House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ninth Report

2 The UK Climate Change Programme

22. The UK Climate Change Programme, launched in 2000, outlines the Government's policies and measures for achieving its domestic target of reducing CO₂ emissions to 20% below 1990 baseline levels by 2010. In September 2004 a review of the Programme was announced. Terms of reference for the review are:

to evaluate key elements of the UK Climate Change Programme, to measure their impacts and effects
to update greenhouse gas emissions projections
to assess whether the UK is on course to achieve its target under the Kyoto Protocol
to assess whether the UK is on course to achieve its domestic goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2010
to assess whether the UK is on course to make the "real progress by 2020" towards the longer-term goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by some 60% by about 2050, anticipated in the Energy White Paper
to identify and evaluate the options for putting the UK on a path to a 60% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 by delivering further reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through to 2010, 2015 and 2020
to set out how the Government intends to ensure the UK achieves its Kyoto target and continues to move towards its domestic carbon dioxide goals
to assess the costs and benefits to the UK and to UK business of the proposed revised programme of action to reduce emissions
to prepare for the 4th National Communication to the UNFCCC Secretariat, and to ensure that the UK can report with confidence in 2005 to its European partners and the international community that the UK has made "demonstrable progress" towards its Kyoto target
to assess the UK's response at national, regional and local level to adapting to the impacts of climate change.

The updated programme is due to be published in the first half of 2005.

Domestic targets

23. In the UK climate change programme it was estimated that implementation of the measures it proposed could, by 2010, lead to a reduction of approximately 23% in the UK's greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 baseline levels.[30] Current UK climate change targets can be summarised accordingly:

20% reduction in CO₂ emissions below 1990 baseline levels by 2010
60% reduction in CO₂ emissions below 1990 levels by 2050. This goal has been reiterated in the 2003 Energy White Paper[31]

24. Provisional data for 2003 show that UK emissions of greenhouse gases fell by 13.9% between 1990 and 2003, and carbon dioxide emissions fell by 7.2% during the same period (see Figure 1). Emissions in 2003 were 1.5% higher than those in 2002, due in part to the high price of gas and subsequent increase in the use of coal in electricity generation.[32]

25. The Government has now conceded that they are unlikely to achieve their domestic target of a 20% reduction in emissions by 2020. Forecasts from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) suggest that, by 2010, emissions of CO₂will only be 14% below 1990 levels, based on current policies.[33] According to Elliot Morley MP, Minister of State for Environment and Agri-Environment, the reason the UK is lagging behind on its targets is due, in main, to a decrease in nuclear power generation combined with a greater than predicted increase in electricity demand and an increasing use of coal.[34]

26. In order to address this shortfall, Friends of the Earth (FoE) proposed that:

We should probably start to look at incremental targets which are expressed annually. There are studies which show that from 2010 if OECD countries are to make substantial reductions you could set targets of maybe just a two to three per cent reduction per annum. That is much more manageable as a figure than setting a very long distant target … Climate change is dictated by emissions over time, not simply by how low our emissions are at a certain point in the future[35]

27. There is also an EU-wide target. Political consensus has been achieved within the European Council that an average global temperature increase of 2°C above pre-industrial levels is the maximum 'safe' level that can currently be foreseen.[36] This was widely discussed during the scientific symposium on the stabilisation of greenhouse gases held in Exeter earlier this year. However, according to Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, "It is not a firm target because people have different views about the adequacy of such a target", but more of a guiding principle.[37] By comparison, the Prime Minister, in evidence to the Liaison Committee in February 2005, stated that he was 'absolutely' signed up to the EU position of the 2°C limit and that "We want to limit it to the two degrees because anything over that triggers a whole series of changes to climate which are immensely worrying and damaging".[38]

Lack of 'joined-up' Government

28. Some witnesses noted a lack of 'joined-up' Government on climate change policy. Friends of the Earth said that there was "no consistency of approach" in the measures contained in the CCP.[39]

29. The Energy Saving Trust (EST) suggested that, while climate change is obviously a key issue for Defra, it is perceived as a lower priority area for other Government departments, such as the Department for Transport. EST witnesses argued that, because climate change and energy use cut across the whole economy

it needs to be a central objective for every government department and that should include the Treasury on taxation, it should include the DFT on transport, and it should include ODPM [Office of the Deputy Prime Minister] on housing.[40]

30. The Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) who, speaking specifically about energy efficiency, stated that whilst formal responsibility for this area lies with Defra:

most of the levers to deliver lie to a certain extent with the DTI, but, certainly when it comes to housing stock, also with ODPM, when it comes to tax measures with Treasury and when it comes to executive arms to deliver, you have the Carbon Trust, you have the Energy Saving Trust, you have other bodies which hang off those. It is not that there are not enough people doing it, it is that they need to be more focused and more driven so things really do happen.[41]

31. Friends of the Earth believes that perverse effects (such as "handing a significant rebate to coal fired power stations while increasing the rates payable by clean renewable alternatives") undermine the Government's climate objectives and "highlights the need for far greater integration between Departments to deliver unequivocal policy signals".[42] They added that:

we have witnessed probably one of the most unhelpful interactions between two departments … with the DTI representing what they believed to be the competitiveness of industry and Defra representing our need to meet our targets and it has been, I think, quite acrimonious at times … we would probably all like to see much stronger co-ordination and leadership on energy efficiency, both within Defra and between Defra and other departments[43]

32. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said herself that whilst Defra holds ultimate responsibility for climate change within the UK:

we have the targets and they have the levers because obviously how we do on climate change is relevant to what happens in transport, it is relevant to what happens in terms of sustainable construction and things of that kind, but these are clearly relevant policy responsibilities of other departments[44]

33. The Public Service Agreement on greenhouse gas emissions reductions will, as of April 2005, be shared between the Department for Transport (DfT), the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) and Defra.[45]

34. We acknowledge that the Government has undertaken a number of important initiatives at both a domestic and international level to respond to climate change, but we are frustrated by the absence of a clear central direction to the Government's work on climate change. Given the strength of scientific evidence which suggests that the situation is even more urgent than anticipated, we recommend that a Minister for Climate Change or a Cabinet Committee on Climate Change chaired by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs be appointed, with sole responsibility for focusing and coordinating the actions of Government Departments to ensure that the UK's domestic and international targets are met. It is imperative that tackling climate change be put at the very heart of Government.

35. In our report on Defra's 2004 Departmental Annual Report, we recorded our concern that Defra does not yet have sufficient 'clout' to be taken seriously by other Government Departments in framing their key policy decisions.[46] The findings of this report do not persuade us otherwise.

36. The seriousness of the Government's commitment to combating climate change, and of Defra's influence within Government, will be demonstrated by the outcome of the UK Climate Change Programme review. The Rt Hon Stephen Byers MP, speaking as co-chair of the International Climate Change Taskforce made clear his concerns about the review:

the worry I have is that the present review of the climate change programme will be used as an excuse to move away from the 20 per cent target reduction of CO₂ emissions. … if the Government adopts that approach then almost everything we say as a Government on climate change will be devalued as a result.[47]

37. We are encouraged that the Public Service Agreement target on greenhouse gas emission reductions is now shared by the Department for Transport as well as Defra and the Department of Trade and Industry. However, we strongly recommend that the review of the UK Climate Change Programme does not lead to a reduction in the target for greenhouse gas emission reduction in Defra's existing PSA target.

Transport

Road transport

38. Transport currently accounts for over 20% of the UK's total CO₂ emissions, 95% of which is attributable to road transportation.[48] For this reason, it was regarded by many who gave evidence as crucial to climate change policy.

Table 3: UK greenhouse gas emissions by source (million tonnes carbon equivalent)

Source	1990	1995	2000	2005	2010	2015	2020
Energy supply	75.2	63.2	59.7	61.9	51.9	48.7	46.4
Business	26.9	25.6	25.2	24.3	24.2	25.2	26.1
Industrial processes	18.3	16.7	10.8	10.6	10.4	10.4	10.4
Transport	34.1	34.3	35.8	36.4	38.7	41.0	42.9
Residential	21.5	21.8	23.9	22.3	20.7	21.0	21.9
Agriculture	15.4	14.9	14.1	13.4	12.2	12.1	12.0

Data source: Defra, Review of the UK Climate Change Programme, Consultation Pape, December 2004, Table 3

39. One way in which to reduce the impact of road transport on climate change is to increase fuel efficiency. Under a voluntary EU agreement the fuel efficiency of new cars is currently required to increase such that average emissions fall to 140 g/km in 2008/09. In 2003, average CO₂ emissions from new cars in the UK were 172.1 g/km. According to the Energy Saving Trust (EST), current trends suggest that vehicle efficiency is being improved, but "not sufficiently quickly". The EST felt that consequently, this target was unlikely to be achieved in the UK.[49] This is reiterated in the recent Transport Committee report, which highlights that it has taken six years to reduce vehicle carbon emissions by 17.7 g/km.[50]

40. Friends of the Earth argued that fiscal measures such as road fuel duty needed to be increased to curb transport emissions.[51] The EST—concurring with recommendations made by the Transport Committee[52]—argued that the current differentiation in Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) was insufficient to encourage purchasing of lower-carbon cars:

The top two bands for the lowest emission cars only cover three per cent of new vehicles. … as well as increasing the differential between bands we would certainly welcome at least one further band to penalise the more inefficient vehicles.[53]

41. Road transport has a significant impact on climate change. Emissions from road transport must be made a priority in the UK's climate change mitigation strategy. We recommend that the Government re-examine the effect of its current fiscal measures, such as differentials in Vehicle Excise Duty, with a view to making them more effective in promoting the purchasing of low-carbon cars. We regard the recent announcement in the Budget of a £5 increase in Vehicle Excise Duty for the two most polluting bands as no more than a token gesture. At a European level we also recommend that discussions are held to examine what economic measures might be developed to require vehicle manufacturers to speed up the development of low carbon vehicles.

42. In December 2004 the Department for Transport and the Energy Saving Trust announced that the Powershift, Clean-up and New Vehicle Technology programmes are being 'revised'.[54] Grants for vehicle conversions to natural gas use are also being cut.[55] It has been argued that this will have a major negative impact on the emerging zero and low emission vehicle manufacturing industry and appears to contradict the Government's 'Powering Future Vehicles Strategy', one of the main objectives of which is "to promote the development, introduction and take-up of new vehicle technologies and fuels".[56] We questioned the Secretary of State about this. She told us that "it is intended to replace the Powershift programme … with a programme more focussed on climate change rather than on air quality".[57] The EST claimed that the Department for Transport was concerned that the schemes might not comply with European state aid regulations and as such decided to close them as of the end of this financial year. Replacement schemes which do comply with state aid regulations are planned, however there is likely to be a hiatus of some months between the cessation of current schemes and the implementation of their replacements.[58]

43. We welcome the Government's decision to focus its new vehicle technology programmes more on climate change. We do not believe, however, that it was helpful to cancel existing programmes rather than add to them, and urge that the Government publish details of any successor schemes urgently. We also recommend that the Government ensure that any hiatus between abolition of the Powershift programme and other low-carbon vehicle programmes and the implementation of their replacements is avoided.

Biofuels

44. Given that transport is one of the largest areas of growth of CO₂ emissions, finding alternative transport fuel could help mitigate the effects of climate change. The EU biofuels directive (Directive 2003/30/EC) requires Member States to set targets on the use of biofuels for 2005 and 2010. The Department for Transport has recently consulted on targets and on options for promoting the supply of biofuels.[59] The Government has set UK goals for biofuels, with a target of 0.3% use in 2005. According to the Secretary of State:

at the moment use is about two million litres a month, and 0.3 per cent would mean 12 million litres a month, so that is a six-fold increase over current levels.[60]

Figures by the European Biodiesel Board show that the combined biofuel output of Germany and France was greater than 1,000,000 tonnes in 2003, while the UK produced less than 10,000 tonnes.[61]

45. Despite the Government's goals, transport fuels are not included in the original UK Climate Change Programme, although energy crops are. The Biosciences Federation described this as a "glaring omission", given "the potential for biological sources to help meet the demand for transport fuels".[62] According to the review of the CCP, biofuels are to be included in the revised programme.

46. Some witnesses disagreed with this emphasis on biofuels. The Soil Association argued that energy crops would require a very large area of land to make even a small contribution to the UK's energy use. Consequently, the Association suggests it would be preferable to focus on alternative energy from non-crop sources (for example wind, solar, tidal, hydrogen, nuclear etc) and encourage any change in land use to be in the domestic production of animal feed, which is currently imported thus generating greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.

47. We believe that biofuels can be a useful a tool in the mitigation of increasing greenhouse gas emissions from transport. Accordingly, we welcome Defra's decision to rectify the omission of biofuels from the Climate Change Programme as part of the climate change review, and recommend that the Government take this opportunity to adopt policy measures to increase biofuel production and use within the UK. However, we regret that so far, in spite of a 20 pence per litre duty derogation first announced in the 2002 Budget, there has been very little UK biodiesel produced and no home-based bioethanol plant established. We note the apparent difference between Defra's enthusiasm for biofuel crops and the Treasury's reluctance to fully engage in this issue, and call upon the Government to re-examine its approach to its use of fiscal incentives in this area in order properly to kick-start the development of a UK biofuels industry.

Aviation

48. Emissions from domestic aviation and airports are included under the Kyoto Protocol, but emissions from international aviation and international shipping are not.[63] Aviation currently represents 11% of the UK's total climate impact and 5.5% of the UK's CO₂ emissions. In addition to the direct emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs), aviation may also influence climate change through 'radiative forcing'—whereby the balance between incoming and outgoing solar radiation is perturbed by external factors such as manmade greenhouse gases or aerosols—and the effect of contrails. Whilst this is smaller than other sectors, such as power generation which represented 29% of the UK's total climate impact in 2000[64], the impact of aviation is predicted to rise and according to the DfT could contribute about 33% by 2050.[65]

49. According to the IPCC assessment, accepted by the British Airports Authority (BAA plc), the total climate impact of aviation is 2.7 times that of its CO₂ emissions due to atmospheric effects at high altitude. The recently published House of Lords report The EU and Climate Change spells this out in more detail:

The impacts of aviation on climate change are two-fold: first, there are the direct emissions of greenhouse gases from burning kerosene in the jet engine. Secondly, there are a range of other emissions from the engine which give rise to global warming—these include water vapour, NO_x (nitric oxide and nitrogen oxide) and particulates. At high altitude, some of these emissions contribute powerfully to global warming through the formation of contrails and high-altitude clouds which contribute to "radiative forcing". The effects of these impacts are not clearly quantified, but are known to be significant.[66]

50. According to Department for Transport forecasts, CO₂ emissions from UK aviation will be in the region of 16 to 18 million tonnes of carbon (MtC) by 2030, of which international flights would comprise 97%. By that date, the Department for Transport believes aviation could represent around a quarter of the UK's total climate impact.[67]

51. Air travel is predicted to increase, further increasing its likely impact of climate change. In December 2003 The Future of Air Transport White Paper sanctioned an increase in the UK's airport capacity.[68] This will allow passenger numbers to more than double from 180 million per annum in 2000 to 470 million per annum by 2030. Evidence from the Tyndall Centre states that "Projected air traffic expansion will more than double carbon dioxide emission from UK flights by 2030, to 65-77 million tonnes".[69]

52. According to the recent Environmental Audit Committee report:

If aviation emissions increase on the scale predicted by the DfT, the UK's 60% carbon emissions reductions targets … will become meaningless and unachievable. The most we could hope to attain would be about 35%.[70]

53. BAA plc, one of the UK's top 20 consumers of industrial energy, announced in July 2003 that it aims to reduce absolute CO₂ emissions from energy consumption by 15% by 2010, compared to 1990 levels. BAA also suggested in evidence that measures adopted to reduce CO₂ might lead to increases in other greenhouse gases, such as oxides of nitrogen (NO_x) for example, which are not currently included in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (See Chapter 3 for further details of the trading scheme).[71] However within the EU Emissions Trading Directive (Directive 2003/87/EC) there is scope for the scheme to be expanded in the future to include other gases.

54. The chief executive of British Airways recently wrote that "aviation should not be forced to comply with standards that differ from those in other industries. The suggestion that its targets should be higher because of other, less well understood, effects in the upper atmosphere should be resisted".[72] It is argued by BAA that the long-term future of aviation and the potential to reduce the climate change impact of aviation will be best served by a programme of international research, funded by the aviation industry, to find climate solutions within the sector... They support practical mechanisms which "do not encourage anti-competitive behaviour by airlines", and reject approaches to tackling the environmental impacts of aviation, including greenhouse gas emissions, which are aimed simply at reducing demand by raising the cost of flying through taxes and charges. They do however, recognise that the consequence of a regime of smart, well-targeted instruments may be higher costs and reduced demand.[73]

55. ACI Europe, the trade association representing 450 airports across 45 European countries, has recently called for CO₂ emissions from aviation to be included in the second phase of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, starting in 2008.[74] European ministers have recently announced that they favour a tax on aviation fuel with revenue financing development aid.[75] This suggestion has been rejected by the aviation industry as a tax which will "provide no incentive to improve environmental performance".[76]

56. In contrast, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that "we believe the policy that has much the best chance of success over a short timescale as well as being the most costeffective is to try to get aviation into the second phase of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme" and that addressing the issue of aviation in the context of climate change would be a priority for the UK during its Presidency of the EU.[77] Despite evidence from the Prime Minister to the Liaison Committee highlighting the political difficulty of reducing the impact of aviation on climate change, particularly with regard to imposing crude fiscal measures to reduce demand[78], aviation has been singled out as a key priority in the recent Government sustainable development strategy Securing the Future as a growing problem in need of "better regulation" to control its climate change impact. It reiterates the Government's commitment to prioritise the inclusion of aviation within the EU ETS by 2008 during the UK's Presidency of the EU this year.[79]

57. Aviation has a significant impact on climate change, which is likely to increase with the projected growth in the industry unless alleviation measures are implemented. It is therefore vital that aviation be included in climate change mitigation strategies at both a national and international level. Depressing demand for air travel is possible in the short-term, but may prove difficult to maintain over time. We applaud the proposal to include aviation within the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), but we are concerned by the length of time seemingly required to achieve implementation. We recommend the Government use whatever means necessary to ensure inclusion within the scheme by the start of the second phase of the ETS in 2008. We welcome the commitment in the new Sustainable Development White Paper Securing the Future on this.

58. We also recognise, however, that there is a limit to what can be achieved in the short to medium term by the inclusion of aviation within the emissions trading scheme, due to the long asset lifetime of aircraft. We therefore additionally recommend that the Government work with the EU and other partners to encourage the uptake of new technologies and 'fast-tracking' their development, in addition to adopting fiscal measures to reduce demand. We also recommend that discussions are held at an EU level with the aircraft and aero-engine manufacturers and the airlines to examine ways in which the development and introduction of more fuel efficient aircraft can be accelerated.

59. In addition to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and the fast-tracking of technological development, referred to in paragraphs 57 and 58, we also recommend that the Government evaluate the effects of an aviation fuel tax and a system of capping the overall carbon emissions associated with aviation and airport-related activity as part of determining what would be the most effective package of fiscal measures to contribute to an overall reduction in emissions from aviation.

Power generation and climate change

60. The power generation sector contributes a significant proportion to the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions. In 2002 the energy supply sector in the UK emitted 61 million tonnes of carbon (MtC), around 90% of which comes from CO₂. This represents some 30% of total UK CO₂ emissions.[80] Defra states that:

Despite slight increases in 1998 and 2001, emissions of carbon dioxide from power stations have steadily decreased, reducing by around 20% between 1990 and 2002. This largely reflects a continuing shift in the way in which electricity is generated: in particular a shift from coal and oil to gas-fired power stations, which are relatively more efficient and produce less carbon dioxide for a given amount of energy produced.[81]

61. Gas, coal and nuclear power contribute 38%, 35% and 22% respectively to electricity generation in the UK, with hydroelectric power contributing 1% and 'other' sources 3%, according to the Association of Electricity Producers. The average thermal efficiency of coal power stations was 36% in 2003, 46.4% for combined cycle gas stations and 38.1% for nuclear power stations.[82]

62. According to DTI projections, carbon emissions from the fossil-fuelled power generation sector will decline from a current 158.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (MtCO₂) to 139 MtCO₂ by 2010.[83] The Association of Electricity Producers (AEP), however, described these assumptions as 'fairly heroic', particularly given that demand for electricity is "rising year on year by about 1.5% per annum".[84] Friends of the Earth also noted the "rising demand for energy in the commercial and domestic sectors".[85] In order to achieve the 139 MtCO₂, the AEP argued that there would need to be a reduction in energy demand of around -0.2%.[86]

63. According to Defra:

But the AEP argues that, based on work done for the Energy White Paper, "even if the electricity sector become carbon neutral, it would be impossible for the UK to achieve its 60 per cent target".[88] The AEP argues that in the short term the only means by which to achieve reductions in carbon emissions is to switch from coal to gas:

Effectively, at the moment we have somewhere around 120 terawatt hours of coal-fired generation in the UK which is responsible for just over 100 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions a year. Gas-fired generation gas emissions are pro rata about 40 per cent of those of coal.[89]

64. This, however, has implications for security of supply, which may be compromised if a disproportionate amount of the UK's energy supply comes from any one source. This is supported by the DTI, which estimates that the proportion of electricity predicted to come from nuclear sources will decrease from 24% in 2004 to 7% over the next 15 years. This would increase dependence on imported gas.[90]

Renewables and the Renewables Obligation

65. Production of energy from renewable sources does not generate any carbon dioxide. Biofuels and biomass are the exception, but in these cases any carbon dioxide released is offset by carbon dioxide used by the crops while growing, thus rendering them 'carbon neutral'.

66. Renewable sources of energy include:

Biofuels (such as biodiesel) and biomass (such as energy from willow)

Biogas (e.g. the burning of landfill gas such as methane)

Energy from waste

Solar power

Hydroelectric, tidal and wave power

Wind power, both on- and offshore.

67. The 2003 Energy White Paper signalled the Government's aspiration to further double the proportion of electricity supplied by renewables by 2020. Defra estimate that achieving the 2010 target would save "around 2.5 MtC in 2010". The recent National Audit Office report, Renewable Energy, suggests that doubling the proportion of renewable energy to 20% by 2020 would reduce CO₂ emissions by between 20 million to 27 million tonnes.[91]

68. The Renewables Obligation (RO) was introduced by the Government in 2000 and defines the amount of electricity energy suppliers must provide from renewable sources of energy. The original target was 10.4% by 2010/11. In December 2003, the Government announced that the RO would be increased to 15% of electricity coming from renewables by 2015.[92] Compliance with the RO is demonstrated by suppliers presenting Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) to Ofgem (the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority). ROCs were issued to accredited generators for eligible renewable electricity generated within the UK (including its territorial waters and Continental Shelf), and supplied to customers in Great Britain. They can be traded to allow electricity suppliers to meet their targets at the lowest cost.

69. In the second year of the RO (2003-04) 2.4% of Great Britain's electricity came from eligible renewable sources, falling far short of the 4.3% Obligation level for this period. Despite this, predictions by the National Audit Office estimate that the UK should be producing 9.9% of its electricity from renewables by 2010.[93] This is a higher estimate than the 7.5% predicted by the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee in their 2004 report.[94] France has a target of 21% electricity generation from renewables by 2010 and Italy 25% by 2010, which they are both currently on track to achieve.[95]

70. We heard from witnesses that although the RO is technology neutral, in that it is independent of the specific source of renewable energy, it is a market-based mechanism, and therefore businesses are currently being driven to onshore wind developments as the lowest-cost technology currently available.[96] According to the National Audit Office report, while onshore wind energy generation is already close to market competitiveness, offshore wind—although already with the potential to supply customers—requires further financial support to achieve commercial viability. Other technologies such as wave, tidal and solar are believed to be commercially non-viable for many years.[97]

71. The Renewables Obligation was perceived by witnesses as a real incentive to invest in the development of renewables. According to the UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy:

This level of investment must be maintained if the government's targets for renewables are going to be achieved. This requires long-term confidence in the renewables market. The recent announcement to raise the target to 15.4% by 2015 has helped to bolster confidence in the market and the need to maintain this confidence must be considered throughout both the Climate Change Programme review and the forthcoming review of the Renewables Obligation.[98]

72. The House of Lords EU Committee has argued that, in order to achieve its targets, the Government "needs to provide more reassurance about long-term returns. The current support arrangements favour only those developments that will give a quick return—in effect onshore wind farms".[99]

73. The issue of long-term investment confidence was also raised by Our World Foundation:

the main trouble with renewables is that the cost is up front. The energy is free but all of the cost is up front and finding that money when you are competing with fuels which are unrealistically cheap (that is the fossil fuels) is almost impossible from a financial point of view.[100]

74. According to the Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE):

There is undoubtedly more potential to use solar photovoltaics across the UK, be it in industrial buildings or in commercial buildings. It is a pity, for example, that the government is not using its own power of procurement to do these things because the new Home Office building that you will all shortly be seeing rising 100 yards away is not going to be a shining paragon of solar. It will have energy efficiency measures built it, but it is those sorts of things that can be used to do much more to drive forward that market.[101]

75. We are concerned that alternative renewable technologies such as wave, tidal and solar power are currently believed to be commercially non-viable for many years. In order to achieve its targets on renewable power generation, it is imperative that the Government urges the development of a suite of technologies rather then relying solely on onshore windfarms, although these have a valuable role to play as part of a suite of renewable energy sources. Accordingly, we recommend that the Government comes forward with programmes to promote the rapid mainstream development and use of new renewable energy technologies, particularly biofuels, biomass and solar, wave and tidal power.

76. We are concerned that any gains made in the proportion of the energy supply generated by renewable technologies may be cancelled out by the declining proportion of energy production from nuclear sources. Renewables are predicted to supply some 9.9% of the UK's energy by 2010, but the proportion of electricity from nuclear sources is predicted to fall from 24% in 2004 to 7% over the next fifteen years. We are concerned that the current rate of increase in renewable energy may not be sufficient to compensate for decline in electricity from nuclear sources, resulting in an increased dependence on fossil fuels. Therefore it is essential to accelerate the increase in sustainable energy and energy efficiency measures.

77. The Government has recently introduced new business rates, whereby the ROCs become part of the "receipts and expenditures" system of payment. This could increase the taxes paid by some renewable power generation threefold. Conversely, many fossil fuel generators may see their business rates fall in the next fiscal year.[102] When questioned, Defra said they had recently become aware of this anomalous situation and were in the process of trying to resolve the issue with both industry and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.[103]

78. The contradiction between the new business rates introduced by HM Treasury and the Renewables Obligation, the aim of which is to mitigate climate change, is a clear example of the lack of 'joined-up' Government. Given the urgency for action underlined by the climate change conference in Exeter, it is essential that all relevant departments reaffirm the Governments commitment to the Renewables Obligation and renewables targets to inspire investor confidence.

Combined Heat and Power (CHP)

79. CHP, although not a renewable technology, is an efficient system whereby energy (usually electricity) and usable heat are generated together in a single process. In 2003 there were 1,506 CHP facilities in the UK, compared to 32 gas and 13 nuclear power stations.[104]

80. According to the Combined Heat and Power Association:

The current mix of CHP installations achieves a reduction of over 30% in CO₂ emissions in comparison with generation from coal-fired power stations, and over 10% in comparison with gas fired combined cycle gas turbines. The newest installations achieve a reduction of over 50% compared with generation from coal-fired power stations.[105]

81. Currently around 90% of CHP systems are gas-fired. The BCSE told us that, according to statistics, the UKs CO₂ emissions are reduced by between 700-900 tonnes of carbon per annum for every one megawatt of CHP that is produced.[106]

82. The Government has set a target of 10GW of CHP capacity by 2010 which WWF state it is "grossly falling short of".[107] According to the BCSE:

… the UK has yet to achieve its interim target of 5GWe by 2001. Indeed at present CHP capacity is actually falling, despite the potential the Government itself has highlighted to make much wider use of this highly efficient technology.[108]

83. Micro-CHP units aim to generate CHP at the household level. Such units would typically replace the household boiler and provide both all of the heat and a proportion of the electricity to the building, using the same amount of gas as a conventional domestic boiler. While micro-CHP systems for individual houses are still in development, such systems are already in operation in some blocks of flats. Our World Foundation argued that:

at the moment 1.3 million people buy boilers every year and therefore if they could be encouraged to buy micro CHP within less than ten years that would generate sufficient capacity to take over from the existing nuclear power stations.[109]

84. The Secretary of State acknowledged that there were "great concerns in the CHP sector"and that Government was not making as much progress as it had hoped".[110]

85. We are concerned that the Government is not doing enough to enable Combined Heat and Power (CHP) to achieve its national uptake targets, particularly given the gains in carbon reductions that can be achieved through this—already commercially available—technology. We commend the announcement in the Budget of a reduced rate for the installation of micro-CHP. We recommend that the Government, in its response to our report, detail the actions which it will now be pursuing to address the current deficit in CHP generation.

Nuclear power

86. Nuclear power produces minimal CO₂ emissions. For this reason some commentators have suggested an increase in its use. Sir David King recently said that "It would be foolhardy to say we will never have the need for nuclear new build. Chernobyl has created … a very negative view of nuclear technology. I don't think it's the right view".[111]

87. BNFL highlighted the lack of greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power arguing that generating more of the UK's energy from nuclear sources can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[112] This is supported by a recent report from the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee which notes that:

The role that nuclear power can play [in the respect of reducing CO₂ emissions] is widely recognised, and is becoming a matter of increasingly urgent public debate...[113]

88. Conversely WWF, citing the DTI, argue that there is no economic case for nuclear power.[114] Friends of the Earth argue that:

… with the huge subsidies provided to the nuclear industry over the past 30 years there can be no confidence that another round of Government support for nuclear will deliver the required results. … The last nuclear power station to be built in this country took 15 years to go from proposal to electricity production and cost more than twice the original budget.[115]

89. E.ON UK (formerly Powergen) states that

The UK needs to maintain the nuclear option but will need to address how the investment risks can be managed so that private capital can be attracted to nuclear within a competitive energy market.

The Government has made it clear that it will not consider new nuclear construction without a further White Paper on the issue. Nuclear power has the potential to generate power with relatively little impact on climate change although the high capital cost of the technology and the unresolved issue of disposal of irradiated waste are barriers.[116]

The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report suggested that the lead time for constructing new nuclear power stations could be more than a decade.[117]

90. In addition to the length of time required to commission new nuclear power stations, witnesses noted that the issue of nuclear waste disposal also remains to be satisfactorily addressed.[118] In 2003 the Government appointed the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) to propose a technical—and publicly acceptable—solution to the problem. According to CoRWM there are currently 764 m³ of 'high level' waste and 74,500 m³ of 'intermediate level' waste, with greater quantities projected as a result of the current nuclear programme. They are due to present their recommendations to the Government by July 2006. The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report Radioactive Waste Management, concluded that "The small uncertainties associated with radioactive waste disposal that still exist must be balanced against the spectre of global warming: the consequences of not doing enough to limit greenhouse gas emissions may be catastrophic".[119]

91. The Government's sustainable development report Securing the Future reiterates points made in the Energy White Paper that, although nuclear power is a source of carbon-free electricity, in addition to the problem of radioactive waste disposal it is also economically unattractive. The report does, however, go on to state that the Government does not rule out the possibility that "new nuclear build might be necessary" in order to achieve targets on carbon emissions reduction, but that this would be preceded by full public consultation and publication of a further white paper.[120]

92. It is clear that there are concerns regarding the economic viability and environmental impact of nuclear energy generation. The Government must make clear the role it believes nuclear power could or should play in achieving the carbon reduction targets set out in the UK Climate Change Programme. The Government should at the same time publish a candid assessment of the prospects for nuclear fusion technology contributing to the generation of domestic electricity within the next twenty years. Details of the level of investment thus far made in the development of this technology should also be made available.

Carbon capture and storage

93. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a new technology touted by some as a potential panacea to the problem of climate change. In brief, CO₂ is captured, for example from flue gases, and placed in long-term storage, such as in depleted North Sea oil and gas fields. An assessment by the British Geological Survey in the 1990s estimated that the CO₂ storage capacity within the EU and Norway was 800 Gt CO₂. Approximately 60% of the storage capacity is on the UK and Norwegian continental shelf in the North Sea. In 1990, emissions from power plants were in the region of 950 Mt per annum, so 800 Gt storage capacity represents some 800 years of storage potential.[121] As an added advantage, injecting CO₂ into oilfields can increase oil recovery by effectively 'flushing' the oil out.

94. According to the Energy White Paper, this process would need to commence by 2006-08 in order to utilise the largest fields before the infrastructure is dismantled.[122] The Government is currently developing a Carbon Abatement Technology Strategy, as part of which it aims to market new CCS technologies by 2020.[123] The Environment Agency, however, states in its written evidence that, while CCS could "play a useful role", the environmental and health and safety impacts are not yet sufficiently understood.[124]

95. During our visit to Brussels in February 2005 we learned that the Commission support the use of available technologies in order to achieve adequate reductions on carbon emissions. But, although CCS could smooth the path to more widespread use of renewable technologies, is it not the definitive solution and only a limited quantity of geographical strata are suitable.

96. We acknowledge that carbon capture and storage could be an extremely valuable technology. But we are aware of the concerns regarding its economic viability and the potential long-term environmental and potential safety impacts. We also note the disparity in timescales between the 2006-08 date suggested by the Energy White Paper needed to maximise the technology and the 2020 target set by Defra. We look forward to the findings of the Carbon Abatement Technology Strategy due to be made public later this year. Irrespective of these findings, we recommend that the Government should not spend too much time and resources on what is ultimately a useful tool for 'buying time'. Pursuing this route should not detract from more 'mainstream' adaptation and mitigation strategies.

Household emissions

97. In 2002, domestic users accounted for around 24% of the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions and 27% of CO₂ emissions.[125] Despite this, domestic users are the largest single group of energy users in the UK, using 116 GWh in 2003.[126] Therefore reducing the level of emissions from households will have a major impact on the UK's chances of meeting its climate change targets. We examined two main ways in which change could be effected, in existing and new housing stock.

EXISTING HOUSING STOCK

Energy efficiency

98. The main policy instrument for delivering energy efficiency improvement in the UK domestic sector is the Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC). Under the terms of the EEC, electricity and gas suppliers are required to achieve targets for the promotion of improvements in domestic energy efficiency, in order to help electricity and gas consumers in the household sector to use energy more efficiently and in turn reduce their fuel costs, thus alleviating fuel poverty. These targets are non-prescriptive and can be achieved by carrying out a combination of approved measures, such as installing insulation or providing low-energy light bulbs.

99. The current scheme is due to expire this year and will be replaced with EEC2, running from 2005-2008. The EEC is to be doubled in scale during EEC2 as of April 2005.[127] As a result, in February 2005 the Energy Saving Trust launched a £3 million campaign, funded by Defra, to promote energy efficiency in the home, and provide unbiased information to tie in with measures already being taken by energy suppliers as part of the EEC.[128]

100. There was a consistent message from witnesses that Government policy and incentives should be targeted primarily at 'low-hanging fruit', such as encouraging use of low energy light bulbs and installation of cavity wall insulation. The BCSE told us that meeting the energy efficiency targets would "need the introduction of additional policies to really drive the incentive to invest" and that "the lack of consumer demand for energy efficiency is a particular barrier". Delivering the necessary energy efficiency improvements through the current EEC structure would become more difficult and more expensive. Therefore it should be re-designed:

… by re-thinking the design of the current EEC a greater investment incentive could be introduced. This could involve designing the EEC to look more like the renewables obligation or introducing some form of white certificates market.[129]

101. According to the Energy White Paper, insulating some 4.5 million cavity walls between 2005 and 2010 would save approximately 1.2 MtC. In addition, the installation of 100 million energy saving light-bulbs in addition to the 60 million already anticipated by 2005 would result in carbon savings of 0.5MtC.[130] So far, only six million homes of a potential 17.5 million have installed cavity wall insulation, with a current market size of 300,000 homes per annum.[131] Despite there being in the region of 500 million lights in use in UK homes, only an estimated 30 million of these are fitted with low energy light bulbs.[132] Increasing uptake of easily implemented measures with small financial outlay and comparatively rapid payback periods, such as encouraging use of energy saving light-bulbs, is a prime example of 'low-hanging fruit' which we recommend to the Government as a simple yet effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions whilst increasing consumer awareness of the issue and how minor changes in lifestyle can have a significant beneficial impact. The Government needs to work with energy providers to overcome the apparent inertia in adoption of these straight-forward energy efficiency measures.

102. Domestic use of renewable power, for example solar panels, is often perceived by the public as being prohibitively expensive. The problem is exacerbated by people moving house, and thus not benefiting directly from the long-term gains of renewable power. The Energy Saving Trust argue that the lengthy pay-back period is a common public misconception, and that the initial outlay on cavity wall installation can be recouped in two years when purchased via an EEC deal.[133] The payback period for solar water systems is around 20 years; the payback for solar electricity systems may be considerably longer although Government grants could reduce this.[134] This has been addressed innovatively by some local authorities which have introduced the rental of solar panels, thus negating the issue of initial outlay completely.[135]

103. We welcome the inclusion of energy efficiency measures in the Building Regulations. This will help lessen the climate change impact of new housing. But we are concerned that the Energy Efficiency Commitment is not having sufficient impact on existing housing stock. The large initial cost combined with the length of the payback period for domestic installation of renewable energy sources urgently needs to be addressed. We recommend an urgent expansion of programmes leading to domestic energy efficiency in existing housing stock, including energy generating measures. We also urge a review of energy market rules in order to promote this. We note the value of simple measures such as installation of cavity wall insulation and the rental of solar panels, and recommend the Government lead the rollout of such schemes at a national level.

Stamp duty

104. Several witnesses argued for the adoption of reduced stamp duty as a financial incentive to undertake energy efficiency improvements within the home. Although only around 1.2 million homes are sold every year—marginally less than 5% of the UK housing stock based on 2003 figures[136]—the Energy Saving Trust argued that such a reduction in stamp duty was "the single most important fiscal change needed".[137] They noted that other financial incentives such as reductions in council tax could be implemented to encourage non-movers to make similar energy efficiency improvements.[138]

105. A reduction in stamp duty as a 'reward' for installing energy efficient systems within the home fails to address the majority of the housing stock. However, even with the recent announcement in the Budget to raise the stamp duty threshold to £120,000, such a move would still affect some 900,000 homes sold every year. Incentives to improve energy efficiency of such houses could contribute significantly to the Government's domestic carbon reduction targets. Despite the fact that such a move will not affect all existing housing stock, the Government should seriously consider making such a change. The Government should also examine what fiscal measures it has at its disposal, such as a council tax discount, that could accelerate the adoption of more energy efficient systems by owners of existing building stock.

New housing stock

Planning and building regulations

106. The Committee heard arguments from several witnesses that the building regulations could be used more effectively to encourage developers to integrate sustainable energy measures, thus reducing the energy profile of buildings both during their construction and life-time use. Witnesses have raised the issue of improving domestic energy efficiency—and thus reducing emissions—through better planning and design of housing. For instance, WWF-UK suggested that incorporating energy efficiency technology in new-build housing added only 2% to the total build price, with this figure projected to be even lower when building in volume.[139] A table summarising the CO₂ savings that can be made through incorporation of energy efficiency measures in European buildings is shown below.

Table 4: Potential CO₂ savings from incorporating energy efficiency measures in European buildings

Measure	Sector	Annual saving by 2010 (MtCO₂)
Improve thermal insulation	Domestic	98-120
	Commercial/Public	20
	Industrial	56
Improve glazing standards	Domestic	94
	Commercial/Public/Industrial	25
Improve lighting efficiency	All	50

Data source: The European Alliance of Companies for Energy Efficiency in Buildings (EuroACE), Assessment of potential for the saving of carbon dioxide emissions in European building stock, May 1998; www.euroace.org

107. The Tyndall Centre told us that "the UK continues to build houses and offices that are of a low standard in terms of energy use and energy efficiency". The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister launched their Five Year Plan Homes for All in January 2005, which proposes the introduction of a code to create more sustainable buildings. A competition was also announced to build a home for £60,000 as part of their plans to develop more affordable housing.[140]

108. Planning and design is not a Defra lead, but it is highly relevant to climate change, as poor energy efficiency in housing can lead to unnecessary consumption of energy and thus contribute to global warming. A recent report from the Environmental Audit Committee concluded: "The environmental impacts of the proposed increase in house building deserve much greater consideration than they have yet received from Government".[141]

109. The LGA noted that different local authorities had different approaches to planning applications.[142] The LGA wanted to see "an embedment of energy efficiency renewable energy into building regulations, and we would certainly also like to see the embedding of sustainable construction principles and approaches within the building regulations as well".[143] The LGA told us of a recent development where 4,000 new "energy neutral" homes are being built by a private developer. This had been possible because the land is owned by the LGA, and they were able to stipulate that the new homes should take their energy from renewable sources and be of a high standard of energy efficiency.[144]

110. We welcome the inclusion of energy efficiency measures in the Building Regulations. This will help lessen the climate impact of new housing. However, we are concerned that the inclusion of energy efficiency measures may be undermined by the target set out in the ODPM Five Year Plan to build homes for £60,000 each. While we support the Government's desire to increase the volume of affordable new housing, such a policy should not be pursued without incorporating best practice with regard to energy efficiency. In its response to our report Defra should set out how houses built at this price can still be as energy neutral as possible, and the steps Defra has taken with ODPM to ensure this is the case.

The commercial sector

111. Concerns were also raised about emissions from the commercial sector. The business sector in 2002 contributed some 29% and 32% to the UK's total greenhouse gas and CO₂ emissions respectively.[145] The BCSE specifically raised this issue, noting that:

Action also needs to be taken outside the domestic sector, particularly the commercial and service sector. There are no specific measures aimed at improving energy efficiency in this sector, yet it is one of the fastest growing, in terms of energy use, and must be addressed.

112. The Government has introduced the Climate Change Levy (CCL), a tax on the use of energy by business, other than from CHP or renewable sources. FoE states that the CCL "has the potential to deliver significant emissions reductions" however "its impact has been limited" and the 'Climate Change Agreements'[146] so far negotiated have "failed to deliver any significant savings".[147]

113. The Carbon Trust is an independent company which receives Government funding, some of which is generated by the CCL. Launched in 2001, it was set up to help business and the public sector adopt energy efficient practices and reduce carbon emissions. It has recently launched a communications campaign to increase awareness of the impacts climate change could have on business and measures that can be taken to address this. According to Defra, the Trust will receive a minimum of £192 million over the next three years to develop and extend its programmes.[148]

114. Case studies cited by The Climate Group—a UK based coalition of organisations, including companies, NGOs and government bodies—demonstrate that incorporating energy efficiency measures within businesses makes good financial sense, as well as contributing towards climate change mitigation. The Group's examples include BP which, with an initial outlay in the region of US$20 million to implement an 18% absolute reduction in emissions, had within three years realised some US$650 million in financial savings; and DuPont, who since 1990 have achieved a 67% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and have reduced their energy consumption by more than 9% below 1990 baseline levels—some 3% of which now comes from renewables—despite an increase in production. These energy efficiency measures have saved DuPont over US$2 billion, with an annual saving of more than US$10-15 million through using renewables.[149]

115. Metering was advocated by several witnesses. BAA has installed sub-metering into many locations on their Heathrow estate in order to monitor energy usage and inform energy conservation activity.[150] The LGA recommends that, under the auspices of Ofgem, sub-metering or 'intelligent metering' should be installed in all public buildings,[151]and ultimately in the commercial and household sector, to provide a quantitative measure by which individuals can monitor their energy usage and encourage the 'well-being factor' when tangible energy and financial savings are made.[152] They point out that "energy efficiency pays for itself and pays for itself fast".[153]

116. We commend the work of the Carbon Trust in helping business and the public sector adopt energy efficient practices and reduce carbon emissions, and we support their awareness raising campaign. It is evident from case studies that considerable financial savings can be made through implementation of energy efficiency measures. We recommend that the Building Regulations for new commercial buildings are made more stringent so as to demand improved energy efficiency from this sector and include design requirements for such buildings to generate a proportion of their own energy consumption.

Communication and education

117. The inadequacy of communication with the public and the urgent need for widespread information and education campaigns were a constant thread throughout the inquiry. Evidence noted that consumers tended to have some understanding of climate change and the measures that could be taken to mitigate it, but were unsure how to go about implementing such measures and who to trust. According to the Energy Saving Trust:

There is a breakdown of trust between the consumer and the people who are bestplaced to deliver some energy efficiency programmes and we have to work hard to overcome that.[154]

118. Research presented at the Exeter conference found that "although the dangerous impacts of climate change are recognised, they are perceived to be removed in space and time".[155] The Secretary of State told us:

… most people's perception is that this will be a problem for our children or perhaps our grandchildren, depending on our age, and I think very few people have yet taken on board the fact that if this is not to become an even worse problem for our children and grandchildren than is presently envisaged and possibly a problem on a scale to which adaptation will become increasingly difficult if not impossible that action has to be taken on a much shorter time scale than is implied by something that is a problem for your children and generation.[156]

A survey conducted by UEA and MORI in 2003 reported that whilst 28% of respondents stated that climate change was a 'very important' issue, 53% ranked radioactive waste, and 58% having a comfortable life, as equally important.[157]

119. In evidence, the BCSE stated that

158

120. Our World Foundation states that "Since a global change to renewable energy will require the support of the mass public, their awareness of the severity of the crisis, its causes and solutions is critical."[159] They propose a UK Climate Change Communications Programme, utilising:

160

121. The Energy Saving Trust is piloting the concept of a Sustainable Energy Network (SEN) in some parts of the UK in order to inform, advise and engage consumers on domestic actions they can take to address climate change.[161] This will build upon the existing network of Energy Efficiency Advice Centres (EEACs). The Trust received £10 million funding in December 2004 to develop the SEN.[162] According to the Trust, the EEACs have been enjoying reasonable success, with around 750,000 telephone enquiries and an additional 250,000 hits on the website per annum. Since their conception some 3.7 million customer enquiries have been handled between the 52 EEACs.[163]

122. Defra recognises the importance of the issue. It has undertaken two internal reviews on the issue of climate change communications and has commissioned Futerra to act on the information gathered during these reviews and provide an evidence-based proposal regarding an 'attitude-change' campaign on climate change. On the basis of this review, Defra announced in February 2005 that at least £12 million over three years would be allocated to support a new climate change communications initiative. This will include "a new fund to support climate change communications at a regional and local level".[164]

123. Raising awareness amongst consumers of the impact of climate change, and ways in which they can help combat it, is of great importance. We welcome the recent commitment by Defra to provide £12 million over three years to support a climate change communications initiative. However, we are concerned that the current 'head of steam' resulting from the recent flurry of media coverage of the G8 climate conference in Exeter may be dissipated. We recommend that some of the resource set aside for climate change communications should be used to identify what the barriers to the public changing their attitudes and consequently behaviour are, thus ensuring that future policy is aimed at removing these barriers. It is also imperative that any communication initiatives—such as television advertising—are fully supported by provision of websites, telephone hotline facilities and literature to assist consumers. In this context, we welcome the work of the Energy Saving Trust in developing the Sustainable Energy Network based on the network of Energy Efficiency Advice Centres. We recommend that Defra consider increasing funding to the Energy Saving Trust to support this work.

30 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Climate Change: The UK Programme, Cm 4913, November 2000, p 7 Back

31 Department of Trade and Industry, Our energy future - creating a low carbon economy, Cm 5761, February 2003, p 8 Back

32 HM Treasury, Pre-Budget Report, Cm 6408, December 2004, p 140; Financial Times, 'UK breathes easier as pollution falls', 14 January 2005 Back

33 "Government 'looks to do more' in climate change programme review", ENDS Report vol 359, December 2004 p 48 Back

34 Parliamentary Question 20, PQ 0816 04/05, 25 January 2005 Back

35 Q241 Back

36 1939^th Council meeting, Luxembourg, 25 June 1996: "… the Council believes that global average temperatures should not exceed 2 degrees above pre-industrial level and that therefore concentration levels lower than 550 ppm CO₂ should guide global limitation and reduction efforts…" from Commission of the European Communities Working Paper 'Winning the battle against global climate change', 9 February 2005 Back

37 Q22 Back

38 House of Commons, Minutes of Evidence taken before the Liaison Committee, HC 318-i, 8 February 2005, Q125 Back

39 Ev 96 Back

40 Q335 Back

41 Qq150, 152 Back