Changing the climate
in the European Union
What the EU must do
to help stop global warming
Submission to the House of Lords inquiry into
European Union policy on climate change
Professor John Whitelegg
On behalf of the Green Party of England & Wales
John Whitelegg BA PhD FCIT FILT is Professor of Sustainable Transport Liverpool John Moores University and was until recently Visiting Professor of transport at Roskilde University in Denmark.
He is also Leader of North West Green Party.
With thanks to Dr Spencer Fitz-Gibbon and Tony Cooper of the Green Party Executive
February 2004
Published and promoted by Spencer Fitz-Gibbon on behalf of The Green Party,
both at 1a Waterlow Road, London N19 5NJ, 020 7272 4474
Foreword
The effects of climate change can hardly be overstated. Researchers at Bristol University announced in June 2003 that they had discovered that a mere six degrees of global warming had been enough to wipe out up to 95% of the species alive on earth at the end of the Permian period, 250 million years ago - and this is the extent of change many scientists are predicting for the twenty-first century if radical action is not taken now.
Only this week, a Pentagon report leaked to the Observer newspaper (22 February 2004) indicated that US defence experts expect that by 2020, climatic changes could leave the UK with a Siberian climate, while serious droughts and sea level rises will devastate large parts of the world, provoking widespread refugee crises, civil unrest and war. The Pentagon analysts concluded: "Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life. Once again, warfare would define human life."
If the predictions of the Pentagon and the world’s scientific community prove even partially correct, climate change will be the most serious threat to humanity in coming decades.
The UK government has boasted of playing a leading role in setting targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. But Kyoto, while providing a valuable framework for international agreement and action, provides targets that fall far short of what’s needed.
And the British government has adopted targets that are too low. It has failed to adopt the necessary "contraction & convergence" mechanism, despite the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Its policies on climate change are far too weak, and a number of policies including roadbuilding and aviation are going in precisely the wrong direction.
Climate change is a weapon of mass destruction. All of us must play our part in challenging it, but governments’ efforts are far more powerful than those of individuals hampered by inadequate government support. And the European Union is in a position to do more than any individual government.
The Green Party believes the British government must take the lead within the European Union. There is no time to lose. We look to the House of Lords inquiry to provide the necessary impetus for action.
Lancaster, February 2004
Introduction
The House of Lords’ European Union Sub-Committee D is inviting evidence on its inquiry into the EU’s policy on climate change. The Committee wishes to examine the success of the EU’s policy in tackling emissions of greenhouse gases, the effectiveness of the EU in international negotiations on climate change and the issues that will have to be faced in the future. The Committee will not be examining the scientific side of climate change; the premise of the inquiry is that climate change is occurring and that it is largely caused by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.
The Committee has invited written submissions on this topic, and in particular on certain questions. The Green Party’s response is below, and follows the Lords’ questions.
EU policy on climate change
1. The Commission is this year expected to review their programme on climate change. Is the EU approach to climate change appropriate both for achieving its Kyoto targets and maintaining EU competitiveness?
The approach is inadequate to ensuring the achievement of the Kyoto targets.
Worse, the scientific evidence, eg from the UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Research Centre and from the RCEP report, is clear that achieving these targets by 2012 would not constitute sufficient progress to have a high probability of avoiding dangerous anthropogenic changes to the climate.
Certain EU actions, such as the active promotion and funding of the trans-European networks (TENs), are highly conducive to accelerating climate change.
2. Is the balance between Member State and EU action correct?
Probably, but both are equally inadequate.
The EU should require member states to take adequate actions. It should specify a set of ways in which this might be done, but should not require specific actions such as harmonised carbon taxes. However, it could for example specify a minimum value for carbon (and other eco-) taxes and use that instead of VAT as a main source of funding its activities.
3. Given that the Commission recently warned that only the UK and Sweden are currently on course to meet their emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol, how can the EU live up to its commitments under the Protocol? What measures should be taken against those EU countries not on course to meet their targets under the Protocol?
A financial penalty should be levied, at a rate related to (and significantly greater than) the current market value of carbon credits in the EU trading system.
Any revenue from this should be used to fund non-nuclear renewable energy and energy conservation projects across the EU.
But it must be understood that the Kyoto targets are inadequate anyway. Even if all EU countries meet them, we will not achieve our share of the global 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 demanded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. (And it must be noted that the latter’s recommendation was in the context of a "contraction & convergence" scenario, in which the UK could be expected to achieve more like 90% reductions by 2050, as we are a disproportionately high per capita polluter.)
4. What impact might inaction by individual Member States have on the EU as a whole?
Given that the EU is made up of Member States, inaction by any of them is likely to influence the degree of action (or inaction) by the EU. Given that only two Member States are even on course to meet Kyoto targets which are in any case very much inadequate, it seems highly unlikely that the EU itself will take appropriate action – unless a conscious decision is made to immediately give this matter the urgent priority it deserves.
There is currently a general culture of inattention or inadequate attention to this issue, entirely out of proportion to the devastating effects on countries and their populations, on the world economy and on the eradication of species which are expected to result from climate change. This culture must change if the requisite action is to be taken.
5. How will the accession of ten new Member States affect the EU’s climate change ambitions?
It should not be allowed to change the commitments or ambitions that any of the old or new Member States have previously reached. In coming rounds of negotiations the EU should reach agreements on behalf of all its member states, as was done with Kyoto, and then divide up the allocations internally. The EU as a whole should base its negotiating position on (a) constraining the maximum global mean temperature increase to 2°C above pre-industrial levels and (b) using the "contraction & convergence" (C&C) approach (see eg the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's report) to allocating emissions allowances.
6. The UK will hold the Presidency of the EU in the second half of 2005; what should be their priorities to achieve a sustainable policy on climate change?
7. How well understood is climate change amongst the public at large? Do many people know of its current and predicted effects? Do people know of its causes?
Not well enough.
The situation is made much worse by the balance of information received by the public. For every newspaper report expressing concern about the seriousness of climate change, there will be several pages’ worth of reports which speak in positive terms about economic factors which are conducive to increasing emissions (such as the good news that car production has grown in the last month), and of adverts encouraging activities conducive to increasing emissions.
This is why a concerted effort must be made by governments to drastically improve public understanding of the seriousness of the issue.
8. Do people know what they can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigate the effects of climate change?
Many people do, but are severely hindered from putting their intentions into practice.
For example, many people know that recycling reduces emissions, but don’t have local recycling facilities. The difficulty of recycling is shown by the fact that cities like Liverpool and Manchester have recycling rates of 2-3%. Contrast this with New Zealand, Western Australia, California and elsewhere, where concerted government action is being taken to achieve "Zero Waste" status by 2020 (a situation in which nothing is incinerated or landfilled, but all waste is recycled, re-used or composted, in each case leading to reduced greenhouse gas emissions).
Secondly, about a quarter of UK CO2 emissions come directly from road transport. Many people would doubtless like to use their car less or live without a car, but feel unable to do so because public transport is inadequate to meeting their needs. With the government spending £30 billion on roadbuilding in its 10-year transport plan to 2010, this is starving public transport of the investment necessary to alleviate car-dependency and meet the public’s mobility needs in a manner compatible with achieving drastic reductions in CO2 emissions.
Thirdly, even if the entire population was determined to use only non-nuclear renewable energy by say 2020, supplies would not be available. We would attribute this to the favour shown by the government to the nuclear and fossil-fuel industries and the relative weakness of its support for non-nuclear renewables.
Fourthly, domestic and business energy conservation programmes are very attractive as they reduce energy demand without impairing standard of living. We note that the Home Energy Conservation Bill of 2002, which had the support of some 400 MPs and which would have reduced domestic energy use by 30% within a decade, was stopped by the government.
In short, what a million indivduals can struggle to achieve with inadequate public transport, inadequate recycling, inadequate progress on non-nuclear renewables and insufficient cash to invest in their own energy conservation programmes, the government could easiuly surpass, systematically and in a relatively short period of time, through a small handful of Acts of Parliament.
It must be concluded that the problem lies not with the public but with governments.
9. Is the EU effectively communicating the urgency of climate change?
Absolutely not. When did anyone reading this response last see a TV or newspaper advert about climate change, or receive a letter or leaflet about the subject, funded by the EU?
10. Are EU policies regarding energy and renewable technologies compatible with climate change policy?
Evidently not. Emissions continue to rise.
11. Should there be more integration between these initiatives?
Yes. Such is the magnitude of the problem, and its consequences, that only a comprehensive response could be adequate to dealing with it.
12. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme will come into operation in 2005. How well are Member States progressing with the implementation of the scheme?
We must leave this question to governments of Member States. However, on the basis of Member States’ current performance regarding climate policy we would be surprised if they were actint expeditiously.
13. Has it been well designed?
In our view, nothing that falls short of the 2°C target, implemented through the contraction & convergence model driven equally by both equity and sustainability, can be considered adequate.
14. Is there a role for other economic instruments to be used alongside emissions trading?
Yes. There is no evidence that trading by itself can achieve adequate reductions.
Some carbon taxes (with an EU minimum level, we suggest) are almost certainly necessary.
Elimination of all direct and indirect subsidies that favour fossil fuel use, including for example the current £9 billion annual tax break for UK aviation, is essential (except where promoting certain kinds of fossil-fuel use in the short term serves a coherent strategic purpose in reducing emissions overall, for example by tilting the playing field away from the private car towards public transport, even where the latter is powered currently by fossil fuels but resulting in a lower level of emissions per passenger kilometre).
Subsidies for zero or reduced use of fossil fuel based energy by industry, transport and buildings are also desirable and should be encouraged by the EU, though probably better administered nationally.
Such subsidies should be based on achieved reduction in fossil fuel usage compared with a baseline in the past (otherwise it gives a perverse incentive to boost usage in the short term); rather than specifying particular methods such as CHP, conservation, or locally-produced energy.
The EU should require national grids to buy renewably generated electricity from small businesses, farms and households, at a price that includes an element reflecting the saving in emissions, valued at a modest surcharge over the current price of traded CO2 permits, and guaranteed for twenty years to provide the continuity guarantee that was lacking in the UK Non Fossil Fuel Obligation.
15. The EU has played a significant role in international negotiations on climate change. What role should the EU play in shaping future international objectives after the 2008-12 commitment period laid down in Kyoto?
Please see above. The EU should lead campaigns for establishing 2°C and contraction & convergence as aims globally, as well as for a major global publicity campaign to convince people everywhere of the need to deal urgently and adequately with climate change.
16. How effective is the EU in international climate negotiations?
Better than the USA and Russia, which is not much of a compliment.
17. How could it be more effective in encouraging those states yet to ratify the Protocol to re-engage in international discussions?
By giving this matter the degree of priority commensurate with its seriousness; by adopting the 2°C target and C&C, and actively campaigning on these.
18. How can the EU best exert pressure on developing countries to keep emissions under control whilst expanding their economies?
By setting the example as above, and by promoting contraction & convergence, which is driven by equity as well as sustainability.
ENDS
.