The Big Ask Climate Debate Juniper1 November 2006
I welcome that fact that you, Prime Minister, recognise the threat posed by climate change - as thankfully all our major political parties do now.
Unfortunately the problem has not been seeing the threat but making changes to address it.
The Government's record on emissions
While we applaud the lead you have taken internationally the government's domestic record on cutting carbon emissions is an area for concern.
For example, you say you are committed to cutting emissions of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, by 20% by 2010. Unfortunately we are not on track to achieve this. Between 1990 and 2005 we managed only a 5% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. To meet this target, we must now cut carbon emissions almost 10 times as fast. Is that really possible?
And thank goodness we are on track to meet our Kyoto target, but doubling it looks doubtful. It has taken six years to cut our Kyoto emissions by 1% - to double the target we need a 10% cut in the next five years.
While the emissions figures from 1990 hide another inconvenient truth. Emissions fell pretty steadily for the first nine years but have risen pretty steadily since. True, we have had more growth in this latter period - but I doubt you were anticipating a recession when you set your manifesto commitment on three separate occasions.
The hard fact is our current approach simply isn't working. We need a new one.
Why we need annual targets
That is why we campaigned so hard through The Big Ask for a Climate Change Bill in this year's Queen's Speech. Thank you for responding to our call, and making it happen. You will not, however, be surprised to know that we remain convinced of the case for annual targets for cutting the UK's carbon dioxide emissions.
Annual targets are needed to ensure that we remain on track to deliver the small cuts that in the end will add up to big ones. Right now we have some good targets, but they are all in the future. When the future arrives and we find that we didn't meet them, then it is too late. The damage to the climate will be done.
Of course, as with any legally binding limit - whether pollution limits, or speed limits - just setting the target cannot guarantee it will be met. But putting the law in place can mean that if the limit is breached we begin a process that will make it less likely that future targets will be missed.
So, if an annual target isn't met, Government should be required to explain why policies did not deliver. Ministers should be legally bound to set out how they will get emissions back on track. An independent body could approve these plans, or send them back for the Government to try again if they are not good enough.
This is a sensible and rational way to plan and monitor our carbon emissions and have policies that respond. Clearly it does not mean that in a cold winter we have to shut our airports, or impose huge tax rises on fuel bills in order to keep inside that year's target. To suggest it does is at best a misunderstanding of the proposal, and at worst scaremongering.
It is also similar to the way Government has always dealt with the issue that has traditionally mattered most to the public - the economy. This has been dealt with on an annual basis for years. The economy is also affected by unpredictable, uncontrollable events - from foreign economies booming or busting, through natural disasters, to terrorism. Yet no one would suggest an annual budget was pointless. So it must go with carbon dioxide
World leadership
When it comes to policies to meet the targets, I agree with much of what you have called for: more efficient appliances, more renewable power, tougher emissions trading and a far more ambitious international agreement.
On this last priority you have been a world leader. Initiatives like the Exeter conference and the Stern Review have been hugely important. The UK could, however, be even more successful on the global stage if other countries received a "do as we do" message, and perhaps heard less of "do as we say".
I believe that we have a far better chance of doing what we say if we had a different and more robust framework in place. We have some of the policies, but collectively they are demonstrably not yet doing the job.
Yes, we disagree on nuclear. But not for the reasons you probably think. Our major argument against nuclear is that we could cut carbon emissions more cheaply and quickly if investments were instead encouraged in energy efficiency and renewable power. Of course there are serious worries about waste, accidents and terrorist threats. Weighing those risks against climate change is never going to be easy - but as alternatives to nuclear would be more effective, we actually don't need to.
The world is poised on the brink of environmental change that is without historical precedent. Time is very short and leadership is scarcer still.
You are one of very few world leaders who has seen the scale of threat and who has advocated action. You have been successful in establishing a political debate that has helped to create perhaps our last chance to avoid the worst effects of rapid global warming.
Seizing the opportunity provided by the new bill, enacting annual targets, and in so doing showing the world that you and the British people are serious about protecting our way of life, would be an act of leadership that would rally the full support of Friends of the Earth, and most of the wider environmental community.
If you act boldly here, if you lead in Britain, then the rest of the world will very likely follow you.
