Appendix: Government Response
This memorandum sets out the Government's response
to the Committee's report published on 18 April 2012. The Government
thanks the Energy and Climate Change Committee for its continuing
interest and thorough consideration of consumption-based emissions
reporting, and for its conclusions and recommendations.
This response is being submitted by the Department
of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) because it was to DECC that
the Committee addressed most of its recommendations. However,
it is important to note that the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (Defra) leads on consumption-based emissions
for Government. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
leads on the package of compensation to Energy Intensive Industries,
which the Committee highlights in the report. As such, the three
departments have collaborated on the response.
Considering consumption-based emissions
1. There is a clear divergence between the UK's
territorial emissions and its consumption-based emissions. Furthermore,
the rate at which the UK's territorial emissions have fallen has
been outpaced by the growth in its consumption emissions. We are
concerned that the UK could be meeting its domestic carbon budgets
at the expense of the global carbon budget. (Paragraph 15)
The Government does not agree that the UK's progress
in cutting domestic carbon emissions is at the expense of the
global carbon budget - rather, the UK's domestic achievements
contribute to global progress. The increase in consumption-based
emissions is associated with globalisation and consumption patterns,
not caused by domestic environment policy.
Climate change is a global problem and it is very
likely that the relocation of industry from the UK and the substitution
of domestic demand into imports would increase global emissions
at the margin. However, these two phenomena occur largely independently
of UK domestic climate change policies and the evidence is mixed
on the existence of such carbon leakage occurring directly as
a result of UK policy. There is certainly no evidence that UK
climate change policies create more carbon emissions outside the
UK boundaries than they save inside.
We do, however, take the risk of carbon leakage seriously.
That is why we are working to make sure that our energy intensive
industries remain in the UK and become part of the green economy
- for example, providing steel for offshore wind farms - and to
minimise the risk of these companies relocating to countries which
are not so strongly bound by climate change policies to tackle
their carbon emissions.
2. We conclude that the fall in the UK's territorial
emissions was not entirely or even mostly a consequence of the
Government's climate policy. Rather, it was mainly a result of
the switch from coal to gas-fired electricity generation that
began in the early 1990s, and the shift in manufacturing industries
away from the UK in response to the pressures of globalised markets.
At the same time, the emissions embedded in the UK's imported
goods have increased. To complement the UK's existing territorial
carbon budgets, we recommend that DECC explore the options for
setting emissions targets on a consumption-basis at the national
level, and to set out the steps it will take to do this when responding
to the Committee's report. (Paragraph 22)
The Government agrees there is a range of drivers
contributing to the fall in the UK's territorial emissions. Analysis
for Defra of the drivers for the UK 1992-2004 carbon emissions
trends (the period prior to the EU Emissions Trading System launch)
showed there were four major drivers: 30% of the emissions savings
over this period could be attributed to relocation of production,
with the remainder due to efficiency - 32%, shift to services
- 17%, and switch to gas - 21%[1].
The Carbon Plan (published in December 2011) committed
the Government to publishing available consumption emissions data
on a regular basis. Our view, based on expert advice on the limitations
of the models, is that the data is not robust enough to set targets.
In terms of implementing policy to meet targets, the UK has greater
and more direct control over its own territorial emissions and
consequently fewer policy levers to influence overseas activities.
The Government is nonetheless committed to trying
to achieve a reduction in consumption-based emissions. We are
keen to understand, measure and be open about the impacts associated
with consumption of imported goods and services. This will provide
a basis to look at what is already being achieved by existing
policy and what opportunities there could be to use UK and EU
influence to target overseas emissions sources. This is one way
the UK, already a leader in global climate change, might continue
to punch above its weight. The Government will discuss with the
Committee on Climate Change (CCC) whether it could usefully investigate
the possibility of using life cycle analysis data to track trends
for specific priority product groups, alongside the 'top down'
data (from input-output models) that is published on national
consumption emissions.
3. We received no evidence that electricity-intensive
industry investment decisions were being driven by the Government's
climate policy, and therefore no evidence that the compensation
for electricity-intensive industries announced by the Chancellor
in his 2011 Autumn Statement is necessary. If electricity-intensive
industries are to be "compensated" for increases in
the cost of electricity—which are being driven primarily
by volatility in the fossil fuel market, not climate policy—we
recommend that the Government requires the beneficiaries to make
clear commitments to increased energy efficiency. In its response
to our Report, the Government must set out clearly what these
commitments will be. (Paragraph 26)
Energy Intensive Industries (EIIs) are responsible
for 45% of all business and public sector greenhouse gas emissions
in the UK.[2] They will
therefore need to become more carbon efficient if the UK is to
meet its legally binding climate change targets. Policies such
as the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and Climate Change
Agreements (CCAs) have already increased energy efficiency and
reduced carbon emissions - the EU ETS will be responsible for
about half of UK emissions reductions up to 2020. However, this
does place additional cost on industry. By 2020, the Government
estimates that energy and climate change policies will add between
8 and 28% to average electricity prices paid by large energy intensive
users, some of whom are unable to pass this cost onto their customers.
Energy Intensive Industries employ around 600,000
people[3] and
will play an important part in the UK's transition to a low-carbon
economy. Whilst we want to continue to see reductions in emissions
and further innovation in energy efficiency, we need to ensure
our climate change policies do not drive electro intensive industries
abroad to those countries where electricity costs are lower and
carbon emissions less controlled, as this would increase global
carbon emissions.
The package of measures announced by the Chancellor
will provide compensation for the indirect costs of the Carbon
Price Floor (CPF) and EU ETS, subject to State Aid rules. The
package covers industry sectors which are electricity-intensive
(not gas-intensive, given that UK gas prices are the lowest in
the EU 15).
The European Commission has accepted the case for
compensation to electricity intensive industries from the costs
passed through to them by electricity generators, arising from
EU ETS. For this reason, in May 2012, the Commission published
guidelines to member states on how ETS compensation can be applied.
The CPF is a UK-only policy which will also affect
the price of electricity in a similar way to the EU ETS. The presence
of a compensatory measure for those most at competitive risk is
an important element of the CPF policy - itself a policy measure
designed to increase low carbon investment. The compensation for
the costs of ETS and CPF need to be considered in this context
and in the context of other energy efficiency measures placed
on businesses, including CCAs.
The package also announced an increase on the Climate
Change Levy (CCL) discount on electricity for CCA participants
available from 1 April 2013 from the previously announced level
of 65 per cent to 90 per cent. Sectors who receive the increased
CCL rebate will still be bound by the energy efficiency targets
of their CCA agreements.
We consider the compensation will offer crucial support
to those most at risk of international competitiveness and carbon
leakage during the period of transition to lower carbon energy.
Policy applications
4. It is evident that the consideration of consumption-based
emissions encourages the development of new policy options, as
revealed by the experiences of regional authorities that have
adopted a consumption-based approach to emissions accounting.
We recommend that DECC explore the options for incorporating consumption-based
emissions data into the policy making process, and set out the
steps it will take when responding to the Committee's report.
(Paragraph 39)
The Government agrees it is important for new policies
to consider consumption-based emissions. Appraisal guidance for
valuing policy impacts on greenhouse gases (GHGs) and energy,
jointly produced by DECC and HM Treasury, already recommends that
consumption-based emissions should be considered when these impacts
are expected to be significant and where the analysis can be appropriately
carried out [4]
For example, the recent
Impact Assessment on revised UK packaging targets included consideration
of 'international' emissions savings - where the additional recycling
meant that there were savings in consumption emissions.
As the Committee are aware, there are inevitably
important practical complications in assessing the carbon impact
of imported products. For example, consumption-based emissions
are product-specific, and depend on the country of origin, the
brand, and the specific model. It is difficult to know exactly
which products will be affected by a policy, and even when this
is known, then it is difficult to quantify the level of embedded
emissions within these.
Whilst the methods and data required to quantify
the levels of embedded emissions in products are developing quickly,
in practice, the limitations of existing data, and lack of precision
on how policies impact on particular products, mean the quantification
of embedded emissions in policy analysis is limited. It is possible
that policy analysis could be adapted to consider the risk rather
than the levels of embedded emissions, and the Government will
scope a risk-assessment approach for evaluating the potential
impacts of policy on consumption-based emissions. This will review
how these emissions could be assessed in the context of policy
appraisal. A peer review of this scoping note will then take place
to determine the extent to which it could be incorporated into
policy development and appraisal.
So that we may obtain a balanced understanding of
the UK's contribution to reducing global emissions, the Government
will also take steps to increase the prominence of consumption-based
emissions on websites, and in statistical releases, where both
territorial emissions and consumption emissions could be presented.
5. The 9% fall in the UK's consumption-based emissions
between 2008 and 2009 was primarily a result of the economic downturn,
rather than of the UK's policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Discounting the effects of the recession, the UK's consumption-based
emissions have been on an upward trend since 1990. (Paragraph
43)
It is too early to say whether the UK's consumption-based
emissions are still on an upward trend. Although the recession
- and other factors such as changes to electricity production
and mild winter periods - clearly had an impact on the figure
for 2009, we do not have firm evidence to support the assertion
that the UK's consumption emissions are still on an upward trend
once the effects of the recession are discounted. Setting aside
the 2009 estimate, Defra's recent statistical release shows that
the UK's carbon dioxide consumption-based emissions decreased
by 2.7% between 2006 and 2008, while household final consumption
expenditure rose by 2.6%.[5]
6. DECC's argument that there is insufficient,
robust data on embedded emissions to make policy, overlooks the
extent to which consumption-based emissions can be used to connect
an individual's consumption to their impact on the climate. We
are not convinced that consumption based emissions data are too
complex or time consuming to gather, as Defra's work in this area
shows. The experiences of regional authorities has demonstrated
that there is sufficiently robust data available to encourage
the development of new policy options and identify carbon-intensive
behaviours that are overlooked by concentrating on territorial
emissions alone. We recommend that in this case, the Government
does not make the perfect the enemy of the good. In its response
to the Committee's report, the Government should avoid using the
uncertainties inherent to consumption-based emissions data as
an excuse for inaction. (Paragraph 48)
Please see the response to recommendation 4.
7. We conclude that that the UK's energy and climate
change policy challenges do not lend themselves to simplistic
analysis by a single data set. The growth in the UK's consumption-emissions
does provide a counter-story to the one suggested by territorial
emissions and we recommend that the Minister give more detailed
consideration to the evidence gathered in our inquiry and presented
here. We recommend that DECC no longer rely exclusively on territorial
emissions as their primary policy driver. DECC's belief that territorial
emissions are a better indicator of the UK's impact on the global
climate is short-sighted and neglects the global impact of our
consumption. Basing policy decisions on a single method of accounting
for emissions is likely to have unintended consequences. In order
to avoid perverse incentives, we recommend that DECC increase
the extent to which they consider consumption-based emissions
when making policy. (Paragraph 53)
Please see the response to recommendation 4.
8. The Committee on Climate Change has stated
that it would welcome the opportunity to explore the implications
that consumption-based emissions accounting may have for the UK's
carbon budgets, and that they could undertake such work after
they publish their fourth progress report on the carbon budget
in June 2012. We recommend that the Government commission the
Committee on Climate Change to undertake this work. (Paragraph
56)
The Government will discuss with the CCC what work
could be done on consumption-based emissions, subject to sufficient
space in their work plan. More detailed discussions would need
to take place with the CCC to agree the scope of work, and the
specific questions we would seek advice on, before it could be
formally commissioned by the Government.
The Government's position
9. DECC's claim that the UK is only responsible
for 2% of global emissions—without acknowledgement of the
caveat that this is on a territorial basis and does not take account
of the emissions embedded in the goods we import—is unhelpful
in terms of understanding our impact on the global climate. We
recommend that when the Government refers to the proportion of
global emissions that the UK is responsible for it should always
state on what basis that proportion has been determined: territorial
or consumption. (Paragraph 60)
The Government agrees on the need to be as transparent
as possible when communicating the basis for statistics. In future,
where appropriate, press notices and other public-facing documents,
will state whether the proportion of global emissions being referred
to is determined on a consumption or territorial basis.
In addition, as described in our response to Recommendation
4, we will take steps to increase the prominence of embedded emissions
on websites and in statistical releases.
10. We recommend that Government departments work
together to communicate the full picture of the UK's impact on
the global climate. DECC is correct in stating that the UK's territorial
emissions have been falling since 1990. Defra is also correct
when it states that the UK's consumption emissions have been rising
since 1990. It is only when these two perspectives are presented
together that the full picture of the UK's impact on the climate
is revealed. (Paragraph 63)
The Government agrees presenting territorial and
consumption emissions together presents the fullest picture of
the UK's climate impacts; 'Measuring Progress: Sustainability
Development indicators 2010' already sets out to do this. It provides
an extensive range of economic, social and environmental indicators
to give an overview of the country's progress towards sustainable
development. The greenhouse gases section presents carbon dioxide
emissions from UK consumption alongside the UK's domestic emission
totals.
The UK greenhouse gas emissions section of the DECC
website provides details on different approaches for reporting
UK greenhouse gas emissions as well as information related to
climate change published by other government bodies. This includes:
information about emissions that is set out in the National Accounts,
produced annually by the Office for National Statistics; consumption-based
emissions reporting produced by Defra; and the "UK Biodiversity
Indicators in Your Pocket" produced by the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee. The website already provides an explanation of the
differences between the Environmental Accounts (EA) and United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reporting.
To provide further transparency, the Government will publish an
explanation of differences between UNFCCC reporting and consumption-based
emissions reporting.
11. We were concerned at the start of our inquiry
that DECC officially regard consumption-based emissions as nothing
more than an intellectual curiosity. Since then, possibly in response
to our inquiry, there have been signs of positive developments
in its understanding and approach. This is encouraging. Consumption-based
emissions reporting does more than inform debate: it is an invaluable
tool that should be used alongside data on territorial emissions
when making energy and climate change policy (Paragraph 67)
Climate change negotiations
12. The UK has been a leader on climate policy
for many years. If the UK wishes to lead on low-carbon growth—and
encourage emissions reductions in countries that manufacture and
export goods to the UK—we recommend that the Government
acknowledges the growth in the UK's consumption-based emissions.
The Committee is not proposing that a legally binding agreement
on emissions reductions should be based on consumption rather
than territorial emissions. However, we do recommend that the
Government acknowledge that the UK's consumption is driving up
territorial emissions in other countries. This admission could
increase the UK's leverage over those emissions. DECC should not
dismiss out of hand the potential leverage of a more holistic
assessment of the UK's emissions, and an acknowledgement that
the UK's consumption drives up territorial emissions elsewhere.
(Paragraph 76)
The Government acknowledges that there was a growth
in UK consumption based emissions between 1990 and 2008 and it
is the work that has been carried out by Defra that has helped
draw attention to this. The Government has focussed on getting
international agreement in the UNFCCC to a global legally binding
agreement that will include emission reduction targets for all
major economies as the most effective way of limiting global emissions
and putting pressure on countries to decarbonise, which should
help reduce the emissions embedded in products. Many of the countries
from which we import goods with embedded carbon have economy wide
pledges that will reduce the carbon content of the traded goods
including the US, EU and Japan. We also engage with other countries
to support low-carbon development and hence support emission reductions
across their economies and exports. For example, the UK and China
Low Carbon Co-operation Memorandum of Understanding promotes low-carbon
growth at provincial and city level, and we are collaborating
with India on the development of its flagship energy efficiency-based
trading scheme.
We welcome the Committee's recognition that the focus
on territorial emissions is the right one and we accept that UK
consumption of imported products impacts on territorial emissions
in exporting countries. If there were opportunities where focussing
on consumption emissions would leverage greater action rather
than distract from the primary focus of the discussions then we
would look to exploit them.
13. We accept that territorial emissions should
remain the basis for international climate negotiations. However,
the UK Government's emphasis on territorial emissions means that
the responsibility for reducing emissions embedded in the products
that we import lies with the—often, developing—countries
where the goods are manufactured. We accept there is a risk that
some exporters could have concerns that an increased emphasis
on consumption-based emissions by the UK could be a precursor
to anti-trade policies that penalised high-carbon products. On
balance, however, we conclude that the potential benefits of an
increased emphasis on consumption based emissions outweigh this
risk. We recommend that the Government acknowledges the extent
of our responsibility for these emissions in developing countries,
in order to encourage a more equitable approach to reducing emissions
globally (Paragraph 80)
The benefits of trade accrue to both the exporting
country in the generation of income and to the importing country
in satisfying a demand. While Governments and citizens should
have a clear understanding of the emissions that arise as a consequence
of their consumption choices, in terms of designing policy, national
governments, both the UK and others, have greater responsibility
for and more direct control over their territorial emissions.
We will continue to direct control over our territorial emissions.
In addition, strong opposition to border adjustment mechanisms
means that these could risk undermining our push for an equitable
and effective international deal - the most effective way to reduce
emissions globally. If we identify opportunities where discussing
consumption-based emissions will catalyse greater global action
we will pursue them.
14. We recognise that the introduction of border
tariff adjustments, to account for the carbon embedded in a product
as it crosses into a country, is unlikely to be welcomed by exporting
countries, particular those whose economies are developing. We
recommend that the Government examine the challenges and opportunities
that border tariff adjustments present when considering ways to
limit consumption emissions and mitigate leakage risks. The Committee
on Climate Change has declared its willingness and availability
to undertake an investigation into consumption-based emissions,
including an exploration of border tariff adjustment. (Paragraph
83)
We agree with the Committee's finding that there
is opposition from many developing countries to pricing carbon
in international trade flows. This strong opposition means that
border tariff adjustments could undermine prospects for a cooperative
international agreement, which is the most effective way to tackle
emissions. But there are even more fundamental difficulties. Border
tariff adjustments (BTA) pose a number of serious problems in
terms of practicality, legality and wider impact on the world
trade system. Even assuming any system of BTAs could be made WTO-compatible,
it is likely to impose serious administrative burdens on companies
and would stifle trade. BTAs could also be open to protectionist
abuse. As the Committee highlights, BTAs pose a number of serious
problems. They could be highly damaging to the international trade
system and wider trade relations and could have large unintended
costs; they would also be costly to administer and would be challenging
to implement in a way that accurately reflected the carbon content
of internationally traded goods.
To date, the UK position is that the arguments against
BTAs are stronger than the arguments in favour - current evidence
suggests BTAs do not offer a viable solution to the issue of consumption-based
emissions. We have therefore opposed their use, instead favouring
alternative policies to tackle carbon leakage (location of production
to outside the EU) and promote international cooperation to limit
carbon emissions. However, we remain open to exploring BTAs further
and welcome studies which offer more detail on the issues.
Changing behaviour
15. We disagree with DECC's claim that the only
way to affect emissions associated with UK consumption is for
countries that export the products we consume to lower their carbon
intensities. Reducing the carbon intensity of exporting countries
is helpful, but it fails to address that emissions are also rising
because the UK is consuming more. The UK's consumption cannot
rise indefinitely and we see a role for consumption-based emissions
reporting in addressing this unsustainable behaviour and in encouraging
UK-based consumers and businesses to pay more attention to the
overall carbon footprint of the goods and services they purchase.
(Paragraph 88)
The Government agrees with the Committee that we
need to improve the efficiency of the UK's consumption as well
as driving down production emissions in order to reduce our overall
carbon footprint. The Waste and Resources Action Programme has
published evidence on the contribution of resource efficiency
to climate change[6]
which shows that consumption side strategies could deliver
significantly larger savings than production based ones.
Businesses increasingly have a good grip on their
own supply chain impacts and have a key role in targeting emissions
'hotspots' and in enabling consumers to make lower-carbon choices.
There is a range of policies in place to support businesses to
do this:
a) Sharing supply chain evidence and impact data.
The Product Sustainability Forum, hosted by the Waste and Resources
Action Programme, is developing open source evidence and guidance
for the grocery and home improvement sectors. Making this data
and hotspots information freely available will enable businesses
in these sectors to find out where to target their efforts, without
undertaking full scale life cycle analyses for all of their products.
WRAP plan to co-ordinate similar work for other sectors in future.
b) Footprinting methodologies and standards.
The Government has supported the development of the PAS2050, a
publicly available specification providing a method for assessing
the life cycle GHG emissions of goods and services. It can be
used by organisations of all sizes and types, in any location,
to assess the climate change impact of their products. The Government
also supports the promotion and adherence to standards which embody
the life cycle approach, such as the CEN TC350 standard in construction,
which has been developed in Europe to homogenise the measurement
of embedded emissions in sustainable buildings.
c) Stimulating markets for low carbon products.
The UK's Government Buying Standards set minimum sustainability
criteria for public purchasing and are mandatory for central government.
These take a whole life-cycle approach and in some cases these
standards take into account the embodied carbon from the production
process. For example, the assessment methodology used in the UK's
Code for Sustainable Homes and Government Buying Standards on
new builds and major refurbishments recognises and encourages
the use of construction materials with a low environmental impact
(including embodied carbon) over the full life cycle of a building.
We are seeking to develop the Government Buying Standards so they
in many more cases take into account whole life cycle emissions,
including production impacts. We believe that the European Procurement
Directives allow this, but, as the Directives are in the process
of being renegotiated, we are seeking to address any outstanding
uncertainty.
d) Greener business models.
As part of the drive towards a green economy, Government is seeking
to encourage greater commercial uptake of service-based business
models. Switching consumption away from new product sales and
towards service solutions will reduce resource use and waste and
cut embedded emissions. We are working, with the Waste and Resources
Action Programme, to help businesses to develop and pilot new
greener business models. For example, they might move to leasing
products rather than selling them, or to making money from repair,
upgrading or refurbishment, or through re-use of products by successive
customers.
e) Company environmental reporting
Defra encourages companies to measure and report on their direct
and indirect emissions, including those in the supply chain. We
publish guidance and emission factors to help calculate emissions
for all scopes. Further discussion of consumer information and
behaviour is included at Recommendation 17 below.
16. We conclude that consumption-based emissions
reporting can be used to inform people of the impacts of their
own behaviour on global emissions. This has been demonstrated
by the experience of regional authorities, which have used consumption-based
emissions metrics to engage with their citizens more effectively.
We recommend that this is reflected in the forthcoming demand-side
work of the recently opened Energy Efficiency Development Office
in DECC. (Paragraph 92)
The Energy Efficiency Deployment Office (EEDO) has
a wide remit to consider where the additional energy efficiency
potential is in the UK economy and, accounting for the impact
of existing Government policies, consider how this potential could
be best addressed. This will include reviewing how individuals
and businesses are better empowered to make decisions that, for
example, will benefit them through lower energy bills and benefit
the planet through lower carbon emissions. Whether consumption-based
emissions' reporting is the most effective way to do this will
need to be considered against the other options that are available
and the customer behaviour evidence base that EEDO is developing.
In this assessment it will be important to take into
account lessons from behavioural economics/science, which shows
that providing information often has surprisingly modest impacts
when it attempts to change individuals' behaviour. For example,
the MINDSPACE report prepared by the Institute of Government for
Cabinet Office states that "One meta-analysis of pro-environmental
behaviours reported that at least 80% of the factors influencing
behaviour did not result from knowledge or awareness".
17. We acknowledge that progress has made on eco-labelling
of products in order to encourage more sustainable consumption,
but we conclude that more could be done to make use of the data
that Defra collects on consumption-based emissions. Government
should do more to make people aware of the consumption-based emissions
data gathered by Defra. We recommend that DECC recognise the limitations
of territorial emissions in trying to communicate to consumers
how they can change their behaviour in order to reduce emissions
globally. Even if an increased emphasis on consumption-based emissions
has no impact on the UK's local territorial emissions, the UK
has to address its consumption if it is to make an effective contribution
to a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (Paragraph 96)
The Government agrees that it is important to communicate
the UK's total carbon footprint, as illustrated by the consumption
emissions data published by Defra. Measures to do more to communicate
this information are discussed at Recommendation 10 above.
We also agree that behaviour change has a role to
play in addressing the UK's consumption emissions. However, to
be helpful, information for citizens needs to be based more on
"bottom up" life cycle analysis data which will enable
them to make decisions about how to buy and use specific products
and services, rather than the 'top down' data from input-output
models of the whole economy that is published on national consumption
emissions.
Green claims and labels can help people to make informed
choices by giving information about the environmental impact and
qualities of products or services. Defra's Green Claims Guidance
provides advice to help business make clear, accurate, relevant
and substantiated environmental claims on products and in advertising.
It highlights the need to consider full lifecycle environmental
impacts.
Some environmental product labelling schemes, such
as the EU Ecolabel, which provide citizens with assurance of high
environmental standards do cover embedded emissions (e.g. the
criteria for Ecolabelled paper include a maximum threshold for
carbon dioxide in production). However, it is not clear that consumers
will buy one product rather than another just because less carbon
was emitted in its production, so measures to encourage citizens
to behave differently need to go beyond direct messages and product
labelling.
We already have the range of policies outlined at
recommendation 15 above and, as part of its work to support the
green economy; the Government will continue to look for opportunities
to use policies to address consumption emissions.
1 Minx, J.C., Baiocchi, G., Wiedmann, T. and Barrett,
J., 2009, Understanding Changes in UK CO2 Emissions 1992-2004: A Structural Decomposition Analysis,
Report to the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
by Stockholm Environment Institute at the University of York and
the University of Durham, DEFRA, London, UK. Back
2
House of Commons Parliamentary office of Science & Technology
postnote on low carbon technologies for EIIs -No 403, Feb 2012. Back
3
House of Commons Parliamentary office of Science & Technology
postnote on low carbon technologies for EIIs -No 403, Feb 2012. Back
4
Valuation of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for appraisal
and evaluation. DECC and HM Treasury, October 2011 Back
5
http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/environment/green-economy/scptb01-ems/
Back
6
WRAP, 2009, Meeting the UK climate change challenge: The contribution
of resource efficiency. WRAP Project EVA128. Report prepared by
Stockholm Environment Institute and University of Durham Business
School, WRAP. Back
| 
