Joss Garman reports on David Cameron's intervention in the row between the Treasury and DECC on the UK's climate change carbon emissions targets.
Over recent weeks there has been a fierce row at the top of government over whether or not the cabinet should accept the recent recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC). This committee is the government’s independent advisory body on how the UK can best meet its Climate Act obligations in the most cost effective way.
Under the Climate Change Act, the government must set five-yearly “carbon budgets”. The committee advises the government how big these budgets should be – i.e. how much effort there should be in the short term compared with the medium and longer term and right through to 2050 by which point the act demands an 80 per cent cut in the UK’s emissions.
The committee also advises on what policies are required to then stay within these emissions budgets once they’re established.
So far since the Climate Act was passed ministers have always accepted the committee’s advice in terms of what the size of the carbon budgets should be. The recent argument has been about whether the cabinet should accept the committee’s advice for the size of the next carbon budget from 2023-2027. The Climate Act requires a decision on this by next month.
Were the cabinet to reject the CCC’s advice, it would throw into doubt the UK’s ability to cut its emissions in line with the Climate Act and send a signal to the business and investment community, as well as the international community, that the UK government isn’t serious about following through on all their green rhetoric.
It would also mean that green industries would likely take their business elsewhere, in particular to Germany which is rapidly becoming Europe’s laboratory for green growth.
After a series of leaked letters, and media spin and counter spin (£) in the weekend papers, the BBC reports this morning that the prime minister has decisively intervened and backed the climate secretary Chris Huhne in supporting plans to accept the committee’s advice as to the size of this so-called ‘fourth carbon budget’. This follows pressure from green campaign groups, 38 degrees and Ed Miliband who all piled on pressure in recent days, and also follows the intervention of Lord Turner who is said to have mediated in the cabinet’s dispute.
On the face of it, Cameron’s decision is a rare case of the green agenda winning out over what one Whitehall source described to the Observer as “the dark forces at the Treasury”.
Certainly, it’s fair to say Cameron deserves personal credit for overruling opposition from Osborne and Cable who would’ve settled for a far worse deal. It is also true that the UK now has the toughest legally-binding carbon targets through to 2027 of any country in the world. However, in spite of this, HMT and Vince Cable did both win significant ‘get out clauses’.
In particular, it appears that whilst the government will accept the CCC’s advice on the scale of the carbon targets for the mid-late 2020s, they won’t accept the recommendation that short term cuts need to be increased.
Understandably, some will rightly point out that it’s convenient for the prime minister to agree to a 50% cut in UK emissions by 2025 – when he’s unlikely to still be in power, but to reject the advice of raising the 2020 target. Equally, it is understood that government will announce tomorrow it will rely on carbon offsets to a greater extent than is recommended by the climate committee.
But the more important point about all this though is the one made by James Murray, in his post this morning for Business Green:
“In one of those strange coincidences that so often litter the political landscape, news that the coalition is to sign the UK up to one of the world’s most ambitious low carbon economic strategies has come within hours of the release of a major new report eviscerating the primary policy for delivering that very strategy.”
The focus going forward must surely be the coalition’s failure to establish any credible plan to hit these carbon targets. The Treasury’s consistent sabotaging of any moves towards a green industrial strategy means budgets for clean energy programmes have been slashed, the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) scheme has been hugely scaled back, and the flagship Green Investment Bank is unable to borrow or lend.
David Cameron’s intervention is to be welcomed, but he and Nick Clegg now need to work out how to deliver these new clean energy jobs and industries.
30 Responses to “Cameron deserves praise for overruling Osborne on climate change targets”
Dan Evans
…and what happens next? http://bit.ly/k7WUDS via @leftfootfwd
Martyn Williams
Northern Worker
Try the Meadows estate in Nottingham – its hardly your average yuppie street, but has seen a investment in solar panels, with the proceeds from the Feed-in Tariff used to fund further insulation and energy efficiency improvements. It is very popular, saving people money and ensuring their homes are warm and healthy, not cold and damp.
Or check the recent campaign by greens to ensure that all Private Rented Sector housing has to meet minimum energy standards – something conceded in principle by the Government last week. Private Rented housing is among the worst insulated housing there is – and so has the large numbers of people living in it who cannot keep warm. They generally are not yuppies.
Improving housing is an area with the potential to save far mroe energy – and create masses of jobs. Obviously, the highest number of jobs will be in the areas with the worst housing, which are usually the most deprived areas. The jobs require skills that can be gained quickly – so people who have been without work for a long time can benefit – you don’t simply get an imported expert workforce soaking up the jobs.
How about green campaigns for public transport? They provide access to those without a car – and far more jobs than simply extending roads. What about the jobs we could create building renewables. Or would you prefer the money we spend on our energy to continue to go predominantly to massive fossil fuel companies?
Have a look at DECCs work on what rising fuel costs do to our economy. Think about how badly we would have been hit by recent petrol price increases if our cars and lorries were still as inefficient as they were in the 1970s (or as inefficient as they are in the US where lower taxes has meant people have not bought cleaner vehicles). Think how much less hard we would have been hit if environmental campaigns for greener vehicles has been listened to, rather than Clarkson-ite rants about freedom to drive gas-guzzlers winning the day.
It’s always easy to fall back on class prejudices, but I can’t see how it really helps those you claim to speak for.
Anon E Mouse
Jessica Brooks – Grow up please and stop the amateur dramatics regarding this subject. You are advocating a flawed “education”.
This planet was supposed to run out of food and oil, Global Cooling in the 70’s (look it up), aids would finish us, CJD, Bird Flu, GM food and on and on and on and on.
And the planet continues to get cooler year on year and selfish middle class individuals like the author here, who serves no discernible purpose whatsoever in the world, continue perpetuating the nonsense that keeps the poor poor and gives him something to do.
Minimum wage workers like myself are suffering in this country and everything you suggest involves people like me having less and less money to live on.
Walk a mile in someone else’s shoes for once and you may be more concerned with paying the bills and less on the this “Oh my god we’re all going to die” nonsense.
If you feel this strongly go to China and ask them to stop building coal fired power stations instead of living in the luxury of a western democracy. Go and tell chinese workers they can’t have incubators and electric lights and must live on a bowl of rice a day or the African who cannot be schooled because he has to break his back tilling the soil without a petrol powered tractor whilst his children starve…
Something this particular author has no problem with btw: https://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/11/what-channel-4-got-wrong/
Northern Worker
It’s pointless arguing with you people as you’ve no idea what it’s like for most of us struggling to pay our energy bills and the taxes hidden within them that are then paid to rich people.
As for global warming do you honestly think anything we can do makes a difference? 65 million people against 2.5 billion in India and China where they don’t care about this stuff? A friend of mine has been made redundant twice in the last 6 years from good jobs in a factories making electrical parts. Why? because they moved the factories to China where labour and energy is one tenth of the cost. Try telling him at 50 years old and on the dole and never likely to get another good job that we should be taking a lead in this nonsense.
And where’s the proof? Computer models that say we’ll all die in 100 years. I’ve said it before on here and I’ll say it again – I despair about the people who are supposed to represent me. Got to go to work now.
Anon E Mouse
Northern Worker – Absolutely agree. As a Labour voter pre-Brown who the hell represents me?
Not these Joss Garman types clearly.
Why can’t Labour understand that this Thatcher invented global warming nonsense has become a business with all that brings and realise their “progressive” drivel means nothing to the electorate.
If Labour started representing the working man again they might actually become popular once more but not with this lot. If it was as dangerous as these doom merchants say then why don’t we bomb China this afternoon unless they stop destroying this planet…