Almost pain-free, cost-free recipe to stop dangerous climate change?

Virtually carbon-free electricity, half of all solid wall homes in the UK properly insulated, millions of electric cars and a plethora of other measures are recommended to the Government today by the Committee on Climate Change as a recipe for the UK to reduce emissions in the UK by 60 per cent by 2030 from 1990 levels. And all the changes come in at a cost of just one per cent of GDP.  

Has the Committee identified an almost pain-free, cost-free recipe for preventing dangerous climate change? Surely that's just too good to be true?

Friends of the Earth is a great fan of the Committee because its work is robust and thorough. But we have one big gripe. All its work is aimed at delivering a 50:50 chance of limiting global average temperature increases to close to two degrees. This simply isn't good enough. The social, environmental and economic impacts of two degrees are significant. A 2009 synthesis of climate research said that:

• temperature rises above 2 degrees will be difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and are likely to cause major societal and environmental disruptions through the rest of the century and beyond;
•  a 2 degree rise could cause 5-20% reductions of cereal grain yields in South Asia, South East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, significantly exacerbating under-nutrition and adverse health outcomes (especially child physical and intellectual development);
• even with effective adaptation, the impacts on water resources in many parts of the world will be severe with climate change associated with only 1.0 to 1.5 degree rises in temperature; and
• the risks of large scale discontinuities (tipping points, such as irreversible melting of Greenland ice sheet) were considered to be very low in 2001 for a 2 degree C increase but are now considered to be moderate for the same increase.

The Committee states that it has updated its understanding of the science since it first set its target in 2008 and that it's sticking with its recommended temperature target, despite the science chapter in the report stating that are now greater concerns about agriculture and food security, human health impacts and on ecosystems and biodiversity.  

It looks to us like the Committee is putting short-term political pragmatism above a less risky, more precautionary approach. A greater chance of avoiding two degrees may mean higher costs and more political pain in the short-term but it will also reduce the risk of significant economic pain in the future. The Committee's high-risk approach may be palatable to UK politicians but it will leave a nasty taste in the mouths of the millions of others, especially the poorest people across the globe who are on the front-line of climate change and future generation who may inherit a severely damaged economy.