Tuesday, November 27, 2007

CBI agrees with Stern

A much greater sense of urgency is required if the UK is to meet its targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, says the CBI in its climate change report issued just prior to its recent conference.

It concludes that for an investment of around £100 a year per household (under 1% of GDP, around the same as Stern) by 2030, a more sustainable way of life using low carbon products and services is possible.

It says that "the UK we should not wait for others. The issue at hand is serious and requires an immediate response." Informed by a major study from McKinsey, its Task Force assessed the benefits and costs of options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions up to 2030 needed to meet the government’s 2050 target.

It calls therefore for:
• business to incorporate climate change policies into its DNA
• it needs to audit and reduce energy use
• reliable and consistent consumer information
• much wider access to low carbon products and services
• incentives to make low carbon investments
• more energy efficiency, especially in transport and buildings.

Both Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling told the CBI annual conference today and yesterday that "nuclear power potentially has a role to play in tackling climate change and improving energy security" and, "we will announce our final decision early in the New Year."

Does this by any chance mean that they have pre-judged the result of the nuclear consultation? Surely not!

> www.avtclient.co.uk/climatereport


neil craig said...

Obviously nobody at the CBI, who always go out of their way not to disagree with the illusions of those in power, could possibly have seen the Stern report before.

Low Carbon Kid said...

So business always agrees with Government? Hoho. In fact the CBI responded to the Stern Review when it appeared - see:

Interestingly the Stern Review was criticised by 'radical greenies' for not being based on current science (http://RisingTideNorthAmerica.org/sternreport.html). If it had been, they said, it should have called for a 80% reduction by 2050 not a 60% reduction. Funnily enough, that's just what Gordon Brown changed the policy too last week.