Committee says UK must act unilaterally to speed up emission cuts

Its recommendations, if implemented, would put a stop to new coal-fired power plants that fail to incorporate carbon capture and storage (CCS) and potentially limit aviation expansion. 

Business leaders warned today that they could also impede the UK’s ability to compete in global markets.

The Environmental Audit Committee’s report argues the current pace of carbon cutting in the UK is too slow and that the Government is only on track to meet its first carbon budget because of the impact of the recession.

“Ministers have often been too 'optimistic' when projecting how much carbon their policies will cut – and there is now a worrying shortfall in delivery,” the report says.

Specifically, it points out that UK emissions are currently falling by only about one per cent per year, instead of the two to three per cent that the Committee on Climate Change says is needed to avoid dangerous climate change.

It calls for urgent action to meet the two to three per cent target, to be followed by moves to tighten carbon budgets and increase the 2020 target for reducing emissions to 42 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020.

As part of a strategy to deliver this higher target, the Committee calls on the Government to “put the right regulatory framework in place to ensure that we do not wrongly invest in high-carbon infrastructure” – effectively banning developments such as new coal-fired power plants that don’t employ CCS.

The Committee also recommends that the Government shows the impact of emissions from aviation and shipping on progress towards meeting its targets – and that any growth in aviation is within the bounds set by the Committee on Climate Change and doesn’t have a negative impact on emissions targets or carbon budgets.

The report says the UK Government should move to the new 42 per cent target “whether or not the EU moves to a 30 per cent target for cutting its emissions”.

Although the Committee recommends that the Government should be prepared to move unilaterally “to secure competitive advantages for the UK in emerging markets for low carbon technologies”, business leaders today suggested that the more ambitious emission cuts recommended could be very damaging to UK businesses overall.

“For the UK to move to a 42 per cent reduction commitment while the rest of the EU is not committed to increasing their target to 30 per cent, would seriously damage industry in this country especially when efforts to meet the original 34 per cent target are proving a significant challenge,” said Gareth Stace, head of environment policy for the manufacturers’ organisation, EEF.

A recent survey of EEF members found that despite a clear commitment by manufacturers to address climate change, a majority of SME’s were struggling to keep pace with the changes already announced by Government.

Stace added that if more ambitious targets were set: “Competitiveness could be damaged to such an extent that it will place a significant cost on the economy that will prove unsustainable and make the UK a less attractive place for international investment.”

Dr Neil Bentley, director of business environment at the CBI made a similar point: “It may be right to move to a more ambitious emissions reduction target in the future, but we need to be wary of being two steps ahead of the rest of the world. 

“Without a level-playing field internationally, UK businesses could find themselves at a disadvantage, and some firms may simply shift production to countries where emissions targets aren’t as tough.”

But it’s the Environmental Audit Committee’s contention that any efforts by the UK to cut emissions, at whatever level, will be rendered meaningless without a global climate deal, and unilateral action of the kind it proposes could be critical to securing such an agreement.

The Committee’s chair, Tim Yeo MP said: "We must send a clear signal to developing countries that we are serious about making an international deal work – by meeting our own targets more quickly. 

"The slower our progress; the less credibility we will have internationally.”