Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
IAN PEARSON
AND MS
DAGMAR DROOGSMA
17 OCTOBER 2006
Q20 Mr Chaytor: You will have seen
yesterday's Independent which ran a major story on emissions
from flights of government ministers. Your department was listed
in the league table of emissions. Is there not a danger that in
the whole climate change negotiation industry we are contributing
to an increase in emissions through the huge amount of international
travel that is involved? What is the Government doing to offset
the emissions resulting from the Gleneagles dialogue and attendance
at the other UN processes?
Ian Pearson: Frankly, I think
that to take figures for government's airline emissions and say
that they are contributing to the problem is a cheap shot... We
will not get an international agreement to tackle climate change
by email or over the phone; that simply is not going to happen.
The figures for 2005 were during our presidency of the G8 when
we had lots of formal commitments to make, so we have to travel,
and will continue to travel, just as we are going to Nairobi if
we are to reach a successful international agreement on these
issues. As a government we have been offsetting the carbon impact
of all our official flights since last year and will continue
to do so as we have a government carbon offsetting fund in which
we will be investing those offsetting proceeds.
Q21 Tim Farron: Following along similar
lines that David Chaytor has been pursuing, you mention in your
preamble that people are not always clear about what they can
do to tackle climate change, but I suggest there is also lack
of clarity over the international response. Do you agree there
is a risk that all the various meetings and initiatives, some
of which we have referred to already, could blur the focus, bemuse
the public and lead them to believe, rightly or wrongly, that
politicians are not taking decisive action?
Ian Pearson: There is quite a
complicated architecture when considering the series of meetings
and fora and discussing climate change. Trying to explain that
to this Committee, let alone the British public, is quite difficult.
I am assured, however, that those who are at the coal face in
terms of negotiating and attending meetings are pretty well aware
of their respective roles and responsibilities. But I agree there
is an issue of public confidence and that people in Britain want
to see the Government taking a leadership role when it comes to
climate change. They want to know that we are working as hard
as we can to get an international agreement which will avoid dangerous
climate change in future. We need to get our messages across as
a government, recognising the complexities of decisions and negotiations
but giving people the confidence that government is on their side
and is pressing hard to tackle these problems.
Q22 Tim Farron: Is not part of that
leadership selling what you are doing in a much clearer way on
an international level so that people feel that what they are
doing is being led and they are not just fighting against great
international forces that are not moving?
Ian Pearson: We certainly need
to be clear about how we communicate our international climate
change policy. I do not know about you, but I think people understand
that we are trying hard in this. It is a big problem and we are
one of a large number of countries. There are some big countries
such as the United States that are responsible for a lot of carbon
emissions and have not been part of Kyoto and do not show willingness
at government level to take action for the future. I think people
understand some of the difficulties, but I hope they appreciate
that we are trying hard as a government.
Q23 Tim Farron: As a related question,
is there also a danger in having too many meetings, initiatives
and strands of discussion in the sense that the various departments
have or have not the capacity adequately to handle the various
international discussions and negotiations? Can you and your colleagues
deal with the proliferation of strands that appear to have come
out of this line of work?
Ian Pearson: As a government,
yes, we can. I have always been one of those people who think
that we can have too many meetings and what we want is action,
but when it comes to climate change we need a lot of meetings
if we are to get people to agree to tackle CO2 emissions
in the future. As I said to David Chaytor earlier, although this
can become confusing it is important that we have different fora
in which we can raise some of the issues that need to be raised
if we are to have an overall international framework to tackle
climate change emissions. I have perhaps more concern in terms
of capacity when it comes to some of the developing countries.
We are a relatively big government with a good level of resources
when it comes to tackling these sorts of issues. Some of the smaller
developing countries do not have that expertise, and that is why
in the past in areas like trade policy we have funded capacity-building
initiatives to try to ensure that the voice of developing countries
is strongly felt.
Q24 Mark Pritchard: In the written
ministerial statement on 11 October on the meeting in Mexico it
was said that "urgent global action" was needed. You
have rightly spoken this morning about leadership and the Government's
need to lead on this important issue of climate change and related
issues. You said that the Government needed to get across its
message, with which I certainly agree. You spoke about working
with international bodies but also alluded to the fact that we
needed to act locally. In that regard, having said what I have
said do you think there is any sound environmental reason why
there should not be a climate change Bill in the Gracious Speech?
Ian Pearson: I am not going to
be drawn into saying what is or is not in the Queen's Speech.
What I did say to the House yesterday was that, as we said in
the climate change programme and the energy review, we were considering
the case for a carbon budget very carefully, but we should not
be under any illusions. What is important here is that we take
action. To legislate for a target is something that we are looking
at as a government, but just passing a Bill does not mean that
we are tackling the problem. What we need is an effective policy
response and that is the matter on which we are focusing.
Q25 Mark Pritchard: To be helpful,
would you be surprised or disappointed if such a Bill was not
in the Queen's Speech?
Ian Pearson: I do not want to
make a comment at this stage as to whether or not a climate change
Bill is in the Queen's Speech. The matter on which we all need
to focus is effective policy actions. Do we have the right suite
of policy instruments to tackle climate change? We have the important
goal of reducing CO2 emissions by at least 60% by 2050,
but there are other countries with similar goals that are not
being met. We are one of the few countries on course to meeting
our Kyoto targets because we are taking action. Simply setting
targets without the means is a futile exercise.
Q26 Dr Turner: It is true that the
reason why we are meeting our Kyoto targets is not because of
any action that the Government has taken but because of the dash
for gas as a result of the market. That is not, however, the question
that I want to ask.
Ian Pearson: I disagree. Since
you have said it let me say why I disagree with you. There has
certainly been an increase in gas usage in the United Kingdom
and that has helped to reduce CO2 emissions. It is
also the case that over the past couple of years because of high
oil and gas prices power generators have been burning more coal
and that has created problems in terms of rising CO2
emissions. But it is not correct to say that government has not
taken any action. It is estimated that if the Government had not
taken action at this moment we would have been 15% higher in terms
of greenhouse gas emissions than we were in 1990 as opposed to
15% lower as we are today, which is why we are meeting our Kyoto
targets. That arises because of a range of government actions
in relation to tax, spending and regulation.
Q27 Dr Turner: That is very good
to hear. I want to ask a completely unfair question. The international
negotiating industry on climate change has been going on with
ever-increasing intensity and elaborateness for some years. Over
the course of those years the levels of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere have been increasing at an even higher rate. When do
you think we will reach a point when the process of negotiation
will produce agreed international measures which will start seriously
to reduce emissions? I know that that is a terribly unfair question,
but that is really what we have to look for and at the moment
we seem to be a long way from it?
Ian Pearson: First, greenhouse
gas emissions are not going up everywhere. The UK is on course
to achieving almost a doubling of its Kyoto targets.
Q28 Dr Turner: I am referring to
global emissions.
Ian Pearson: There are other countries—not
enough of them—that are on target to meet their Kyoto commitments.
Phase 2 of the EU emissions trading scheme is designed in part
to help other countries in the European Union to meet their Kyoto
targets. One gets back to the point that it is one thing to set
a target and make it legally binding but quite another to achieve
it. We are doing that in the United Kingdom. I do not know when
it will be possible to reach an international agreement on what
a post-2012 Kyoto framework might look like. I do know that it
has to be a lot more ambitious than Kyoto. We will all have to
agree collectively to go further. I know that it needs to include
key emitting nations and that at the moment the United States
is not on board. I also know that we have some difficult discussions
with rapidly developing countries like China and India which are
increasingly burning large amounts of fossil fuel. All this is
taking time and will continue to do so, but I know that there
is a sense of urgency here. We need to reach an international
agreement as soon as possible. That is why we have been trying
to build consensus through the G8 Gleneagles dialogue and we will
be an active voice in Nairobi. You will not find any lack of political
will when it comes to the stance of the UK on these issues.
Q29 Mr Caton: Can we look now at
preparations for MOP and COP and what has happened since Montreal
following what you have just said? I am looking first at what
happened in Bonn. A lot of people who have contacted us were very
disappointed at what they felt was a lack of progress there. How
do you feel about it? Was enough done in Bonn to maintain whatever
momentum we had from Montreal?
Ian Pearson: Progress was made
in Bonn and it had pluses and minuses. My understanding of it—I
was not at the meeting—is that on the positive side there
was a sense in some of the conclusions that we could move on by
looking at the wider framework issues, such as clean development
mechanisms, trading approaches and different sectoral approaches.
On the minus side, I think that at Bonn some of the disagreements
that exist now emerged. Clearly, there is a view among a number
of the developing countries that can be summarised, if I may be
blunt, as, "Well, you are the rich countries. Just set targets
and get on with it." Developed countries say that it is a
bit more complicated than that. There is a need for a range of
practical actions and just setting targets for the sake of it
will not make a difference and we need other people on board like
the United States. That disagreement between the G77 and developing
countries was, I understand, apparent at Bonn. It is one of the
matters that we have to deal with as part of the process of getting
a long-term international agreement.
Q30 Mr Caton: Thinking more generally,
can you point to positive developments over the past 12 months
that lead you to believe that we will get successful and very
useful negotiations at Nairobi?
Ian Pearson: We will have to see
what comes out of Nairobi. In a minute I will say something about
our objectives for Nairobi. As to positive developments, I think
that when published the Stern review will be very influential.
The energy technology perspectives report at the IEA is an important
piece of work and the proposals that are emerging in terms of
the World Bank and the setting up of an energy investment fund
are positive. All of those I point out as giving signs that the
science is accepted and we know some of the costs involved, and
we have some of the mechanisms to provide solutions. I believe
that some of the building blocks are there in a way that they
probably were not 12 months ago.
Q31 Mr Caton: Looking at the flip
side of the coin, is there anything that has happened over the
past 12 months that you believe may have a negative impact on
Nairobi?
Ian Pearson: I do not think there
is anything I want to point to that I think would be particularly
negative. The past 12 months have just confirmed the science.
Almost every day we see more scientific reports to indicate that
the situation on global warming is more alarming than we first
thought. Even in the United States there is recognition that global
warming is an issue and there is a need to take action. I do not
believe that there have been any particular negative developments
over the past 12 months, but clearly there are huge difficulties
in trying to get 189 countries to agree to anything.
Q32 Mr Caton: Partly for reasons
that you suggested in earlier answers, a lot of people look to
the UK and the EU for leadership and, therefore, as a quid
pro quo we take responsibility if we do not get new progress
at Nairobi. Do you believe there has been enough progress in the
UK and EU over the past year that will prove particularly beneficial
in the outcome of Nairobi?
Ian Pearson: There has certainly
been progress in the UK with regard to our domestic climate change
programme launched in March. I think that the energy review has
been helpful. People can see that we are taking a range of actions
to reduce CO2 emissions and they can also see from
phase 2 of the EU emissions trading scheme that Europe is making
further progress, using market-based mechanisms to tackle CO2
emissions. Europe has also put out for discussion that it may
want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 to 30% by 2020 and
by 60 to 80% by 2050. I think that is a helpful way to move forward
the debate. I believe that in the UK and Europe we are showing
leadership here.
Q33 Mr Caton: We are certainly doing
very well against the Kyoto standards, but there is evidence of
some regression in carbon emissions in the UK and slower progress
than some expected across the EU. Do you think that affects our
integrity as climate change leaders at all?
Ian Pearson: I think that when
you look at the figures you will find we are well on course to
meeting our Kyoto targets. It is true that CO2 emissions
in the UK have gone up a little in recent years, largely as a
result of high oil and gas prices and so more coal is being burnt.
But when one looks at the energy review and the other programmes
that we have in place the UK is on target to reduce CO2
emissions from 1990 levels by something like 16.2%. We will need
to go further, but I do not think that anybody internationally
seriously doubts the UK's leading international role here. I do
not think you can point to another country that has done more
when it comes to tackling global warming.
Q34 Mr Caton: To finish up with a
bread-and-butter issue, some NGOs have raised with us their concerns
about whether the Kenyan Government can administer a conference
like this. Linked to that, they have raised concerns about the
timetabling. It seems to be a much stricter UN day as compared
with previous negotiations of this kind which end up with long
and arduous meetings but with real progress being made in those
extra hours.
Ian Pearson: I have confidence
in the ability of the Kenyans to organise an effective conference.
At the moment the timetable might suggest a finishing time of
6 pm. I would not be surprised if after a few days negotiators
went well into the night to discuss some of these issues. I think
it is very helpful that the conference is taking place in Nairobi.
Part of the way these things work is that there is a system of
rotation. It was always going to be held in Africa. Clearly, climate
change is a huge issue when it comes to Africa. It is right that
we hold it there. Certainly, there will be a strong focus on adaptation
in Nairobi. That is today one of the most pressing issues facing
countries in sub-Saharan Africa. They can rightly say, "We
did not create this problem but we know that climate change is
already there and will affect our countries. We need to adapt
and discuss how you help us with that and pay for some of the
costs of what you have done in pumping CO2 into the
atmosphere as a result of your industrialisation." It is
right that that is a subject of debate at Nairobi.
Q35 Mark Pritchard: Referring to
CO2 emissions, I meet a lot of people who want to have
electric cars or put biofuels into their cars but there is very
little supply of that. Do you have any comments with regard to
oil refiners and petrol producers at the point of sale who perhaps
are not meeting a demand that is there because it is too costly
to refine biofuels products and get them to market and therefore
there is a missed opportunity, as suggested earlier? As we speak
this morning, there are people out there who would like to fill
their cars with biofuels as they do in Brazil and other parts
of the world but cannot do so because the big oil giants here
do not have any incentive or are not regulated to do so. What
will the Government do to encourage, induce or tell them to get
biofuels, electric pumps and a whole lot of alternative renewables
to the forecourt and match their rhetoric and large broadsheet
advertising showing how green they are with the reality on the
ground from the point of view of the average driver?
Ian Pearson: As you know, there
is a range of different technologies potentially available which
can bring about greener motoring from electric cars, hybrids to
cleaner fuels and other areas as well. Dealing specifically with
biofuels, you will know that the Government is introducing a renewable
transport fuels obligation which will be 5% in 2010. We said in
the energy review that we aimed to go further after that date.
That is already stimulating some strong growth in the biofuels
market, admittedly from very low base levels, but we have started
to see major capital investment projects coming forward in the
UK. I have no doubt that that will continue as the RTFO comes
in over the next few years. I believe that we will see a growth
in biofuels as a result of this obligation. We are behind other
countries. You mentioned Brazil. Clearly, we do not have the natural
advantages of Brazil or other countries.
Q36 Mark Pritchard: When you say
"advantages" what do you mean?
Ian Pearson: Brazil has enormous
resources in terms of climate and land to enable the efficient
production of sugar cane which is the main source of biofuel production
in that country. We do not have those advantages, though we are
seeing biofuels being produced in the United Kingdom from UK sugar
beet and also from waste oils. This is an area where we have a
strong interest as a government. We are doing things through the
RTFO, and I am sure there is more that we can do in the future,
because I know that transport emissions are an area with which
this Committee has been concerned. As a government we are certainly
concerned about that.
Q37 Joan Walley: I want to concentrate
on the preparations for Nairobi and the step-by-step things that
the UK leadership can do to get us where we need to be. Following
on from the questions Mr Caton asked earlier, it seems to me that
the three strands of what is happening at Nairobi are: the continuing
long-term co-operative work; the first stage of the review of
the Kyoto Protocol; and the work on the further annex. Of those
three different aspects, how important do you regard the need
to ensure the continuing co-operation between those countries
that have not necessarily signed the Kyoto Protocol? Is it just
a question of keeping them on board for political reasons, or
is there a likelihood that that could diverge from the two other
aspects of the agenda at Nairobi?
Ian Pearson: I think there are
very strong reasons to keep the non-Annex 1 countries on board
in the discussions, not least because some of them are major emitters
of greenhouse gases. If we are to achieve our goal of a long-term
international agreement that is robust, durable and fair to all
countries we must have some of those key emitters on board. We
will do that only if we continue to make sure that they are as
involved as possible in the convention dialogue.
Q38 Joan Walley: Is that aimed primarily
at the US?
Ian Pearson: I certainly have
the US in mind because it is the largest emitter of greenhouse
gases in the world today. It is difficult to conceive of an adequate
response to the problems of global warming that does not involve
the United States taking action.
Q39 Joan Walley: Returning to the
review of the Kyoto Protocol, do you think that it will start
smoothly in Nairobi? Do you foresee any early problems being flagged
up?
Ian Pearson: I am aware that some
of the G77 countries ask why a review is necessary because Kyoto
is working perfectly well. Why do we not just make further commitments
post-Kyoto? Maybe it will not run completely smoothly, but what
we need to do is have the debate about what the framework post-2012
looks like and what new policy actions we need to take. For instance,
earlier we discussed deforestation. There are other sectoral approaches.
Aviation is a huge gap in terms of what needs to be done if we
are to have an effective global policy to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. As you know, it was not part of Kyoto, but I believe
that it must be part of what we do post-Kyoto. We need to have
those discussions.
| 
