Latest correspondence with Defra on C&C

I've been having a fairly long correspondence with Defra regarding Contraction and Convergence and Simultaneous Policy. Each time I seem to be getting closer I get a reply from someone different.

Photo: Sunset across northern Europe

Anyhow if you search for 'Contraction' or go to 23rd July you'll see my most recent email to Defra trying to understand their views. It is frustrating that the Government has still not woken up to this approach - which is basically all that is on the table that is fair and will work to tackle climate change.

Here below is the reply I got followed by my answer today:

Simultaneous Policy Thank you for your e-mail of 23 July in response to Julius Hinks? previous reply about Simultaneous Policy.

I would like to reassure you that neither the UK nor the EU is using the need for a comprehensive framework as an excuse for not taking independent action on climate change as you appear to be suggesting. The EU, in its Spring Council Conclusions, not only laid out the level of its own independent commitment to take action by 2020 but also the elements that it considers to be important in terms of putting together a framework and a broad indication of what it expects from other parties.

These conclusions represent a high level statement of the importance that the EU gives to the issue of climate change but a lot of work still needs to be done on the exact detail of these elements, how they will fit together and on the question of how other parties might contribute. As the UK and EU are still in this developmental process, I am not in a position to give a more definitive answer as to whether contraction and convergence will prove to be the framework that we pursue than I have given before. Work is, however, continuing and you might be interested to know that, as part of the UK?s internal deliberations, we are considering in detail contraction and convergence, along with 3 or 4 other frameworks, in terms of the emissions reductions delivered, the economic costs and the financial flows they would generate from developed to developing countries to assist their transformation to low carbon societies.

Internationally, momentum is gathering in the debate and a range of parties are coming forward with ideas, but there is still much to be done if we are to ensure the participation of all parties. As you know, global acceptability is a key factor for the UK and the EU in determining what framework we should adopt. You have suggested that the Simultaneous Policy principle might help to overcome the problem of `who moves first? by trying to create a situation in which everyone moves together at a certain point and you have asked at what point the UK would be willing to sign up to this sort of agreement.

The simultaneous policy principle relies on parties being willing to espouse a specific concept or framework. As my colleagues have said previously, we are not in position to promote any specific complete framework (as opposed to elements of a framework). We are not at a stage of the discussions where such an approach would be appropriate. I hope that this letter addresses your concerns. Yours sincerely, Christopher Conder, Defra - Customer Contact Unit

Today I wrote back to Christopher Conder:

Many thanks for your email. However I was not suggesting that either the UK or the EU is using the need for a comprehensive framework as an 'excuse' for delay, merely that the absence of a model to focus minds upon, and the insistence on 100% perfection, does not stimulate confidence that serious action will come about in the physical timeframe available to us. Can you not see any merit in this criticism?

You will no doubt be aware that Ian Pearson before leaving office gave an encouraging assessment of Contraction and Convergence. I have attached a letter from him to one of my colleagues (reproduced below). I would be grateful to know what the other 3 or 4 frameworks may be. I am aware of the Brazil proposal, which takes into account our historic emissions. This would set very severe challenges for the UK, and I take it that HMG would therefore not favour the Brazil proposal over C&C. What are the other proposals?

As you say, the simultaneous policy principle relies on parties being willing to espouse a specific concept or framework. Clearly the C&C framework is the most robust policy available. To endorse this as an object of simultaneous policy would not prejudice any other negotiations that were on the table, but would serve to act as a focus.

I am concerned that as things stand, international negotiations lack focus, and a lack of focus is a recipe for drift and delay, which I am sure you will agree is simply not tolerable given the 8-10 year time span for action that we have in 2007. Yours sincerely, Philip Booth

And heres the letter from the Minister of State for Climate Change & Environment lan Pearson MP:

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; Brazil for example has championed historical responsibility as a basis for future action. However, one key element of any future regime must be its workability and one particular concern with contraction and convergence is the question of• how globally acceptable, and in consequence how workable, it would prove to be. Given that 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, it would be premature for the UK government to commit itself to any particular framework at this stage. We are, however, giving full consideration both to the possible frameworks themselves and also to the elements within them that could be used to form part of a workable solution. We will continue to discuss these issues with our partners; for example, at present we are also discussing Brazilian Historical Responsibility Proposal and the use of Sustainable Development Policies and Measures in the framework of the climate change convention and we think that further discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of various frameworks under the auspices of the convention would make a useful contribution to the debate.