Climate Change Reports are Welcome but Action is Needed
The Stern report published today is a welcome step in getting the Government to take the issue of climate change seriously. After nine years the Government seems to be catching up with the mounting anxiety within society about the threat of climate change to our planet.
The Government now needs to demonstrate with actions that the report and the appointment of Al Gore are not just tactical political manoeuvres in trying to upstage Cameron on the issue of the environment.
After delays and lengthy consulations the Government published its renewed Climate Change Programme (CCP) earlier this year. The general reaction was that by failing to set out a clear strategy and programme of action the CCP was a wasted opportunity. The report of the All Party Parliamentary Environmental Group on the CCP prepared by the Institute for European Environmental POlicy found that the CCP failed to set out the actions needed to move the UK economy forward towards its target of emissions reductions.
The CCP's projections confirmed that the Government does not expect to reach its 2010 target of 20% reduction in carbon dioxide until 2016 or beyond. This does not bode well for the Government's performance over reaching the 60% reduction target by 2050.
It also explains why up until now the Government has also steadfastly refused to support legislation to set clear annual targets on cilmate change policy.
This weekend's media reports of the devastation being caused by climate change in Africa brought home with graphic effect the impact on the poorest in our global community.
The Campaign Against Climate Change demonstration on Saturday (4th November)will be highlighting that the action currently being taken by Governments to control climate change is nowhere near sufficient to match the scale of the problem.
Ther is a clear and urgent need for a Climate Change Bill to be a priority in the forthcoming Queen's speech but this Bill must set out a series of radical and concrete actions which transform the policymaking and expenditure priorities of the Government.
This means challenging some powerful vested interests who have always had the ability to almost dictate Government policy to protect their interests. This includes the aviation industry. For over 20 years I have campaigned to press successive Governments to make the aviation companies accountable for the environmental damage they inflict. The Treasury under Gordon Brown has blocked any attempt at making the aviation industry pay its way even in terms of VAT on fuel and has come out promoting expansion at Heathrow airport.
As Chair of "Heathrow Watch" and with Heathrow in my constituency I know just what environmental damage can be done by an industry virtually out of environmental control. At long last people and Government's are beginning to listen to us.
I fully support the Demonstration at the weekend and will seek to ensure that any proposed Climate Change Bill will not be too little too late.
The Government now needs to demonstrate with actions that the report and the appointment of Al Gore are not just tactical political manoeuvres in trying to upstage Cameron on the issue of the environment.
After delays and lengthy consulations the Government published its renewed Climate Change Programme (CCP) earlier this year. The general reaction was that by failing to set out a clear strategy and programme of action the CCP was a wasted opportunity. The report of the All Party Parliamentary Environmental Group on the CCP prepared by the Institute for European Environmental POlicy found that the CCP failed to set out the actions needed to move the UK economy forward towards its target of emissions reductions.
The CCP's projections confirmed that the Government does not expect to reach its 2010 target of 20% reduction in carbon dioxide until 2016 or beyond. This does not bode well for the Government's performance over reaching the 60% reduction target by 2050.
It also explains why up until now the Government has also steadfastly refused to support legislation to set clear annual targets on cilmate change policy.
This weekend's media reports of the devastation being caused by climate change in Africa brought home with graphic effect the impact on the poorest in our global community.
The Campaign Against Climate Change demonstration on Saturday (4th November)will be highlighting that the action currently being taken by Governments to control climate change is nowhere near sufficient to match the scale of the problem.
Ther is a clear and urgent need for a Climate Change Bill to be a priority in the forthcoming Queen's speech but this Bill must set out a series of radical and concrete actions which transform the policymaking and expenditure priorities of the Government.
This means challenging some powerful vested interests who have always had the ability to almost dictate Government policy to protect their interests. This includes the aviation industry. For over 20 years I have campaigned to press successive Governments to make the aviation companies accountable for the environmental damage they inflict. The Treasury under Gordon Brown has blocked any attempt at making the aviation industry pay its way even in terms of VAT on fuel and has come out promoting expansion at Heathrow airport.
As Chair of "Heathrow Watch" and with Heathrow in my constituency I know just what environmental damage can be done by an industry virtually out of environmental control. At long last people and Government's are beginning to listen to us.
I fully support the Demonstration at the weekend and will seek to ensure that any proposed Climate Change Bill will not be too little too late.
posted by John at 12:24 PM
6 Comments:
Excellent post - I fear Al Gore was a stunt.
Just look at his record when he was vice president, US carbon emissions sky-rocketed.
Brown is too afraid of offending big business to really make difficult decisions.
Well done John, the left needs to have a voice offering real green solutions - although a few more ploicy proposals would be good
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I can't believe it, I agree with you (in the main)! :)
“Wondering Labour Party, so lost, so helpless, yearning for my guidance…”
www.phantomofthelabourparty.blogspot.com
Although it seems that the cabinet have at last woken up I am not sure their heart is in the right place. The buzz word in conservation talk these days is emission trading.
"Emissions trading allows companies to emit in excess of their allocation of allowances by purchasing allowances from the market" http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/trading/
The department of transport are congratulating themselves in utilising Emissions trading in defence of their expansion plans for Heathrow Airport . Their response to campaign letters states :-
"At an international level, the Government believes that including aviation in an emissions trading scheme is the most effective way of ensuring that it makes a contribution to climate change goals."
In other words it is okay to pollute the community underneath the flight path so long as we pay for it. So they recommend we buy our way out of blame and never mind the individual.
I cannot see any justification in rejecting tax on either airplane fuel or on tickets sold.
Air travel is NOT a base need for any individual.
Food, warmth, housing and the air that we breath IS.
As you probably know, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
recently launched (1) a report (2) that stated that the UK needs to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90 per cent below 1990 levels by
2050 to make sure that world temperatures do not rise 2 degrees
centigrade above pre-industrial levels. At the moment, the UK
government's estimate is that a 60% cut in emissions is needed to avoid
a 2 degree Centrigarde increase in temperatures by 2050. However, the
authors of the Tyndall Centre study conclude that a 90% cut in
emissions is actually needed because aviation and shipping were not
factored into the governments estimate. Indeed, when these are factored
in, UK carbon emissions have not fallen at all since 1990 (when we are
supposed to be reducing our emissions by 12.5% below 1990 levels by
2012!). Some commentators, such as George Monbiot, the Met Office and
others (3), even think we should reduce our emissions by 90% by 2030
because the calculations are flawed in the previous report. After
seeing George Monbiot speak recently, he
said that after confronting the Tyndall centre about this very fact
they admitted that they used flawed numbers because they believed a 90%
cut by 2030 would not be politically acceptable in our current
political climate (See his article on the political reality problem
below (4)).
I was wondering if you will push the government to reassess its long term emissions targets in light of the recent work by the Tyndall Centre, the Met Office and George Monbiot?
Many Thanks,
Ed
(1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1873070,00.html
(2) http://foe.org.uk/resource/reports/low_carbon_economy.pdf
(3) http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09/21/an-87-cut-by-2030
(4)
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09/21/how-much-reality-can-you-take/
Post a Comment
<< Home