It’s been around for a few weeks, now, but worth bringing up because it says, in more formal and detailed terms, what is wrong with the UK’s erstwhile ‘climate policy’: this is the Tyndall Centre’s response to the Government paper on energy policy and climate change.
For example:
“…The Government has repeatedly committed to making its fair contribution to not
exceeding the 2°C temperature threshold separating acceptable and dangerous climate
change. This cannot be reconciled with the wholly inadequate measures contained
within the EWP. There remains a gaping chasm between the well-meaning rhetoric
underpinning the Government’s Climate Change Programme, Draft Climate Change Bill
and Energy White Paper and their continued refusal to sanction meaningful and
effective action to urgently reduce our escalating carbon emissions…”
and:
“…To conclude, the climate-change premise of the Energy White Paper, Draft Climate
Change Bill and Climate Change Programme is admirable. By contrast, the content of
these three pillars of UK climate policy are not commensurate with the Government’s 2°C
commitment nor its claim to be providing “international leadership” through “the
credibility and influence” of its “domestic policies”. Given the Government’s
acknowledgement of the seriousness of the climate change threat, the EWP only serves
to reinforce the shameful political expediency of current UK climate policy…”
[my highlights]
These aren’t just the ramblings of a blogger, or even a well-informed individual scientists. They are the considered (initial) response of a major international centre of climate change, energy and policy research, with a proportion of funding coming direct from government.
In the light of such a recognition of how useless responses have been so far, what comes next is a clear guide to a decarbonisation pathway for UK (and, by extension, global) energy policy.
Be loved.
Old man in a cave 
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 17, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Heiko Gerhauser
Bush and the US always seem to get a rap about how “little” they are willing to do.
How do we actually measure “action”? By willingness to sign (non-binding or vague) agreements stating emissions reductions or temperature targets?
When it gets to the specific policies, it does get quite controversial. Think of nuclear power. Arguably, Germany’s phaseout policy is the opposite of what would be required to reduce emissions, and Bush’s promotion of nuclear energy to India is good. On the other hand, you can argue that nuclear power = nuclear war, and that this is a bad policy choice to fight global warming, and that therefore it’s better to switch off nuclear power plants and temporarily go for coal, while ramping up renewables.
And even then there can be plenty of argument about whether Germany say is actually doing much more to promote renewables or reduction of car usage in order to reduce emissions than say the current US administration (and how do you measure that any way? Arguably, say the support for wind in Germany has more to do with the nuclear than the fossil phase out, and it’s been say rather unsuccessful in promoting off-shore wind).
June 18, 2007 at 1:04 am
fergusbrown
I am sure you know this, but to clarify, the above statement was explicitly a criticism of the UK government, rather than Bush and the US. But this does not materially detract from the other things you say.
If we are talking about mitigation of global warming, then ‘action’, at a government level, would specifically be a policy, levy, regulation or restriction which specifically results in a reduction of emission of GHGs. As countries are autonomous, the regulation must come from within, even if the agreement to do so is international.
Why would you suggest that nuclear power = nuclear war? Which sovereign state would risk its own existence by initiating a nuclear level conflict?
I can’t see how going for coal is in any way a useful policy if the aim is to actually cut emissions. As far as whether German policy is any more advanced than US policy, as far as I know, there is no US policy at all, whereas in Germany, whilst achieving targets may be difficult, there is a least an attempt to address the problem through regulation.
Regards,
June 18, 2007 at 6:59 am
Heiko Gerhauser
Well, a lot of the opposition to nuclear power has to do with its association to nuclear warfare, I am very positive about nuclear power myself, I was making a point about what many other people think.
I think policies to reduce GHG emissions are virtually always also policies that have other objectives, eg supporting farmers, reducing traffic congestion. That I think makes it quite difficult to see how far a measure is actually about climate change, and in how far it is about something else.
What the US doesn’t have is a “binding” emissions reduction target (though I don’t think targets elsewhere are all that “binding”), it only has an emissions intensity reduction target. But the US does have laws, regulations and measures in place affecting GHG emissions. There is CAFE, ethanol and wind subsidies, nuclear power, Sox emissions trade, a ban on CFC’s which are also incidentally GHG’s and so forth.
And yes I realise you weren’t talking about the US specifically in this post, I kind of saw it as a continuation of the two posts on the G8.
In this UK related post I think you are focusing on another point, namely in how far UK rhetoric matches UK “action”. And methinks that if you look at the specifics (like support for wind/nuclear/biofuels, efficiency regulations and so forth) it’s not at all clear that Germany/the EU/the UK are “doing more”. You might argue that they are starting from a lower base, making cuts relatively harder, and you might argue that they are also more concerned about other issues (notably nuclear power in the case of Germany), but, if you look at recent per capita emissions trends, the US is doing slightly better than Europe. Likewise, if you look at specific policies, ie support for wind/nuclear/biofuel etc., the US may have slightly different emphases, but climate wise, the impact on trends doesn’t seem so massively different.
Another interesting comparison is between the Clinton/Al Gore years (1992-2000) and the Bush/Cheney years (2000-2007). And I think it’s not just fortuitous circumstances that are the reason that emissions trends are more favourable in recent years in the US, that’s part of the reason, and Clinton/Al Gore had to deal with a Republican Congress after 94, but I think the Bush administration has: a) been willing to tolerate high energy prices without resorting to populist measures to reign them, or their impact, in, b) been very supportive of nuclear power, and I credit the now near universal 20 year lifetime extensions of US nuclear power plants to that. And c) its support for wind and ethanol has resulted in, or at least supported substantially, a boom in both (compared to near stagnation for both in the Clinton/Al Gore years).
Mind you I am not trying to put Bush on a pedestal here, and for each of the points, Democrats might cite good reasons why it was a bad policy, eg ethanol subsidies lead to too much industrial farming and too little GHG reduction, Bush should have cared more about the impact of energy prices on the working poor, and nuclear power is too dangerous or expensive to be used as a climate remedy. And, we don’t honestly know in how far the Bush administration favoured these policies because of concern about the climate, and in how far it was motivated by other concerns, quite possibly the non climate reasons represented 100% of the motivation.
However, I do think it shows that in practice the gulf between Europe and the US, or between Democrats and Republicans, on climate isn’t actually all that wide, at least in so far as support for specific policy measures is concerned.