| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
“Falling crop yields in many developing regions... Rising number of people at risk from hunger... Significant changes in water availability... Possible onset of collapse of part or all of Amazonian rainforest... Many species face extinction... Rising intensity of storms, forest fires, droughts, flooding and heat waves... Onset of irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet”.
Let us remember that 2° is the target that the G8 plus 5 has failed explicitly to endorse in its communiqué, thanks to the influence of the Bush Administration.
How does that translate into targets in terms of parts per million? Again, Sir Nicholas helpfully sets out a clear table, in which he takes a range of risk analyses, from the intergovernmental panel on climate change at one end of the scale to the Hadley centre at the other. The risk of exceeding 2° C, relative to pre-industrial levels, is for 450 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, or 38 per cent. according to the IPCC. The Hadley centre says that at 450 parts per million, the risk is as high as 78 per cent. At 550 ppm, even the IPCC says that the risk is 77 per cent.—far more than likely—and the Hadley centre estimates the risk at 99 per cent.—in other words, virtually certain. Even the lowest of those percentages, at 38 per cent., is not a risk that I would like to take crossing the road, let alone risking the future of the planet. It is very clear from the figures in the Stern report that 450 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually the minimum level that we should aim for either at the international level or in terms of UK domestic carbon emissions.
The Stern report does not make a very clear association between that target and the percentage reduction of CO2 emissions that we need in the Bill. Luckily, however, others have done so. In its response to the publication of the Climate Change Bill, the Tyndall centre said:
“Tyndall calculated a national carbon budget for 2000-2050 based on an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 450 parts per million by volume...Given actual UK emissions between 2000 and 2006, Tyndall proceeded to describe an emission pathway out to 2050 that stayed within the national carbon budget. The pathway demonstrated that even a 30 per cent. chance of not exceeding the 2° degree threshold required the UK to cut its total carbon emissions by 70 per cent. by 2030 and in the region of 90 per cent. by 2050.”
The Tyndall centre is not alone, as many other commentators have talked about percentages of 80, 85
or 90. That clearly demonstrates that the 60 per cent. target contained in the Bill is utterly inadequate. Indeed, on a previous occasion, I believe that the Minister told the House that the Government were ready to contemplate 70 per cent. If that were true, why could we not have a target at least that high built directly into the Bill?
Mr. Drew: I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that we should go further, but with that in mind, would he support controls on individual households in order to secure a reduction there? Everybody talks about business, the Government and communities, but what about individual households?
Martin Horwood: I am not quite sure which controls the hon. Gentleman has in mind. If he is talking about personal carbon allowances, I think that there are real practical problems with introducing a comprehensive system of such allowances, but there are methods that work at household level. For instance, we have suggested a green mortgage financing scheme that would enable people to invest in energy efficiency in their houses for a guaranteed reduction in their household energy bills. There are certainly policy mechanisms that we can bring forward at national level that will work for people at the household level—a very important level for these things to work at.
However, the real purpose of this debate is to talk about targets, which is what the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell has raised. It is also about leadership, and indeed about having the moral authority to be able to talk to countries such as the US and say what will happen if, when it comes to an international process after 2012, certain countries will not play ball. What is plan B? The Stern report raises the issue of a carbon border tax; Sir Nicholas Stern goes on to reject that option, but he has raised it at least as an issue for debate. We must be tough in conducting international negotiations and it is sad that in the end the G8 summit thought it more important to have a communiqué that included the US than one that included the 2° target. That is not a hopeful sign.
Mr. Jamie Reed: Given that only two years ago the US Administration actually denied the reality of climate change as a phenomenon, would the hon. Gentleman concede that the admission of that Administration is a significant step forward?
Martin Horwood: I am not sure that I would concede that. The US Administration is under enormous domestic pressure. Having lost domestic legislative elections, having been subject to Al Gore’s campaign to raise awareness in the US, and with states like California and north-east states ploughing on with emissions reduction campaigns on their own, George Bush has been looking more and more isolated and unrealistic. It was clear that he would have to make some concessions in this direction, and he has done so only under great pressure. His suggestion that the Kyoto process, under the auspices of the UN, should be abandoned for some kind of side-deal with a group of high-emitting nations is profoundly unhelpful and threatens to undermine the Kyoto process.
In practice, Kyoto is the only game in town and we do not have time to reinvent the wheel. We have an international framework in place there. In the sense that the American Administration are accepting that carbon emissions need to be reduced, I guess that that is a positive step, but in terms of targets, we really need to be tougher with the US and tougher with ourselves in respect of the Climate Change Bill. The signs from the G8 were not very promising, but that involved the outgoing Prime Minister representing the UK. I simply hope that the new Prime Minister will take a more robust stance.
8.34 pm
The Minister for Climate Change and the Environment (Ian Pearson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) on securing this Adjournment debate. As is customary, I will respond primarily to him, but I shall take on board and address the comments made by the other hon. Members who have participated.
This has been another opportunity to highlight the risks from dangerous climate change and the urgency with which we need to tackle it. As we have acknowledged before, climate change is the greatest long-term challenge facing the human race and it is a top priority for this Government. That is why we have consulted on and published our draft Climate Change Bill, and I welcome the commitment of my hon. Friend to its principles and the wide support that it has received in the House and in the country at large.
We recognise that tackling a global problem effectively requires a global agreement. We therefore very much welcome the significant progress made by the G8 last week. The G8 recognised that a global emissions reduction goal must be agreed, involving all major emitters and taking account of the European goal to halve emissions by 2050. This is the first time that the G8 has announced the need for a goal against which global efforts should now be measured. At the United Nations framework convention on climate change meeting in Bali later this year, we need to launch talks immediately on a post-2012 climate change framework in order to conclude it by 2009. Also, for the first time the US has seriously committed to engaging in discussions on a post-2012 international climate change framework under the UNFCCC, and demonstrated its increased engagement by pledging to host a meeting of major energy consuming and greenhouse gas emitting countries, which will support and add momentum to the UNFCCC process.
The G8 leaders also discussed the rapidly growing movement towards the global establishment of emission trading schemes—our preferred way of creating a price for carbon—at national and sub-national level, and the importance of sharing experience on emissions trading as a precursor to the future linking of these schemes. As the Stern review highlighted, establishing a carbon price signal across countries and sectors will ensure that emissions reductions are delivered in the most cost-effective way.
So despite what some might say, the G8 summit was an important step forward. Without global action or a
global commitment to reductions of greenhouse gases, we will have no chance of limiting the global mean temperature rise to 2°C above pre-industrial levels—the level considered necessary to avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change. That is why this Government have sought to play—and are playing—a key leadership role internationally through our involvement in the UNFCCC and the G8 process, and in particular through the Gleneagles dialogue.
Chris Huhne: The Minister mentioned the emissions trading scheme. Have the Government been advised on what an appropriate price per tonne to aim for would be if we are to achieve the kind of reductions necessary in the European Union? A company called Vattenfall has estimated €40 per tonne, and the recent price for 2008 permits was about €23. Do the Government’s advisers or the Minister have a view on this matter?
Ian Pearson: It would not be appropriate for the Government to specify a figure in the carbon market. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that phase 1 of the carbon emissions trading scheme has been a learning-by-doing phase, and we in the UK have certainly not pretended that it has been perfect—far from it. We have learned lessons, however, and we believe that the Commission has learned lessons, which is why phase 2 will represent a significant improvement and why the carbon price for phase 2 under shadow trading for 2008 contracts is significantly higher. We want to see a strong carbon price signal and it is important that the EU carbon trading scheme should receive popular support. It is the cornerstone of what could be an emerging world carbon market and we need to ensure that it is a robust scheme that ensures scarcity in the marketplace, which we did not see in phase 1.
Mr. Goodwill: That is precisely the point that I was going to raise. Does the Minister accept that it was the over-generous allocation of carbon credits to countries such as Spain that undermined the market in carbon and resulted in the low prices in the first tranche of the scheme? Does he agree that we need to tighten that up if the scheme is to be made to work?
Ian Pearson: I do not want to single out individual countries, but we need to recognise the success of the EU emissions trading scheme in getting a scheme that covers 45 per cent. of Europe’s CO2 up and running. One of the key lessons to be learned is that we need to ensure scarcity overall if we are to have a carbon price that sends out the right signals to encourage long-term investment in low-carbon technologies. I am sure that we have all learned that lesson and taken it on board as part of phase 2 of the programme. As part of our review of the directive, we are reflecting also on how we can further improve that post-2012.
The UK has sought to underpin its international leadership by taking action domestically to tackle climate change. I was a bit surprised by some of what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said. He does not want to recognise the fact that the Government have taken action on tackling climate change. Let me tell him some of the actions that we have taken. The 2000 climate change programme, which was reviewed and revised in 2006, and the 2003 and 2007 energy White Papers, included a suite of
measures for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and emissions of other greenhouse gases. It is simply not true to say that our performance on reducing greenhouse gas emissions—and the UK has an impressive record as being one of the few countries that will double its Kyoto commitment—is down to the dash for gas. That is plain wrong.
Ian Pearson: The hon. Gentleman knows that. If he wants to explain the impact of the Government’s proposals, I shall give way to him.
Martin Horwood: I was saying that it was clear that we met the Kyoto target because of the dash for gas. That caused the steep reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions, which brought us below the target as long ago as 1999. Emissions have been going up since then, although they are perhaps not as high as they would have been without other measures.
Ian Pearson: We have not met the Kyoto target yet because it is over the period of 2008 to 2012. The effect of the dash for gas might account for at most a third of our reductions in greenhouse gas emissions overall. Our other reductions in greenhouse emissions are a direct result of the Government’s actions on encouraging energy efficiency measures that have been taken by industry and the increase in the deployment of nuclear power during the 1990s. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot have it all ways. It simply is not true that all our performance on the Kyoto targets is down to the dash for gas. Nuclear has had a role to play, as has the Government’s climate change programme.
We are forecasting that the UK will reduce its net greenhouse gas emissions by more than 23 per cent. in the period 2008-12 and carbon dioxide emissions by more than 16 per cent. by 2012. I admit that at the moment we are not on course to meet our target for 2010. It is a matter of regret, but we should not ignore the fact that making a 16.2 per cent. reduction, which is the latest projection, by 2012 is a significant commitment and achievement.
Looking further afield, the measures announced by the Government, including those recently set out in the energy White Paper, should help us to cut carbon dioxide emissions by more than a quarter by 2020, relative to 1990, even though the economy will have doubled in size. We are demonstrating that we can have green growth—that carbon can be taken out of the economy—and at the same time have high and stable levels of employment.
The debate has focused on the Government’s long-term 2050 target for reducing emissions. I want to address that in particular because it is the gravamen of the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell. It is worth reminding the House that the Government have for some time recognised the need for a long-term target. That is why they committed themselves in the 2003 energy White Paper to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050, a target recommended by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. There is no obfuscation on where the at least 60 per cent. reduction set out in
the Climate Change Bill comes from; it comes directly from the work done at that time.
Some—including my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell—suggest that that target is out of date, that the science has moved on, that the scale of the problem demands a greater response and that, consequently, the target for 2050 needs to be increased. Let me start by considering the response that is currently being recommended as part of the Climate Change Bill. As everyone knows, the European Commission has adopted the 2ºC limit as its stabilisation goal. It has said that for that to be met, the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases must remain well below 550 parts per million volume carbon dioxide equivalent. The European Union has said that that will require global greenhouse gas emissions to fall by between 15 and 50 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2050, with reductions in developed countries of between 60 and 80 per cent.
As has been mentioned this evening, last year’s Stern review of the economics of climate change recommended a long-term stabilisation goal of 450 to 550 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent, and showed that, globally, emissions need to peak in the next 10 years or so and then fall by 25 to 70 per cent. below 2005 levels—equal to a 10 to 65 per cent. cut below 1990 levels—by 2050. That means that industrialised countries such as the United Kingdom must reduce their greenhouse emissions by at least 60 per cent. by 2050. The Stern review also set out a strong case for urgent action to reduce emissions. The longer the world waits, the more costly and difficult it will be to make the reductions that are necessary to stabilise at 450 to 550 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent.
The latest assessment report from the intergovernmental panel on climate change, published earlier this year, suggests that even more stringent reductions may be necessary. The panel’s best estimate is that to stabilise the global mean temperature at between 2ºC and 2.4ºC above pre-industrial levels, concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere should be stabilised at between 445 and 490 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent, and that that would require global emissions cuts of between 50 and 85 per cent. by 2050.
Martin Horwood: Will the Minister give way?
Ian Pearson: I will in a moment.
No one should be in any doubt about the challenge that lies ahead. Atmospheric greenhouse gas levels are already at 430 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent, and are rising at more than two parts per million per year. They will reach 450 parts per million in less than 10 years. However, the Government’s target of at least a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is consistent with what is being recommended, albeit at the lower end, and the Government have proposed legislation that would make that target legally binding.
As the House will know, the draft Climate Change Bill gives the Secretary of State a duty to ensure that the United Kingdom’s contribution to global carbon dioxide emissions in 2050 is at least 60 per cent. lower than the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions were in 1990. We also propose that there should be an interim target of a 26 to 32 per cent. reduction by 2020, and that an
independent committee on climate change should give the Government advice on setting three five-year carbon budgets that will provide a pathway towards the 2050 target. They will be important in giving business the confidence it requires that we are moving towards a low-carbon economy, just as the 2050 target sends the important signal that the Government are serious about the need for action and that investment decisions are influenced as a result.
We can be confident about that long-term target because it has been the subject of detailed analysis and has been accepted by a variety of stakeholders. A more stringent target would require a great deal of further analysis, rationalisation, discussion and agreement with stakeholders. The fact is that there is a consensus on the need for at least a 60 per cent. reduction, but currently no consensus on any other long-term target.
Martin Horwood: Will the Minister give way?
Ian Pearson: I want to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the House gently that this debate has been initiated by the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell and is not a general debate in the accepted sense?
Ian Pearson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wanted to respond directly to my hon. Friend because I appreciate the points that he made this evening.
It is important to recognise that we are involved in a dynamic process where science will continue to move on, where we will have a further international agreement, where other countries will recognize the need to play their parts and where technology will develop. However, we cannot predict with any certainty the evolution of all this at this moment, so we have set a target that is challenging but achievable.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell said, in giving evidence last week to the ad-hoc Joint Committee scrutinising the draft Climate Change Bill, Sir David King, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, stressed the importance of the long-term target being achievable and recognised that 60 per cent. is the correct target now. Interestingly, in its response to the draft Climate Change Bill consultation, which closed today, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution also thought that the 60 per cent. target was the right one for now.
We will continue to debate the science and we cannot predict with any certainty how it will evolve. There may be a need to amend the long-term target in the future, which is why it will be kept under review. The Climate Change Bill includes a provision to allow the target to be amended in the light of significant developments in scientific knowledge about climate change science, or international law or policy. That can be done by order, using the affirmative resolution procedure, to ensure that Parliament is guaranteed a debate and vote on the issue.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |