UK’s carbon budget – not what it seems

by | Apr 22, 2009 | Climate and resource scarcity, UK

British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling has been trumpeting a “34% cut in UK emissions by 2020” in his budget speech:

Today, I am presenting the world’s first ever carbon budget, which commits Britain to cut carbon emission by 34 per cent by 2020.

These budgets give industry the certainty needed to developed and use low carbon technology – cutting emissions, creating new businesses and jobs.

They are a landmark step, which point the way to the vital decisions which must be made at the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit later this year.

But this cut is not quite what it seems. The baseline year isn’t 2009 or 2010, but 1990. UK emissions had already fallen 19.5% below 1990 levels in 2008 and will be falling fast in 2009 due to the recession. So the cut over 2010-2020 will be considerably less than 15%

If there’s a deal at Copenhagen, the UK will almost certainly have to do more. According to the background briefing, the UK aims to help the EU achieve a 20% cut by 2020 (again, against a 1990 benchmark). But Europe has said it will accept a 30% cut if others reciprocate – so the UK’s rather unambitious carbon budget may soon need to be tightened…

Update: The media seem quite happy to propogate the figure without explaining that it doesn’t mean what it seems to mean.

BBC:  Britain commits to cut carbon emissions by 34% by 2020

Guardian: Carbon budget commits UK to reduce emissions by 35% by 2020.

Telegraph: Chancellor presenting the world’s first ever carbon budget, committing Britain to cut carbon emissions by 34pc by 2020.

Times: Commits to cutting carbon emissions by 34% by 2020

Independent: Chancellor, presenting the world’s first carbon budget, committed Britain to cut carbon emissions by 34 per cent by 2020.

Green stimulus – fine words, little action

by | Apr 2, 2009 | Climate and resource scarcity, London Summit

I have long thought that we’ll live to regret our failure to use the current crisis to nudge the global economy onto a greener trajectory. A WWF/E3G report, published today, heightens this fear.

By weighting elements of national stimulus packages, it offers a quick and dirty estimate of how green each one is. The answer is ‘not very’ with the UK’s risible effort one of the worst offenders.

The share of ‘climate friendly’ stimulus is small, researcher find, and it’s more than offset by investment in roads (including one to Manchester airport) and fossil fuel R&D (yes – read that and weep).

You can quibble with the analysis. Investment in nuclear is not included on the green side of the ledger – which seems unfair on the French, who have low per capita emissions relative to GDP and expect additional nuclear investment to push them lower. But the scoring is transparent and easy for others to replicate with different weightings.

And there’s a much bigger point: why is it up to a couple of NGOs to do this work? By now, the G20 should have set up standardised and sophisticated systems for monitoring the net carbon impact of each country’s stimulus package.

That they haven’t shows how confused and fragmented our thinking remains about the interlocking crises the world faces.

Disclosure: I recently agreed to act as an adviser to E3G in the run up to Copenhagen, but have had no involvement in any aspect of this report.

Japan begins to take climate change seriously

by | Mar 31, 2009 | Climate and resource scarcity, Economics and development

In the last few weeks, Japan has spent just under $1bn buying carbon emission rights from Ukraine and the Czech Republic, as it scrambles to meet its Kyoto obligations.

Japan agreed at Kyoto to cut its CO2 emissions by 6% from 1990 levels by 2013. Instead, its emissions are rising annually – they rose 2.3% in the year to March 2008.

It has now convened a board of scientists to suggest ways forward to prime minister Taro Aso. It has put forward five proposals, ranging from a 25% cut in 1990 levels by 2020, to a 4% increase.

Last week,  the government also launched its own tentative efforts at an EU style cap and trade domestic market:

The market’s compliance participants include 202 major emitters such as utility and steel companies, a step forward from its smaller predecessor, called J-VETS market.

 

But a government survey of applicants showed only 20 percent of the respondents said they would take part in trading, with 40 percent saying they didn’t know. The remaining 40 percent said they had no immediate plan to trade any.