Last month I went to see my MP, Bev Hughes, as part of the Big Ask campaign to lobby the Government to introduce the Climate Change Bill and put into law year on year 3% reductions in UK carbon emissions. After intense lobbying the Bill gained the support of the majority of MPs in the House, the majority of Labour MPS and the became policy of both the Lib Dems and Conservatives. Today in an unprecedented break with protocol the Environment Secretary revealed that a Bill would be included in the Queen’s Speech. This is a victory for the campaign and an important first step - however any legislation must include firm annual targets.

The announcement comes on the day of the publication of Sir Nicolas Stern’s authoritative report on the economics of climate change and mitigation. Stern, we are told, is to be despatched to the US to put the economic argument to the Bush administration, whilst in the UK Al Gore will become an advisor to the Government on climate change.

In summary David Miliband has said the Bill will contain 4 key elements:

* It will put the Government’s long term goal to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions by 60% by 2050 into statute. How the target is
defined and set, and how we measure and report on our progress,
are fundamental issues that we are still considering. We will also
consider appropriate interim targets.
* It will establish an independent body – the Carbon Committee – to
work with Government to reduce emissions over time and across the
economy. Its advice will be open, transparent, equitable and
mindful of sectoral and competitiveness impacts, including the
need to secure energy supplies at competitive prices.
* It will create enabling powers to put in place new emissions
reduction measures needed to achieve our goals.
* It will improve monitoring and reporting arrangements, including
how the Government reports to Parliament.

I have written a letter to Bev Hughes as part of the continuing campaign:

Re the Climate Change Bill

Dear Bev,

Thank you for writing to Tony Blair and David Miliband on my behalf regarding the Climate Change Bill. As you are aware the Big Ask campaign has been hugely successful, as reflected in the fact that David Miliband has been able to hurry commitment to a Bill at this late stage.

My concern is that the bill is said to offer a series of 10-year targets rather than the year-on-year cuts that the campaign hopes to achieve.

The argument has been made that annual targets are impractical due to varying annual circumstances – examples have been given such as unexpectedly strong economic growth or unusually cold weather – both of which might increase carbon emissions. The first example displays a fundamental lack of understanding that it is only by de-coupling economic growth from increased carbon emissions that climate chaos can be mitigated. The second is not an argument against the need for annual cuts, it is simply an example of why it may be difficult to meet a target in a particular year. From a Government as married as your own to the idea of target driven performance in areas of equally complex variability, the Government risks appearing disingenuous. We are left with the impression of a Government whose primary concern is to defer implementing difficult policies.

This weekend the Guardian (28/10/06) reported the findings of the EU environment commissioner that, based on current measures and policies, the emissions of the EU-15 members will be just 0.6% below 1990 levels by 2010 - against the EU-15 countries commitment under the Kyoto protocol to an 8% cut on 1990 levels by 2012. This is not even a tenth of the target and clearly demonstrates that long-term targets have failed.

Moreover, in reality UK carbon emissions have not fallen since 1990. Government calculations that show a decrease are misleading as they fail to take into account emissions from international shipping and aviation. Facts do not cease to exist simply because they are ignored.

Furthermore, a ten year target is simply outside of the necessary time frame for the urgent task at hand. The recent report of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research argues that the Government has only four years to implement a programme of action to cut carbon emissions if the UK is to play its part in keeping global temperatures below danger levels. To make a smooth transition to a low carbon economy the Government, business and individuals need to begin immediately to implement a major programme of action to significantly reduce our carbon emissions.

Sir Nicolas Stern’s report published today (30/11/06) also makes clear that the time for prevarication is long passed and that the possibility of avoiding a global catastrophe is “already almost out of reach”. He argues it will cost the world up to £3.68 trillion unless it is tackled within a decade. Jim Hansen, a leading climatologist and Director of the Godard Institute of Space Studies has stated: “We have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change – no longer than decade at most.”

Sir Nicolas Stern’s report presents the cost of mitigating climate chaos at as little as 1 per cent of global GDP - about £184bn. I say “as little” as we might compare this figure with the $251bn approved to date by the US congress for the occupation of Iraq, or indeed the real long term cost of the Iraq war calculated at between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, as estimated by former Chief Economist of the World Bank Joseph Stiglitz.

This is, says Stern, against global costs arising without early intervention of 5-20 % of GDP. But these figures do little to convey the scale of the human cost of unmitigated climate chaos. Do we measure the cost of the Second World War in terms of lost GDP?

At our meeting you acknowledged you were aware of the arguments, made by Al Gore amongst others, of the danger of crossing “tipping points” into abrupt climate change. Such abrupt climate change holds out a threat to the very survival of our nation and global civilisation itself.

I would urge you in the strongest possible terms to use your influence with Tony Blair to argue for a robust Climate Change Bill with year on year reductions in carbon dioxide emissions of 3%. A meaningful Bill:

  • Would require ministers to draw up plans to achieve these targets
  • Require an annual report to Parliament on progress towards meeting these targets
  • Institute mechanisms to require any government falling behind to improve policies quickly – and create new powers to hold ministers accountable.

The Bill need not be a party political issue – only by rejecting the Bill in the form proposed by the Big Ask campaign and accepted by the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives, the majority of Labour MPs and the majority of the House, will it become so.

The Bill will free politicians from the short-term obligations of the electoral cycle by making the reductions mandatory on all future governments. It will liberate governments to make difficult and perhaps unpopular long-term decisions.

If your Government fails to introduce a robust and meaningful Bill it will be rightly castigated by the press, pressure groups and opposition politicians. Far more important though will be the judgement of history. A profound responsibility lies upon your generation of politicians – should you fail to rise to the threat of climate chaos the opprobrium expressed for the architects of appeasement will be as nothing to the historical condemnation in which you will be held. Should you have the political courage to make the difficult decisions demanded by the climate change crisis you will be remembered as having helped deliver future generations from this most profound of threats.

Best regards,

Dan Welch