carbon solutions in terms of technologies (but the same arguments
may apply to the development of innovative new institutional and
social arrangements). By "pull" we imply measures that
will promote the uptake of such sustainable low-carbon solutions
in the world economy.
Thus an international emissions trading system
would play the role of "pull" on the global economy.
The first thing that we can say then is that, based upon extensive
scientific research, it is becoming increasingly apparent that
a sophisticated suite of technology and innovation policies would
be required in addition to an international ETS. The same point
applies in the context of the EU's ETS incidentally.
An important and emerging area of debate and
enquiry in both the research and policy communities is then about
how an emission trading system can best be harmonised with technology
policy, whether this should happen at a national, EU, or global
level, and what some of the potential conflicts may be between
an emissions trading system and technology policy on the one hand,
and between these two and other international mechanisms on the
other hand (such as WTO rules for example).
A second important point is that technology
policy without a pull from carbon taxes, an ETS etc is unlikely
to produce the rate of commercialisation of low-carbon technologies
that will be required in the coming decades. (The Tyndall Centre
would be happy to provide further evidence/briefing on this issue
if required.)
Finally, we can ask whether the ETS rather other
forms of "push" policy or measure would be most appropriate
at the international scale. There is also the question of whether
an international ETS would truly need to be "international"
would it not be more efficient and practical to just include say
the EU plus world 8-12 biggest emitters?
Further information is included in three annexes
setting out: (A) specific analysis of the C&C proposal; (B)
lessons from EU emission trading system; (C) elaboration of the
technology policy issue.
2. What approach and specific objectives
in relation to climate change the UK Government should adopt during
its presidency of the G8 and EU in 2005?
Formal negotiations will start on a second commitment
period at the SBSSTA (Subsidiary Body for Technical, Technological
and Scientific Advice), a subsidiary body of the IPCC (Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change) in 2005. We believe that Tony Blair and
the UK Government have an historic opportunity to provide global
leadership on these key issues, and present the USA with the undisputable
case for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and establish the
path towards a post Kyoto framework.
The priority should be to ensure that the UK
plays a constructive role in the negotiations and that crucially,
it injects creative and far-sighted suggestions for an architecture
that would genuinely address the concerns of developing countries,
and as far as possible the concerns of the US and others who have
not yet ratified.
It is also important at this time to take bold
action on the adoption of a target for stabilisation (the ultimate
objective of the convention)—the UK has an adopted target
of a 2C temperature rise. The UK should adopt this target
(or a similar concentration-based target of 450-550 ppm) and make
it clear that this is what the international climate regime should
be trying to achieve.
Recently there have been signs of a debate within
Europe over the burden of economic costs of meeting emission reduction
commitments. Here the committee should be aware of the following:
We can afford climate change policy—A
key intellectual debate in the academic community is the question
of just how much emissions reductions will cost, and whether current
economic and Integrated Assessment Models[23]
predict excessively high estimates of the long-term costs of GHG
mitigation. Recent advances in the field of technology modelling
and technology policy suggest that when models attempt to fully
incorporate eg the fact that a new low-carbon energy technology
may become much cheaper as its uptake increases, the predicted
costs of mitigation can decrease drastically. Hence, this active
area of academic research should be properly incorporated into
the political discourse on what is possible both within Europe
and in a second commitment period.
We believe that there were too many compromises
made to the EU Renewables Directive for member state interest
(eg UK's non binding target of 10% by 2010). The UK should ensure
that frameworks are established to allow renewables targets to
be compatible with climate policy. We need to examine what mix
of renewable energy and technological innovation is needed to
reach emission reductions post 2010 under various policy scenarios.
The Tyndall centre is actively researching in this area.
Various attempts are being made to engage with
eg USA on diplomatic and scientific levels over the issue of climate
change. Areas where efforts can be maintained include to: to encourage
constructive engagement between UK and EU scientists and scientists
from countries who have not yet ratified; for the UK to send out
a very strong signal that it will meet its commitments under the
protocol whether it actually enters into force or not. In terms
of the US, the UK's current approach of building bridges where
possible is appropriate.
There are many proposals on the table but it
seems likely that the way forward must be through differentiated
categories of commitments, where eg: (most) developed countries
signed up to quantitative emission reduction targets; a second
group of countries sign up to carbon-intensity based targets;
and a third group of countries (mainly the official Least Developed
Countries) don't make any emission reduction commitment but have
adequate access to compensation funds (for adaptation to the negative
impacts of climate change for example).
Serious pressure, possibly including trade sanctions,
should be put on countries that refuse to ratify the Kyoto protocol
and future agreements to limit GHG emissions until they do so.
The UK needs to play a role in finding a way forward on a workable
architecture. This might be a leadership role or it might also
be to play a constructive role in supporting an emerging developing
country-led proposal, as in the case of the UK Overseas Territories
(UKOT's). These are small low-lying island states, particularly
at risk from the impacts of climate change. The UKOT's have fallen
through the gap (FCO-DFID-CPACC) in terms of preparedness for
climate change. Also they do not receive any of the adaptation
funds available to other countries as they are UK territories.
CPACC[24]
does not extend to the UKOT's and FCO-DFID have not organised
between themselves who is responsible to pay for the extension
of the CPACC lessons to the OT's. The territories would like to
extend the convention to their islands, but are unsure about their
obligations to mitigate if it is extended.
The UK might also learn from the experience
of allocating commitments within the EU—there is in effect
a North-South divide within Europe, and the agreed allocation
of GHG emission reduction commitments cannot be separated from
the massive amounts of finance that has been put into eg the Cohesion
Funds (for Spain, Portugal Greece and Ireland).
ADAPTATION: HIGH
IMPACT POLICY
The types of adaptations that will enable the
UK and other countries to confront climate change will vary considerably
across geographic regions, economic activities and population
groups. This "context specificity" means that adaptation
is more likely to be successful if strategies are developed at
the local level. The role of central government should therefore
be to encourage meaningful, inclusive, devolved decision-making,
and provide what support it can for local initiatives.
Adaptation and mitigation are intimately linked—the
less emphasis is placed on mitigation, the more difficult adaptation
will be. Adaptation may be impossible in the face of rapid and
large-magnitude climate change associated with rapid increases
in atmospheric GHG emissions.
Policies should recognise that adaptation is
often reactive and somewhat ad hoc in nature—it is much
easier to ensure mitigation through policy than to guarantee adaptation;
mitigation is ultimately a technical issue (issues such as market
penetration notwithstanding), whereas adaptation is much more
of a behavioural one. Adaptation can be pursued through vulnerability
reduction based on the mapping of climate hazards and social vulnerability
to identify "hotspots" of high climate risk. Assessments
of climate hazard based for example on a combination of future
climate projections and assessments of local geographical factors
(topography, geomorphology etc) could be incorporated into the
planning process, identifying potentially high risk areas where
industry, infrastructure and settlements might be particular exposed
to the physical manifestations of future climate change (eg flooding,
high winds, drought-induced subsidence etc).
3. What contribution individual departments
can make (eg FCO, DEFRA, HMT, DfT, and DFID), and whether they
are sufficiently "joined-up" in delivering a coherent
UK agenda?
THE ROLE
OF DFID
DFID's new focus on climate change as one of
its four thematic areas is useful, but it should consider working
closely with UK agencies as much of the knowledge about climate
change adaptation is in the UK and this knowledge is transferable.
Perhaps DFID could consider how it can transfer the lessons that
have been learned in the UK to other locations. [25]We
believe that it would be a mistake to ignore the work of UKCIP
and other UK based agencies purely because of their UK focus.
The Foreign Commonwealth Office (FCO) works
with the UK's Overseas Territories (UKOT's), but they have largely
been ignored in the development of climate change strategies.
Recent advances by DFID's Overseas Territories Division (OTD)
suggest that the Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change programme
(MACC) [26]may
be extended to the Caribbean OT's but there is still no activity
in other areas.
For climate change to truly influence policy,
all departments need to believe it is happening and it needs to
become part of their discourse. DEFRA could coordinate this "profile
raising" campaign across government departments.
DFID RESEARCH
What are the dangerous thresholds of climate
change in different locations, particularly in the most vulnerable
locations? The recent examples of tropical storm Jeanne and Hurricane
Ivan reveal the differential vulnerability in different locations
to differently sized impacts (eg Jeanne was very small storm—but
led to three thousand deaths in Haiti; Ivan was biggest storm
on record and killed only two people in Cayman). Understanding
the threshold at which climate change becomes dangerous in different
location depends on the vulnerability conditions.
OPPORTUNITIES
Climate change is complex as a science and as
a policy dilemma. DFID could assist in many ways: studentships
for people in less developed countries to study climate change
in the UK, capacity building courses such as those run at the
Tyndall Centre/Overseas Development Group[27]
could be useful. The International Institute for Environment and
Development (IIED), the Netherlands Red Cross and the Tyndall
Centre have discussed the co-production of PhD candidates with
development NGOs. Candidates would be paired, one from a developing
country, the other from a developed country. The research proposals
would be co-developed by the two candidates and if the research
was to be set in the developing country, both candidates would
have to ensure that the research was ethical, met academic research
standards and contributed to the development agenda in the host
country.
23 For more information on Tyndall's IAM, see: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/research/theme1/summary_it1_31.shtml Back
24
http://www.cpacc.org/ Caribbean Planning for Adaptation to Climate
Change Back
25
Drawing on literature such as Gundel, S, Hancock, J and Anderson,
S (2001) Scaling up strategies for research in natural resources
management: a comparative review. Natural Resources Institute,
Chatham, UK, pp 61. Back
26
Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change-http://www.oas.org/macc/
Mainstreaming Adaptation to Global Change (MACC) is a five-year
Global Environmental Facility (GEF)-funded project for the Caribbean
region. Additional support for MACC activities is being provided
through the Canadian, French and Dutch governments. Back
27
http://www.uea.ac.uk/dev/ODG/pages/course_vpsprog.html Back
| 
