80% cut in carbon emissions by 2050 - minimum target for rich countries

The Climate Change Bill must say that we should aim for at least a 80% cut in carbon emissions by 2050.

Last week's UN human development report called for such a target for the richer countries.

Speaking to the Royal Economic Society last Friday, Nicholas Stern underscored this: "For a global 50% reduction in emissions by 2050, the world average per capita must drop from 7 tonnes to 2-3 tonnes.

"An 80% target for rich countries would bring equality of only the flow of emissions around 2-3 tonnes per capita.

"In fact, rich countries will have consumed the big majority of the 'available space in the atmosphere'."

In other words, if we are to achieve an equitable world agreement on carbon reductions, we have to commit to cuts of 80% or more.

This should therefore be in the Climate Change Bill.

The same is true in the States, where the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday passed the Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) sponsored climate change bill that would establish the first US nationwide cap-and-trade system to reduce global warming gas emissions.

The bill now moves to the Senate floor. The decision sends a positive message to the Bali talks about America's willingness to accept responsibility for climate change.

But even with aggressive action by developing countries and other industrialized nations, the United States must cut its emissions at least 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050, argues the Union of Concerned Scientists.

They say that in its current form the bill gets about three-quarters of the way there.

Heathrow Third Terminal social cost - three times higher than Government figure

The Environmental Audit Committee on December 4 heard Friends of the Earth and WWF say that

The figure for the economic cost of carbon emissions — the future cost of climate change - being used by the Government to justify developments like Hathrow's third terminal - is nearly three times lower than Sir Nicholas Stern recommended.

Stern cites a figure for the social cost of carbon in 2000 of $85 per tonne of CO2 equivalent.

Using DEFRA's exchange rate, Friends of the Earth calculated that that equates to £53 per tonne of CO2 equivalent.

But DEFRA has introduced a new concept — "the shadow cost of carbon" — and puts the 2000 value of that at only £19, which is nearly three times lower.

What does this mean?

It gives us a social cost of carbon emissions in the Heathrow consultation of just £4.8 billion.

If DEFRA and the Department for Transport had stuck to Sir Nicholas Stern’s figure, they would have put the cost at more than £13 billion.

That would have stopped in its tracks the proposal for a third runway at Heathrow.

Although carbon emissions are rising year on year — and have risen since the Government came to power — they have given the green light to one of the very projects that will stop them meeting their own targets.

The cost to the environment and, as Sir Nicholas Stern pointed out, to the economy will be huge.

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