C&C correspondence continues: does Defra understand SP?

A slightly frustrating response below from Defra re Simultaneous Policy (see my Blog entry on 22nd May for last letter on this). I'm beginning to wonder if they understand how SP works! Below the response is my reply back to Defra.

Photo: Rainbow over Bread Street: sometimes wonder if I'm chasing a rainbow with SP but over the years things have moved significantly - yes still a long way to go but it has come further than I ever imagined - no doubt because it makes so much sense - and is fair!

Certainly the Government seem to be shifting on Contraction and Convergence - and with a Green party suggestion even Stroud District Council mentioned C&C in it's response to the Climate Change Bill (see my blog on 23rd June 2007). Ian Pearson, the Minister responsible wrote in a letter last month: "Certain aspects of Contraction and Convergence are appealing, including the identification of a fixed level for stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations, and comprehensive global participation. Any framework that incorporates long term targets can offer countries greater certainty about their national targets and provide a clear signal to allow business to plan ahead and help drive investment in new and better technologies. The principle of equity is extremely important to all countries but in particular developing countries and a number of countries have expressed an interest in using per capita emissions as a basis for assigning responsibility for future action. Some developing countries, in particular, India, have advocated the Contraction and Convergence model. Equally, other countries have shown interest in alternative frameworks...."

It is also good to see the Minister talking more on equity as the recent draft Climate Change Bill did not really cover this issue: see questions 14 and 16 in the local Green party's response to the Bill.

Reply from Customer Contact Unit, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

Dear Cllr Booth

contraction and convergence - Thank you for your email of 13 July regarding my previous letter. I am sorry that there were technical problems. Below is the information I sent you:

The UK government is also looking for the best possible framework through which to address climate change. As part of our internal deliberations we are considering in detail contraction and convergence, along with 3 or 4 other frameworks, in terms of the emissions reductions delivered and the economic costs related to each one and their overall acceptability to our international partners. The work that we have done on these key frameworks suggests that for each one, there will be advantages and disadvantages for individual countries and groups of countries and that no framework will provide only advantages for all.

The UK would consider global acceptability to be an essential feature of any future regime and so it is unlikely that we would be willing to sign up to any framework on a unilateral or even partially multilateral basis, such as that which you suggest in relation to simultaneous policy. As you recognize, we cannot ignore the international context of this problem. Without participation by all parties we will not be able to stabilize the climate. A key part of the UK strategy is, therefore, to work extensively with other parties both through the formal UNFCCC process and through informal discussions to identify a way forward that would be acceptable to all. Although there is some agreement about the key elements that need to be addressed and plenty of ideas forthcoming in relation to these elements of a framework, there is still some way to go in building the level of consensus within the international community that would be required to agree on a framework for the way forward.

Given this international situation, we consider that it is essential to listen to other parties, in particular in the developing world, and to encourage them to put forward ideas about what sort of framework would best allow them to grow their economies in an environmentally sustainable way. Within the framework of the UNFCCC negotiations the two approaches that have so far been put forward are the Brazilian historical responsibility proposal and the South African ideas on Sustainable Development Policies and Measures mentioned in our previous correspondence with you.

We believe that it is the right approach to give consideration to the concerns of all parties and this is why we support discussions on all of these ideas within the forum of the UNFCCC. I hope that this letter addresses your concerns and there are no problems reading it. Yours sincerely

My reply today: Thank you very much for your reply. However it is not correct to suggest that simultaneous policy is unilateral; its whole purpose is to achieve multilateral agreement in as short a time as possible. I stress that it can work in parallel with the conventional international negotiation process.

I am deeply concerned that HMG's insistence on 100% global agreement can only serve to put off the time for global action on global warming into the indefinite future. The rationality of some rulers is of questionable quality. Remember President Mbeki’s denial of HIV as the cause of AIDS? Will UK really hang back if Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe or other "rogue states" refuse to sign? Surely you will agree that to insist on 100% agreement is unrealistic, and that a reasonable target should be set instead? Cllr Philip Booth