Martin
Horwood: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for
making that important and well considered point, with which I have a
lot of sympathy. We might need to look at stiffening the role of the
Committee on Climate Change in other clauses, but clause 2 is about the
standing target in the Bill. If he wants to reduce the wriggle room for
Ministers and toughen the Bill, this is precisely where he has an
opportunity to do so. I will try to avoid playing party politics. If I
were doing that, I would have mentioned Henley as well as Witney and
Banbury.
The question
is not simply why we need the 80 per cent. figure in the Bill, which a
lot of the Committee’s discussion has been about. The other
question, which those who support the current wording have to answer,
is, as the hon. Member for South Swindon started to point out, why we
have the 60 per cent. figure in the Bill. The explanation is quite
clear: it came from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution,
which reported in 2000 and, as the hon. Member for South Swindon
pointed out, based its science on the second assessment report of the
IPCC in 1995. Given the lead times in the IPCC, the science itself is
probably even older. Since then, we have gained a huge body of further
scientific evidence and the third and fourth assessment reports of the
IPCC itself, which have moved on the thinking of most scientists about
this question.
Forgive me,
Mr. Cook. I have just realised that I have locked myself out
of some of the evidence that I was about to quote from my computer
screen. We will need some kind of induction in this new
technology. In
2000, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution assumed that a
concentration of 550 ppm was sufficient to defend us against climate
change of more than 2° C above pre-industrial levels. A
ClientEarth briefing
states: “A
report to the UK Government by consultants Ecofys indicates that at
average climate sensitivity, the EU must aim for a CO2
concentration below 450 ppmv CO2-equivalent. Even at this
level, the report’s authors say we have a roughly 50/50 chance
of staying within 2°C. At 550 ppmv
CO2-equivalent”—
in other words, at the
level on which the 60 per cent. figure is
based— “we
are unlikely to meet the 2°C. Only at 450 ppmv
CO2-equivalent (370ppmv CO2) are we likely to
meet the 2°C (with a 2 per cent. to 55 per cent. risk of
stabilising
above).” The
briefing goes on to
say: “For
the UK, the Ecofys study shows that for a stabilisation target of 450
ppmv CO2-equivalent, the UK needs to be aiming for 80 per
cent. to 90 per cent. cuts by 2050...Even at 550 ppmv
CO2-equivalent, the UK’s contribution would require
cuts of 70 per cent. to 90 per cent., more than the current
2050
target.” It
is quite clear that the science has simply moved on from the numbers
that the Minister is talking about. The RCEP report assumed that 550
ppm would be sufficient, but it is clearly not
sufficient.
Mr.
Woolas: I understand both the point that the hon.
Gentleman is making and the evidence. That was one reason why we
announced a change in policy. Does he agree, however, that the
long-term goal to which he refers must take into account the trajectory
of the medium-term goals of carbon budgets in the meantime, because it
is the cumulative amount of gases that counts? One could have tougher
medium-term goals and a looser end target. Secondly, does he agree that
all this is based on a contribution to an internationally agreed
long-term goal that we do not yet know? In the context of those two
arguments, is this not a very interesting debate, but an academic
one?
Martin
Horwood: The debate is far from academic. It is crucial
because it determines exactly how we are to construct the trajectory
and what it will be. If the targets are lower for both 2020 and 2050,
the trajectory will be smoother. If we tolerate higher targets and
allow decisions such as those on the Heathrow runway and Kingsnorth
power station to go ahead, and then find ourselves in need of making
more drastic cuts to meet the carbon budget, we will probably find that
the realistic target by 2050 is closer to 100 per cent. The starting
target is
crucial. The
international contribution is interesting and goes to the heart of why
the percentage matters. This is not simply a scientific question. It is
not simply about the UK’s interpretation of the science, but
about the share of the overall international contribution that the UK
chooses to make. As we have said repeatedly, that decision is political
and moral, as well as
scientific. In
2000, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution made assumptions
in addition to saying that 550 ppm would be sufficient. It also assumed
that all sectors would be included in that 60 per cent. target, so
aviation and shipping must be added. The 60 per cent. target in the
Bill does not include aviation and shipping, so clearly the reductions
will have to be greater. What is more, the commission was talking in
2000, and there has clearly been an increase in CO2
emissions since then. The 60 per cent. that it was talking about
must now, by definition, be greater, because CO2 emissions
have risen in the meantime. The commission also clearly advocated that
the target should be kept under
review. Where
are we now? We are in a position where even members of the Royal
Commission on Environmental Pollution and numerous past chairs who have
been
cited are clear that the target, using the methodology from back in
2000, should now be 80 per cent. or greater. They
said: “UK
Climate Change Bill targets are based on out-of-date science. In
tackling the global challenge of climate change, governments must
follow the latest science that clearly shows the need for the UK to
reduce its CO2 emissions by at least 80 per cent.
by 2050. This will require much more substantial action by 2020 than
the Government is currently
considering.” If
the authors of the original figure—60 per cent.—are not
convincing enough for the Minister, perhaps he should listen to the UN
Development Programme’s report on human development 2007-08,
which
says: “Emission
targets in the Climate Bill are not consistent with the objective of
avoiding dangerous climate change. Our sustainable emissions pathway
suggests that developed countries need to cut emissions of greenhouse
gases by at least 80 per cent. by 2050 against 1990 levels, not 60 per
cent.” It
continues: “If
the rest of the developed world followed the pathway envisaged in the
United Kingdom’s Climate Change Bill, dangerous climate change
would be inevitable. It would lead to approximate atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases in excess of 660 ppm
CO2e, and possibly 750 ppm CO2
e.” One
point that UNDP is making is that this is not simple science, but a
political judgment. It is about the share that developed countries,
including the United Kingdom, take of the successful trajectory to
reduce carbon emissions. That is not a scientific judgment, but a
political
one.
Mr.
Woolas: Why does the hon. Gentleman argue for 2° C?
The scenario that he paints would make it
worse.
Martin
Horwood: The Minister might have to clarify that for
me.
Mr.
Woolas: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked the
question, because what he is arguing does not make arithmetic sense. If
he is arguing that a 60 per cent. contribution from the UK, if it were
copied by all countries in the world, would not be enough, he cannot
argue that 2° C is
satisfactory.
Martin
Horwood: The UNDP report on human development from which I
am quoting says that if everyone followed our example and put 60 per
cent. in their legislation,
that “would
correspond to a rise in average global temperatures of
4—5°C, well beyond the dangerous climate change
threshold.” It
is perfectly consistent to argue for a higher percentage of carbon
emissions reductions and for 2° C, which would mandate a
similarly high percentage for
reductions. The
other person I want to quote, briefly, is Sir Nicholas Stern.
Subsequent to the vote in the House of Lords, when he may have been
sympathetic to the Government’s position, it has become clear
from what he has written that he has reflected and changed his
position. In The Guardian on 30 November 2007 he explicitly
supported an 80 per cent. target for richer countries. He
said: “For
a 50% reduction in global emissions by 2050, the world average per
capita must drop from seven tonnes to two or
three.”—
The
Chairman: Order. A Division has been called in the
House—
Siobhain
McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab): I beg to move, That
debate be now
adjourned.
The
Chairman: Order. It is impossible to accept that in the
middle of a speech. I am afraid that I must suspend the sitting for 15
minutes if there is one Division, and for 25 minutes in the unlikely
event that there are
two. 7.1
pm Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House. 7.19
pm On
resuming—
The
Chairman: I took the decision to suspend the sitting for
15 minutes for one Division or 25 minutes for two Divisions. We were
informed during the first Division that there would be a second one,
but we were told later that we had been misinformed, so we are starting
three minutes late. We reconvene on amendment No. 2., and we are in
mid-stream with Mr. Martin
Horwood.
Martin
Horwood: Thank you, Mr. Cook. I was quoting Sir
Nicholas Stern’s new point of view that a 60 per cent. reduction
in carbon emissions is no longer sufficient and that we need something
in the Bill committing us to a reduction of at least 80 per cent. from
pre-industrial levels. For the benefit of the Committee, I shall
restart the
quotation. Writing
in The Guardian on 30 November last year, Sir Nicholas
stated: “For
a 50% reduction in global emissions by 2050, the world average per
capita must drop from seven tonnes to two or three. Within these global
targets, even a minimal view of equity demands that the rich
countries’ reductions should be at least
80%”. The
crucial phrase is the one about equity, because, again, the judgment is
not simply scientific. Sir Nicholas himself now accepts that a
political and moral judgment based on equity must be made. Others talk
about burden-sharing and international co-operation, but those are
political judgments that need to be reflected in the target that we put
in the
Bill. Once
the target is in the Bill, it will set the framework—the
methodology—in stone. It would be the equivalent of taking the
methodology of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and
setting it in the Bill. The framework could then be varied by the
Committee on Climate Change, which could say that the science had moved
this way or that way and adjust the target accordingly, but the
parameters have been set in the
Bill. We
have to decide in this clause what a fair baseline figure is, based on
the most appropriate science and the previous methodology. We have to
choose a figure that sends the right signals to business, to NGOs such
as Friends of the Earth, which has campaigned so hard to
get us to this point in legislation, and to other countries. We must
send a signal to them, because it is clear that they are beginning to
send a signal to us. France is setting a target of 75 per cent. by
2050. Germany is setting one of 40 per cent. by 2020 and 80 per cent.
by 2050. We have heard that Scotland is about to commit to 80 per cent.
California has committed to 80 per cent. by 2050, and Norway has
committed to 100 per cent. by 2050.
[Interruption.] I think that the Minister is
saying from a sedentary position that those countries are using a
slightly different baseline date, but nevertheless their clear ambition
is to reduce emissions by far more than the 60 per cent. in the
Bill. The
overall picture is simply one of our taking as our critical baseline
figure the one in the Bill, which we all know to be wrong, which simply
cannot be a sensible way to proceed. It prompts the question why on
earth the Government are so keen to preserve a figure that is
universally regarded as incorrect. It raises the suspicion, which has
been set out by the hon. Member for Banbury, that it is intended to
allow the Government, rather than Parliament or the Committee on
Climate Change, some wriggle room to allow the Treasury, the Department
for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the rest of the go-slow brigade
the room to counter the arguments of the Committee on Climate Change.
The Government could say on a particular occasion that there was some
overwhelmingly important political, economic or other consideration,
and, despite what is in the Stern report, they would like on that one
occasion to moderate the target and the ambition. The figure allows the
wriggle room for the Government collectively to do exactly what the
right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal has described, which is to make
the Bill much less effective than it should
be.
The
Chairman: I must point out to the hon. Member that he is
being relentlessly repetitive on points that have been made not only by
other Members but by him. I ask him to move his statement
on.
Martin
Horwood: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Cook.
I am drawing my remarks to a close in any
case. The
right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal at great length and with great
eloquence asked us, in effect, to trust the current Labour Government.
The Minister and, indeed, Conservative Front Benchers are asking us to
trust both the Labour Government and a hypothetical Conservative
Government. I hope that the Committee will forgive those of us who
support the 80 per cent. target if we think that the safest option is
to have it in the Bill for future
reference. Debate
adjourned.—[Siobhain
McDonagh.] Adjourned
accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Seven
o’clock till Thursday 26 June at Nine
o’clock.
| 
