Examination of Witnesses (Questions 236
- 239)
WEDNESDAY 19 JANUARY 2005
MS BRYONY
WORTHINGTON
Q236 Chairman: We welcome now Bryony
Worthington from Friends of the Earth. May I first apologise to
you for the delay in your being able to give your evidence and
thank you for your patience in remaining with us. Sometimes votes
come and business overruns. I want to start our questioning by
just looking at two fundamental questions which I put to our previous
witnesses. The Government set themselves a target in advance of
the requirements of Kyoto. They have now had to row back on it
and I am interested to know why that is the situation. How did
they decide on 20%? Why did they think that was the right number,
from which they have now resiled? What practically should we be
doing to recover the ground?
Ms Worthington: Okay. Well, it
is interesting. The history of the 20% target is somewhat shrouded
in mystery, but what we do know is that in 1997 when the Labour
Government was preparing a manifesto at that stage emissions were
steadily decreasing year on year. From 1990 to about that time
we have seen a steady reduction in emissions thanks to the dash
for gas. I think generally commentators believed that we would
be able to maintain that throughout the remainder of the decade
and into the next decade and that the 20% target was simply a
continuation of the linear path and therefore was a sensible target.
So I think that is the reason why they set it. However, they then
went on to produce their climate change programme, which they
believed would deliver that target, but it was fundamentally flawed
on many counts and actually what we are seeing is that that linear
pathway has not been adhered to and emissions have yo-yoed really
up and down since the late 1990s with no discernible pattern.
So really they are not on track and the latest results and projections
show that we might only make a 14% reduction, not 20%, and even
that is very ambitious given that we are currently at around 7.5%
below 1990 levels. So there is a huge hill to climb. I think you
also went on to ask what should they do about it. Well, they have
a climate change programme review, which of course this inquiry
is very kindly for, and they can, I think, introduce new measures
and a new approach which would get them back onto a linear pathway
and that is essentially what we would like to see them do.
Q237 Chairman: Given that the dash
for gas gave them, if you like, a head start but also a rather
nice comfort zone they did not have to do very much because other
people were doing it. The electricity generators were replacing
coal with gas. Did that not take the pressure off the rest of
the economy to contribute in terms of CO2 and other
greenhouse gas reductions?
Ms Worthington: Certainly in relation
to meeting Kyoto, the Kyoto target was pretty much met when it
was signed so there was not really very much pressure to do very
much and I think there was a certain amount of complacency that
industry would just keep on becoming more efficient and fuel switching
would continue. The failing stems from a number of different failings
because nobody really is taking an overarching look at the economy
as a whole and starting from the point of view of where are emissions
rising—
Q238 Chairman: Let me just stop you
because that is a very interesting point. You say nobody is doing
it. Do you know why, and who would you nominate to do it?
Ms Worthington: Well, we would
like an independent body which is not the Department for Transport
or the Department for Trade and Industry, and indeed perhaps is
not even Defra, to take on the role of setting carbon budgets
for the UK plc, all sectors that contribute climate change gases.
We do not really have strong feelings about who should do it,
but there is a strong case, perhaps, for the Treasury taking on
this role. We are now living in a new world where carbon has a
price and in fact will have an effect on the public purse in the
years going forward. So it may make sense to integrate it into
a Treasury function so that it becomes looked at in terms of a
carbon budget economically as well as them having an oversight
over policies and measures.
Q239 Mr Mitchell: Why is the EU not
reaching its targets as well?
Ms Worthington: Well, the EU are
also not on a linear path, this is true. If you look at which
sectors have failed to reduce, it is overwhelmingly transport
which has failed to be tackled at a European level. The same is
true in the UK, of course. So yes, you have seen some countries
going beyond and still managing to produce some reductions and
other countries where their economic cycle is growing and their
emissions are rising. So it is a combination of sectoral failure.
There perhaps are not enough policies to tackle transport emissions.
But also with the individual countries the net total is that we
are not making enough of a reduction.
| 
