Examination of Witnesses (Questions 425
- 439)
WEDNESDAY 23 MAY 2007
RT HON
DAVID MILIBAND
MP AND MR
ROBIN MORTIMER
Chairman: We will resume our hearing
and welcome the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs, and he is supported by Mr Mortimer, who is a glutton
for punishment, having been, I will not say the warm up act because
that would slightly depreciate the excellent quality of your evidence,
but now that the Secretary of State is there we are delighted
that you are alongside him to help. Secretary of State, we would
like to start our inquiries by looking at certain aspects of the
targets on emissions which the Bill seeks to achieve, and I want
to ask Lynne Jones if she would start our questioning.
Q425 Lynne Jones: Welcome to the
Committee. The Government and the EU have signed up to limiting
global climate change to two degrees centigrade. To what extent
are the targets in the Climate Change Bill going to deliver on
that commitment?
David Miliband: First of all,
good afternoon, Chairman. I am delighted to be here and am very
much looking forward, not particularly looking forward to the
next hour but looking forward to the results of your deliberations
and the help that you can give us in fashioning a strong bill
that really does provide the sort of framework I think all of
us are hoping to see. In respect of Lynne's question, I think
I would like to unpack it a bit. Two degrees centigrade is the
EU's definition of dangerous climate change. That is important
because all countries in the 1992 Rio Summit (189 countries, including
all of the non Kyoto signatories) signed up to take efforts to
prevent dangerous climate change and, subsequent to that, the
EU defined dangerous climate change as two degrees centigrade
average change. The level of average change is obviously a consequence
of the stock of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in the atmosphere
and so, if you do not mind, I would like to trace back to the
stock of carbon dioxide or its equivalent, which I think is important,
because in a way that is the driver of global warming. I would
say two things about that. First of all, in respect of the stock,
we are in a dangerous place now. Maybe dangerous has a technical
meaning, but I do not want to go there. We are in a place that
carries dangers, at the moment 425 parts per million of CO2, or
its equivalent, carries dangers and the scientists say that at
450 parts per million you have got a better than evens chance
of breaching that two degrees. So, the first thing here is we
are talking about probabilities of breaching what the EU, with
the UK support, has defined as a dangerous level. Secondly, you
ask: how does the Bill help meet the injunction or the commitment
to stay within the two degrees centigrade?
Q426 Lynne Jones: Anything is going
to help. A reduction is going to help, but whether it is going
to achieve the actual 2%.
David Miliband: You rightly said:
how is it going to contribute? It contributes that significant
part of the UK's commitment to a problem that is preponderantly
not a UK problem. Whether you believe it is 2% or 12% of global
emissions that are constituted by UK activity, the vast majority
clearly come from other countries. So, our contribution to the
globe's effort to living within the two degrees is obviously limited,
but in terms of our contribution, I think that the commitment
to a 26-32% reduction by 2020 and then a 60% reduction, at least,
by 2050 is significant.
Q427 Lynne Jones: It is significant
but it is not going to achieve the 2% target.
David Miliband: The two degrees.
Q428 Lynne Jones: The two degrees
target. We have our share, if you like, based on a per capita
basis of the carbon emissions between now and 2050 when, based
on the cap and limit proposal, by then everybody should be emitting
at the same level, but the evidence we have received and the evidence
from the intergovernmental panel is that, if everybody else achieves
the level of change that we achieve, then we are heading for a
four to five degrees increase in temperature, not two degrees.
The Tyndall Centre has told us that we are heading for an 80%
chance of a four to five degrees increase in temperature.
David Miliband: There is a lot
in there I think that does need to be separated out.
Q429 Lynne Jones: I meant contraction
and convergence.
David Miliband: I wanted to start
with that. You said that, if everyone did what we do, we will
all be emitting the same amount by 2050, and, of course, that
is not right. That was the aim of the contraction and convergence
model, but if everyone reduced by 60% that does not mean we will
all be emitting equally. I take the point that you are referring
mainly to the developed or, better put, industrialised countries.
In that context I would say two things: (1) the trajectory is
important. The 26-32% reduction by 2020 is almost as significant
as the 2050 end point. I cannot remember if it was in this Committee
hearing when I first became Secretary of State or in another meeting,
I was challenged: "Is the Government seriously suggesting
that we can pootle along to 2045 and then have a massive dip in
the last five years?", and the point I made in reply at that
stage before the Climate Change Bill was published, so I was not
able to say, "Look, you will have your 26-32% reduction on
the face of the Bill", but I can say at that stage, "It
is the stock that counts. We are not just looking for the flow
at a particular moment in time." So, the first thing I would
say to you is the trajectory to 2050 of all countries matters
a lot. Secondly, the Bill is very open to scientific development,
not just in the future but since the 60% was set, and the words
"at least 60%" are there for a reason. We have made
contingency for change. I think the change, if it was to happen,
should happen on the basis of independent advice, not just me
or anyone else putting up their finger to the wind, and I think
that is the right way to think about it, but in that context the
investment decisions that are being made now are being made more
on the basis of the 2020 requirement by companies less the 2050
requirement.
Q430 Lynne Jones: The independent
advice is that we are not going to be on target to meet the two
degrees aim, which is the crucial issue, not what percentage reduction
we get to by 2050. You are quite right, it is the trajectory,
but it is roughly a linear trajectory and even with that the experts
are telling us we are not going to meet that crucial two degrees,
or our share, our contribution to the two degrees. You have got
Schwarzenegger in California, an economy of a similar size to
ours, talking about 80% by 2050; Germany is talking about 40%,
I think, by 2030; everybody is waking up to the fact that we have
got to reduce, that the developed world has got to reduce our
emissions far more rapidly than is proposed in this Bill?
David Miliband: No, I do not accept
that on two grounds. First of all, precisely as you said, because
it is the trajectory. Simply stating the end point is not the
whole picture. So, the interrogation that you need to do, both
in California and elsewhere, is the trajectory down to 2050. Secondly,
our commitment is to reduce by at least 60% because, you are right,
the science shows that 60% 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%"
and why there is provision for the Climate Change Committee to
advise the Government on another figure. What I would say, though,
is first there is substantial consensus being established around
the 60%, which I think is important—voluntary organisations,
business representatives as well as government.
Q431 Lynne Jones: Which voluntary
organisations?
David Miliband: I cannot think
of a non-governmental organisation, an environmental organisation,
that thinks that anything less than 60% would be right, so we
are within the zone that they are—
Q432 Lynne Jones: They think it should
be more than that?
David Miliband: Okay, that is
fine, that is part of their job and part of our job, but what
I am saying to you is for me to have a figure that was recommended
by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and to then
substitute my own figure on the face of the Bill without further
independent scientific advice would not be the right thing to
do. Equally, if I published a bill without provision to raise
the 60% figure, that would have been, I think, remiss, and we
have made a very special effort to make sure it can be revised.
We have also made the point, just to finish the point, as I am
sure someone else will raise this, there are at least two other
issues. First of all, 60% CO2 is not 60% greenhouse
gas; 60% CO2 reduction represents 68, 70, 72% GHG reduction,
so there is a question there, and some of the other results refer
to a dealing in greenhouse gas, not just carbon dioxide. Secondly,
there is the important question of aviation and shipping which
we have made special provision to include in due course and, I
would hope, sooner rather than later.
Q433 Lynne Jones: The advice you
got from the Royal Commission was in 2000. Since then we have
had more scientific advice which tells us that there have been
substantial changes since 2000 which are not reflected in your
targets. By excluding aviation and shipping, should you not have
a larger than 60% target, even based on the Royal Commission's
report?
David Miliband: It does not do
anyone any good to say we have excluded aviation and shipping
when there is a whole clause devoted to their timely inclusion.
We have got negotiations going on at the moment in respect of
aviation which are dealing with the question of apportionment
of aviation. If a plane is flying from A to B to whom do you assign
the emission? We are now on the verge of European agreement to
get aviation in by 2011 or 2012 when these questions of apportionment
have to be addressed. We have got a clear route map to getting
aviation in. So, it cannot be right to say they are excluded.
There is a whole clause devoted towards their inclusion, rightly,
in my view.
Q434 Lynne Jones: But 2011, 2012
is not timely. Will there be provision in this Bill if the EU
is going to be that long in coming in to actually bring—
David Miliband: As soon as we
get the apportionment and calculation questions done, we can bring
it in, but remember you are fixating on the 60% by 2050.
Q435 Lynne Jones: I am not fixating
on that, I am fixating on the two degrees target, which is the
most important target, and the 400 to 450 PPM.
David Miliband: The thing I would
say to you about the two degrees is that it is driven by the stock
of CO2 or its equivalent. The other thing is you are
dealing in risk. It is not an on-off switch. We are already at
a 35, 40% chance of a two degrees sea-change and I cannot and
no-one else can unwind that. That is why I say we are in a place
with dangers. At the moment I am not in the least bit complacent
about the 60%. What I say is we have made provision to raise it,
we have also got investment decisions being made now and I would
submit that they are being made on the basis of the trajectory
and what is going to be demanded in 2020, which is 13 years away.
That 26-32% reduction is challenging, as was evident from the
Energy Review today, but I think is doable and gives business
the right framework in which to make those decisions.
Q436 Chairman: You could argue that
the process of target setting is, in essence, aspirational. You
are trying to suggest a direction of travel to achieve a certain
numerical objective that is informed as best is as possible by
scientific evidence in this particular case. Some might argue
that 60 is not a good enough target, that 80 might be a better
number. The question is you might end up somewhere in between
the two. Was 60 chosen because you thought the probability is
that we will hit it and, therefore, the staging posts on the way
are achievable?
David Miliband: I do not know
how many times I can say this. First of all, it does not say 60,
it says at least 60—point one. Point two: we have chosen
that, not because I thought it sounded nice, but because the last
independent Royal Commission on Environment Pollution suggested
60. So, that is the basis; we have not plucked it out of the air.
Third, it is not aspirational, it is there to drive policy decisions.
It has helped shape the path of the 26-32%. It is not just floating
out there as a sort of desirable, it is there to drive policy.
Q437 Chairman: Let me follow up with
a question about the word that you used, and, indeed, Mr Mortimer
in his comments used, which is "trajectory". In the
Bill, in clause two, in the draft part of the Bill, you are required
to set carbon budgets in five-yearly discrete chunks, and it talks
about carbon budgets, and they could be interpreted in one of
two ways. Could you explain whether the budget is going to be
a five-yearly figure on the route towards the 60% at least target,
or is it going to be a budget set in a quotion of carbon that
should be saved during that five-yearly period?
David Miliband: I am surprised
you used the word "or" between those two.
Q438 Chairman: The Bill does not
define the method, the terminology and the measure that the budget
is actually going to be cast in; it just says the Secretary of
State at the beginning of the periods has got to set a carbon
budget.
David Miliband: Then there is,
to be fair, detailed voluminous explanation of what that is: how
it is measured, how it relates to sinks, how it relates to overseas
purchases. All of that is laid out in the Bill.
Q439 Chairman: Nobody is disputing
that, Secretary of State, but it does not say in the Bill, in
the bit that is the draft—
David Miliband: Which clause are
you on?
|
