The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
†
Barker,
Gregory
(Bexhill and Battle)
(Con)
†
Barlow,
Ms Celia
(Hove)
(Lab)
†
Cunningham,
Tony
(Workington)
(Lab)
†
Goodwill,
Mr. Robert
(Scarborough and Whitby)
(Con)
†
Horwood,
Martin
(Cheltenham)
(LD)
Huhne,
Chris
(Eastleigh)
(LD)
†
Hurd,
Mr. Nick
(Ruislip-Northwood)
(Con)
†
Iddon,
Dr. Brian
(Bolton, South-East)
(Lab)
Jackson,
Mr. Stewart
(Peterborough)
(Con)
†
Miller,
Andrew
(Ellesmere Port and Neston)
(Lab)
†
Mullin,
Mr. Chris
(Sunderland, South)
(Lab)
†
Pearson,
Ian
(Minister for Climate Change and the
Environment)
†
Prentice,
Mr. Gordon
(Pendle)
(Lab)
Emily
Commander, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
European
Standing
Committee
Monday 30
April
2007
[Janet
Anderson
in the
Chair]
Limiting Global Climate Change
4.30
pm
The
Chairman:
May I say to hon. Members that in the event of a
Division in the main Chamber, we will adjourn the Committee for 15
minutes? For subsequent Divisions, we will adjourn for 10 minutes each.
Members may remove their jackets, if they
wish.
4.31
pm
The
Minister for Climate Change and the Environment (Ian
Pearson):
Thank you, Mrs. Anderson. It is a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I am sure
that the Committee agrees that urgent action is needed to avoid, or
minimise, the dangerous impacts of climate change. The European Union
has proposed that the global mean temperature should not be allowed to
rise by more than 2° C above pre-industrial levels. The European
Commission communication that we are debating demonstrates that that
target is technically feasible and economically
affordable.
This
month, the intergovernmental panel on climate change issued the
starkest warning yet about the potential impacts that we face.
Worldwide changes are already evident through changes in aspects of
hydrology—snow, ice and glaciers—and through changes in
migration patterns, earlier spring events and shifts towards the poles
of ranges of plants and animals. This century, many millions more
people are likely to face coastal flooding, drought and shortages of
food and water, while up to 30 per cent. of all plant and animal
species could be at an increased risk of extinction if temperatures
rise by 2° C to 3° C. Even by 2020, there are likely to
be drastic impacts on the worst affected areas. Some African countries
could experience reductions of up to 50 per cent. in the output of
rain-fed agriculture, and between 75 million and 250 million people are
likely to experience an increase in water
stress.
Some
impacts are inevitable, but the worst are avoidable through concerted
and immediate international action. By agreeing an ambitious and
far-reaching package of climate change and energy measures at last
month’s spring European Council, EU leaders demonstrated real
global leadership. The unilateral commitment to cut EU greenhouse gas
emissions by at least 20 per cent. compared with 1990 levels by 2020
was the first of its kind. However, the European Council went a stage
further and agreed to achieve a 30 per cent. reduction by 2020 as part
of a wider international
agreement.
The spring
package of measures will mean changes in the domestic policies of all
member states, but the battle against climate change can ultimately be
won only through global action, and a comprehensive global agreement
including America, China and India is required. The European Council
therefore also
reaffirmed the importance of agreeing a long-term UN framework to
address climate change. It set out a coherent vision for a post-2012
framework to broaden the Kyoto architecture that is constructed around
agreed core
elements.
A long-term
stabilisation goal is needed to provide greater clarity to business,
Governments and society at large on the overall direction of travel to
move towards a new, low-carbon technology future. Such a goal would
help to drive innovation by increasing the credibility of the policy
framework within which private investors operate, and would provide the
required impetus for the scaling up of investment that is needed to
address climate change. The global carbon market needs to be
strengthened and extended, and a common global carbon price should be
established. The power of the market must be harnessed to ensure that
private sector investments are directed towards low-carbon
technologies. The carbon market is a key weapon in our armoury to
tackle climate change, but it will not deliver any reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions unless it is driven by meaningful
targets.
The
EU has demonstrated leadership in adopting targets, and the rest of the
developed world must now step up to the mark. Further effective
contributions by other countries, particularly the major emerging
economies, will be needed. For them, sectoral-crediting approaches
might be more appropriate than Kyoto-style targets. There needs to be
increased collaboration in technology investment and transfer in order
to stimulate research into and the deployment of low-carbon
technologies to reduce emissions. Information, costs and efforts can be
distributed efficiently through international co-operation in a world
in which capital movements and investments have no national
boundaries.
According
to the Stern report, emissions from deforestation account for 18 per
cent. of global carbon emissions. There are also growing emissions from
aviation and maritime transportation. A future agreement must include
incentives and strategies to tackle those issues without jeopardising
economic growth.
A
level of climate change is inevitable, and it is an issue for all
sectors and countries. It is a particular challenge for the most
vulnerable developing countries, which contribute the least to the
problem, but will be most affected. Incentives and strategies to
facilitate adaptation and enhance resilience to climate change must
form a substantial and integral part of any global climate change
agreement. As well as that, the principle of common, but differentiated
treatment must run through all climate change
negotiations.
The EU
has shown leadership in tackling climate change, and it will continue
to do so. This year, politics must catch up with the science, and we
must get an international, political decision to launch negotiations on
a comprehensive, global, post-2012
framework.
The
Chairman:
We now have until half-past 5 for questions to
the Minister. I remind Members that those should be brief and asked one
at a time, although I am willing to permit one supplementary to each
question. There is likely to be ample opportunity for all Members to
ask several
questions.
Gregory
Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con): Thank you,
Mrs. Anderson. May I, too, say what a pleasure it is to be
here this afternoon?
At the outset, the Minister
rightly said that we need to set a long-term goal for stabilisation.
What does he believe that that should be, and specifically what are the
Government doing about
it?
Ian
Pearson:
We believe that a long-term stabilisation goal
can be expressed as parts per million of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, or by limiting an increase in global temperatures. The EU
has a firm policy of limiting global temperatures to no more than
2°C above pre-industrial levels. The Government accept that and
think that the level of CO
2 in the atmosphere should be
stabilised at between 450 and 550 parts per million. That is what Stern
says about the science, and it is the basis of our discussions with the
EU and other international partners, because we see a stabilisation
target as key to a negotiating framework. We need a long-term goal, if
we are to drive policies in all countries and avoid dangerous climate
change.
Mr.
Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): I was
interested to see that the report mentions not only CO
2, but
other greenhouse gases, such as fluorinated gases, nitric oxides and
methane. Having been the rapporteur at the first reading of the F-gas
report in the European Parliament, I was particularly pleased to see
the reference to fluorinated gases. As I am sure that the Minister is
aware, the European Parliament toughened its position on them quite
considerably and is moving towards charging vehicular air-conditioning
systems for CO
2 emissions, rather than for just those of the
more benign f-gases. As he knows, those gases have the same potential
as CO
2 for global warming. When the directive is revised and
tightened up, will he look at air conditioning systems in buildings and
fire protection systems? Currently, the directive refers to limiting
leakages from buildings and a list of
derogations.
The
Chairman:
Order. Will the hon. Gentleman keep his
questions as brief as he can,
please?
Ian
Pearson:
Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has a great deal of
expertise in that area due to his background in the European
Parliament. We need to look at all sectors and gases in order to avoid
dangerous climate change. The Commission is well aware of and is
considering the points that he has made. We need to move to a situation
in which all our buildings are low or zero carbon not only in the UK,
but across Europe. The directive requiring an energy performance
certificate for all buildings was a major step forward, but more needs
to be done. We will reflect on his points and bear them in mind during
discussions in the Commission.
Martin
Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD):
It is a great
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Anderson.
The Minister has referred to the ambitious targets in the documents,
and the Government should take some credit for organising the Exeter
conference on avoiding dangerous climate change, to which the documents
refer. The conference sets out rather more pessimistic scenarios and
gives rather more attention to feedback mechanisms than the
intergovernmental panel on climate change report, which ruled out many
issues on which
there was not absolute consensus. Which is the more reliable guide as we
go into the coming negotiations—the Exeter conference or the
IPCC report? The EU documents imply that the conference is more
reliable.
Ian
Pearson:
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the IPCC, in its
fourth assessment report, which was published earlier this month, and
its previous report, which came out a couple of months ago, provides
the clearest evidence on the science. Its assessment represents six
years’ work by something like 2,500 scientists and draws on
peer-reviewed articles—it really is authoritative. As the hon.
Gentleman has said, however, it is built on consensus, and some say
that the risks are on the upside and that the science suggests even
worse scenarios than the IPCC’s consensus report. Some of the
papers submitted to the Exeter conference certainly presented an even
starker picture than the IPCC report. The key objective is avoiding an
above-2° C rise in global temperatures, and it is vital
that we agree a long-term target internationally. That is what the EU
is focused on, and that is what the UK is focused on in its
negotiations.
Mr.
Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): In terms of temperature
increases, what is the tipping point after which changes in the global
system, such as the thawing of the permafrost, will become
irreversible?
Ian
Pearson:
It is not easy to give a straightforward answer
to that question, because there is a huge amount of science on the
issue and some scientific debate about the exact effects. Temperature
increases of 2 to 3° C, which are highly likely if we do not
take urgent action, will have significant impacts. The recent IPCC
report on those impacts, some of which I mentioned in my opening
remarks, shows that 30 per cent. of plant and animal species could be
at risk as a result of such temperature rises. There would also be sea
level rises and more adverse weather events. It is not possible to
point to one temperature rise or to a certain number of parts per
million of CO
2
equivalent in the atmosphere and
say that it will definitely be the tipping point, because the science
continues to evolve. My worry is that the more scientific reports we
see, the starker the picture will become. We are still playing catch-up
with the science in terms of taking political action, and we need to
get on with introducing policy initiatives
globally.
Mr.
Nick Hurd (Ruislip-Northwood) (Con): The Minister appears
to have placed on record the Government’s commitment to play a
part in trying to limit global climate change to 2° C. Why do
he, in this comments today, and the Government persist in saying that a
range of 450 to 550 ppm is a plausible stabilisation target, when the
document states that recent research has confirmed that stabilisation
around 450 ppm of CO
2
has just a 50 per cent.
chance of attaining that 2° C objective? The Stern report makes
it clear that the probability of 550 ppm being compatible with a
2° C target is
remote.
Ian
Pearson:
The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point.
It is right that the document says that if we stabilise at 450 ppm,
there is a 50 per cent. probability
of a temperature rise above 2° C. At 550 ppm, there is roughly 50
per cent. probability of a temperature rise above 3° C. The hon.
Gentleman will have read the Stern report, and he will recognise that
trying to stabilise the figure at 450 parts per million is a big
challenge on which we must focus our attention. That is why the
European Union is absolutely right to say that it wants to avoid
temperature rises above 2° C. However, we should not pretend
that it will be easy, which is why the Stern report talks about a range
of 450 to 550 parts per million. If we are to achieve a stabilisation
level within that range, we must act immediately. That must be our
objective, if we are to avoid serious climate change
impacts.
Mr.
Hurd:
Thank you, Mrs. Anderson, for the chance
to ask a supplementary question.
I fully understand the
Minister’s point about the difficulty of the challenge, and
there is considerable uncertainty about the science. My point is that
450 to 550 parts per million is an enormously broad range, and given
what I have said about the low probability that the top end of the
range is consistent with 2° C, would not our dialogue with the
public be honest if we stepped back from the figure of 550 parts per
million, which is clearly incompatible with the
goal?
Ian
Pearson:
When it comes to tackling
climate change, we want an open and honest dialogue with people in
Britain and throughout Europe. The draft Climate Change Bill, which is
out to consultation, is intended to do just that, and there is no
serious disagreement between us on the issue. The figure of 450 parts
per million will be incredibly difficult to achieve; 550 parts per
million will be more manageable, but it will still require massive
international commitment and agreement. We would like to see
stabilisation at the lowest level possible, but we must face the facts
that the level is already 430 parts per million and that we are rapidly
heading towards450 parts per million. That is why it is
imperative that we make progress this year on agreeing a comprehensive
negotiating framework, which is why negotiations must be concluded by
2009. There must not be a gap between the end of the Kyoto commitment
period in 2012 and a regime that takes even tougher action to reduce
greenhouse gas
emissions.
Andrew
Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): May I follow my
hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and invite the Minister to look at
the map on page 49 of the bundle? It sets out significant climate
anomalies and events in 2005. The huge number of anomalous events
should be looked at as a snapshot in time, but the most important
factor is that the events are increasing in number and severity. Does
not that information give the lie to people who argue that climate
change is not a real
phenomenon?
Ian
Pearson:
I agree with my hon. Friend.
Climate change is happening here and now. I do not think it a
coincidence that in the UK, we have seen the wettest winter since 1914,
and now, the hottest April since records began in 1659. Neither do I
think it a coincidence that this century, every year is among the top
10 warmest
years on record. Our planet is warming, and there has been a 90 per
cent. increase in CO
2 emissions in the atmosphere since
1970. Because of the time lag in the carbon cycle, the effect will be
felt in temperature increases for the next 40 to 50 years at least.
According to scientists, it will bring about more adverse weather
events of the kind that my hon. Friend has mentioned with reference to
the report. That is why there is a pressing and urgent need to secure
an international agreement on what we do globally
post-Kyoto.
Martin
Horwood:
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood made a very
strong point about the overall parts per million. The Minister is right
to say that we all agree that the challenge is very difficult, but to
aim only for a range in which the upper limit gives us a50 per
cent. chance of failure on so critical an issue seems to me to lack
ambition.
May I ask
the Minister about another range of targets? I am referring to the
relationship between the targets in these documents—for
instance, the suggested 30 per cent. reduction, by international
agreement, in CO2 by 2020—and those in the
Government’s draft Climate Change Bill, which offer only a range
between 26 and 32 per cent. Surely if the Government’s target is
met only at the lower end of that range at 26 per cent., we will miss
that suggested international negotiating
framework.
Ian
Pearson:
First, we need to pay due credit to EU leaders
and what was decided at the spring European Council. It is a real
landmark decision to say that we will have a unilateral commitment to a
20 per cent. reduction in CO
2 emissions and that we will go
to30 per cent. if there is international
agreement.
In our
policy statements so far in the United Kingdom and in the Climate
Change Bill, we have said that we want to legislate to set a target of
26 to 32 per cent. by 2020. That target might need to change, just as,
when we examine the evidence, our 60 per cent. target by 2050 might
need to change. That is why there is provision in the Bill for
flexibility to consider the setting of targets in the light of
international
agreement.
Of course,
we want to see an international agreement on a successor to Kyoto, and
we want it to include aviation emissions and other emissions. We would
be delighted if, as a result of international agreement, we had to
revise our targets, because that would mean that we were genuinely
making global progress and getting global agreement on the need to
stabilise CO2 levels, which is a very difficult
challenge.
Martin
Horwood:
I am grateful to the Minister for his
confirmation that the targets in the Government’s Climate Change
Bill may need to change. That is a very welcome concession and
reinforces the belief that it might apply to the 2050 targets as well,
as this document also refers to a reduction in the range of between 60
and 80 per cent. by then, whereas the Climate Change Bill refers to
only 60 per cent. However, he is referring to a target that is in the
documents with international
agreement—
The
Chairman:
Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to restrict
himself to asking questions, rather than making
speeches?
Martin
Horwood:
I am grateful for your
guidance, Mrs. Anderson. The documents refer to a target by
international agreement of 30 per cent., but an independent target of
only 20 per cent. Will the Minister explain the logic of an independent
target that would be lower than the internationally agreed one, which
would presumably be needed only in a scenario in which there was less
international agreement and therefore more need for
action?
Ian
Pearson:
If there is to be any sort of international
agreement that will stabilise CO
2 levels at an acceptable
level to avoid dangerous climate change, we will need to achieve more
than a 20 per cent. reduction across the European Union. I think that
that is quite clearly recognised by countries in the EU. As I
understand it, the reason why a 20 per cent. figure was chosen
unilaterally was to send the right long-term signals to businesses,
which will be making significant investments in energy infrastructure
over the next 10 to 15 years. Clearly indicating the direction of
travel—saying that we will definitely do 20 per cent.
unilaterally, but we are certainly prepared to do 30 per cent. as part
of an international negotiation—sends a powerful message. It
shows the rest of the world that the EU is prepared to take on its
responsibilities for tackling global emissions. I believe that we have
given a kick-start to the negotiation process by making that
commitment.
I want to
clarify that what I have said was not a concession. The flexibility to
consider future targets in the light of changing circumstances is built
into the Bill. We hope that such changing circumstances will involve a
comprehensive global agreement on tackling climate
change.
Gregory
Barker:
The Minister is right to talk about the need for
both multilateral international action and urgent unilateral action at
home. In his opening remarks, he chose to focus on the problem of the
increasing levels of emissions from the aviation sector. What steps are
the Government taking domestically to change the path of increasing
levels of emissions from
aviation?
Ian
Pearson:
Across the European Union, the
UK has pushed for aviation to be included in the emissions trading
regime and, during our presidency of the EU, we obtained a commitment
from the Commission to consider and agree to that. The Commission made
some proposals regarding that matter, and we are pushing the EU to
implement them as speedily as possible. At the moment, it is proposed
to include all intra-EU flights by 2011 and all departing and landing
flights by 2012. If possible, we want to bring forward that time frame,
because aviation is one of the biggest sources of the rapid increase in
CO
2 emissions. We have also taken domestic measures, such as
doubling air passenger duty, which was announced in the Budget. That
will have an impact on the issue and will save, if I remember
correctly, around 0.7 million tonnes of carbon. Those measures were
opposed by the Opposition.
Mr.
Goodwill:
The document, for example on page 4, mentions
reducing the impact of emissions from transport by developing
sustainable biofuels. The fact that the word sustainable is used
demonstrates that not all biofuels would necessarily be sustainable. Is
the Department or the European Commission carrying out any assessment
of the net environmental impact of biofuels produced in the EU or those
imported into the EU from further afield?
Ian
Pearson:
Much research is taking place in that area, and
there is a significant amount of concern that deforestation is
occurring because of the need to plant palm oil, which is why there is
a round table on sustainable palm oil. In the UK, we are working on
assurance standards to ensure that the biofuels that come into the UK
are from sustainable sources. We would like some form of sustainability
standard right across the European Union. Indeed, there should be a
global standard on sustainability, because it is simply not acceptable
to develop biofuels at the expense of increasing deforestation, which
does nothing for the environment or for our climate change
targets.
Mr.
Prentice:
My friend the Minister told us a few moments ago
that deforestation accounted for 18 per cent. of global carbon
emissions. The document pack
states:
“The
role of emissions from deforestation will be key to meet the 2°C
objective”,
which is what
we have discussed. Does my friend have any examples of reforestation,
perhaps in south America or in the Congo? What are we doing about
introducing financial incentives to persuade people that it is not in
our collective interests for forests to be chopped
down?
Ian
Pearson:
China is the best example of reforestation. It is
planting huge amounts of forest every year—I think that it is
planting more trees than the rest of the world combined at the moment,
which is making a difference. However, deforestation is still a big
issue. In that context, the Stern report mentions18 per cent.
and the Commission document mentions 20 per cent. of global CO
2
emissions. It is important that we avoid deforestation in the
future, which is why much international negotiation has focused on that
issue. We already have some mechanisms to provide incentives for
reforestation and afforestation. For example, the clean development
mechanism, which is one of the mechanisms from the Kyoto protocol,
allows for such projects. However, it does not allow for deforestation
projects, because of concerns about displacement. Providing incentives
to avoid future deforestation is high on the Government’s
political agenda and the international agenda. We should be able to
solve the problem, and if we can stop deforestation within a close and
measurable period, we can avoid 18 to 20 per cent. of global CO
2,
which is
important.
Andrew
Miller:
Up to 2030, China and India alone are predicted to
build about 1,100 GW of new power stations, and over the same period,
according to my understanding of the document, Europe intends to reduce
its reliance on the nuclear cycle. Is that not a
contradiction of our objectives, and would it not be more logical for
Europe, which has the leading science in the nuclear cycle, to expand
its use of nuclear power? I am conscious of the constituency of my hon.
Friend the Member for Workington, the
Whip.
Ian
Pearson:
Clearly, nuclear energy is low-carbon energy, and
at the moment about 20 per cent. of the UK’s electricity comes
from nuclear sources. If we do nothing about that, it will decline to 6
or 7 per cent. by 2020. At the same time, we are moving from obtaining
80 to 90 per cent. of our oil and gas from the North sea to importing
80 to 90 per cent. of it in 2020. In the energy review, we are
considering how to get the right energy balance for the UK’s
future, bearing in mind what we know about climate change and our
energy security
needs.
When we publish
the energy White Paper, we will also publish a consultation document on
nuclear. The Government’s initial view is that there is a case
for a nuclear new build programme, and we want to test that view
through the consultation exercise that we will launch with the energy
White
Paper.
Gregory
Barker:
First, on deforestation the Minister rightly said
that, by and large, it is not covered by the clean development
mechanism, which is a hindrance to greater international investment in
programmes. What are the Government doing to promote their inclusion in
a post-Kyoto framework, and what are their objectives post
2012?
Secondly, in the
short term—the Government have much more control over
this—are any reforestation programmes included in the
recommended offset programmes that the Government have favoured in
their own code? If they are not included, why
not?
Ian
Pearson:
First, deforestation is a key element of what the
UK wants to see in a future negotiating framework. Our objective is
clear: we want to stop it, and we must find mechanisms to ensure that
we cando
so.
One
of the announcements in the Budget was that there will be an
international window to the environmental transformation fund. The
Chancellor announced an £800 million fund, of which the first
£50 million will go to 14 countries in the Congo basin to tackle
deforestation. That is a clear statement of the Government’s
commitment on tackling
deforestation.
As I
have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, this is a problem
that we should be able to solve, which would bring enormous gains in
avoiding dangerous climate
change.
Martin
Horwood:
The Minister has rightly
pointed out the importance of gaining international agreement for the
process. Does he support the initiative of the German Chancellor,
Angela Merkel, to draw the United States into the post-2012, post-Kyoto
framework at her meeting with George Bush today? Would he ultimately
like states such as California and the north-eastern states to be
included in the emissions trading system as a result of such
co-operation?
Ian
Pearson:
The UK has for a considerable time been having
discussions with the United States to persuade it that it needs to sit
down around the table and negotiate a meaningful comprehensive global
agreement on what happens post-Kyoto. One of the things that we
achieved during our presidency of the G8 was to set up the Gleneagles
dialogue, which includes the US. It provides a good political space in
which to discuss climate change
issues.
We have an
extensive range of contacts, not just with the current US
Administration, but at state and congressional levels as well. I
believe that public opinion is changing in the US, partly as a result
ofAl Gore’s film, partly as a result of hurricane
Katrina and partly for other reasons. People and businesses
increasingly recognise that the US needs to get involved with the
successor to Kyoto, and that it should not be frightened of
participating in trading mechanisms. That is why California is
discussing an emissions trading scheme, and why the north-eastern
states, the so-called Reggie states—that is, those states that
are participating in the regional greenhouse gas initiative—are
at an advanced stage in planning an ETS. The ability to link schemes
globally as part of having a global carbon price is one of the key
elements that we need to discuss in international negotiations, if we
are to get a successor agreement to Kyoto that will really
work.
Martin
Horwood:
I welcome the Minister’s
optimism—obviously, it is right to be optimistic when going into
international negotiations. However, I am not sure that he answered my
question about whether he would like California and the north-eastern
states to join the ETS. Obviously, that scenario would become more
important if by any remote chance we were to fail to include the US in
the post-Kyoto scenario. In that situation, would he like to go it
alone with California and the north-eastern states? What sanctions
wouldhe have against the US if it were not a
participantin a post-Kyoto agreement, which is an issue
thatSir Nicholas Stern raised in his
report?
Ian
Pearson:
Our clear preference is for the EU ETS to be able
to link to other schemes. The review of the ETS directive, which is
taking place at present, has that as one of its areas of focus.
Clearly, the ideal situation would be to link with a US-wide scheme
that involves levels of effort that are comparable to those of the EU
ETS, but, if that were not possible, we would certainly want to
consider the ability to link with other trading schemes at a state
level.
Over a period
of time, we will see pressure grow in the US for a federal scheme,
rather than just the schemes adopted by groups of states or individual
states. Some of the American companies that I deal with have said that
a federal trading scheme would make a lot more sense, and we will start
to see more pressure in the future from the US business community for
such a
scheme.
Mr.
Hurd:
I welcome the emphasis that the Minister and the
document place on reversing deforestation. May I press him to be a
little more specific about the focus of the Government’s
negotiations? Are we talking about introducing into carbon markets that
are,
frankly, quite shallow a new credit for avoided deforestation, or are we
talking about the creation of a new financial
incentive?
Ian
Pearson:
We could be talking about both,
but we need to be talking. In Bali in December, we need to secure a
framework with certain key elements, such as a stabilisation target,
global carbon markets, mechanisms for technology transfer, more
mechanisms to help countries—particularly the
poorest—adapt to climate change and an approach to deforestation
based on what is required.
We need to discuss and
negotiate with other countries the policy instruments that have to be
developed. Again, one way to discuss such issues is through the United
Nations framework convention on climate change. As the hon. Gentleman
will know, there are various work streams at the moment. Clearly, we
need to do more than we are at the moment, because we are not stopping
the problem.
We are
seeing significant successes on reforestation through CDM funding,
which is welcome, but the issue is still huge. We are flexible, whether
we are talking about separate funding mechanisms from the World Bank or
the regional development banks rather than the carbon markets, or about
a mixture of such funds and private funds through the carbon markets.
We need to find something that works and that has international
agreement.
Mr.
Goodwill:
Despite Channel 4 documentaries, the majority of
people see the views of scientists who say that global warming is not
due to man’s activities as becoming discredited and
marginalised. However, there is another group of scientists, typified
by Bjorn Lomborg of Denmark, that says that we should have a plan B to
mitigate the effects in case the plan in the document does not work. Is
the Minister’s Department or the European Commission working on
a plan B in case we fail to achieve the reductions in greenhouse gases
that we would all like to
see?
Ian
Pearson:
Let me put it this way: as a Government, we have
always believed that we need to take action to mitigate our own
domestic carbon emissions and to obtain international agreement on the
need for a stabilisation target and for other countries to mitigate
their carbon dioxide emissions. At the same time, however, we have
recognised that a certain amount of climate change is already
inevitable. That is why across Government we have been doing work on an
adaptation policy framework, and I hope to publish that framework by
the end of this year.
Climate change risk needs to be
factored into the business models of a range of our industries. Both
mitigation and adaptation are required for the future. Whatever
emissions pathways and scenarios are talked about in some IPCC
projections, they all look pretty much the same for the next 20 years,
because of the time lag in the carbon cycle. Even if we were totally
successful in reducing CO2 emissions from today, we would
still have to adapt during the next 20 to 30
years.
Mr.
Goodwill:
So why are we still building on flood
plains?
Ian
Pearson:
We rarely build on flood plains in the United
Kingdom. The Environment Agency produces the relevant figures in its
annual reports, and it pretty much opposes all development on flood
plains. In some instances, when all the evidence has been considered,
it might be sensible to build on a flood plain—often when that
would give the opportunity to strengthen flood protection for homes
already on it. We should not be completely dogmatic on the issue, but
the Government certainly accept the general proposition that building
on a flood plain is a bad
idea.
Andrew
Miller:
One reason why we recently
captured investment by General Motors was that this country, through
Treasury fiscal policy and work within the Minister’s
Department, has a strategy to bring together investments in science and
help us move forward to the next generation of personal transport.
Clearly, that is important to my constituency. Can we be assured that
the same joined-up approach will occur in the European dimension?
Unless we take a lead in developing hydrogen, in particular, as a fuel,
we shall lose a huge number of jobs to people further to the east of
Europe.
Ian
Pearson:
My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important
issue. Carbon abatement opportunities are not necessarily as extensive
for transport emissions as they are for other sectors of the UK
economy. He will be aware of the Commission’s initial view about
reduction, which is reflected in the Commission document that we are
debating with respect to the adoption of a mandatory target for car
emissions and the proposal to attain the figure of 120 g per km for new
vehicles. That is an important step forward, but as to its achievement,
we need more feasibility research. Among the Chancellor’s
announcements in the Budget was a study of the long-term technical
possibilities for new car technologies, which is very
exciting.
I understand
that the Chinese have already committed themselves to the figure of
15,000 such cars in Shanghai by 2015, which is pretty
ambitious—I am not sure whether I would want a hydrogen power
station outside the House of Commons. However, that shows that research
on low carbon and zero carbon technologies for the future is taking
place not only here and in the European Union, but in China and
elsewhere. Technology investment is a key element that we need to agree
as part of the negotiating
framework.
Andrew
Miller:
I have driven a hydrogen car from the Palace of
Westminster; there was no risk. On the second part of the question, is
there the same degree of joined-upness in other European countries in
the European
Union?
Ian
Pearson:
It is not particularly up to me
to discuss the position of other EU member states. However, as to what
the Commission is trying to achieve, and the research and development
funding that receives support through the Commission as part of its
programme, there is a lot of joined-upness. I have said before that
there is no such thing as national science and research, just as there
is no national multiplication table—well, it was Chekhov who
said it, actually, and he said it better than that—but the key
thing is collaboration between different countries and companies. An
awful lot of
work is going on and new technology solutions will have an important
role to play in reducing CO
2 emissions. That applies to the
automotive industry just as it does to other
industries.
Gregory
Barker:
Reforestation is turning out to
be a bit of a theme this afternoon, and the Minister has been eloquent
on it. I want to press him to answer a question that I put to him
earlier, which he may inadvertently have missed out. The Government
have four approved carbon offset schemes. Does reforestation form part
of any of them? If not, why
not?
Ian
Pearson:
No; reforestation is not part of the
Government’s carbon offsetting fund at the moment. We do not
generally tend to favour reforestation projects, because we believe
that they may provide only a temporary solution to CO
2
emissions, without guarantees that the forests to be planted will
remain for the next 100 or 200 years, or longer. We have so far
favoured other projects with definite, clear long-term CO
2
reduction
benefits.
Gregory
Barker:
Is not that a contradiction, given the welcome
emphasis placed on reforestation by the Chancellor, and the
announcement of the scheme in the Congo? Is there not a lack of
synchronicity between the Government’s focus on the Congo and
reforestation, which are very welcome, and their incredibly
backward-looking, narrow approach to selecting carbon programmes for
their approved list? Will the Minister undertake to reconsider this
matter? I understand that there is a consultation period for the list.
Will the Minister undertake that at least one of the programmes on the
revised list—perhaps he will also update us on progress on
that—will include some measure of
reforestation?
Ian
Pearson:
I confirm that we have been
consulting on the Government’s carbon standards in relation to
our carbon offsetting fund. I am happy to reconsider this matter, but
we have tended to believe that energy efficiency projects that provide
guaranteed long-term CO
2 reductions are preferable. Let me
be clear, however, that we need to do all that and more. We need to
avoid deforestation, and we need reforestation projects. We need energy
efficiency projects as well as projects through the CDM and other
routes which enable developing countries to introduce low-carbon
technologies and zero-carbon energy for the future. All those things
need to be part and parcel of Government policy and an international
agreement on what happens after
Kyoto.
Mr.
Hurd:
The Minister has mentioned the environmental
transformation fund, of which £50 million is earmarked for
reforestation schemes. What can we expect the other £750 million
to be spent
on?
Ian
Pearson:
When the Government have firm plans on that, I am
sure that we will announce them to the House of Commons in the usual
way. It would not be appropriate for me to comment now on our detailed
plans for spending that money. The fund will be jointly
operated by the Department for International Development and the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I can, however,
tell the hon. Gentleman some of the types of projects that are likely
to be included, such as projects for avoiding deforestation and
projects on renewable energy. There will be a focus on poverty
alleviation and on achieving a broad mix of policy objectives through
the fund, which will be categorised as overseas development assistance.
I am immensely proud of the record of Labour Governments on providing
funds to some of the world’s poorest countries. We have made
massive improvements in the past 10 years, which should be
celebrated.
Dr.
Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East) (Lab): I shall be brief,
Mrs Anderson. I apologise for arriving late, but I have been trying to
serve on two Committees.
I want to flag up with my hon.
Friend the Minister an issue relating to carbon dioxide emissions and
climate change that is of great concern to me. The Science and
Technology Committee is currently looking at marine science. Is the
Minister aware—I hope that he is—that 50 per cent. of the
carbon dioxide that has been emitted, in various ways, in the 200 years
since the industrial revolution has been absorbed by the sea, resulting
in its increased acidification? If we carry on acidifying it to the
same level, or to a higher degree, in this century, we can say goodbye
to coral and most of the species in the sea that rely on calcium
carbonate and the carbon cycle in general, such as shellfish. When the
Minister considers climate change with his officials and with the EU,
will he bring that point to their attention? Also, can we discuss the
effects of the acidification of the sea when we discuss climate
change?
Ian
Pearson:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight
the impact of ocean acidification: we are already seeing the bleaching
of coral reefs. Much of the scientific research on this issue predicts
serious impacts on coral reefs, such as the great barrier reef, from
pretty modest temperature rises. We do not talk about this issue
enough, as we tend to focus on the atmosphere rather than what is
happening in our seas, but both are important to the world’s
ecosystem. This issue has not been forgotten by the
Government.
Mr.
Prentice:
Generally, the debate is about carbon dioxide
and carbon footprints, but, of course, methane is a problem as well.
Government documents point to cattle as a source of methane. What
practical measures can we take to reduce methane
emissions?
Ian
Pearson:
Methane is included in the basket of six
greenhouse gases measured by the industry and reported on under the
Kyoto protocol. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that methane levels
in the United Kingdom are decreasing—they have been on a
downward path for a number of years—but we can do more. In
particular, I highlight anaerobic digestion, a developing technology on
which the UK can do more. It could provide major benefits for the
farming community and help us to meet our climate change
targets.
Gregory
Barker:
There is a great deal in the document about the EU
ETS, a major tool in which we all place great hope. However, thanks to
the linking directive, European companies are entitled to use Kyoto
compliance credits in order to meet their targets under the trading
scheme. Will the Minister tell us what percentage of corporate carbon
reductions he anticipates will be absolute reductions, and what
percentage will be achieved simply through importing those credits? On
the aviation industry specifically, he hopes that the aviation industry
will be brought under the trading scheme in 2011-12. To what extent
does he think that that will result in absolute reductions in
emissions? Will companies just hike up fares and pay for reductions
elsewhere?
Ian
Pearson:
The first thing to mention is
the importance of carbon markets in reducing carbon emissions at the
lowest cost. Under the trading scheme, the carbon market provides an
incentive to companies to reduce their direct CO
2 emissions.
If a company’s emissions are less than its allowance, it can
sell the additional ones in the marketplace. If its emissions are
likely to exceed its allowance, however, it will have an incentive
either to reduce its direct emissions or, if that would be too
expensive, to buy the equivalent reduction from elsewhere through the
joint implementation mechanism or the CDM. That is a strength, because
a tonne of carbon dioxide emitted is a tonne of carbon dioxide emitted.
It does not matter whether it is emitted by a manufacturing business in
Birmingham or by one in Bangalore. If it is more effective for a
Birmingham business that is part of the trading scheme to secure a
reduction in carbon emissions in Bangalore rather than in the west
midlands, it is sensible that it should do so. So carbon markets are
important.
There are
supplementary
rules—
The
Chairman:
Order. I suspend the Committee for 15 minutes to
enable hon. Members to vote in the main
Chamber.
5.29
pm
Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House.
5.44
pm
On
resuming—
Ian
Pearson:
The decision on the phase 2 national
allocation plans for the EU emissions trading scheme was that 8 per
cent. of the allowances surrendered by EU ETS installations could be
CDM credits, which confirms the UK view that efforts need to be made in
the UK. It is in the long-term interests of many companies and sectors
to do the job themselves and to move towards being low carbon, rather
than simply to buy in credits.
On the hon.
Gentleman’s question about aviation and the clean development
mechanism, the Commission’s proposal
suggests—
The
Chairman:
Order. That brings us to the end of the time
allotted for questions.
Motion made, and Question
proposed,
That this
Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 5422/07 and
Addenda 1 and 2, Commission Communication: Limiting Global Climate
Change to 2 degrees Celsius—the way ahead for 2020 and beyond;
endorses the Government’s support
for the ambitious reduction targets that the EU has put forward and
supports the Government’s objective of ensuring that European
policy on climate change continues to demonstrate the leadership that
is necessary to galvanise the international community to work towards a
global and comprehensive post 2012 agreement.—
[Ian
Pearson.]
5.45
pm
Gregory
Barker:
Now we will never know what the Minister was about
to say. I hope that he might enlighten us in his closing remarks,
because it sounded like an interesting answer.
I thank the Minister for
answering a series of questions arising from the useful document before
us. It is the first time that I have debated a document in Committee
that has not been a piece of legislation; nevertheless, it has served a
useful purpose. The communication comprises a package of proposals for
2020 and beyond to ensure that global climate change is limited to
2° C above pre-industrial levels. The communication has been
published in parallel with the European Commission’s strategic
energy review, and we await the Government’s energy White Paper.
I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether he has a
date for its publication, which should be only a matter of weeks away
now.
Ian
Pearson:
My understanding is that the
Financial
Times says that the White Paper will be published on17
May, and the
Financial Times rarely gets it wrong. Perhaps I
should not say any more than that.
Gregory
Barker:
I am old-fashioned because I was labouring under
the impression that the
Financial Times got its information from
the Government, rather than the Government from the
Financial
Times. Perhaps that shows how out of touch I am.
The document
follows up the 2005 communication “Winning the Battle Against
Global Climate Change”, which provided recommendations for EU
climate policies and set out key elements for the EU’s future
climate strategy. The official Opposition are wholeheartedly behind the
Minister when he says that we must hit those targets. Indeed, we are
undertaking our own work to determine whether we need to go further and
to be more ambitious than the figures of 2° C and 450
to550 ppm to which the Minister subscribes. There is a growing
feeling that they are too unambitious, and that if we are to avert the
very worst effects of man-made climate change within this century, we
will have to go further—there is no other choice for
us.
We heard some
well-informed questions from hon. Members on both sides of the House
and well-informed answers from the Minister, but as everyone on the
Committee knows, the issue is complex. Although not all my concerns
that arise from the EU’s climate change strategy will be
addressed today, I shall put to the Committee a few that arise from the
document. We wholeheartedly agree with the 2° C aspiration, but
we think that it may have to go further and happen faster. The costs of
meeting it far outweigh the economic costs—to say nothing of the
social and human costs—of not meeting it.
The consequence of climate
change for individual EU countries will be economic debilitation, and
collectively, as predicted by Sir Nicholas Stern, it could
cause a reduction in the world’s output by as much as3
per cent. However, those issues mask the huge human tragedy that will
unfold if we allow climate change to go unchecked, which is why the
official Opposition join the Government in welcoming the Stern review
on climate change, and why we greatly welcome its inclusion in the EU
communication.
It is
worth putting on record that the commissioning of the Stern report is
one of the achievements of this Government. It is a useful and
important piece of work, and I know that having been sent
abroad,Sir Nicholas has been an important ambassador for it.
When I have been abroad, people have told me that they have eagerly bid
for him to visit. One need not agree with everything in the report to
recognise the contribution that it has made to the debate on climate
change.
The Government
have done a lot of work on priming the debate, but let me explain where
our criticism kicks in. If we look beyond the debate and the
Government’s agenda setting, there is a very disappointing lack
of action, which is calculable and readily auditable in the sad failure
to make a material reduction in our own carbon emissions since the
Government came to power 10 years ago. If we look to the medium term,
there is no real prospect of a significant increase in the progress
that we are making towards future reductions. Everything seems to be
pushed back further and further. It is one thing to have ambitious
long-term targets, but we need short-term
action.
That is why I
was disappointed when the Minister spoke about aviation. He was hoping
that progress on aviation would start to kick in with the EU ETS in
2012, but we require urgent action; the Minister is right about that.
That time scale simply is not sufficient. If we accept the Al Gore
premise that we have a relatively short time—perhaps a
decade—in which to take action or we will cross the tipping
point, we simply do not have time to wait for long-term multilateral
mechanisms to kick in before we get our house in
order.
We can build
significantly on the international advocacy work that the Prime
Minister and his Government have done if we now take corrective action
ourselves. That means actually delivering. To that extent, one of Sir
Nicholas’s key recommendations in his report—that there
be a climate change Bill—was fundamental and we welcome the
Climate Change Bill, but that in itself is still really an enabling
mechanism. Very little in the Bill will in itself drive down carbon
emissions; it will just make it easier to implement other policy
initiatives. It will provide the monitoring, auditing and
accountability that we want. However, it will not be effective unless
the Government change their mind, step up to the plate and have annual
targets. Only then will we start to see a greater correlation between
the ambitious rhetoric, which we have no problem supporting, and the
delivery of carbon emission
cuts.
Despite
three manifesto commitments to reduce emissions by 20 per cent. by
2010, the Government dropped that target this year, almost a decade
after the commitment was first made. The target was independently set
by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and was replaced by
the revised climate change programme
pledge to cut emissions by about 15 per cent. by 2010. However, even
that reduction is in question. Recent reports suggest that we are on
course for a carbon cut of just 12 per cent. by 2010 and 30 per cent.
by 2050—half the reduction needed, according to a report
produced this month by University college London’s environment
institute. That is why we advocate an independent carbon commission to
set and review targets—not merely to monitor them, as Labour
suggested when it set out the detail of the Climate Change
Bill.
Since my right
hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) became the
leader of the Conservative party, we have consistently said that
tackling global warming is one of the greatest challenges that we face
and that the UK needs to play a leading global role in that. Members of
the Committee will know that the UK is directly responsible for only 2
per cent. of world emissions. However, it has been calculated that our
business interests held through investments in the City bring that
figure much closer to 15 per cent., as the UK often punches above its
weight both economically and
politically.
Scarcely
a month goes by without new scientific evidence reinforcing the notion
that the actions of mankind, which is addicted to fossil fuels, are
causing irreparable damage. Across the globe, temperatures have been
rising at an unprecedented rate for the past century, and we are now
witnessing more and more unusual weather events, as the Minister
said.
In that
respect, the information in the report was useful. There is now so much
information on climate change that it is unusual to find that something
new or useful has been said about the subject. To that extent, I am sad
that the copy that I had was relatively poorly produced, because, as
highlighted earlier, the report contains some good graphics, which
deserve a wider audience. We have now heard about the Al Gore film so
often that it is becoming a bit tired and an old
chestnut—certainly to those of us around the Westminster
village—and new, updated information deserves a wider
hearing.
The Minister
spoke about the EU ETS, and he is right that we need to harness the
power of the market to provide long-term, effective solutions to
climate change, but there is growing concern about the over-dependence
on the scheme. An article in the Financial Times suggests that
although the ETS is a market mechanism, it is flawed in many
ways:
“Project
failures and over-optimism...together with a tendency to
exaggerate in applications, mean that 40-50 per cent. of the carbon
credits anticipated under the Kyoto protocol will never be
delivered”.
I do not want
to damn the ETS or say that it does not play a significant role in the
strategy, because it does, but we must not be blind to its shortcomings
or to the inefficiency of programmes sponsored under it. I hope,
therefore, that the Minister will look at the report and at the current
analysis of the effectiveness of ETS-sponsored programmes to ensure
that companies in the developed economies do not simply pay a premium
to carry on emitting carbon at the expense of a genuine transition to a
low-carbon economy.
If I were to
pick out the most useful aspect of the document, it would be the
recommendations on pathways towards a genuine low-carbon economy. We
can either go down the route of mitigation—trying to find cheap
ways out and ducking our obligation—or go through a genuine
process of reinventing our economy. However, that cannot be done by the
private sector alone and it will require the Government to take a lead.
Indeed—it may surprise the Minister to hear a Conservative say
this—the situation is ideally suited to allowing the EU to play
a role. Conservative Members have many questions about EU competency as
it extends over national life and think that it goes too far as a rule
and needs to be reined in and refocused. However, EU policy can be
effective on the environment, because the problems and solutions
transcend national boundaries, and an effective EU policy can play a
major role in a way that national policy cannot.
Unfortunately, the allocation
of credits under the EU ETS to date has been nothing short of
scandalous and has undermined the very market that we are trying to
create. The price of carbon has tumbled as a result of gerrymandering
and the fiddling of allocations, although not in this country, and I
pay credit to the Government for coming in at the right end of the
allocation spectrum. However, across the EU as a piece, the situation
is laughable, and any real attempt to pump-prime the market has been
completely pole-axed by a failure to recognise the imperative of a
rigorous standard applied even-handedly across the union. That has not
taken place. Unless the EU acts to bring that about, it will bring its
own scheme into disrepute, and that would be a terrible shame, as to
date it is the only trading scheme of any real substance anywhere on
the planet.
If the EU,
of all institutions, cannot get the ETS to work effectively within its
frontiers, there is no hope for a more ambitious scheme that would
bring in California and, I hope, the rest of the US in due course, as
well as developing economies. In the EU ETS, we have the nugget of a
global solution, but, on current trends, unless the Commission and the
member states get a grip on matters, its potential will not be
realised. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we can
avoid the very real problems that have been experienced in trying to
implement a stringent EU ETS allocation, and perhaps he could share his
thoughts on whether he believes that there is a need for some form of
independent scrutiny, at the very least, in setting ETS
allocations.
One of
the reasons that we have been calling for a long time for the extension
of the ETS is that, in the long run, it will bring in countries such as
the US and even India and China, and that would be a good thing if we
can get it right. Doing that would require a global framework and
focusing the minds of politicians and investment communities. However,
there is no direct reference to such a proposal in the document.
Doesthe Minister plan to make representations to the
Commission about that aspect of the
scheme?
Instead,
the communication calls for a new approach to the Kyoto pre-development
mechanism and recommends that it should be streamlined and expanded. On
page 6, it also highlights the need for strengthening the EU ETS after
2013 by extending it to other sectors such as aviation and to other
gases, and to abatement methods such as carbon capture, which is not
covered currently. We agree with the communication’s placing
such importance on the role of markets in tackling climate change.
Although the experience of the EU ETS to date has not
been wholly satisfactory, largely for the reasons that I have given, the
principle of trading emissions remains sound. It is a shame that the
document does not address the long-term implications in more
detail.
To be
successful, oversight of a global scheme will require a new, impartial
and authoritative international body to be established. The problems
with the EU ETS just in Europe, to say nothing about going global, have
highlighted the difficulties. Such a body would need to command the
trust of developing, rapidly developing and developed countries in
equal measure. Perhaps its terms of reference would be analogous to
those of the World Trade Organisation. There would have to be maximum
co-operation between the two
bodies.
I wish the
communication had included that proposal. Such ideas must be discussed
and evaluated before we can come to any firm conclusions. Something
that is not legislation but simply a document like this one offers an
opportunity to put such a proposal on the agenda. Perhaps the Minister
would like to consider that, and perhaps the Commission could carry out
a feasibility study on the establishment of such a
body.
The
Conservatives also recognise that the Commission needs to provide
necessary incentives to encourage emissions reduction among the EU
trading partners. However, I remain concerned that that could pose the
risk of creating protectionist EU trade policies, wrapped up as
environmentalism. As the Minister will know, the idea of imposing
higher import tariffs on goods from countries with rapidly growing
levels of pollution, such as China and India, was advocated by the
French Government. Furthermore, the environmental credentials of some
current EU trade policies also need to be considered, following
publication of the communication.
An example is
the imposition of tariffs on biofuels from Brazil. They might be
produced more cheaply there than in the EU, but there should be real
transparency about the genuine eco-value that biofuels have, as well as
their economic value. There is now great concern, as was explained
earlier, that a global trade in biofuels does not create the economic
benefit that one might automatically assume if they are grown at the
cost of degradation in otherwise natural rainforest, or if the carbon
footprint from transplanting them all the way to the EU does not make
sense within a carbon alleviation programme.
With biofuels in particular we
need a holistic view and a more considered and forceful European policy
to ensure that they play a full part in carbon abatement and do not
become a type of fool’s gold. I was shocked by a meeting that I
had with the chief executive of one of the large generating companies
who had taken no account of the total carbon footprint of biofuels used
by his company. He generally assumed that biofuels imported from south
America or Indonesia were de facto a good thing. We cannot afford that
approach. A great deal more research and public information needs to be
available about the international trade in biofuels. The EU is ideally
suited to be the institution that brings clarity to the
debate.
I am grateful
for the opportunity to focus on a couple of issues from the great
spectrum covered by the document. I should like the Minister to tell us
what he sees as the short-term imperatives arising from the document:
what short-term action we can expect to arise from it this
year, next year and the year after; how he believes it will change
existing Government policy and tighten its ambition and scope; or
whether it is just another useful piece of information contributing to
the debate. We are not short of debating matter or interesting
information on climate change at Westminster, but we are short of
clear, short-term measures to deal with the problem. I should be
grateful for the Minister’s clarification of how the document
will affect the Government’s policy in the next one to two
years.
6.9
pm
Martin
Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): I welcome the positive
atmosphere of the debate and questions, and I take the hon.
Gentleman’s point that the document is a valuable communication
which could do with a wider audience—although he is a little
ambitious if he thinks that 98 pages of European policy will ever be a
terribly popular document. Perhaps the hon. Members who mentioned
methane could offer some advice on that, because I have found,
certainly with primary school children, that explaining the process by
which methane is produced, and how it contributes to global warming, is
a sure-fire winner, which gets a good laugh and gets them on to a
serious issue.
It is
important that we have achieved broad consensus on quite a few issues.
We all seem to agree that it is important to bring aviation emissions
into the framework, even if we differ over some of the detail, and that
it is important that an international agreement is achieved that
includes China and India, which have been much mentioned. However, as
Kyoto signatories, they are both party to the international agreement
at the moment; they are simply Kyoto signatories without targets. The
most important achievement is for the Government to bring in Australia
and, even more importantly, the United States of America, which have
far higher carbon emissions per capita than China or India. They
contribute more overall and need to brought within the framework of an
international agreement.
We also welcome the role of the
clean development mechanism within the framework, although I agree with
the Minister that it is important to retain a framework that
incentivises UK businesses to reduce their own carbon emissions, and
not simply to provide a return on investment by purchasing limitless
credits under the CDM, which would almost incentivise polluting
behaviour in some scenarios. We have also achieved consensus on
biofuels, which need to be treated with some caution. I urge the
Government to introduce a certification scheme to allow energy
companies and others accurately to gauge the overall carbon and
environmental impact of biofuels.
It is
appropriate that we are discussing this matter in what will almost
certainly be the warmest April since records began, which suggests that
the impact of global warming is with us. We are lucky to be discussing
it on a day on which we have been discussing European communication.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle seemed to be slightly torn
between his Eurosceptic and his Euro-enthusiast tendencies. I urge him
and those in his party to resist their Eurosceptic tendencies, because
without the EU, we would not be here discussing the subject in such
detail.
Gregory
Barker:
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman heard me
correctly. I said that although we have concerns that the EU
overstretches itself in many areas and competences, on the issue of the
environment it can do better and is well placed to do so, although
unfortunately its record of exerting influence in that area is not all
that it could be. We support the EU in its core competences, however,
of which the environment is
one.
Martin
Horwood:
I am grateful for that contribution, although the
hon. Gentleman spent a lot of his speech pointing out the flaws in the
European trading scheme. We accept, as I would have thought the
Government and most of the EU do, that it has flaws, but that is
because it is an innovative scheme. As he pointed out, it is the first
international scheme of its kind in the world, and it is therefore
enormously important. It is difficult to imagine how such a scheme
would have been created without the EU. It is a shame that he described
the scheme as laughable in some of its implementation. I agree that
there are problems with the implementation, but he must measure his
language and appreciate the importance of the ETS and of the EU in
achieving what we are discussing.
Mr.
Goodwill:
What word, if not laughable, would the hon.
Gentleman use to describe the allocation of licences under the
scheme?
Martin
Horwood:
I would say that it is in need of improvement,
which is to be expected with an innovative scheme. We are in the early
stages of adopting a mechanism on which no other part of the world has
got even this far, so it is impressive as well as being in need of
improvement.
The
importance of the communication is that it sets out a programme that
goes beyond 2012 and is therefore part of the EU setting out its stall
for the post-Kyoto negotiations. As I suggested in my
questions—there appears to be a degree of consensus among
Opposition Members on this point—the target of 20 per cent. by
2020 is inadequate in any scenario, even one in which the EU is acting
alone. The Government should aim for a minimum of 30 per cent. in the
negotiations on the mechanism, to take the EU forward into
international negotiations. That target compares well with the
Government’s 26 per cent. floor target in the Climate Change
Bill. I agree that the Minister slightly reinterpreted his remarks
during his answers, but he seemed to suggest that that target and the
2050 target were now negotiable and that the Government might be
willing to give ground.
The target of 60 per cent. is
also inadequate, and the political consensus will have to move us
further forward and make us more ambitious. The danger is that we base
too much on documents such as the IPCC report. That report is important
for demonstrating to the whole world how much consensus there is on
climate change, but it was heavily influenced in places by countries
such as Saudi Arabia, which clearly had a vested interest in taking out
some of the more controversial points—if not all of
them—that are accepted by many scientists worldwide.
The Exeter conference on
avoiding dangerous climate change offers a much better guide. I refer
the
Minister to the report of the international scientific steering
committee of the Exeter conference, which concludes
that
“with
a concentration level of 550 parts per million volume CO2
equivalent...global mean temperature increase is unlikely to stay
below 2°C...A long term stabilisation at 450 ppmv CO2
equivalent would imply a 50 per cent. chance of staying below
2°C”.
In a sense,
the scenario that we are looking at, even at the lowest level of the
450 to 550 range, still gives only a 50 per cent. chance of achieving
the targets that we need to reach on global temperature rise, as the
hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood pointed out.
Even that is not the most
pessimistic recent research. The Institute for Public Policy Research
has published a research model calculating that scenarios in which
carbon dioxide stabilises at 450 ppm have a 46 to 86 per cent. chance
of exceeding 2° C. At 500 ppm, that rises to 70 to 95 per cent.
and at 550 ppm which, according to the Minister, is still within an
acceptable range, the chance of exceeding a 2° C temperature
rise worldwide is in the range of 78 to 99 per cent. In other words,
according to the IPPR’s figures, it is overwhelmingly
likely.
Even more
troublingly, these scenarios include a significant chance of exceeding
a 3° C rise. I thinkthat we all agree that that would
be catastrophic. At 450 ppm, the chance of exceeding 3° C is 11
to 24 per cent.; at 500 ppm that goes up to 18 to 47 per cent., and at
550 ppm the probability is in the range 28 to 71 per cent. That
underlines the fact that 550 ppm is an inadequate and dangerous target
for us to accept. Even 450 ppm could be dangerously high.
There are other ways in which
the document could be more ambitious. I shall not go into all of them
in detail, but I would point out, for instance, that on energy
efficiency the European Parliament resolution on climate change says at
paragraph 20 that
it
“Considers
that there is a huge potential for emission reductions in the field of
energy efficiency; calls on the Commission and Member States to adopt
ambitious measures and targets in this field and to explore the
possibility of going above the 20 per cent. reduction target proposed
by the
Commission”.
Successful
and ambitious companies in this country are looking to achieve
reductions far greater than 20 per cent. A company in my constituency
called Commercial—it is a simple office supplies company; there
is nothing particularly environmental in its business—is aiming
for a 75 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions, partly through the
use of biofuels but largely through energy efficiency measures. The
document could be more ambitious in that respect.
It is important that we accept
our responsibilities in playing a role in getting international
agreement. In defence of China—the Minister made some references
to tree planting, of which I was unaware and I am grateful for that
information—I would mention the initiative in Dongtan near
Shanghai, which has been given approval by Beijing to build a
sustainable city of 500,000 people by 2030. The ecological footprint is
intended to be one third of that of people in Shanghai. All buildings
will be self-sufficient in energy, powered by renewables, and built
using local materials. All houses will be within seven minutes’
walk of public transport. Farmers will grow organic food. Much of the
island is a nature reserve, and the wetlands are to be
protected and extended. The only cars allowed will be fuel-cell and
battery powered. It is not clear how energy intensive the construction
will be, but new tunnels and bridges will be built to connect it to
Shanghai. The British engineers, Arap, are partners in the project,
which is an example of a British company gaining business by being
ambitious about climate change. That is also an example of how Chinese
policy is starting to move in the right
direction.
The problem
with an international agreement is what we should do about countries
that will not participate. Competitiveness, which has been raised in
various debates here and elsewhere, is a serious issue for industries
such as our aluminium and steel industries. If we impose a high cost of
carbon compliance on our aluminium and steel industries, it is easy for
them to relocate to countries with no restrictions on carbon use.
Therefore, we are almost incentivising companies to move to more
polluting environments.
We must address the issues
raised by Sir Nicholas Stern on what to do about non-compliant
countries. He raised the possibility of having a border tax, but went
on to reject it. Between us, as political parties, we must try to reach
some form of consensus, and the Government must discuss with the
European Union what our policy would be towards those countries that
ultimately do not come on board with a post-Kyoto process. If we are to
argue a case convincingly, we have a particular responsibility to meet
the targets that we set ourselves.
Unfortunately, as the hon.
Member for Bexhill and Battle suggested, the Government’s record
does not look good. If we consider the changes in greenhouse gases and
carbon dioxide emissions since the Government came to power in 1997,
there has been a reduction in the overall greenhouse gas targets, but
an increase in carbon dioxide of 2.4 per cent. The recent trend line
shows an increase in both the overall basket of greenhouse gases and
carbon dioxide. Since 2002, there has been a 0.6 per cent. increase in
the overall basket of Kyoto greenhouse gases and the rise in carbon
dioxide is even more significant at plus 3.3 per cent. on the
provisional 2006
figures.
I
welcome the work that the Government have done and give them due credit
for it. I also welcome the communication and motion before us, and wish
the Government well in their negotiations. However, it is important the
we take practical action domestically to put our house in order because
that will give us a stronger negotiating position and enable us to push
not for 20 or 26 per cent., but for at least 30 per cent. by 2020 and a
much larger level of reduction than 60 per cent. by 2050. We should
also ensure that the ambition for a much more comprehensive post-Kyoto
international framework that includes all carbon emitting countries,
such as the USA and Australia, is not undermined by a poor performance
at
home.
6.23
pm
Ian
Pearson:
I agree that we need to do more, which is why the
Government have introduced the draft Climate Change Bill and why we
will shortly be publishing an energy White Paper. We have also
demonstrated a range of other policy initiatives when planning the
Marine Bill White Paper and our strategy on waste.
I welcome the comments of the
hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, and what he said about Sir Nicholas
Stern’s report and the ambassadorial role thatSir
Nicholas is playing. The report has resonated around the world and
clearly demonstrates that the cost of inaction will be the endangering
of economic growth in the long term, which is why we need to tackle
this issue.
I want to
say something about the Government’s record, but I will not make
detailed responses in relation to the Climate Change Bill and annual
targets, because we will debate those on a number of future occasions
and because I cannot find the Climate Change Bill in the document
pack.
The hon.
Gentleman has said that he could not find linking in the Bill. Page 6
of the document—page 14 of our notes—mentions the linking
of the EU emissions trading scheme, and I will say more about that in a
moment. It is important to recognise that the United Kingdom is the
only advanced industrial country on target to almost double the
commitments that we took on under Kyoto. Using 2005 as the latest
complete set of figures, we are already 15.3 per cent. below our 1990
levels, which is already ahead of our 12.5 per cent. commitment. When
emissions trading is included, we are 18.8 per cent.
below.
Martin
Horwood:
Will the Minister give
way?
Ian
Pearson:
I want to reply fully to the hon. Member
for Bexhill and Battle first. If one looks at the 2005 figures compared
with the baseline of 1997, which the hon. Member for Cheltenham used,
it is true that CO
2 emissions are just a fraction over 1 per
cent. above 1997 levels. When the effects of emissions trading are
included, they are 3.8 per cent. below. Yes, we need to do better, but
emissions overall, including trading as a major policy mechanism, are
down. When the figures on trading and greenhouse gas emissions are
included, we are already 11 per cent. below the 1997 baseline, so
significant progress is being
made.
Martin
Horwood:
The Minister cannot get away with his
claim that the Government are on target to meet their Kyoto emissions
targets. That target, according to the Government’s own figures,
was first met in 1999, largely as a result of the dash for gas, which
structurally changed the carbon emissions content of the UK economy.
Since then, the trend has barely been downwards at all; as I have
pointed out, it has actually been upwards in recent
years.
Ian
Pearson:
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman where we
are on the 2005 figures. Including the EU ETS on greenhouse gas
emissions, the Kyoto targets were at minus 18.8 per cent. On our
projections, we reckon that over the period we will get to minus 23.6
per cent. That is not a flat line; it is further progress at the same
time as there have been substantial levels of growth in the UK economy,
which has grown by more than a quarter since 1997. We have proved that
we can have green growth and high and stable levels of employment and
that we can take carbon and other greenhouse gases out of the economy.
We need to do more, hence the Climate Change
Bill.
I
shall refer to the EU emissions trading scheme and some of the comments
made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. Phase 1 was always
accepted as being a “learning by doing” phase. The hon.
Gentleman showed some rather jumbled thinking on credits and
allocations. Certainly, phase 2 will be more stringent, and the
Commission’s approach to the phase 2 national allocation plans
has been robust. I am pleased that the UK was one of only two countries
that has had its phase 2 NAP accepted unaltered, and we will continue
to make progress in the UK under phase
2.
There is a clear
environmental role for the EU, which is why my right hon. Friend the
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs talks about
the European Union as the environmental union. There is a case for
considering centralised cap setting as part of the review of the EU
ETS. We also need to consider levels of auctioning and of project
credits. Project credits are about how much effort is required in the
United Kingdom in the European Union, as opposed to trading under the
CDM.
I want to answer
a question that I was not able to complete in an earlier sitting. The
suggestion from the Commission on aviation is that it will consider the
level of project credits across all EU member states and use an average
when it applies to aviation. We are still considering whether that is
an effective response—it is a Commission proposal at the moment.
What is clear is that we want to see aviation in the ETS as quickly as
possible.
The hon.
Member for Cheltenham has said that the EU’s 20 per cent. is not
enough. In the UK, we want an EU-wide target of 30 per cent., because
we want a successful outcome to the negotiations. He criticised the
hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for not having a measured tone, but
he was wrong to say that the IPCC had been heavily influenced by Saudi
Arabia. He might wish to reflect on whether his own tone was measured,
because I do not believe that the IPCC was in any way, shape or form
influenced by Saudi Arabia in the reports that it has
published.
The hon.
Member for Cheltenham made some comments about Dongtan. I am interested
and excited by what China is doing there—it is one of a number
of projects that Arup is undertaking in the country. Clearly, there are
things that we in the United Kingdom can learn from China when it comes
to low and zero-carbon developments.
The last two points that I
shall cover are the about border tax adjustments and action, and to
reply to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle by saying what will
happen next. It is right that border tax adjustments were discussed and
rejected by Sir Nicholas Stern. The UK is an open trading nation. For
centuries we have made our living by open markets, and we want to
continue to do so. There is a legitimate argument to be had, as part of
the negotiations, about sanctions for countries that say that they do
not want to be part of any future international agreement. Clearly, I
am speaking with reference to developed nations, not less developed or
developing countries, which should not be required to take on binding
commitments. Sanctions are a legitimate matter for debate, but they
should not
be the preferred route. We need to get to a stage at which we have an
open market in low carbon technology between the EU and developing
countries such as China, which has a tremendous ability to work with us
and to help us to deliver low carbon solutions for the European
economy.
My last point
is on the question of action and what happens next. As hon. Members
will be aware, we are debating a communication from the Commission to
the Council. In fact, it has been superseded by the decisions taken by
EU heads of state, which will determine action to be taken across all
member states. A lot of work needs to take place on burden sharing and
the technical issues surrounding how EU member states will meet their
20 per cent. unilateral commitment to CO
2 reduction by 2020,
and on the 2020 targets for renewable energy. That work will take place
over the coming months. The other obvious key action will be the
Commission heads of state meeting, which has made a clear commitment
as part of a negotiating process. We hope that we will see progress at
the G8 meeting in Heiligendamm, Germany, in June and further progress
and agreement on a comprehensive global negotiating framework in Bali,
Indonesia, in December. The UK will be pushing strongly for that, as
will the EU.
Question put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 5422/07 and
Addenda 1 and 2, Commission Communication: Limiting Global Climate
Change to 2 degrees Celsius - the way ahead for 2020 and beyond;
endorses the Government’s support for the ambitious reduction
targets that the EU has put forward and supports the
Government’s objective of ensuring that European policy on
climate change continues to demonstrate the leadership that is
necessary to galvanise the international community to work towards a
global and comprehensive post 2012
agreement.
Committee
rose at twenty-six minutes to Seven
o’clock.
