Examination of Witness (Questions 133-139)
MISS BRYONY
WORTHINGTON
1 DECEMBER 2004
Q133 Chairman: Thank you very much for
joining us. You heard that. The previous witnesses clearly do
not think much of anything that is going on, Kyoto, emissions
trading, international agreements. I am wondering where that is
going to leave us. What is your reaction to what you have just
heard?
Miss Worthington: I do not think
that we are that far apart in terms of some of the criticisms
we might have. I suppose the big difference is whether or not
you engage with the existing system pragmatically to try to improve
it or whether you stand outside it and say you do not support
it in principle and therefore you will not engage. We have taken
the pragmatic option, basically from the point of view that if
we do not engage, who will, and it could be an awful lot worse?
We have been involved in the development of the UK's implementation
of the EU emissions trading scheme and as a result of that our
solution really is to advocate far stronger regulation of emissions
trading at an international level which would make it compatible
with a multinational approach to reducing emissions. Some of the
issues are exactly the same.
Q134 Chairman: The enforcement issue
is obviously critical.
Miss Worthington: Absolutely.
Q135 Chairman: If there is nothing there
to make sure people are doing it, it cannot be monitored and cannot
be enforced and then it is not going to achieve very much. Are
you part of what appears to be a growing consensus which believes
that Kyoto is not actually going to achieve very much anyway and
that what really needs to start happening next year is a serious
debate about what happens post Kyoto, post 2012?
Miss Worthington: Yes; absolutely.
I think people largely welcome the fact that Kyoto has been ratified
and is an important political statement, but in practical terms
it is going to deliver very little. The objective it set itself
of achieving a 5% reduction in industrial country emissions relative
to 1990 will not be achieved. It is partly because, when it was
designed, it was assumed that the US would be a participant. One
of the differences going in next time around is to be very clear
about who is in and who is out when you are target setting otherwise
the target is meaningless. I am sure there will be a very different
approach to the post 2012 discussions.
Q136 Chairman: Do you think there needs
to be a different approach to the setting of the targets? It seems
to some of us that the targets have been set as some sort of political
horse-trading.
Miss Worthington: Yes; absolutely.
Q137 Chairman: Do you have any idea how
that process might be reformed?
Miss Worthington: Anything would
be an improvement. Essentially it was exactly horse-trading, where
countries simply went into a darkened room and beat each other
up. We had no methodology attached to it at all. The experience
the EU had over its implementation of its own emissions trading
scheme, was that they have now experimented with very different
ways of allocating allowances. There is going to be far greater
appreciation within government about different methodologies and
the pros and cons of those methodologies. I hope that those people
going into the debate next time around will be far more informed
about the options which are available to them and it will not
simply be a political fudge, it will be based on something approaching
a scientific approach to the issue.
Q138 Chairman: When they go into that
debate about post 2012, do you think what they should be talking
about is a sort of Kyoto-plus arrangement, or is it too early
to tell?
Miss Worthington: If you are asking
me whether the architecture of trading should remain within it
in terms of the flexibility, if you had an improved methodology
then the architecture could remain. I think we would probably
agree with the criticisms of the CDM mechanism, for example, as
not delivering what it was expected to deliver and providing unnecessary
levels of flexibility which are not necessary, given the huge
amount of potential for individual countries to abate themselves.
There is this issue also of us taking the low-hanging fruit from
those countries in advance of them hopefully taking on their own
carbon abatement strategies. There is certainly that aspect of
it which should really be looked at. In terms of individual countries
taking on targets and allowing an element of trading to allow
for flexibility, that is inevitably going to be a part of whatever
comes in the second phase.
Q139 Chairman: Are you broadly happy
with that sort of structure?
Miss Worthington: I should say
that we are fairly happy with the architecture but the implementation
to date has sadly been woefully inadequate.
| 
