Open letter to Friends of the Earth
Many thanks for your invitation to speak at a public meeting on climate change being organised by Friends of the Earth and my apologies for not being able to accept because of other commitments. I am, therefore, pleased that you have asked me to send some written comments.
Your meeting is timely.
As you might know, I am a member of the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee which is currently preparing a major report on Climate Change. We have already taken evidence on what will be the first section of that Report – on the role of renewable energy. In the autumn we will be concentrating on what we are calling The Citizen’s Agenda – actions which individuals can take in their daily lives to help tackle climate change, including micro-generation, in local communities, schools and businesses.
While I am sure that Friends of the Earth nationally will be submitting evidence, it did seem to me that local people might well consider submitting evidence.
You can find details of the inquiry on the EFRA Committee section of the House of Commons website.
As you say in your letter, Tony Blair has said that climate change is “the single most important issue we face as a global community”. Action is needed at the local, national and international level.
That is why at the international level the Labour Government made working for effective action on climate change one of its 2 priorities for the UK Presidency of the European Union and the G8 from July-December 2005. (The other, of course, was the related issue of the global fight against poverty.)
While we would all have wanted more to come from that period in terms of international agreement, there is general acknowledgement that it was thanks to the approach taken by the UK, often in the face of the intransigence of the US government, that more was achieved at the Montreal summit in November/December 2005 than had been anticipated by many – agreement to:
• Implement the Kyoto Protocol;
• Strengthen the Protocol by providing additional support for the improvement of the Clean Development Mechanism;
• Establish the Five Year Adaptation Work Programme;
• Launch discussions on action beyond 2012 – when the first commitment period under Protocol ends.
As you will know it was agreed that action on the post 2012 period will concentrate on targets beyond 2012 to be agreed by the developed countries which are signatories to Kyoto and talks by both the Kyoto and non-Kyoto parties including the US and Australia on the longer term future. In relation to this the involvement of China and India in the G8 discussions was essential.
Since Montreal you will be aware that the Prime Minister and DEFRA hosted an International Symposium on Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change at the Met Office, Exeter at the beginning of February with participants, mainly scientists and representatives of international organisations and national governments from some 30 countries. (There’s more information of the DFRA website www.defra.gov.uk )
Your letter mentions the importance of national targets for CO2 reduction and I welcome your support for the Commons Early Day Motion, to which I am a signatory, put down in Parliament on 24th May last year by my Labour colleague Michael Meacher MP calling for a Bill to secure annual cuts of 3%.
With provisional estimates of only a 5.4% cut by 2004, this process is needed if the UK is to reach the ambitious target set by the Labour government of achieving 20% reduction in CO2 emissions on 1990 levels for the UK by 2010. The current estimate is that we will achieve a 15%-18% reduction by 2010. I believe that with legislation setting national targets along the lines of those proposed by Michael Meacher we would do better than that.
However, it is important to remember that the 20% CO2 target is a self-imposed one by the government in addition to our commitments under Kyoto and the 1990 Rio conference. That commitment was to reduce emissions from a “basket” of 6 greenhouse gases by 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2008-2010 and we have gone beyond that target already.
A major problem is, of course, emissions from transport, as your letter indicates – hence the Select Committee’s view that it was important to investigate bio fuels and for the UK to possibly learn from what is happening in Brazil, parts of Europe and California.
Nationally the Alternative Fuels Framework, the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation, variable rates of Vehicle Excise Duty and Air Passenger Duty all are important tools used by the government and I also welcome the effort being put by the government into securing proposals for the inclusion of aviation fuel into the EU Emissions Trading Scheme by the end of this year, because this is an aspect of transport policy where, to be effective, European or wider international agreement is needed.
Locally, as a life-long non-driver, who relies on public transport, I welcome the improvements made possible by investment by the government and the bus company in local public transport, increasing bus use by some 5% a year for each of the last 12 years. The further funding of £2 million for 2006-2007 ear-marked for Sustainable Transport Corridors, Real Time Passenger Transport Information and Intelligent Transport Systems will also help bring more improvements.
As will the government investment of £1.5 million in cycling initiatives in Brighton and Hove over 2005-2008 through the designation of the City as one of Cycling England’s “cycling demonstration towns”.
But it is clear that making our City cleaner in terms of reduced vehicle emissions, park and ride should be an essential part of local transport policy. I regret that opposition by the Conservative councillors to particular sites, together with opposition in principle from the Greens - a betrayal of the city centre residents they represent - prevents this for the time being.
These local initiatives must of course link into a national system of integrated public transport with more done to support and encourage both passenger and freight rail transport.
Working towards carbon neutral businesses, homes and communities is vital and in Parliament I have been lobbying for more encouragement and support for micro generation, including supporting Labour MP Mark Lazarowicz’s Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill which has government backing and would make it easier and cheaper to install renewable energy systems in and on their homes. The removal of unnecessary planning obstacles and increased government assistance will be coupled with an obligation on power companies to buy back energy produced.
The Conference being held at the University of Brighton this week on micro generation will focus on this issue, while the government’s raising from April 2006 of the home energy efficiency standards for new housing by 40% over 1997 levels and the inclusion of an energy performance certificate as a component of the new Home Information Packs required soon for house sales make all issues of energy efficiency more important in a very direct way.
As a Co-operative Party as well as a Labour Party MP I welcome the role of the co-operative movement, particularly in supporting renewable energy projects.
For example, there’s Co-operative Financial Services decision to incorporate 7,000 photovoltaic panels into one of its buildings in central Manchester and 19 micro-wind turbines on the roof of another in the city. There’s also the Co-operative Group’s agreement with Scottish Power to provide green energy to all the Group’s sites in the UK mainland. Part of the agreement includes plans for a windfarm in Cambridgeshire to power 10,000 homes.
Of course you will also know that through its Customers who Care campaign the Co-op Bank is working with Friends of the Earth.
Locally, the Earthship project in Stanmer Park shows the scope not only for the domestic use of renewable energy, but also for construction based on renewable or recycled materials. ( An issue I have raised in Parliament is the need for systems like those in Denmark, for instance, which require recycling of building materials.) It is good see recent proposals for major new housing schemes coming forward locally based on renewable and energy efficient principles including solar and wind power.
It is clear to me that within the general framework of the Renewables Obligation there is more scope both at the level of national and local government for incentives, including more carbon off-setting schemes, and penalties.
While I believe that the Climate Change Levy, climate change agreements, Enhanced Capital Allowances for energy saving investments and the support available through the Carbon Trust have all helped to keep the UK on track so far as Kyoto commitments are concerned, it also seems to me that the figures released in May about the poor performance of some UK companies as part of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme show that we so need to be thinking more about penalties for polluters as well as incentives to prevent pollution.
Finally, in terms of long-term energy policy: while I think it is right that proper consideration should be given to nuclear power, my own view is that it does not provide the answer, stores up immense problems for the future in terms of storage of nuclear waste and offers additional targets for terrorist attack. Reliance on it for energy supply would also be likely to divert attention from the continuing need for research into and support for genuine forms of renewable energy.
