UK climate watchdog urges dramatic cuts in greenhouse gases

Juliette Jowit
guardian.co.uk, Monday December 1 2008 18.14 GMT

Ambitious targets to cut the UK's greenhouse gas emissions by at least one fifth in just over a decade were proposed today by the government's Climate Change Committee.
The reductions would be achieved by transforming the way electricity is produced and redesigning buildings, appliances and cars.
If accepted by ministers, the changes could see as much as 30% of the country's electricity coming from renewable sources as soon as 2020, most of it from wind turbines, and by that date four out of 10 new cars would use electric power.
The independent committee also outlined the need for a wholesale change in public behaviour that could include slower driving to reduce fuel use and swapping more "carbon intensive" meats like beef for hill-bred lamb.
The report also recommended tough new rules to make coal plants fit equipment to capture and store their carbon emissions as soon as the early 2020s, which would push up operating costs. Critics of coal claimed this requirement would end government plans for up to eight new coal plants.
In its first report on how the UK could meet its pledge to cut carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050, the eight-person committee recommended an interim target for 2020 of 34%, or 42% if there is a global deal to cut emissions.
These reductions, which go further than existing UK commitments but are in line with what the UK would have to do under proposed European Union laws, equate to cuts from recent levels of 21% or 31% respectively - or from 11.6 tonnes per person to 7-8 tonnes on average.
The committee also proposed shorter term targets. In the five years to 2012, the committee said average annual UK emissions should equate to 604 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, down from 695mt in 2006.
Buying emissions cuts from schemes outside the EU should only be allowed if the higher target is adopted, added the committee.
The targeted reductions would make sure the UK makes a "fair contribution" towards keeping global temperature rises as close as possible to 2C, it said.
The report, Building a Low-Carbon Economy - The UK's Contribution to Tackling Climate Change, estimated the changes would cost less than 1% of the national economic wealth in 2020, or less than £15bn. That figure included the bill for helping up to 1.7m people who would otherwise be pushed into fuel poverty by higher energy bills .
The cost, equivalent to reducing growth by 2020 from 30% to 29%, was "a price worth paying", said the report.
"Climate change poses a grave threat to human welfare, the environment and the economy," said Lord Turner, the committee chairman. "We need to act now, in the UK and as part of a global agreement, to significantly reduce our emissions."
The report was broadly approved by environmental groups but there were widespread concerns about whether the government would enact the tough policies the committee said were needed to deliver the emissions cuts, such as regulation to limit emissions from power plants and cars, and financial incentives to encourage higher take up of more efficient goods.
"Emissions reductions of more than 1% a year have only ever been achieved in significant economic recession, and [the committee's] proposing 2.5% a year so this requires a pretty radical framework," said Stephen Hale, director of the Green Alliance of environmental campaign groups.
"I think they [the government] will accept the budgets, but I'm not so confident they'll back that up with the policies needed to make sure we meet the budgets."
The main political parties also welcomed the report, although neither the government nor the Conservatives explicitly accepted the recommendations. Ministers will respond next year.
Tim Yeo, Conservative chairman of the MPs' Environmental Audit Committee said: "I urge both the government and the opposition to accept the committee's recommendations. Only a bipartisan approach can ensure that Britain achieves these important goals."
Friends of the Earth also urged the government to adopt the higher target for 2020, even if no international emissions deal was agreed at the UN conference in Copenhagen next year [2009]. "It's a small price for us to pay as there are quite a lot of economic opportunities if we move really fast," said Ed Matthew, the group's head of UK climate.
Critics of coal were divided over whether the suggested tough new rules to ensure all coal power was fitted with equipment to trap and store gases in the early 2020s went far enough. Friends of the Earth said it wanted clearer guidelines that no coal stations should be built without the equipment already in place, even before 2020.
However Greenpeace said the recommendation would "kill" proposals for a new plant at Kingsnorth in Kent and up to seven others under the government's energy policy.
David Kennedy, the Climate Change Committee chief executive, said: "If you put this [policy] in place the market will tell us how confident they are carbon capture and storage is going to come through. If they don't go ahead we'll know they didn't intend to fit CCS."
There was also anger over the committee's lack of detailed recommendations for aviation policy, in particular the pending decision on whether to expand Heathrow airport.
Lord Turner said the committee was not intended to recommend short-term policies. Initially, international aviation and shipping will not be part of the successive five year carbon budgets suggested by the committee, but those will be reduced to account for the omission.
Turner defended the committee against concerns that it would not be able to enforce any of its policies. Last week the government's 80% cut pledge and the committee's role in recommending interim targets and monitoring progress were given legal status when the Climate Change Bill received royal assent.
"These [targets] are designed as much as possible to create an extra discipline ... we haven't had that before," said Turner.
The UK is the first country to make a legally-binding commitment to such deep emissions reductions, though other countries have announced similar or deeper cuts.
Kennedy also denied concerns that the UK was going too far in targeting cuts which would not have any impact on global warming unless there was a global agreement. "Clearly if there wasn't a global agreement there wouldn't be much point in the UK trying to control climate change on its own [but] the 34% is very much to prepare for a global deal we hope and expect will ensue," said Kennedy.