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”
Jessica Brooks
In case you haven’t been looking at every piece of advice from researchers, goverment organisations, the CCC, IPCC, etc etc, the notion for whether or not human-induced climate change is happening has passed, and the petty, selfish debates about the dangers of it have been qualmed. Letting climate change happen will lead to the loss of 5% of global GDP per YEAR. Reducing the impact and actually exercising some mitigation will reduce this loss to 1%. It’s a loss, but it’s a better loss than your actions will land us with. The fact is, it will do us worse, to do nothing. And, I am well aware that China generates 70% of its electricity from coal-fired stations, I cannot be hoodwinked into thinking it is my fault for not marching over there and trying to stop it. This is where it is important for people to show they care about the world as it is and don’t want degradation and poverty to continue – and here you are spreading pessimism and speculation and trying to thwart people who care about our future! And I’m sorry if I seem to be quite adamant that change needs to happen, but I find it maddening that people exist who actively seek to prevent us repairing and nurturing something that intrinsically exists and support us.
Anon E Mouse
Jessica Brooks – What will my actions do exactly? Go to work and struggle as governments approve the building of Runway 3 at Heathrow whilst increasing the price of fuel with it’s unfair “Green Escalator”.
I find it maddening that you are happy to go along with policies that involve increasing the cost of living for the poor in this or any other country.
When unpleasant individuals like this Joss Garman actually agree that it was better for thousands of Zambian men, woman and children to be left to starve to death rather than eat the (now proven) perfectly safe and available and offered GM food because it was some American “conspiracy” I really have problems believing him on anything.
You may be right about your panic merchant stuff but it’s no different from Global Cooling in the 1970’s and does not help the poor of this planet and as usual will not affect the rich.
Like joss Garman and his cohorts…
Jessica Brooks
You are quite misled if you think I am happy to sit back and watch the skewed effects of a shifting climate all over the world. It is the rural poor and those in poverty that will suffer first and worst. With increased stress on the natural environment and ecosystem services that support livelihoods, more environmental degradation will take place and fuel a viscious circle. Climate change is already affecting developing countries, but it’s convenient for people to forget that until your street is flooded or someone you know dies in a heatwave. The evidence against your claim about cooling in the 70’s (that you are seemingly clinging to as an argument against global warming) is quite titanic, how do you not see long-term trends as a viable source of determining what is and isn’t normal? There are no natural forcings in play that could have made temperatures rise by a degree over the past century. When the ability of the atmosphere to balance ingoing/outgoing radiation is messed with, complicated effects will happen that produce all kinds of blip effects on the climatic system. Stochasticity will become normality. People jumped at the chance to create an unsupported argument about Britain’s recent harsh winters, but there is no doubting that nine of the ten hottest years on record (since records began 1000 years ago) have been in the 00s and that temperature records correlate perfectly with GHGs. The world is changing, and if we do not mitigate and adapt – and support policies that will encourage green development – then you had better believe that those skewed effects will worsen, and jeopardise economic infrastructure far more than you envisage.
Oh and P.S. there will be no third runway. I think you’re a bit behind… The coalition soon saw that off after Labour approved it…
Anon E Mouse
Jessica Brooks – The Third Runway is another reason I’m glad I’m no longer a Labour voter but you’re ignoring my central point about world poverty.
We now have a situation where orang’s and other primates are now being forced into extinction so that the middle classes can pat themselves on the back at dinner parties as they drive their gas guzzlers around Kensington and Primrose Hill.
We have taxes on fuel that the poor can no longer afford yet the likes of this author and his ilk remain unaffected.
I am also not clinging to an argument about Global Cooling – just illustrating that at the time there was just as many people advocating that position as there are now about global warming (even though year on year the planet continues to get colder).
If you are right or wrong I don’t know but I do know that the uncaring attitude towards the poor on this planet in countries that need to develop using fossil fuels is staggering.
I’ll bet Joss Garman hasn’t considered the plight of one single African baby as he troughs his organic muesli whilst reading the Guardian and drinking coffee from another continent every morning…
Jessica Brooks
That’s precisely why at the Copenhagen Summit in 2009, world leaders agreed to raise $100bn per year by 2020 to assist developing countries in implementing an infrastructure tailored to move away from fossil fuel usage. I can tell you that everything I argue for is correct – unless you are disputing the work of thousands of climate scientists, reviewers, NGOs and goverment organisations. I do wonder where on earth you get these cooling claims from – I’m not going to make snide assumptions as to where, but there is a reason for all this international concern and action to stop climate change and global warming. Because it is proven that it is happening. Whatever happens, the underlying fact is that climate change will thwart the progress of the developing world and increase their vulnerability to suffering – even more so with the swelling population. You should support the move towards sustainable use of resources and electricity if you want to see any sort of long-term progress in this economy or theirs.