Draft Climate Change Bill - Council's submission welcomed

The Government's Draft Climate Change Bill has been out for consultation (see blog entries on 10th May and 25th May) - I helped put together the local Green party's response but also submitted comments to the District Council.

Photo: Side of the road, Bread Street

The consultation closed on 12th June and while I have seen draft's of the Council's response and been able to make further comments by email it was only yesterday that councillors got a copy of the final report. I have to say it is to be hugely welcomed and again the Council seems to have taken on all the key points Greens have made - the comments also reflect many of the comments from a whole host of organisations. I enclose the Councils summary below - but first a few particular comments re the submission....

Key points:

1. It was particularly good to see that the Council noted international flights and shipping should not be excluded from targets.

2. The Council also made clear it wanted an early review of CO2 targets. Stroud District Council adopted the national Friends of the Earth target of 3% per annum earlier this year - and deserve credit for being one of the first Councils to do so. However FoE now acknowledge that their original suggestion of a 3% annual target is now insufficient - they've commissioned a report from the Tyndall Centre which shows 9% is more valid (i) - which incidentally is Green party policy. The point I made in one of my emails was:

It is critical to point to the urgent need for the target to be reviewed, particularly in light of the last couple of weeks which have seen a number of key reports that make grim reading:

- IPCC notes that we must act to tackle climate change within 8 years: global emissions must peak by 2015 for the world to have any chance of limiting the expected temperature rise to 2C, which would still leave billions of people short of water by 2050. See more here.
- International scientists report last week that worldwide CO2 emissions rose at a faster rate in 2000-2004 than the worst-case scenario imagined in this year's UN reports on climate . The rise over the first four years of this century is also greater than in the 1990s - 3.1% a year between 2000-2004, up from an average of 1.1% a year during the 1990s.
- International researchers found that the oceans are losing the capacity to soak up rising man-made carbon emissions: this could be increasing the rate of global warming by up to 30 per cent.

I would like to see in the Councils' Climate Change Bill response a clear and urgent call for the Government to review their targets.

3. Another key point I considered very important was that the issue of equity was not included in the list of factors for the Committee on Climate Change to consider. As we know very deep cuts in CO2 emissions and the restoration of natural sinks are needed globally, quickly and organised in a globally rational and equitable mechanism. It has been widely recognised that the emissions reduction mechanism that can be best deployed fairly is Contraction and Convergence as devised by the Global Commons Institute. This has been endorsed by the European Parliament and advocated by the UK Royal Commission on the Environment (2000), many businesses, environmental groups and the All-Party Climate Change Group who note that "Contraction and Convergence is the only credible global framework within which we can organise to do enough soon enough to avert the worst of global changes already underway.” (see my correspondence with Ministers on this issue: blog entries 20th April, 10th May and 22nd May).

I was therefore delighted to see Contraction and Convergence get a mention in the Councils response: some other Councils have not been so willing to specifically push this measure which in my view is the only measure that I've seen that offers a just and sustainable solution. Here's the Councils response on that issue:

Issues of international equity are not included on the list of factors and needs to be. In particular, deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions and the restoration of natural sinks are needed globally, quickly and organised in a globally rational and equitable mechanism (see Question 7 and the call for sustainability appraisal). Similarly the Committee could maintain a view on the applicability of developing approaches which potentially provide more transparent, accountable and equitable ways of trading emissions, including for example 'Contraction and Convergence' as devised by the Global Commons Institute. An approach endorsed by the European Parliament and advocated by the UK Royal Commission on the Environment (2000), many businesses, environmental groups and the All-Party Climate Change Group.

I could write more but more importantly we want to see the government now adopt these points. Anyhow here is the Councils final comments at the end of their submission:

We welcome this draft bill, and think it is a very positive step forward. The UK's approach in this area could be incredibly influential, and this is a good opportunity for us to have a significant and lasting global impact. We are potentially the stewards of the route map that the rest of the world will need to follow. But only if central and local government is willing to accept the leadership position and responsibility that goes with it.

The principles and concepts behind the Bill are sound. The accompanying regulatory impact assessment is also strong and thorough, covering all the different areas comprehensively. However, we do believe that long-term certainty is crucial if all sectors are to be enabled to respond effectively.

We would like to see five main issues addressed. The first is the need to incorporate all greenhouse gases in due course, not just carbon dioxide. The second is that aviation and shipping emissions should not be excluded from the scope of the bill.

Thirdly, we believe it will be important for the developments set out in the Bill to be kept focused on the real scale of the problem we face over time. As such we would encourage the Government not to unduly delay undertaking an early review of the 60% target, particularly given recent evidence emerging from the IPCC. Any review should fully undertstand the implications of the diminishing availability of carbon based fuel resources (as production plateaus and goes into decline - so called 'Peak Oil') as well as the impacts of climate change. The combination of these things provides this generation of decision makers with an unprecedented risk management challenge. National and local Government will need to work together at international, national, regional and local levels if our communities are to be led into a low carbon future.

Fourthly, we would like to see the powers and duties of the Committee on Climate Change broadened to enable them to advise on a wider vision for a low carbon society and scrutinise integration between key policy areas, such as transport, energy, waste and finance (including bringing emissions budget setting into line with the Comprehensive Spending Review cycle).

Fifth and finally, we would also like to sound a cautionary note. The improvement of international and national emissions trading mechanisms is clearly important but the UK needs to be seen to abide by the 'word' and the 'spirit' of any rules. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure that trading by the UK does not result in either a reduction in the UKs potential response (i.e. we end up doing less than we might) or perhaps more importantly perverse outcomes, such as the loss of carbon sinks, which will further undermine the global communities climate change response. As such we would like to see a robust sustainability appraisal of any credits, which are purchased by the UK.

Notes:

(i) Research by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change note the Government's current targets are not sufficient to limit global average temperatures to no more than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels: even with the Climate Change Bill’s current neglect of aviation and shipping, the emission pathway it describes correlates approximately with an 80% and 60% chance of exceeding 2°C and 3°C warming respectively. Friends of the Earth and others are calling for a cut of at least 80% by 2050. To put it into perspective at 3% per annum, it would take 30 years to achieve a 60% cut in total emissions, where as at a 9% rate of reduction it would take only 9.7 years. Also achieving the target in 9.7 years would result in a 70% reduction in total emissions due to the quicker time taken to achieve the end result.