2 The carbon budgets
6. The carbon budgets are intended to reflect a UK
share of the emissions reduction needed to help reduce the risk
of dangerous climate change. In this Part we explore whether there
is a case for changing the level of the carbon budgets in the
light of developments in climate change science and in the international
context for action on cutting emissions.
Developments in climate change
science
7. The CCC recommended in 2008 that the UK's objective
should be to help keep the increase in average mean global temperature
in 2100 "as close to 2°C above pre-industrial levels
as possible", and the probability of an increase exceeding
2-4°C as low as possible.[14]
In order to meet that climate objective, global emissions would
have to peak by 2020 and then fall by 3-4% a year. Concentrations
of greenhouse gases, measured in CO2-equivalent terms,
"would peak at around 500 [parts per million (ppm)] by the
end of the century before falling towards 450ppm". The Climate
Change Act targets, and their associated carbon budgets, were
designed to reflect the UK's contribution to that global climate
change objective. [15]
8. We noted in our 2011 report that the UK carbon
budgets reflected around a 50% chance of globally exceeding
2°C.[16] In this
inquiry, Sandbagan environmental NGOargued that
the UK's climate change targets were a "disingenuous application"
of the international commitment[17]
to limit global temperatures to below 2°C.[18]
In a similar vein, Professor Kevin Anderson of University of Manchester
and colleagues believed that two budgets were emergingone
consistent with the UK's position internationally (limiting the
probability of exceeding 2°C to 10%) and the other consistent
with domestic commitments (a 63% probability of exceeding 2°C)each
with radically different emission pathways.[19]
David Kennedy, Chief Executive of the CCC, told us that the distribution
of possible temperature rises needed to avoid dangerous climate
change was focused very closely around an increase of 2°C.
He was more concerned about keeping the probability of a "catastrophic"
4°C temperature rise, that we are currently on track to experience,
to "very low levels".[20]
Prof Hansen told us that limiting warming to 2°C should be
regarded as "an upper bound" of acceptable warming.[21]
Many countries advocate a 1.5°C target.[22]
We also heard concerns that the carbon budgets had not been set
on a globally equitable basis, and therefore that they were too
generous for the UK and other developed countries.[23]
Friends of the Earth believed that, reflecting an "acceptable
level of risk" (as well as an "equal per capita share"
of remaining emissions), the UK should seek to reduce emissions
by 80% by 2030 rather than by 2050.[24]
9. When the CCC provided its advice to the Government
in 2008, it noted uncertainties in climate change science[25]
that could affect the level of the carbon budgets in future.[26]
Using evidence from the Met Office, the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change and others, the CCC reviews any new research
in developing its advice on setting each new carbon budget.[27]
The Met Office is a major contributor to the IPCC's seven-yearly
Assessment Reports on climate science. The Met Office noted that
the modelling used in the forthcoming IPCC Fifth Assessment report[28]
could be up to 10 years old, and it was therefore important that
the latest modelling results and science were provided to Government
"on a continuous basis".[29]
The CCC is looking at changes in climate science as part of its
review of the fourth carbon budget.[30]
10. There has recently been a heightened focus on
two particular areas: climate 'feedback' effects and revised estimates
of 'climate sensitivity', which we discuss below.
FEEDBACK EFFECTS
11. Feedback processes[31]
will affect the extent and speed of future climate change.[32]
In its 2008 advice on the Climate Change Act and carbon budgets,
the CCC stated that some feedback processes, such as the release
of natural methane stores from northern wetlands or from the oceans,
are "less certain and so are not currently incorporated"
into climate models, including those of the Met Office.[33]
Aubrey Meyer from the Global Commons Institute was concerned that
the Met Office had not included feedbacks in its climate modelling
in 2008,[34] which he
believed had contributed to the Climate Change Act targets being
"inadequate, opaque, prescriptive and misleading". He
believed also that more recently some feedback effects had been
omitted from the Met Office modelling, including emissions released
from warming permafrost[35],
loss of albedo reflectivity from the Arctic and a "viral
attack" on organisms that contribute to the 'carbon sink'
effect of the ocean.[36]
To improve transparency, he advocated measuring and budgeting
for 'human' emissions separately from 'feedback' emissions.[37]
He argued that the feedback effect from melting permafrost made
it impossible to secure the eventual reduction in global emissions
projected by the Met Office and the CCC.[38]
He was unable to put values on all feedbacks,[39]
but assessed that carbon budgets should be based on limiting greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere to 200ppm.[40]
This compared with CO2 levels already reaching 391ppm[41]
in 2011 and continuing to grow at 2ppm over the past decade.[42]
Earlier this year several monitoring stations measured concentrations
of CO2 at 400ppm.
12. Professor Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist at the
Met Office, told us that the Met Office had fed a "full earth
system model that includes feedbacks associated with the terrestrial
carbon cycle" into the IPCC's Fifth Assessment report. Careful
judgements were needed about which feedbacks to include in climate
models.[43] The Met Office
was "very cautious" about the risk of introducing feedbacks
processes that "we know are either not well constrained by
observation or where the science is not mature enough" or
else risk "going into fairyland".[44]
The Met Office had not included possible feedbacks from melting
permafrost in its climate models, but work was underway to estimate
the possible range of emissions from this source.[45]
As part of the CCC's review of the fourth carbon budget (paragraph
31), it would carry out some modelling on emissions from permafrost
melting,[46] but it was
too soon to assess whether the consequential impact on global
temperatures would be significant.[47]
13. Aubrey Meyer also questioned the Met Office's
modelling of the impact of 'carbon sinks' (which remove carbon
from the atmosphere). He believed that adverse feedback effects
would be so significant that they would not allow carbon sinks
eventually to reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere.[48] In a
similar vein, Dr Mayer Hillman told us that the consequences of
rising temperatures and the clearing of rainforests raised concerns
about the loss of "sink function".[49]
Dr Jason Lowe from the Met Office told us, however, that a "whole
range of earth system models of different complexities" demonstrated
that when carbon emissions were reduced it was plausible that
atmospheric CO2 concentrations would peak before anthropogenic
emissions reached zero because of the action of carbon sinks.[50]
He told us:
As we start to reduce the emissions, we have
changed the sinks from the present-day value, and we have changed
them in such a way that they are able to take up sufficient carbon
that the CO2 concentration is able to peak and come
down the other side.[51]
The Met Office thought it was prudent, nevertheless,
to repeat the assessment of the carbon budgets as new understanding
of how the Earth system works becomes available and can be quantified.[52]
CLIMATE SENSITIVITY
14. In December 2012 the Met Office published its
revised global decadal forecast,[53]
predicting a slower rate of warming in the next 5 years than it
did in 2011: average temperatures were likely to be 0.43°C
(rather than of 0.54°C) above the long-term average by 2017.
Decadal forecasts provide essential information about ocean 'weather'
and how it will evolve in the next few years in the context of
a globally warming world. They do not tell us anything about long-term
climate sensitivity. The Met Office highlighted that the Earth
was "expected to maintain the record warmth that has been
observed over the last decade and new record global temperatures
may be reached in the next 5 years".[54]
It also concluded that temperatures will remain well above the
long-term average and we will continue to see temperatures like
those which resulted in 2000-2009 being the warmest decade in
the instrumental record dating back to 1850.[55]
The Committee on Climate Change has also commented on the surface
temperature findings, noting that other lines of evidence continue
to support the high end of the range for climate sensitivity.[56]
In March 2013, a comparison of global temperature observations
and model simulations[57]
showed that increases in surface temperatures since 2005 had been
at the low end of the range of projections derived from climate
models.
15. Whilst the decadal forecasts are not an indication
of climate sensitivity, and surface temperature is one of a several
climate indicators (others include ocean heat, sea level, sea
ice cover and mountain glaciers), some sections of the press used
the publication of the revised decadal forecast to suggest that
the sensitivity of the climate to increasing concentrations of
greenhouse gas emissions had been exaggerated.[58]
Professor Slingo from the Met Office thought that the decadal
forecast was "being misrepresented in the media to try to
make a storythe decadal forecast "[tells] us much
more about natural variability in the climate system" and
"very little that relates to climate change per se".[59]
Ed Hawkins, who produced the chart of observed global temperatures
against climate model outputs, has said that it is incorrect to
interpret the result as evidence that forecasts are wrong. Whilst
the most sensitive simulations may be less likely, observations
have remained within the predicted range and the underlying temperature
trend is still rising.[60]
Professor Myles Allen of University of Oxford highlighted the
high level of accuracy of one of the first forecasts based on
climate models.[61] He
told us:
... the assertion that temperatures have
not risen as fast as predicted is simply wrong ... In fact the
temperatures of the past decade have been pretty much exactly
as was predicted for the decade back in the 1990s ...[62]
Professor Slingo told us that, because the science
was complex, the challenge for scientists was to "find ways
to make that science accessible without diminishing both the integrity
and the importance of the science message".[63]
16. At the heart of the recent controversy is a perceived
mismatch between rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphereat
2 ppm per year over the past decadeand negligible temperature
increases since 1998.[64]
This could be explained partly by the lack of a full understanding
of 'climate sensitivity'how the climate responds to higher
concentrations of carbon dioxide.[65]
The model used in 2008 to provide information for the carbon budgets[66]
had a climate sensitivity range of 2.4-5.4°C per trillion
tonnes of CO2 emissions.[67]
That model, along with others, was considered by the IPCC when
it produced its 2007 Assessment Report, which found climate sensitivity
was likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C per trillion
tonnes of CO2 emissions, with a best estimate of 3°C.
It was "very unlikely" to be less than 1.5°C, and
values higher than 4.5°C were "not ruled out".[68]
There has been some speculation that the IPCC's next Assessment
report might revise down its previous estimate of climate sensitivity,[69]
although David Kennedy told us that he did not expect this to
happen because there has not been a fundamental shift in the science
around climate sensitivity.[70]
Factors that might explain recent global temperature increases
being at the lower end of the forecasts made by climate models
include the role of aerosols (which reflect sunlight away), clouds
and the oceans, and Sun activity.[71]
17. Professor Myles Allen told us that, while the
climate models which predict sensitivity at the "extreme
top of the range look less likely", most models were still
"consistent with the observations".[72]
The Met Office stated that the sensitivity range in its models
"falls inside" the range of the newer estimates. Crucially,
there was "significant overlap" between those newer
climate sensitivity estimates and the range used in the earlier
carbon budget analyses.[73]
Similarly, Prof Allen did not see the slight revisions to the
estimates of climate sensitivity as necessitating a change in
the carbon budgets, nor did
they "detract from the overall case for
[carbon] mitigation":
If we discover that ... we only get 1.5 degrees
of warming per trillion tonnes instead of 2 degrees per trillion
tonnes, then it means we have to reduce emissions on average by
1.5% per year instead of 2.5% ... But given that emissions are
currently going up ... [at] the order of 2.5% per year, the difference
between needing to reduce at 1.5% per year and needing to reduce
at 2.5% per year is really neither here nor there as far as climate
policy is concerned. They need to come down.[74]
David Kennedy from the CCC told us that there was
"not any new evidence" that made the CCC "think
differently about climate sensitivity".[75]
18. The carbon budgets are intended to reflect
the UK's share of a global effort on emissions reduction with
only around a 50% chance of global temperature rises not exceeding
2°Cthe threshold widely accepted as a benchmark for
dangerous climate change. We are, however, globally on course
for temperature rises of 4°C. The default assumption should
therefore be that the carbon budgets represent the minimum level
of emissions reduction required by the climate change science.
Climate models are not yet able to include some potentially significant
feedback effects, but continue to be developed, improving our
understanding. Since we last reported in 2011, there has been
controversy about a mismatch between rising greenhouse gas concentrations
in the atmosphere and negligible global temperature increases
since the late 1990s, giving the false impression to some that
the risk of climate change has been overstated. While the range
of likely climate sensitivity may have slightly narrowed, most
climate models are still consistent with observations and therefore
do not lessen the imperative to take action to avoid dangerous
climate change. The Committee on Climate Change should continue
to keep the level of the carbon budgets under review to fully
reflect the evolving climate change science, and the Government
should be ready to tighten these budgets on advice from CCC.
19. The carbon budgets are, however, only in part
a product of the climate science justification for emissions reduction
by the UK. In practical terms, they are also inextricably linked
to international agreement on the rate of emissions reduction
needed globally and how that obligation will be shared between
states, as we discuss below.
European and international efforts
20. The UK
is seen as a world leader on climate change, having influenced
other countries to take action.[76]
The Government believed that because the "UK contributes
only around 1.2% of global emissions", the UK "needs
to encourage action from others".[77]
Existing voluntary international
emissions reduction commitments[78]
would produce a trajectory "probably resulting in a 3-4°C
rise in the global average temperature by 2100".[79]
The Committee on Climate Change believed that an
"ambitious and comprehensive global deal" was therefore
needed to drive the new policies required to limit the global
temperature rise to 2°C.[80]
The Government told us that it was "continuing to press for
increased action at the international level and considers that
the best chance of securing that is through a legally binding
global agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change".[81] At
the Framework Convention conference in Durban in 2011, consensus
was reached on drawing up a global emissions reduction agreement
by 2015, which would come into force from 2020.[82]
In 2012, the existing Kyoto protocol was extended to 2020 as a
stop-gap.[83]
21. Professor
James Hansen believed, however, that a "UN-type" approach
to securing global action on climate change did "not have
a chance of being effective". He favoured "limited and
bilateral agreements" between groups of countriessuch
as the US and Chinawho had agreed to have a "working
dialogue". This, he believed, would lead to other countries
then being drawn in.[84]
The Climate Change Minister thought that it was "too early"
to look at alternatives to the admittedly "imperfect"
UN process to secure a global deal: there was "a glimmer
of hope" in current negotiations, which meant that "making
a Plan B at this stage would not be helpful".[85]
22. The EU's policy on emissions is set against the
backdrop of wider UN work on climate change. It has a long-standing
European target to cut emissions by 20% in 2020, relative to 1990.[86]
That is less than the effort needed to put the EU on the trajectory
to deliver its longer-term objective of cutting emissions by 80-95%
by 2050.[87] The EU has
agreed, therefore, to raise the 2020 target to 30%, which would
be consistent with the reductions needed by 2050,[88]
if other developed countries and the more advanced developing
nations committed to comparable emission reductions.[89]
Similarly, the Government has said that it will tighten the second
(2013-2017) and third (2018-2022) carbon budgets as part of any
collective European action.[90]
David Kennedy told us that such a tightening would address the
risk that the Government "sailed along on a path that is
not steep enough in terms of emissions cuts to meet the fourth
carbon budget".[91]
23. The European Commission is consulting on the
development of climate and energy targets for 2030 and intends
to publish proposals at the end of 2013.[92]
Friends of the Earth wanted the EU to set a target of an 80% reduction.[93]
The Government wants the EU to adopt a 50% reduction target for
2030 in the context of a global deal, or 40% without a deal.[94]
The Minister told us that the "UK continues to push for a
greater ambition both in 2020 and 2030", although he did
not want an "unconditional raising" of targets before
the completion of international negotiations.[95]
The CCC "strongly supported" the Government position
because the proposed higher targets were "broadly in line
with the ambition" it had suggested in its advice on setting
the fourth carbon budget.[96]
The Government, however, did not support a proposal for a separate
EU renewable energy target because that would compromise member
states' flexibility over how they secured a least-cost decarbonisation.[97]
24. We welcome the Government's support for the
European Commission's proposal for a higher level of ambition
on tackling climate change. The existing EU target of a 20% emissions
reduction by 2020 needs to be tightened to 30% to put Europe on
a trajectory more likely to avoid dangerous climate change. A
40% or 50% target for 2030 is essential for maintaining momentum
across Europe. If the EU moves from a 20% to a 30% emissions
reduction target for 2020, the Government must tighten its second
and third carbon budgets to make them consistent with the Committee
on Climate Change's intended budget levels.
25. Such a tightening would require more policy effort
to meet the third carbon budget, as we discuss in paragraph 45.
But, as we also discuss below, standing in the way of tighter
budgets is a more fundamental barrier caused by the current weakness
of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and the potential
consequences of a Government review of the fourth carbon budget
that was triggered by that ETS weakness.
Review of the fourth carbon budget
26. Whilst the EU as a whole was on course to meet
the existing 20% emissions reduction target by 2020,[98]
a weak carbon price in the EU ETS was providing little incentive
to reduce emissions.[99]
The European Commission is reforming the EU ETS in two waysdelaying
the auction of emissions allowances ('back-loading') and consulting
on longer term changes in 2014.[100]
The Government "strongly
supported" urgent structural reform of the EU ETS[101]
(although it was unable to agree with our recommendation in January
2013 that the large 'surplus' ETS allowances that many energy
intensive industries had accrued should be offset against any
compensation they would get for the impact of the scheme).[102]
27. When in 2011 the Government decided to accept
the CCC's recommendation on the level of the fourth carbon budgetthe
"absolute minimum" level of ambition[103]it
also announced that there would be a review of that budget in
2014. This
was "pragmatic", the Government argued, because the
precise size of the emissions cap within the EU ETS (which forms
the 'traded' part of the budget) was not known at that time. The
Government stated in 2011 that the level of the fourth carbon
budget was "conditional" on the EU moving to a 30% emissions
reduction target for 2020 and that the Government would "revise
up" (i.e. loosen) the budget if that would be necessary to
align it with the actual EU emissions reduction trajectory.[104]
If the UK achieved significant decarbonisation of the power sector,
the emissions counted against the carbon budgets would not be
the actual emissions but those consistent with the EU ETS cap,
so the UK's ability to meet its unilateral carbon budgets would
be dependent on the ambition implicit in the EU ETS.[105]
The Government was concerned that a generous emissions cap would
put pressure on the already challenging non-traded element of
the budget. Similarly, Professor Anderson and colleagues believed
that this would not be "economically efficient" because
the non-traded sector was less carbon intensive.[106]
28. A laxer traded element of the carbon budget could
make it necessary to find additional emissions reductions in the
non-traded element of the budget, and the UK was already off-track
to meet the non-traded element of the fourth carbon budget. David
Kennedy contended that more policy effort was needed on energy
efficiency improvement, renewable heat across all of the sectors,
and transport.[107]
The Government's projections of emissions in the December 2011
Carbon Plan show an expected shortfall of 205 MtCO2e in
the fourth carbon budget period, "indicating the amount of
additional policy effort that would be required to meet the budget",
along with "scenarios for bridging an estimated 181 MtCO2e
of the shortfall".[108]
29. The Minister told us that, because the fourth
carbon budget period (2023-2027) was still a "fair time into
the future", the Government would not at this stage set out
its detailed policies or technologies to address that gap.[109]
It was too early to predict how "two critical factors"
might determine whether the targets are metvehicle emissions
and the uptake of low-carbon heat.[110]
The Government was not, however, "complacent about the challenge"
in addressing the shortfall,[111]
and there was a "huge amount of policy work to do".[112]
(In Part 3 we look in more detail at the need for new policies
to meet the carbon budgets). DECC also noted that the fourth carbon
budget period also lay beyond the current time-horizon of the
EU ETS, with which the review would have to deal:
The power sector and industry are capped under
the EU ETS and we simply take our share of the EU Emissions Trading
Scheme cap as our traded section of the carbon budget. If the
EU decides to loosen it or tighten it that will simply be enshrined
as our share. We all agree across Government that we need to align
the fourth carbon budget traded sector with whatever the EU ETS
cap is. The question is when to do thatto do that before
we know what the picture is post-2020 or after.[113]
30. The Climate Change Act was "very tightly
drafted" to prevent changes to the carbon budgets on "short-term
political whim",[114]
thereby providing "certainty within which policies and technologies
could develop".[115]
The carbon budgets can only be amended if there have been "significant
changes" affecting the basis on which the budgets have previously
been set. Any proposed amendment requires advice from the CCC
to be considered and for Parliament to approve it.[116]
The then Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change told
us in 2011 that changes to the cap would "automatically"
feed through into the carbon budgets and therefore not count as
a "significant change" under the provisions of the Climate
Change Act.[117] To
help bring some clarity, in our earlier report we recommended
that the Government set out what sort of 'changes' could therefore
sustain a lawfully compliant adjustment in the carbon budgets,
but the Government failed to respond to that recommendation allowing
confusion to persist.[118]
31. In this inquiry, David Kennedy told us that the
EU moving to a 30% emissions reduction target for 2020 (paragraph
22) was "never a premise for the fourth carbon budget"
and therefore the fact that it had not happened did not constitute
a change in the basis upon which the fourth carbon budget was
set.[119] The Government
appeared to disagree with the CCC's view, having reached its own
"internal position" on having a fourth carbon budget
which took account of "European ambition" on emissions.[120]
The CCC's review would consider, however, the EU's path for emissions
reduction in the 2020s because that was one of the factors it
considered in its advice on the fourth carbon budget.[121]
David Kennedy told us that the "Climate Change Act is very
clear": the review "is for the Committee on Climate
Change; it is not for the Government". The CCC would advise
the Government on "whether there is a reason or not to change
the carbon budget and the Government has to make its deliberations".[122]
32. Regardless of whether the decision on the fourth
carbon budget was predicated on the EU increasing its ambition,
it appears that the challenge of meeting the traded sector element
of the carbon budgets has eased. The UK was not "bumping
up against" constraints imposed by the EU ETS;[123]
rather the scheme was now too lax to drive adequate decarbonisation
(we look at the need for a UK decarbonisation target for the energy
sector in paragraphs 54-59). Ravi Gurumurthy from DECC told us:
Since the last carbon budget was set, the context
has changed quite a lot. In particular, given the economic slowdown
in Europe, some of the targets have become easier to achieve ....
When the CCC recommended [the traded sector component of the fourth
carbon budget], that equated to a power sector decarbonisation
level in 2030 of about 50 grams [per kilowatt hour]. When we set
it, it equated to about 100 grams because already by then the
economic slowdown had affected the emissions production. Now,
that fourth carbon budget equates to about 200 grams emissions
intensity, so ... achieving some of these carbon targets has become
slightly easier.[124]
33. RWE npower believed that there were three options
to address the issues related to the fourth carbon budget: strengthening
the EU ETS cap, planning to deliver greater emissions in the non-traded
sector, or moving energy use from the non-traded sector to the
traded sector (for example through the electrification of heating
and transport).[125]
The UK could also choose not to auction a part of its allocation
of EU ETS allowances, or remove surplus allowances from the scheme
by buying and cancelling them.[126]
Sandbag advocated new carbon accounting techniques to mitigate
the impact of a weak EU ETS cap.[127]
34. The Government runs a number of risks in opening
up the possibility of changing the already-set carbon budgets,[128]
including undermining the UK's international negotiating position
and working against efforts in Europe to agree an ambitious 2030
target (paragraph 22).[129]
David Kennedy told us, nevertheless, that a review of the carbon
budgets was "sensible" and would allow new information
to be considered.[130]
He thought that it was "helpful" to have the review
as scheduled because it allowed the opportunity to take stock
of what was happening under the auspices of the UN. The CCC will
take stock of any knock-on implications for the other budgets
of any global deal when it provides its advice on the fifth carbon
budget in 2015.[131]
Sandbag argued that the review of the fourth carbon budget was
premature, being scheduled to take place before decisions were
taken at EU level relating to the period covered by that budget.[132]
The Government said that it was committed to a review in "early
2014" and it would "look at a full range of options,
from preserving the existing budget to revising it".[133]
The Minister argued that not going through with the announced
review would "undermine confidence in Government policy".[134]
35. Whatever the timing of the review, DECC witnesses
suggested that, if the fourth carbon budget were loosened, there
would be no relaxation in the traded sector element of the budget
because of the risk that that would entail for the prospects of
meeting the longer-term decarbonisation targets:
The fourth carbon budget, if we revise it upwards,
would allow us to recapitalise the power sector and build coal
in the 2020s, because it would allow us to have up to 300 grams.
That is not consistent with our other targets like the 2050 target.
You are not going to be able to start a big, aggressive roll-out
of renewables, stop and then start again. We are already on a
path to over-achieve against the fourth carbon budget in the traded
sector.[135]
... whether the EU ETS discussions go well or
badly, we need to do even more than that to be on a sensible cost-effective
trajectory to 2050 because, even in the existing fourth carbon
budget, it would assume a plateauing of decarbonisation in the
2020s, which is not sensible.[136]
36. A
low carbon pricethe result of structural weaknesses in
the EU Emissions Trading System and the economic downturn of recent
yearsmeans that the traded sector of the UK's carbon budgets
(power generation and heavy industry) will be met. But that may
bring pressure to bear on the non-traded sector (road transport,
agriculture, buildings, waste) which will have to produce further
emissions reductions to cover the gap left by the traded sector.
But there are too many uncertainties at the moment to justify
reviewing and making any change to the 2023-2027 fourth carbon
budget. The Government has yet to determine what emissions reductions
may be possible from addressing policy initiatives in vehicle
emissions, low-carbon heat and other key areas. And it is too
soon to be confident about what EU ETS reforms might be possible
beyond the scheme's current 2020 horizon. It is also far from
clear in what circumstances a 'significant change', required under
the Climate Change Act to make a change to previously agreed carbon
budgets, can be identified. We recommend that the Government
abandon its review of the fourth carbon budget. However, if it
is unwilling to take such a step, it should use its response to
this report, or its response in October to the Committee on Climate
Change's fifth progress report, to (i) commit to not loosening
the fourth carbon budget, (ii) identify when it will come forward
with key policy initiatives to bridge the non-traded sector of
the fourth carbon budget, (iii) state how it plans, through the
discussions with the European Commission, to strengthen the EU
ETS, and (iv) explain what would represent a 'significant change'
to support an adjustment to the budgets under the provisions of
the Climate Change Act.
Widening
the budgets
Emissions from international
aviation and shipping
37. At the time the Climate Change Act was passed,
uncertainties about how aviation and shipping emissions would
be allocated, measured and monitored meant that only domestic
emissions from these sectors were included within the Act's targets.
The Government was required to consider inclusion of international
aviation and shipping emissions by December 2012, taking into
account advice from the CCC.[137]
In that advice the CCC recommended loosening the budgets to allow
the inclusion of these emissions. This, they argued, would provide
certainty and a "more transparent, comprehensive and flexible
accounting framework under the Act".[138]
The Government deferred a decision on including these emissions,
citing uncertainty over the international framework for reducing
aviation emissions and particularly their treatment within the
EU Emissions Trading System. The European Commission has suspended
including this sector into the EU ETS for a year to allow for
the possibility of a global system being developed.[139]
38. Although not formally included, the Government
argued that the existing carbon budgets (up to 2027) left headroom
for these emissions and that the UK was still on a trajectory
where the 2050 target included international aviation and shipping
emissions. David Kennedy thought that the deferral of the decision
on aviation and shipping emissions was "sensible". He
said that the CCC would revisit this area when they advise on
the fifth carbon budget in 2015.[140]
EMISSIONS EMBEDDED IN IMPORTS
39. The carbon budgets reflect emissions produced
in the UK, and exclude emissions embedded in goods imported from
abroad. In 2011 we called on the Government to review the scope
for measuring emissions on such a consumption basis,[141]
and how that might be worked into the carbon budgets regime.[142]
Since then, the Energy and Climate Change Committee and the CCC
have looked at this issue.[143]
40. The CCC found that on a consumption basis the
UK's carbon footprint had increased over the past two decades
so that the UK now had one of the largest footprints in the world.
Growth in imported emissions outweighed reductions in emissions
produced in the UK. As a result of low-carbon policies, there
had been very little emissions reduction from manufacturing moving
abroad ('off-shoring'). Nonetheless, the CCC concluded that the
size of the UK's footprint was "worrying and will need to
be diminished", but continuing to measure emissions on a
production only basis remained appropriate as a basis for a global
deal and for the UK carbon budgets.[144]
David Kennedy told us that the UK had "limited levers"
to reduce consumption emissions, and a global climate change deal
was the only way of reducing them. He believed it would be difficult
to set a 'supplementary target' on these because of difficulties
in measuring them accurately and deciding on the level of any
targets.[145]
41. The Minister told us, similarly, that it was
a "bit premature" to set a supplementary target. Unless
the "world changed the way it counted emissions" there
"was a huge opportunity for confusion" about who is
responsible for reducing consumption emissions. The Government
intended to monitor consumption-based emissions and publish outturn
data annually. He did not believe that policies for reducing consumption
emissions were any different to the policies for reducing production
emissions.[146]
42. The UK has one of the largest carbon footprints
in the world and the recent increase in emissions embedded in
imports has more than offset reductions in domestic emissions.
We welcome the Government's commitment to monitor the UK's carbon
consumption footprint. In preparation for a global deal on
climate change in 2015, inevitably couched in terms of the 'production'
of emissions, the Government should re-examine with the Committee
on Climate Change the possibility of introducing a supplementary
target focused on emissions 'consumption' embedded in imports,
and the potential implications of such a target for the industrial
strategies recently published by BIS.[147]
14 The Committee on Climate Change noted at that time
that "it is no longer possible with certainty, or even with
high probability, to avoid this danger zone" and that adaptation
strategies should be adopted for temperature rises of above 2°C. Back
15
Committee on Climate Change, Building a low-carbon economy-the
UK's contribution to tackling climate change, December 2008
[http://archive.theccc.org.uk/aws3/TSO-ClimateChange.pdf];
http://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/the-science-of-climate-change/setting-a-target-for-emission-reduction/
Back
16
Carbon budgets, op cit. Back
17
2009 Copenhagen Accord. Back
18
Ev w45; see also Ev w36, Ev w19 Back
19
Ev w19 Back
20
Q 86 Back
21
Q1 Back
22
Ev w36 Back
23
Ev w45, Ev 64, Ev w36, Ev w19. We also heard views that the UK
has the highest per capita historical responsibility for climate
change: Ev w36; Q 18 [James Hansen]. Back
24
Ev w36 Back
25
There were different projections of global warming due to a number
of factors, including the natural variability of the climate system
and uncertainties in emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases and
in feedback processes. Also, some 'feedback processes' were not
yet incorporated into climate models because they were less certain
(such as release of natural methane stores from northern wetlands
or from oceans). Back
26
Building a low-carbon economy-the UK's contribution to tackling
climate change, op cit. Back
27
The UK's carbon budgets must be set 12 years in advance. Back
28
Expected in October 2014. Back
29
Ev 62 Back
30
Q 131 Back
31
A climate feedback "happens when a change in our climate
causes an impact which changes our climate further- a knock-on
effect which feeds back into our climate". A negative feedback
offsets the prevailing change in climate-i.e. where there is a
global warming trend, this would create a cooling effect. A positive
feedback increases the change in the climate-i.e. it would add
to global warming by creating further heating. See: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/explained/feedbacks. Back
32
Ev w54, Ev w53 Back
33
Building a low-carbon economy-the UK's contribution to tackling
climate change, op cit. Back
34
Ev 64; see also Ev w39 Back
35
Methane and carbon dioxide. Back
36
Aubrey Meyer also claims that the Met Office's own disclosure
of other feedback effects that "they had omitted only occurred
after pressure was brought to bear" during the EAC's 2009
inquiry on carbon budgets. Qq 21-22; Ev 64, Ev 105 Back
37
Q 25 Back
38
Ev 64 Back
39
Qq 21-22 Back
40
Q 28; Committee on Climate Change's advise is predicated on emissions
peaking at 500 parts per million by the end of the century before
falling towards 450 parts per million. Back
41
40% higher than pre-industrial levels. Back
42
Several monitoring stations measured concentrations of CO2 at
400ppm: http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/documents/400ppm.final.pdf
Back
43
Q 68 Back
44
Q 68; For an overview of the feedback process that the Met Office
believes are understood well, and those less so, see: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/explained/feedbacks Back
45
Q 66 Back
46
Q 133 Back
47
HC Deb, 3 June 2013, Col 944W; Q 134 [David Kennedy], Q 67 [Professor
Slingo]. Back
48
Q 29 Back
49
Ev w54 Back
50
Ev 102 Back
51
Q 69 Back
52
Ev 102 Back
53
The Met Office publish a revised decadal climate prediction for
global temperature at the end of the year. Back
54
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
Back
55
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/decadal-forecasts
Back
56
http://www.theccc.org.uk/blog/climate-science-remains-robust-despite-claims-in-the-mail/ Back
57
Ed Hawkins, NCAS-Climate at the Department of Meteorology, University
of Reading. Back
58
"The crazy climate change obsession that's made the Met Office
a menace", Mail online, 10 January 2013, [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259942/The-crazy-climate-change-obsession-thats-Met-Office-menace.html#axzz2KD4IHrrE];
See also: "The Great Green Con no.1: The hard proof that
finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions
were wrong all along", Mail online, 16 March 2013,
[http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html]. Back
59
Q 62 Back
60
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/comparing-observations-and-simulations-again/ Back
61
Met Office's HadCM2 model [Myles R. Allen, John F. B. Mitchell
and Peter A. Stott, "Test of a decadal climate forecast",
Nature Geoscience, vol 6 (2013)]. Back
62
Q 33 Back
63
Q 56 Back
64
WMO press release: http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/documents/400ppm.final.pdf;
Hadley Centre/ Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia;
David R. Easterling and Michael F. Wehner, "Is the climate
warming or cooling", Geophysical Research Letters,
vol 36 (2009), L08706, [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf]. Back
65
Q 63. A short term measure of climate sensitivity, assessing the
impact of increased emissions over the next 20 years is called
Transient Climate Response (TCR). Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity
(ECS) is a longer term measure that includes longer term processes
such as oceans absorbing heat from the atmosphere. TCR is more
useful when looking for short term emissions projections and ECS
when considering climate stabilisation. Back
66
First three carbon budgets. Back
67
Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. Ev 105. Back
68
Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. IPCC, Fourth Assessment report-Climate
Change 2007: Synthesis Report, 2007, [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf]. Back
69
"Sensitive information", The Economist, 20 July
2013, [http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21581979-peek-inside-next-ipcc-assessment-sensitive-information].
Back
70
Q 131 Back
71
Qq 4,6 [Professor Hansen] Back
72
Qq 33, 40 Back
73
Q 63 Back
74
Q 42 Back
75
Q 131 Back
76
Ev w29, Ev w36, Ev w45 Back
77
Ev 57 Back
78
Under the Copenhagen and Cancun processes. Back
79
Energy and Climate Change Committee, Second Report of Session
2012-13, The road to UNFCCC COP 18 and beyond, HC
88, [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenergy/88/88.pdf].
Back
80
Committee on Climate Change, Reducing the UK's carbon footprint
and managing competitiveness risk, April 2013, [http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/CF-C-Summary-Rep-web1.pdf]. Back
81
Ev 57 Back
82
The United Nations Climate Change Conference, which included the
17thConference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change. Back
83
At the 2012 Doha Climate Change Conference. Back
84
Q 18 Back
85
Q 162 Back
86
The Committee on Climate Change concluded that the UK's 'share'
of the EU 2020 target is reflected in the UK's Climate Change
Act target of a 34% cut by 2020. Back
87
Committee on Climate Change, Building a low-carbon economy-the
UK's contribution to tackling climate change, December 2008,
page 110, [http://archive.theccc.org.uk/aws3/TSO-ClimateChange.pdf]. Back
88
ibid. Back
89
European Commission, Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable
and inclusive growth, March 2010, page 9, [http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/documents/related-document-type/index_en.htm]. Back
90
In its 2008 report, the CCC proposed an 'intended' carbon budgets
(2008-2022) which corresponded to the UK share of an EU 30% 2020
target. Back
91
Qq 140, 141; Moving from the third intended budget to the fourth
budget "would entail a feasible reduction of 13% over a five-year
period", but moving from the third Interim budget to the
fourth budget would "require a much more challenging 23%
reduction": Committee on Climate Change, The Fourth Carbon
Budget: Reducing emissions through the 2020s, December 2010,
[http://downloads.theccc.org.uk.s3.amazonaws.com/4th%20Budget/CCC-4th-Budget-Book_with-hypers.pdf]. Back
92
"On 27 March 2013, the European Commission adopted a Green
Paper on a 2030 framework for climate and energy policies. This
document launched a public consultation lasting until 2 July,
allowing Member States, other EU institutions and stakeholders
to express their views ... Those views will feed into the Commission's
on-going preparations for more concrete proposals for the 2030
framework which will be tabled by the end of 2013": http://ec.europa.eu/energy/green_paper_2030_en.htm
Back
93
Ev w36 Back
94
Q 162 [Greg Barker] Back
95
Qq 151, 159 -160; UN Climate Change conference in November 2013
[http://unfccc.int/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/meeting/7649.php]
and run up to negotiations on a global deal. Back
96
Committee on Climate Change, Meeting Carbon Budgets - 2013
Progress Report to Parliament, June 2013, [http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CCC-Prog-Rep-Book_singles_web_1.pdf]. Back
97
HC Deb, 4 June 2013, Col 91WS. Back
98
Q 151 [Greg Barker] Back
99
The Committee on Climate Change note that a strong EU ETS carbon
price will help incentivise emissions reductions and lesson the
competitiveness impacts of the UK's unilateral carbon price underpin.
Back
100
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/reform/index_en.htm Back
101
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209860/Joint_Statement_on_the_EU_Emissions_Trading_System__2_.pdf Back
102
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Government
Response to the Environmental Audit Committee's Report on the
Energy Intensive Industries Compensation Scheme, Cm 8618,
May 2013, [http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/environmental-audit/GRenergyintensivescheme.pdf].
Back
103
Committee on Climate Change, The Fourth Carbon Budget: Reducing
emissions through the 2020s, December 2010, [http://downloads.theccc.org.uk.s3.amazonaws.com/4th%20Budget/CCC-4th-Budget-Book_with-hypers.pdf]. Back
104
HM Government, Implementing the Climate Change Act 2008: The
Government's proposal for setting the fourth carbon budget,
May 2011, [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48081/1683-4th-carbon-budget-policy-statement.pdf]. Back
105
Ev w13 Back
106
Ev w19 Back
107
Q 139 Back
108
DECC, Updated energy and emissions projections 2012, October
2012, [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65717/6660-updated-emissions-projections-october-2012.pdf]. Back
109
Q 182 Back
110
Q 182 [Ravi Gurumurthy] Back
111
Q 151 [Greg Barker] Back
112
Q 182 [Ravi Gurumurthy] Back
113
Q 170 [Ravi Gurumurthy] Back
114
Q 125 Back
115
The Fourth Carbon Budget: Reducing emissions through the 2020s,
op cit. Back
116
Climate Change Act 2008, s21, s22 [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/section/21]. Back
117
Carbon budgets, paragraph 38. Back
118
Environmental Audit Committee, Fourth Special Report of Session
2010-2012, Carbon Budgets: Government Response to the Committee's
Seventh Report of Session 2010-12, HC 1720, page 2,
[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenvaud/1720/1720.pdf].
Back
119
Qq 125, 127 Back
120
Q 230 [Ravi Gurumurthy] Back
121
http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/4CB_Call_for_Evidence_letter_E-D_letter_1_July.pdf Back
122
Q 124 Back
123
Q 176 [Greg Barker] Back
124
Q 169 [Ravi Gurumurthy] Back
125
Ev w13 Back
126
Ev w13, Ev w45 Back
127
Ev w45 Back
128
"The fourth carbon budget (as currently set) is regarded
as an absolute minimum and any further acceleration in emissions
reductions towards the end of the 2020s as a result of slackening
the target would put the 2050 target at risk. Taking action later
will cost much more than taking action now. Strong signal to investors
provided by setting carbon budgets is undermined by the prospect
of changes". [Carbon budgets, op cit.] Back
129
Q 137 [David Kennedy]; See also Ev w4, Ev w36, Ev w19. The UK
was seen as a leader in action on climate change, inspiring action
in other countries. Back
130
Q 124 Back
131
Q 138 Back
132
Ev w45 Back
133
Q 172 [Ravi Gurumurthy] Back
134
Q 180 [Greg Barker] Back
135
Q 175 [Ravi Gurumurthy] Back
136
Q 180 [Ravi Gurumurthy] Back
137
Department of Energy and Climate Change, International aviation
and shipping emissions and the UK's carbon budgets and 2050 target,
December 2012, [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65686/7334-int-aviation-shipping-emissions-carb-budg.pdf]. Back
138
Committee on Climate Change, Scope of carbon budgets: statutory
advice on inclusion of international aviation and shipping, April
2012, [http://archive.theccc.org.uk/aws/IA&S/CCC_IAS_Core_ScopeOfBudgets_April2012.pdf]. Back
139
The Commission has said that progress must be made by September/October
2013 or the regulations will be applied in full [http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation/index_en.htm];
Department of Energy and Climate Change, International aviation
and shipping emissions and the UK's carbon budgets and 2050 target,
December 2012, [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65686/7334-int-aviation-shipping-emissions-carb-budg.pdf]. Back
140
Q 142; http://www.theccc.org.uk/news-stories/ccc-statement-on-governments-latest-international-aviation-and-shipping-announcement/ Back
141
A consumption-based approach to measuring emissions includes emissions
embedded in goods imported into the UK and exclude emissions embedded
in goods exported from the UK. Back
142
Environmental Audit Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2010-12,
Carbon Budgets, HC 1080, [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenvaud/1080/1080.pdf]. Back
143
Energy and Climate Change Committee, Twelfth Report of Session
2010-12, Consumption-Based Emissions Reporting, HC 1646,
[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenergy/1646/1646.pdf]. Back
144
Committee on Climate Change, Reducing the UK's carbon footprint
and managing competitiveness risks, April 2013, [http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/CF-C_Summary-Rep_Bookpdf.pdf]. Back
145
Qq 143 - 147 Back
146
Qq 214 - 221. The first set of data was published in December
2012 relating to 2011. Back
147
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/using-industrial-strategy-to-help-the-uk-economy-and-business-compete-and-grow
Back
|