Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
IAN PEARSON
AND MS
DAGMAR DROOGSMA
17 OCTOBER 2006
Q1 Chairman: Mr Pearson, welcome. This
is your first appearance before the Committee since you became
Minister. Perhaps I may say at the outset that Colin Challen had
hoped to be here but unfortunately he is in St Thomas's Hospital
having had an accident. We understand that it is not too serious,
but it is certainly serious enough to keep him away from here
today and tomorrow. To kick off with a general point, is it right
that you have been in the job for five months?
Ian Pearson: That is right.
Q2 Chairman: What are your overall
impressions? Do you believe that people in Britain, consumers
and businesses, are sufficiently seized of the urgency of climate
change?
Ian Pearson: Increasingly so,
yes. Quite a lot of research has been commissioned to analyse
people's views. Overwhelmingly, people are aware of climate change;
they regard it as an important issue. What is less understood
is how individuals can contribute to reducing their own carbon
footprint. As a government that is trying to spread greater awareness
of climate change but is also encouraging a change in behaviour
we have a climate change communications initiative. David Miliband
has been talking about moving towards one planet living. At the
moment, we consume resources as if we had three planets. If everybody
did the same thing it would be completely unsustainable. Therefore,
to move towards one planet living and reduce the carbon footprint
of government, business and citizens must be an important part
of our agenda.
Q3 Chairman: Do you think that the
science is becoming more worrying and the situation may be even
more risky and urgent than we are currently assuming?
Ian Pearson: Some of the most
recent scientific reports have been very worrying. There is no
doubt that the overall message must be one of increasing urgency.
This is an issue that we need to tackle. I do not believe there
is any serious debate about the science of global warming and
the fact that humankind is responsible for CO2 emissions
and the problem of climate change. The debate is about how fast
this process is taking place and, therefore, how urgent the international
response needs to be.
Q4 Chairman: Quite rightly and understandably,
there has been a lot of emphasis on targets for cutting annual
greenhouse gas emissions and the whole Kyoto process has focused
upon that. Do you think there is a risk that that may now deflect
attention away from the concentrations and build up of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere which are the trigger for dangerous and
irreversible climate change, as opposed to any particular annual
level of emissions? We have had so much stress on emissions that
people may feel if we can cut them by 60% by 2050 we may have
solved the problem. If all of that cut arises in the past five
years clearly we have not solved the problem. Do you think it
would be better if we paid a bit more attention to the level of
concentration now and reminded people that we might be quite close
to an irreversible tipping point?
Ian Pearson: I think we need to
do both but certainly it is important to focus on the overall
concentrations. It is the area under the curve that is important.
You are right to say that we cannot be in a situation where we
set a target for 45 to 50 years hence and then take action right
at the end of it, because it is the cumulative CO2
emissions that are the problem.
Q5 Chairman: We are all looking forward
to the Stern review. Can you tell us when it will appear?
Ian Pearson: Shortly.
Q6 Chairman: Is that "shortly"
in Treasury speak, which usually means later rather than sooner?
Ian Pearson: As far as I am aware,
the intention is to publish its findings before the pre-Budget
report.
Q7 Chairman: But not necessarily
before Nairobi?
Ian Pearson: I do not have the
exact date.
Q8 Joan Walley: Would you like it
to be published before Nairobi?
Ian Pearson: Just as in Monterrey
in Mexico Nick Stern turned up and gave a preview of his findings
I am sure that those findings will also be available at Nairobi.
What is clear, without pre-empting the publication of the report,
is that the costs of not tackling climate change are far higher
than those associated with tackling it. That is one of the key
messages we all need to take away from the report.
Q9 Chairman: Before we get to the
COP and MOP agenda, if as everyone seems to expect the report
will be quite convincing on that point will it be followed by
a further analysis of the Government's own position? It seems
to this Committee that a certain amount of low fruit is not being
picked, for example in relation to energy efficiency and maybe
road transport. Some straightforward things could be done to accelerate
the use of up-do-date technology and so on. If there is a convincing
analysis will there be a fairly urgent response from the Government?
Ian Pearson: We continue to keep
under review the range of policy instruments that we have in the
UK to tackle the domestic climate change agenda. As you know,
we have set the target of reducing CO2 emissions by
at least 60% by the year 2050. We have stretched the UK target
of a 20% reduction by 2010. The climate change programme that
we published in March gets us to about 16.2%, so it does not achieve
the target that we set ourselves. There are a number of reasons
why we are still short of that at the moment. We have said that
this is not the last word on the issue and we want to see what
more we can do. If the Committee has good suggestions about low-hanging
fruit, as you call it, I would certainly be very interested to
hear them. We fully accept that as a government we need and want
to do more for the future.
Chairman: I daresay that we will want
to have an early look at Stern as soon as it comes out, so we
may respond to that.
Q10 Mr Hurd: I apologise that my
question is a little out of context, but I have to leave early.
Given the difficulty of reducing emissions, I am sure you agree
about the importance of enhancing our natural carbon sinks. In
that context what support is the British Government giving to
the idea of conservation credits for rain forests?
Ian Pearson: We are certainly
attracted to the idea of conservation credits. I know that you
raised this as an issue in the debate last Thursday. You will
have seen from my reply that of other suggestions that have been
made we think that perhaps this is the best way forward.
Q11 Mr Hurd: What are the difficulties
associated with it?
Ian Pearson: As you are aware,
this is a hugely complex and difficult area. There are a lot of
methodological issues involved in this area, as I understand it.
When one looks at the scale of deforestation and its carbon impact
it is clear that it is an area where we need to do something.
That is why conservation credits seem to us in the UK to be a
potential way forward, just as approaches in other sectors are
areas that we think need to be explored if we are to have a comprehensive
range of tools to tackle carbon emissions.
Q12 Mr Hurd: Will we be actively
promoting it, or is our support passive?
Ian Pearson: What I can say is
that at the moment we are fully engaged in the debate and we see
it as being the leading runner of a number of different possibilities.
What we want is something that works.
Q13 Mr Chaytor: Can you tell us something
about progress on the Gleneagles dialogue, specifically what happened
in Mexico and how it is being taken forward?
Ian Pearson: The UK was well represented
at Mexico. I was not there but David Miliband as Secretary of
State, Malcolm Wicks as Energy Minister and Margaret Beckett as
Foreign Secretary were there. The judgment we made was that my
presence would be one air flight too many. What we did at Monterrey
was to look seriously at the economics of climate change and reduction.
Sir Nicholas Stern gave a report on that. We looked at the costs
of introducing low-carbon energy technologies. There was a report
from the International Energy Agency on its energy technology
perspectives. If you have not read the document I would thoroughly
recommend it to Members of the Committee because it is a serious
analysis of the different technology options that are available.
That would be a contribution to the continuing future debates
that we need to have in this area. The third area looked at and
discussed in Monterrey was the whole issue of the way in which
international financial organisations can contribute to providing
finance to achieve the transition that we need to see to low-carbon
economies in developing countries. Delegates at Monterrey heard
the World Bank's energy investment framework proposals. Again,
that is a matter where the UK has been playing a leading role
in pushing forward these proposals. I am pretty excited about
the fact that if we can get an energy investment framework fund
of something in the region of the $20 billion that has been talked
about to help developing countries introduce low-carbon energy
solutions that will be a huge practical step forward.
Q14 Mr Chaytor: All of these three
areas reflect the work programme of the dialogue, but do you think
that the programme or the building of a general consensus is the
most important part of it? When is the work programme going to
be completed?
Ian Pearson: Certainly, I believe
that the general process of consensus building is important, but
the different elements of the work programme are also significant
and the fact that practical actions are emerging from the dialogue
process in terms of co-operation with countries like South Africa
to do specific pieces of work will make a difference. As to the
dialogue process, we will be reporting back as part of the Japanese
presidency. I am also pleased that the Germans have agreed to
host a meeting next year as part of their presidency, which is
important. As I see it, the key things are to get some concrete,
practical action taken to continue to build international consensus
on the science and practical actions in terms of what needs to
be done if we are to tackle this. I see the Gleneagles process
as a very important adjunct to the UN process. It is a very positive
space in which we can debate ideas and throw out suggestions about
how we can move the whole issue forward.
Q15 Mr Chaytor: Is that not precisely
what should be done through the UN convention process and dialogue
and the ad hoc working group? What is Gleneagles going to produce
that could not be dealt with in the two existing processes? Is
it not to some extent a distraction from the two existing processes?
Ian Pearson: I do not believe
that it is a distraction; it is complementary and helpful to the
overall view and negotiation process. My understanding of negotiations
is that very often you keep your position close to yourself. That
is certainly my experience as a trade minister, and from talking
to people that seems to be the case when it comes to negotiations
on climate change. I think that to have a space where you can
throw out ideas and you are not part of a negotiating machinery
is very helpful. I believe that the Gleneagles dialogue is filling
that important gap.
Q16 Mr Chaytor: What happens if the
outcome of the work programme for the Gleneagles dialogue is largely
at odds with the outcome of the ad hoc working group? Is there
not a danger that we will have a series of irreconcilable conflicts?
Ian Pearson: I do not believe
that it will be at odds.
Q17 Mr Chaytor: If it is not why
do we need it?
Ian Pearson: I think we need it
for the reasons I was trying to explain.
Q18 Mr Chaytor: To clarify it, surely
if it is the case that the Gleneagles dialogue has something distinct
to offer inevitably to some extent it will be at odds with the
ad hoc working group. If it does not have anything distinct to
offer why have it in the first place?
Ian Pearson: What is unique about
the Gleneagles dialogue is that one has countries working together
to analyse and share the problem and come up with solutions, rather
than countries that negotiate on the basis of their own vested
interests. The debates that are had through the Gleneagles dialogue
are a different paradigm from the negotiations that take place
under the formal UN procedures. That is why I say it is complementary
and important, because if we can build consensus there I think
we have a better chance of achieving a negotiated agreement through
the UN framework.
Q19 Mr Chaytor: Will it continue
beyond 2012?
Ian Pearson: I do not think that
at the moment decisions have been made about that.
| 
