Peter Madden, chief executive of Forum for the Future, writes a monthly column for Gristmill on sustainability in the U.K. and Europe.
Things are hotting-up over here on climate change. And I'm not talking about the fact that we're set to have the warmest year on record. The political temperature is rising, too.
The European Union has agreed to a joint CO2 target for its 27 member countries and their 490 million citizens. The leaders committed to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020. But this is just a starter. The E.U. says that if other countries -- such as the U.S. -- agree to do more, we will up our target to 30 percent. So, we have 20 percent on the table unilaterally, with a chunk more if you guys step up to the plate.
Then, the U.K. government published a draft climate-change bill, which will make us the first country in the world to set legally binding carbon targets.
The bill will set U.K.'s targets -- for a 60 percent reduction by 2050 and around a 30 percent reduction by 2020 -- in statute. It will also bring in a new system of legally binding five-year "carbon budgets." These will provide clarity on whether the U.K. is on the right path to meet its commitments. There will be a new independent advisory and scrutiny body, the Committee on Climate Change, annually reporting to Parliament on progress.
The proposed bill was launched by the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, the Chancellor Gordon Brown, and the Environment Minister David Miliband. Miliband, one of the rising stars of British politics, also announced the initiative via a jargon-heavy YouTube webcast.
Most commentators welcomed the package. Friends of the Earth said, "We are delighted that the government has recognized the need for a new law to tackle climate change. The U.K. will be the first country in the world to introduce a legal framework for reducing carbon emissions." And investors should also be pleased with the certainty it gives.
The combination of long- and short-term targets is important. We need the long-term signals to give direction to business and society. But we also need to start acting now, and make sure we are going in the right direction. Without short-term targets, we will see the NIMTO effect (not in my term of office) where governments duck difficult decisions and leave them to future administrations.
Of course there are things to quibble about. Many NGOs want annual targets rather than five-yearly ones. And international aviation is not currently included in the measures. However, this bill is evidence of a real appetite to get things done. It is being backed up by a whole series of policy initiatives.
The Chancellor Gordon Brown, who will be prime minister from June, had already decreed that within 10 years all new homes would have to be zero carbon. He now wants to tackle existing housing stock and has also promised that "every home for which it is practically possible will become low carbon by 2016."
The current prime minister, Tony Blair, is backing a new U.K. trading scheme which is in addition to the European one. Known as the Energy Performance Commitment, it will cover large commercial and public-sector organizations such as universities, supermarkets, and hotel chains. Part of the rationale for this scheme is a feeling that the European trading scheme is not going far and fast enough.
Perhaps most radically, the environment minister, David Miliband, has been floating the idea of personal carbon allowances.
Much of this is still in the realm of targets and policies. And if there were a prize for setting targets, our current government would surely be the winner. But I do sense a real desire to do what is right and show leadership on climate change.
Why is this happening? It is partly because of ever-increasing clarity in the science. It is partly because big companies are suddenly getting serious about carbon. It is also, as I explained in Brit's Eye View back in September, because there is now serious competition between the political parties as to who is the greenest.
The weekend before the launch of the draft climate-change bill, the leader of the Conservatives -- David Cameron -- proposed new "frequent flyer" taxes to restrict the growth of aviation. In order not to hit the ordinary family holiday, his proposal is to allow everybody one tax-free flight a year, and then to escalate up the charges so that those taking lots of flights pay more. This has proved rather unpopular with Cameron's own party with their low-tax instincts, but has resonated very well with the green lobby. The very fact that a right-of-center political leader is now proposing such publicly unpopular green taxes shows just how far we have come in the climate-change debate here in the U.K.
Europe places outcome of Copenhagen squarely on Obama
Why developing countries cannot afford failure in Copenhagen
Comments
View as Flat
Junkk Male2 Posted 5:27 am
21 Mar 2007
It is worth remembering that, like many cultures, there are always a few alternative ways something can get taken, depending on the point you are looking from.
In the UK, it often seems there is what happens in the corridors of power and the surrounding London C-zone (in London the C is for congestion charge, but some may say it could also stand for `centric', the way the city's young, non-parent, tube, bus and flat-road blessed cyclopaths seem to view things) that takes in the media and urban luvvies.... and the rest of the country.
For sure, the environment is BIG. Certainly in government - we just had another budget where they stuck it to those 4x4s again, which will really make a difference to those in the City earning a bazzillion trading carbon credits when it comes to the annual upgrade to a wind-powered Cayenne, but may make it a bit harder in countryside where folk are still running 30 year old Land Rovers. Remind me again, how much of a car's carbon is in manufacture?
Glad the EU is agreeing to stuff anyway. Well, the leaders are not agreeing to very much they are asking the rest of us to do, if Mr. Baroso's defence of his Touareg is anything to go by. And our dear leader, and equally dear leader of HM's Opposition seem to have a small problem with the whole not flying thing if it applies to making THEIR lives nicer, easier and/or more profitable. Like the rest of us were doing it, especially on business, because we just love sucking up the bird flu from row 22.
And as to targets, we have enough for even an NRA Glee Club to go ape over. Hitting them... not so good. But we got `em. Squillions! And even more folk to assess, measure, interpret, committee, file, report, fine, explain, excuse, fly to Bali to discuss and all round not do very much but add to the demands on the public purse to keep a load of folk in green-gold until Armageddon.
Now I don't want to get into a `Big Oil denier/Eco-Nazi who said what and is funded by whom' quote-fest, but I would like to know who the `most commentators' were who welcomed this package. `Cos I don't recall it being quite as all round rosy and unequivocal as that. At least outside the C-zone, and even a few media guys from within that seemed a little less than impressed with how recognition of a need ever seems to turn into effective action.
Yes, stuff needs doing. And to ensure it gets done right, what it is needs to be agreed. Sadly, and it pains me to say this, this does necessitate some KPIs, but here is where think-tanks, government, eco-activists, business, the media, the public and real life may start to diverge.
Me, I just want what's best for my kids and their kids, so all I really care about is the enviROI, the return that the planet gets on any efforts made to reduce man's impact upon it (if indeed there is any, or whether it is necessary or not to mitigate a possible natural influence... or not). Been there. Got the blog-flames and a nifty hemp T-shirt that says "Make sure your footprint isn't a CarbCon one'.
Chancellor Gordon Brown, who MAY be Prime Minister from June unless I have missed something, does have a fondness for decrees. Not so popular with the British public though, such things. And as pointed out, there is theory and there is practice, and who is in office and who is not. Plus who has retired with a nice index-linked, gold-plated pension, and who is mopping up afterwards.
Unless I was only reading subversive underground literature, Enviro Minister David Miliband's floated ideas on personal carbon allowances were more of the lead balloon variety, being meant for no more than a toe dip and not exactly floated very high at all. And the guns seemed pretty well out for it even with the wee outing it did have.
A bit like those punted by David Cameron, the Conservative leader and, possibly, next leader of the land if the current polls are anything to go by. Both see carbon allowances and trading as a wheeze, and it is easy to see how they would appeal to those with mates in London, and being immune from the consequences of their actions 'because they are busy and important'. Just ask how the old road pricing went down. No problem in London. Not so great where folk have 50 mile round trips daily in the provinces.
I am also unclear as to how the science is getting... any clearer. The IPCC report rated two days in the broadsheets and barely got a mention in the tabloids. A few niche TV media had a stab. Then along came the Channel 4 documentary (mentioned in these pages), and fewer people think climate is an issue than did before. And that wasn't many. Most think it's a big con to squeeze taxes in the name of green to prop up runaway public spending and ministerial pensions and pointless campaigns from overfunded comms budgets.
If big companies are getting serious, it's only because they don't like the look of the fines coming, or see money in the marketing. Major retailers like Tescos are struggling to explain how a wind-turbine on a trial store's roof makes up for concreting over most of the country with car parks to sell Spanish strawberries in foam packs. Especially as the former will boost profits anyway. Meanwhile Richard Branson is still spinning how sending billionaires up on a column of greenhouse gasses for their own inter-stellar Kodak moment is offset by his air fleet not yet being on biodiesel. And Stuart Rose of M&S has ordered a hydrogen-powered Beemer which will need a truck to follow it with refills. Bless.
Speaking of which, and competition between political parties, it was Mr. Cameron who rather famously cycled to work with his lunchbox following behind in a hybrid Lexus. But at least his wind turbine went up today. I have posed a question online as to its actual enviROI during its lifespan. While I see no problem with forking out extra cash to save the planet, I do have one with churning out superficial guff that will do no such thing. And the spin vs. action surrounding that inner-city propeller blade makes for a worthy metaphor on what we are facing.
I have long been in favour of allowances, but simply can't see how they are to be managed. Who gets one tax-free flight? Me? Madonna and Guy? What about every Kalahari bushman and Mekong Delta boat lady who didn't even know they were part of the global reckoning. Or... aren't they? Is it just for rich folk to trade with each other? Because if 6 billion get one free flight I'd say Ryan Air shares will go ballistic. And the planet will fry in a fortnight.
There's debate all right. Maybe it's me, but from deniers and e-fascists on climate change, to politicians trying to score cheap, non-binding e-points, it all seems pretty ineffective stuff. And if it's passing me by when I care as much as I do, I think it all needs to get a bit more relevant to the rest of the UK population sooner rather than later.
And on the day we see a bunch more taxes go up in the budget, with little to show for it than more beancounters with clipboards, those who are in power, and those in un-elected Quangos doing very nicely from their profligate, unaccountable spending, would do well to remember the people still have a vote.
At least for now.
Nope, still can't see any ships on the horizon quite yet.
Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.
Permalink
Junkk Male2 Posted 5:27 am
21 Mar 2007
It is worth remembering that, like many cultures, there are always a few alternative ways something can get taken, depending on the point you are looking from.
In the UK, it often seems there is what happens in the corridors of power and the surrounding London C-zone (in London the C is for congestion charge, but some may say it could also stand for `centric', the way the city's young, non-parent, tube, bus and flat-road blessed cyclopaths seem to view things) that takes in the media and urban luvvies.... and the rest of the country.
For sure, the environment is BIG. Certainly in government - we just had another budget where they stuck it to those 4x4s again, which will really make a difference to those in the City earning a bazzillion trading carbon credits when it comes to the annual upgrade to a wind-powered Cayenne, but may make it a bit harder in countryside where folk are still running 30 year old Land Rovers. Remind me again, how much of a car's carbon is in manufacture?
Glad the EU is agreeing to stuff anyway. Well, the leaders are not agreeing to very much they are asking the rest of us to do, if Mr. Baroso's defence of his Touareg is anything to go by. And our dear leader, and equally dear leader of HM's Opposition seem to have a small problem with the whole not flying thing if it applies to making THEIR lives nicer, easier and/or more profitable. Like the rest of us were doing it, especially on business, because we just love sucking up the bird flu from row 22.
And as to targets, we have enough for even an NRA Glee Club to go ape over. Hitting them... not so good. But we got `em. Squillions! And even more folk to assess, measure, interpret, committee, file, report, fine, explain, excuse, fly to Bali to discuss and all round not do very much but add to the demands on the public purse to keep a load of folk in green-gold until Armageddon.
Now I don't want to get into a `Big Oil denier/Eco-Nazi who said what and is funded by whom' quote-fest, but I would like to know who the `most commentators' were who welcomed this package. `Cos I don't recall it being quite as all round rosy and unequivocal as that. At least outside the C-zone, and even a few media guys from within that seemed a little less than impressed with how recognition of a need ever seems to turn into effective action.
Yes, stuff needs doing. And to ensure it gets done right, what it is needs to be agreed. Sadly, and it pains me to say this, this does necessitate some KPIs, but here is where think-tanks, government, eco-activists, business, the media, the public and real life may start to diverge.
Me, I just want what's best for my kids and their kids, so all I really care about is the enviROI, the return that the planet gets on any efforts made to reduce man's impact upon it (if indeed there is any, or whether it is necessary or not to mitigate a possible natural influence... or not). Been there. Got the blog-flames and a nifty hemp T-shirt that says "Make sure your footprint isn't a CarbCon one'.
Chancellor Gordon Brown, who MAY be Prime Minister from June unless I have missed something, does have a fondness for decrees. Not so popular with the British public though, such things. And as pointed out, there is theory and there is practice, and who is in office and who is not. Plus who has retired with a nice index-linked, gold-plated pension, and who is mopping up afterwards.
Unless I was only reading subversive underground literature, Enviro Minister David Miliband's floated ideas on personal carbon allowances were more of the lead balloon variety, being meant for no more than a toe dip and not exactly floated very high at all. And the guns seemed pretty well out for it even with the wee outing it did have.
A bit like those punted by David Cameron, the Conservative leader and, possibly, next leader of the land if the current polls are anything to go by. Both see carbon allowances and trading as a wheeze, and it is easy to see how they would appeal to those with mates in London, and being immune from the consequences of their actions 'because they are busy and important'. Just ask how the old road pricing went down. No problem in London. Not so great where folk have 50 mile round trips daily in the provinces.
I am also unclear as to how the science is getting... any clearer. The IPCC report rated two days in the broadsheets and barely got a mention in the tabloids. A few niche TV media had a stab. Then along came the Channel 4 documentary (mentioned in these pages), and fewer people think climate is an issue than did before. And that wasn't many. Most think it's a big con to squeeze taxes in the name of green to prop up runaway public spending and ministerial pensions and pointless campaigns from overfunded comms budgets.
If big companies are getting serious, it's only because they don't like the look of the fines coming, or see money in the marketing. Major retailers like Tescos are struggling to explain how a wind-turbine on a trial store's roof makes up for concreting over most of the country with car parks to sell Spanish strawberries in foam packs. Especially as the former will boost profits anyway. Meanwhile Richard Branson is still spinning how sending billionaires up on a column of greenhouse gasses for their own inter-stellar Kodak moment is offset by his air fleet not yet being on biodiesel. And Stuart Rose of M&S has ordered a hydrogen-powered Beemer which will need a truck to follow it with refills. Bless.
Speaking of which, and competition between political parties, it was Mr. Cameron who rather famously cycled to work with his lunchbox following behind in a hybrid Lexus. But at least his wind turbine went up today. I have posed a question online as to its actual enviROI during its lifespan. While I see no problem with forking out extra cash to save the planet, I do have one with churning out superficial guff that will do no such thing. And the spin vs. action surrounding that inner-city propeller blade makes for a worthy metaphor on what we are facing.
I have long been in favour of allowances, but simply can't see how they are to be managed. Who gets one tax-free flight? Me? Madonna and Guy? What about every Kalahari bushman and Mekong Delta boat lady who didn't even know they were part of the global reckoning. Or... aren't they? Is it just for rich folk to trade with each other? Because if 6 billion get one free flight I'd say Ryan Air shares will go ballistic. And the planet will fry in a fortnight.
There's debate all right. Maybe it's me, but from deniers and e-fascists on climate change, to politicians trying to score cheap, non-binding e-points, it all seems pretty ineffective stuff. And if it's passing me by when I care as much as I do, I think it all needs to get a bit more relevant to the rest of the UK population sooner rather than later.
And on the day we see a bunch more taxes go up in the budget, with little to show for it than more beancounters with clipboards, those who are in power, and those in un-elected Quangos doing very nicely from their profligate, unaccountable spending, would do well to remember the people still have a vote.
At least for now.
Nope, still can't see any ships on the horizon quite yet.
Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.
Permalink
Junkk Male2 Posted 5:12 pm
21 Mar 2007
Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:10 pm
22 Mar 2007
<<
I have long been in favour of allowances, but simply can't see how they are to be managed. Who gets one tax-free flight? Me? Madonna and Guy? What about every Kalahari bushman and Mekong Delta boat lady who didn't even know they were part of the global reckoning. Or... aren't they? Is it just for rich folk to trade with each other?
>>
This is brilliant! What a concept! I already have a cast in mind!
It is a sort of road movie, starting off in Heathrow airport. Three passengers (plus companions) on a flight to NYC:
A Kalahari bushman, a student in a missionary school, writes an essay on the injustices of Christian missionaries, and is admitted into NYU. He is accompanied by NYU's beautiful blonde assistant director of admissions, and by young Brother Theodore from the school, and by his own dear wise-cracking little brother.
A Vietnamese woman has a pet duck, who has survived all sorts of terrible diseases, but whose immunity drops whenever he is not in her presence. She is invited to bring him for study to the Cornell ornithology lab. He has sat in her lap the whole time from Vietnam to London. She calls him "Che." They are accompanied by a wise, experienced nurse, and by a greenhorn kid from Kentucky, new at Cornell, constantly aware that this is his first big job.
An English writer, a fanatic environmentalist, has written a very very very long screenplay, the story having to do with the catastrophic effects of global warming, the rise of sea levels, and the subsequent release of the Loch Ness Monster. He is flying to LA, to negotiate the editing with a producer. He is accompanied by his usually helpful but ever so disdainful gay agent, by his three kids, and by his sweet and lovely sister-in-law, filling in while his wife, her big sister, works out her breakdown in Yorkshire. Of the kids, the eldest dreams of becoming a nun at the Crystal Cathedral, or else of being Michael Jackson's date at the Academy Awards; the middle one dreams of running away and becoming a sea-otter-handler in Monterey; and the little one dreams of bicycling with PeeWee Herman to see the dinosaurs in Cabezon.
With cameo appearances, by Guy Ritchie, as The Prime Minister, and Madonna, as The Terrorist.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Junkk Male2 Posted 11:21 pm
22 Mar 2007
Heathrow scramble starts as EU agrees historic 'open skies' deal - http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article238392 ...
'European transport ministers took the historic step of approving an open skies pact to liberalise the transatlantic airline market yesterday, triggering a scramble to launch new services from Heathrow to major US cities' - weeeee, more planes! That will help.
Budget 07: mean not green - http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_sauven/2007/03/b ... - 'The reintroduction of the fuel escalator was the chancellor's only real concession to the environment lobby.' - so, not so green from HMG's next PM then.
Green groups warn of backlash against Budget - http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2377703. ... - kind of does what it says on the tin
'You can't change world by wearing sandals' - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007 ... - Luckily, the heads of EU government feel his pain
I'd go on, but then Mr. cc would mock me for my awesome length, and I am feeling Friday fragile.
It would still be nice to get an answer to my question, though:)
I'd like to understand how this CarbCon trading thing works.
No, really.
Do before you talk. Then share. If it's also fun and inspiring, people will want to read more. They may even be inspired follow your example.
Permalink
marine tt Posted 11:02 pm
02 Jul 2007
Permalink