House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Fifth Report

3 Carbon targets

12. Prior to publication of the draft Bill, the UK Government had two domestic climate change goals:

to reduce CO₂ emissions by 20% below 1990 baseline levels by 2010; and

to reduce CO₂ emissions by 60% below 1990 baseline levels by 2050.

13. The Government has already conceded that it is unlikely to achieve the 20% target by 2010, with latest estimates indicating that by 2006 CO₂ emissions were a mere 5% below 1990 levels.[10] The Government's suggestion that—in the absence of new policy measures—a 16.2% reduction in CO₂ below 1990 baseline levels will be achieved by 2010 seems optimistic.[11]

14. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 and sets out legally binding targets for the reduction of six greenhouse gases (set out in Annex A of the Protocol) by developed countries. The Protocol officially came into force on 16 February 2005, requiring the developed world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2008-12. Under the existing Kyoto protocol, the EU is required to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases by 8% by 2008-12. The UK, as its contribution to the EU target, is required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% by 2008-12.

15. In May 2007, the Minister of State (Climate Change and the Environment) Ian Pearson MP affirmed the UK's commitment to:

… limiting global mean temperature rise to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. This mirrors the European Union's 2°C stabilisation target.[12]

16. Defra's Climate Change Strategic Framework cites the European Commission which states that, in order to keep within the 2°C threshold, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases must remain:

… well below 550ppmv CO_2eq, requiring global emission reductions of at least 15%, but perhaps as much as 50% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. Industrialised countries would have to continue to take the lead and explore options to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 15-30% by 2020 and 60-80% by 2050.[13]

Terminology

17. Clause 1 (1) states that "It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 60% lower than the 1990 baseline". When questioned, experts from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research confirmed that the "UK carbon account" meant nothing to them as a term. Similarly the Energy Saving Trust noted that it "lacked clarity".[14] As Dr Bows explained "people talk about carbon dioxide emissions reductions when they mean greenhouse gas emission reductions […] [it] needs to be absolutely clear".[15]

18. There is further ambiguity in the draft Bill regarding the extent to which it is concerned with limits to carbon dioxide emissions or limits to all greenhouse gases. Whilst the targets focus on carbon dioxide, there are a number of places where the term "greenhouse gases" is used. For example, the provisions for the establishment of new trading schemes in Clause 28 of the draft Bill talk about "limiting activities that consist of the emission of greenhouse gas […]".

19. There is inconsistency in the language within the Bill. Terms such as "UK carbon account" and "UK carbon dioxide emissions" are used seemingly interchangeably. We recommend that the Bill only use two terms, "carbon dioxide" or "carbon dioxide equivalent". To do otherwise will cause confusion. Not all greenhouse gases—as defined by the Kyoto Protocol—are carbon-based. Use of the word "carbon" in the Bill should be avoided to remove any further ambiguity.

CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS

20. Greenhouse gases do not just arrive and depart. They accumulate. Reducing annual emissions is only one step on the way to mitigating climate change. The aim is to arrest the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (usually expressed as ppm) at a "safe" level. One of the key messages from the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change was the need to reduce emissions sooner rather than later. This has been a consistent theme of the assessment reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Tyndall Centre told us that the 60% target equates to the UK limiting itself to a cumulative level of emissions of 20-22 GtCO₂[16] between 2000 and 2050 (excluding international aviation and shipping).[17] This is effectively a CO₂ budget which we must not go beyond.

21. As Friends of the Earth explains "[t]he fundamental thing is that is not the end point: it is about living within this budget":

because carbon dioxide persists in the atmosphere for many years, the real determinant of the severity of climate change is not emissions in 2050, but total cumulative emissions by 2050. The cumulative emissions resulting from meeting a target in 2050 are dramatically reduced if the largest cuts are made early in the period (a "ski-slope" graph) rather than leaving them until the end of the period (a graph like a falling bullet). As viewed on a graph of emissions, it is the area under the line that matters - not the end point. […] the nature of this cumulative curve, means that if we do nothing for 10 years, it does not mean we only have 40 years to meet our 50-years target, it means we have 40 years and we have already spent some of the money in the bank. You are absolutely right to say that the end point is rushing up on us twice as fast, but it is not simply getting closer, it is also getting more difficult with every year of delay.[18]

22. This can be demonstrated using the following illustration (Figure 1). The area between the two curved lines represents the difference in cumulative emissions, despite the same end point:

Figure 1: Illustrative emission reduction pathways

Source: Domestic emissions already released taken from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research[19]

23. The Tyndall Centre explained that there is around an 88% chance of exceeding the 2°C threshold at 550ppm CO₂, and about a 70% chance at 440ppm CO₂. Because CO₂ remains in the atmosphere for over 100 years:

When it comes to the targets, the final percentage reduction in a particular year has little relevance to the 2°C or the 440 or 550 concentrations […] It is not the percentage reduction; rather it is the cumulative emissions that matter.[20]

[…] a 450ppm CO₂ alone would give us a 30 per cent chance of not exceeding [the 2°C threshold], still not a huge chance, but would give us a reasonable chance and we have calculated that this correlates with a UK carbon budget of around 4.8 billion tonnes of carbon[21] for the period 2000 to 2050. […] but because we are spending this budget at quite a high rate at the moment, we have effectively spent about 25 per cent of this 50-year budget in just seven years.[22]

24. Friends of the Earth concluded that:

[…] Tyndall explain[ed] the effects of the current government decisions and expose[d] very, very clearly the gap between what the Government say they are going to do and what the Government say they are trying to achieve and the Government have to adjust one or the other of those two things.[23]

25. David Miliband appears to have recognised this important point. On the day the draft Bill was published (13 March 2007), he wrote on his blog:

It's an easy hit on politicians to say we are good at setting targets but not meeting them. Leave to one side that the targets adopted at Kyoto for greenhouse gas emissions are being met by this country. There is a good argument that in respect of climate change, which is spurred by the stock of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere not just the flow at any one time, it is more important to have a budget for the amount of carbon to be released […] Carbon budgeting ensures that every tonne of carbon counts. It addresses the stock of carbon dioxide (or equivalent) in the atmosphere.[24]

26. We recommend that the Government should also incorporate within the Bill targets relating to cumulative emissions. These should address overall budgets to 2020 and to 2050 in quantitative terms (tonnes of CO2eq) rather than only using annualised percentage reductions. This addition to target setting would help set the framework for each of the five-year budgets required by the Bill.

2020 and 2050 targets

27. The Bill puts into statute the UK's targets to reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from a 1990 baseline by at least 60% by 2050; and by 26-32% by 2020. The 60% target originates from a report in 2000 by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) which adopted the principle of contraction and convergence to allocate emissions to individual nations.[25] Contraction and convergence is the principle by which emissions are allocated on an equal per capita basis, outlining the level to which 'over-emitters' (developed countries) must contract, and under-emitters (developing countries) can increase emissions, until they converge. At the time, the 60% target was calculated to be the UK's 'fair share' of a global effort to stabilise the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere at 550 parts per million (ppm). It was thought that this limit on the concentration of CO₂ would mean that the more dangerous impacts of climate change would be avoided. This was adopted by the UK Government in the 2003 Energy White Paper.[26] Since the 60% target was first proposed by the RCEP, the science has developed. Reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 suggest that the situation may be both more serious and urgent than had been previously thought. So, in order to limit global mean temperature increases to 2°C (which is now widely agreed to be necessary to avoid some of the more extreme impacts of climate change), the science suggests that concentrations of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases should be kept much lower than 550ppm.

2050 LONG-TERM TARGET

28. Whilst much of the written evidence received is, generally, supportive of the Bill in principle, strong reservations were expressed by some that the 60% target is inadequate. Climate Change Capital described it as "disappointing", particularly in the light of the recent Stern Review and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.[27]

29. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research argued that, despite international political commitment to constrain warming to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, the targets enshrined in the Bill are more likely to contribute to an increase of 4°C or 5°C warmer than pre-industrial levels, with an 80% chance of exceeding the 2°C threshold.[28] Research by the Tyndall Centre for Friends of the Earth and the Co-operative Bank has argued that the UK must cut emissions by 70% by 2030 and 90% by 2050 if its emissions are to be compatible with a global temperature change of less than 2°C.[29] Accordingly, a substantial amount of the evidence we received calls for at least an 80% reduction in CO₂ emissions below the 1990 baseline by 2050 to be enshrined in the Bill, rather than the existing 60% target.[30] The Mayor of London calls for an even more ambitious target of a 60% reduction below 1990 levels by 2025.[31]

30. Professor Michael Grubb from the Carbon Trust urged a different kind of caution, noting that: "if one is falling behind on existing targets calling very shrilly to tighten the far out target is not a solution, if we are already struggling to meet a credible trajectory towards 60 per cent and saying it should be 80 per cent is not going to actually solve that problem—it might possibly create risks of devaluing the credibility of the actual commitment."[32] Likewise, other organisations are supportive of the 60% target. For example, EDF Energy notes that although the 2050 target "may need to be made more stretching as confidence in the outputs of climate models increase and international burden sharing agreements are negotiated. It is sufficient at this stage that a 60% target, in itself extremely stretching, has been established."[33]

31. The Office of Climate Change defended the 60% target: "[the target] has commanded most stakeholder support for the past few years being […] a recommendation of the Royal Commission. There is no consensus around a different figure as yet. It is also consistent with the Stern Report which said that developed countries should do 60 to 90 per cent in order to stay within the 550 [ppm]."[34] The Secretary of State expanded on the same point, accepting that "the science shows that 60 per cent is towards the bottom end of the reductions that are required in advanced industrialised countries, but that is one reason why the Bill refers to "at least 60 per cent" and why there is provision for the Climate Change Committee to advise the Government on another figure."[35] However, there is no explicit requirement for such advice to be given. Clause 22(1) allows the Secretary of State to seek advice on "the Secretary of State's functions under this Act". But asking for this advice is discretionary.

32. The Government sets much store by the Bill. We emphasise, however, that the Bill alone will not deliver the necessary emission reductions and note that CO2 emissions in 2006 were a mere 5% below 1990 levels. As such, whilst we agree with the substantial amount of evidence calling for the 2050 target to be higher than 60%, we recognise that this target itself is still extremely ambitious. We are not in a position to suggest whether the 2050 target should be higher than 60%. However, we recommend that the first task of the Committee on Climate Change should be to assess the current state of knowledge regarding climate science in order to determine what the 2050 target should be and the trajectory for achieving it.

2020 INTERIM TARGET

33. Clause 3 (1)(a) states that "[t]he carbon budget for the period including the year 2020, must be such that the annual equivalent of the carbon budget for the period is at least 26%, but not more than 32%, lower than the 1990 baseline".

34. Recently the European Commission proposed a 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, increasing to 30% subject to international agreement on a post-2012 framework.[36] Although the burden sharing of the 2020 target is still to be determined, it is possible—based on experience with the Kyoto Protocol—that the UK might be required to shoulder a greater than proportionate share of the required emissions reductions. In order to meet the new EU proposals for a 20% cut in emissions by 2020, a recent study suggests that the UK would have to reduce its emissions by 30%.[37] The CBI has been led to understand by the Office of Climate Change (OCC) that a 26-32% target by 2020 is "in line with their expectations of what the UK's burden sharing target would be if based on historical emissions". The OCC explained that:

in devising the midpoint, the 26 to 32% point in 2020, we on the Bill team worked very closely with the team working on the Energy White Paper, which […] has the 26 to 32% range in it, and the projections in the Energy White Paper take us at the upper end to the 26 to 32% range. […] The range came originally from the 2003 Energy White Paper and the reason for the range is that it is both credible in terms of having policies in place to deliver it and, secondly, because it is consistent with a 60 per cent long-term target. The economic analysis shows that.[38]

Professor Grubb from the Carbon Trust noted that: "[…] the Government for several years has officially acknowledged, accepted, the severity of this problem […] and still CO₂ emissions are not going down. From that position a reduction of at least 26 per cent by 2020 is already a very demanding, strong change […]." [39]

35. The CBI observed that:

the proposed target expresses a range of 26 to 32% by 2020 is an extremely challenging one and would require measures beyond those which are currently envisaged in the government's climate change programme and indeed in the measures which are envisaged under the current energy policy review. Whilst we welcome the need to move quickly in the period up to 2020, we believe that the target as currently set will be challenging for business and for society as a whole. […] we naturally have some concerns, for example, that the UK may be committing itself to a degree of effort which is laudable but in excess of what perhaps some of our European partners are committed to.[40] […] [i]n terms of whether it is 26 or 32%, there is some concern that we might be showing our hand a little too soon in terms of the negotiations that are taking place in Europe and in terms of how we fit in within that structure.[41]

36. On the other hand, the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers argue that 35% would not be unreasonable as the upper limit for the 2020 target on the basis that the technology and measures required to achieve this already exist.[42]

37. The Secretary of State noted that the 2020 interim target is "almost as significant" as the 2050 target.[43] He conceded that it was "challenging" but argued that it is, in his opinion, "doable and gives business the right framework in which to make those decisions".[44] With regard to the upper limit of 32% cut in emissions below 1990 baseline levels by 2020, Mr Miliband explained that: "It would clearly be a failure of policy if we ended up below the 26%. I would consider it much less of a failure of policy if we ended up above the 32%, but I think it is important for the sort of compact that we have tried to establish with investors in the business community that they know the ball park that we are aiming for, and, just in parentheses, the 26-32% is consistent with a significantly higher than 60 per cent reduction by 2050."[45] He noted that the business community "[…] wanted an interim […] target on the face of the Bill to give them confidence about what range they had to be aiming for, and I think it is better to say 26-32 than just to say more than 26. I think it gives them a landing spot that is helpful."[46]

38. We are not convinced by the Secretary of State's arguments for designing a 'ball park' target. Whilst we agree that the target to reduce emissions by 26% below 1990 baseline levels by 2020 will be challenging, and welcome the medium-term indication of progress that the Government expects, we believe the Government is being unnecessarily prescriptive in placing an upper limit on the 2020 target. Having an upper limit serves no practical purpose. We recommend that Clause 3(1)(a) be amended by leaving out the words ", but no more than 32%,". This will bring it in line with the 2050 target to reduce emissions by "at least 60%".

Amending targets—future scientific developments

39. Clause 1 subsection 4 of the Bill states that the Secretary of State may amend the percentage target for 2050 "if it appears […] that there have been significant developments in scientific knowledge about climate change". Since the 60% target was first proposed by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 2000, the science has developed with reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 suggesting that the situation may be more serious and more urgent than had been previously anticipated. Friends of the Earth has expressed concern that scientific development prior to enactment of the Bill may be excluded from consideration as "significant developments in scientific knowledge about climate change".[47]

40. According to Dr Bows from the Tyndall Centre:

the science that links the 550ppm level to the 2°C has since moved on, as much of that was done prior to 2003 […] The message is clear from the Defra conference in 2005 that the 450 level was going to give you a much more reasonable chance of not exceeding the 2°C. At that stage it was clear that 550 was too high. The science is there and has been there for a good year or so and there is general consensus within the scientific community. Yes, there has been a misunderstanding or misguidance somewhere between the science and what has been produced in the Bill.[48]

41. Whilst appreciative of the greater degree of certainty and consequent level of investor-confidence lent by the mid- and long-term targets, EEF argues that the Bill must allow for the revision of targets "should it transpire that meeting a 60% target is significantly more costly and the economic impact significantly more adverse than anticipated".[49] "We do not see review clauses being used in a trivial manner frequently but if there are major developments that we miss or if the pace technology progresses is faster than we thought, if the impacts of climate change are potentially worse or maybe not as bad as we thought, there should be grounds to review those targets."[50] EDF Energy, however, argues that reviewing targets could undermine regulatory stability and as such, whilst targets could be made more demanding, the Bill should not allow for the 2020 target to be relaxed.[51]

42. The Office of Climate Change observed that "the Government would clearly need to make a judgment based on the facts at the time as to whether any development internationally or any scientific development in its view constituted a significant development."[52]

43. The Bill must make provision for the 2020 and 2050 targets to be revised, but we recommend that this provision be limited to an upwards revision only. We also recommend that the Committee on Climate Change be empowered to propose revisions to the mid- and long-term targets whenever it believes an amendment may be appropriate.

10 Department of Trade and Industry, Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Energy, Cm 7124, May 2007 Back

11 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2006-07, Defra's Departmental Annual Report 2006 and Defra's budget, February 2007, HC 132; HC Deb, 12 June 2007, col 735 Back

12 HC Deb, 14th May 2007, col 472W Back

13 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Climate Change Strategic Framework, March 2007 Back

14 Qq 7-8 Back

15 Q 12; The term 'greenhouse gases' as defined by the Kyoto Protocol includes carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆). Back

16 1 x 10⁹ (a US billion, or thousand million) tonnes. Back

17 Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows 'A response to the Draft Climate Change Bill's carbon reduction targets' Tyndall Centre Briefing Note No.17, March 2007 Back

18 Ev 26, Qq 79, 86 Back

19 Ev 3 Back

20 Q 13 Back

21 This is equivalent to 17.6 GtCO₂; figures have been converted into CO₂ by multiplying by 44/12. Back