Recession creates Illusion of Carbon Reduction
Wednesday 7th July 2010
The UK government needs to take strong action if carbon targets are going to be met.
The Committee on Climate Change relayed their annual report to Parliament. Between 2008 and 2009 UK greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 8.6%. In contrast, CO2 emissions fell by only 0.6% annually in the preceding period, relative to the 2-3% annual cuts required in the period to 2020 to meet carbon budgets. Hence, the UK has been met, by a whisker, the carbon budgets, chiefly as a result of the recession and other exogenous factors such as fuel price rise.
The "underlying progress, which we assess by looking at the impact of specific policy measures, was limited relative to that needed to put the UK on the path towards the 2050 target, implying that a step change in the pace of emissions reduction is still required."
The CCC "raise the issue of whether the second and third budgets should be tightened in the face of the easier short term challenge."
The committee highlighted a number of policy recommendations which have the potential to drive a step change. These include:
- Electricity generation, where the market needs to be reformed to take account of strategic priorities, with new ‘carrots and sticks' persuading generators to adopt low-carbon technologies, including an early demonstration of carbon capture from gas fired generation in addition to coal, and a minimum price on carbon.
- A greater push towards home insulation, addressing all the barriers preventing people investing in domestic energy efficiency.
- Setting more ambitious targets for the number of electric cars on the road, and protecting funds aimed at accelerating their introduction and acceptance.
- Encouraging farmers to use fertilisers more efficiently, reducing emissions and cost. The use of nitrogen fertiliser was singled out, which can release nitrogen oxides, themselves potent greenhouse gases.
The CCC chief executive David Kennedy highlighted the growing criticism of lack of action, quoted by Richard Black, writing for the BBC.
"We had less than 1 Gigawatt (GW) of renewable capacity added to the system in 2009, we need in the order of 2-2.5GW added each year over the next 10 years in order to meet our carbon budget and European targets for renewables. Is it going to happen in its own? No; we've had a light touch approach for years in the UK, we've talked a good game, but we've seen that emissions haven't reduced enough as a result of policies."
The policy debate is foregrounded by further apocalyptic warnings from science. A new study from the Potsdam Institute, predicts with current committed targets, warming will be in a range of 1.7 - 4.6C. However, these optimistic models have extrapolated potential commitments, not enacted by many nations.
Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, speaking at the Gov Today Carbon Reduction Conference, said the implications a 4C change in temperature for a country mitigating for a 2C increase would be disastrous. Anderson is critical of the response of government to the Herculean task of nullifying greenhouse emissions, and notes it is a battle not measured against 1990 emissions but the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
As a final comment, Juliette Jowitt and Christine Ottery wrote in the Guardian:
"The predictions will be particularly worrying for many watchers because the 2C target was based on research which suggested that at that level there was only a low to medium risk of key changes to the conditions in which humans survive; however an update of the ‘burning embers diagram' by the authors, published last year by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the US, suggested that at 2C there greater risk in all categories, including a significant to high risk to unique and threatened ecosystems, of extreme weather events and a global distribution of the worst threats."
Website Links: theccc.org.uk; bbc.co.uk/Richard_Black; guardian.co.uk/Jowitt_and_Ottery and pnas.org/large_image_of_burning_ember
Would passing the crux of peak oil make you drive or travel less?
