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”
Anon E Mouse
Jessica Brooks – I am not questioning the science just the conviction of our leaders who continue to pile the pain on to people who can’t afford it encouraged by people who are not affected by it. Such as Joss Garman and his rich clan.
Global Cooling in 1975: http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
I’m just pointing out that these scares have gone on forever – it seems to be a human condition.
Relax Jessica. You’ll be OK and many years from now there’ll be some new scare that people will be touting around. Food’s not run out. The oil’s not gone and everything is pretty much as it always was. The world goes through cycles of heating and cooling. It always has done and if the fossil fuel’s run out as people claim then what’s the problem?
Bet you’re a big fan of Nuclear Power though what with the zero damage from CO2….
Jessica Brooks
PRETTY MUCH AS IT ALWAYS WAS!?
This is actually quite laughable. This world is so fragmented, its resources and natural integrity so ravaged by human exploitation, that half of all life on earth is in danger of disappearing within our children’s lifetime. The extinction rate is 1000 times that of the background evolutionary rate, and every rivet removed from the ship leads to a shaky voyage (ecology: rivet hypothesis). The world does indeed go through cycles of heating and cooling, they are called glacial periods. What makes everyone concerned is that this time, warming is anthropogenic and is happening too quickly for our natural systems (and managed systems) to cope! So you say there’s plenty of oil? Not pure, easily extracted oil! Look what they’re doing in Canada in the Tar Sands! As it becomes more difficult to extract oil, prices, tada, will go up. Why wouldn’t you want to support renewables which require an initial investment and then just maintenance, harnessing the earth’s own abundant energy that will never run out – we HAVE to use them sooner or later, so why not now! The world is finite, just like our lives! Food will not grow in extreme, unpredictable environments, causing further poverty. It’s happening already. Reductions in yield are already seen in Sub-Saharan African maize, and there was a 5% decline in global wheat yields from 1970 to present – despite massive technological advances and extensions in production range.
Thus, it is apparent that you have a frontier ethic. Look it up and be ashamed. In fact I shall spell it out for you:
‘A frontier ethic assumes that the earth has an unlimited supply of resources. If resources run out in one area, more can be found elsewhere or alternatively human ingenuity will find substitutes. This attitude sees humans as masters who manage the planet. The frontier ethic is completely anthropocentric (human-centered), for only the needs of humans are considered.’
I do not have the time to reel off more facts about quite how serious a situation our world is in, and you are not rightful to argue in such a naive fashion when you do not know the facts; I think you are on a superficial vendetta against this author, and I think it is time I stopped wasting my breath. Thank you for your time.
The Carbon Budget « Greensen
[…] in passing the budget. However, the Osborne-Cable alliance did win some important concessions. As Joss Garman points out at Left Foot Forward: [I]t appears that whilst the government will accept the CCC’s advice on the scale of the carbon […]
Anon E Mouse
Jessica Brooks – Thank you for your time also. I more than support renewables. I have no comment on global warming – just the types of people who earn a living from scaring people about it.
I don’t have any vendetta against anyone I just don’t like the uncaring attitude shown towards the poor and needy on this planet by those who have never had to worry about the real world and paying bills.
Since you are worrying about maize in Africa I’m sure you are in favour of GM food.
Since you care about the effects of CO2 I’m sure you are in favour of Nuclear power.
If you support biofuels you also support increasing food prices and driving primates to extinction.
You can’t have it both ways but you certainly polite Jessica Brooks which makes a pleasant change from the usual doom mongers….
Jessica Brooks
Couldn’t help myself – no I do not support FIRST generation biofuels and am fully aware of knock-on effects of deforestation. Don’t generalise about terms such as biofuels, for there is very promising research in that field, as well as biomass, that will not jeopardise more pristine ecosystem and the species associated with it. Nuclear is not ideal (and it certainly isn’t zero-carbon) however, I have trust in those that are advising the government and agree with their long-term plans to generate a stable renewable infrastructure, of which nuclear is key. Nuclear will provide 40% of our electricity by 2025, allowing us to meet emissions targets whilst not rushing the installation of said renewables – which needs to be carefully planned, soon. You seem to have changed your tack a lot – but at least now I can see you understand certain issues and maybe you’ll change your opinion about being sick to the back of the teeth about a green government, and know that people do care. Not just for our children’s future in this country, but for all countries. For climate change is uniform. And just remember – primates are not the only concern. You should be concerned for all nature, whether it is ugly, beautiful, boring or flagship. Goodbye, Sir/Madam and thank you again.