ed's website

Before I begin, if anyone spots any errors in the following text, please email me and I will change them immediately.

Dear all who read this,

We are all naturally concerned with climate change and the UK's targets for emissions reductions. On this page I shall begin by sharing with you some of my concerns and will then highlight how one of our representatives - Des Turner MP - is responding to them.

First the concerns:

My main reason for writing to Des Turner was the serious disjunct between what various experts are saying about climate change and the degree of carbon emissions that we need to cut to avoid serious climatic impacts and the action that the government is actually doing about this.

When you read things like this from the summary of the Tyndall Report:

“Carbon dioxide emissions have not fallen in the UK since
1990, despite Government claims to the contrary. The Government’s figures have ignored emissions from international aviation and shipping.” (p.2)

And this from the full Tyndall Centre report:

“The UK has reached a ‘tipping point’! If the Government’s carbon dioxide targets are to actually have meaning, the Government must act now to curb dramatically the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions. The message from this research is that stark. In waiting for technology or the EU ETS to offer a smooth transition to a low-carbon future, we are deluding ourselves. It is an act either of negligence or irresponsibility for policymakers continually to refer to a 2050 target as the key driver in addressing climate change. The real challenge we face is in making the radical shift onto a low carbon pathway by 2010-12, and thereafter driving down carbon intensity at an unprecedented 9% per annum, for up to two decades.” (p. 162)

and also see the following graphs from the Stern Report:

(Source: Slides by Dr Paul Williams and slides by Stern)

The accompanying notes to the above slide (which shows the commitment to warming from stabilising at different levels of greenhouse gases) from Stern's talk outline the following:

"What is the link between greenhouse gases and temperature?

"First, we must recognise the lags in these processes. Our emissions are a flow each year and accumulate in the atmosphere building up stocks over time. We are currently adding around 2.5 ppm of greenhouse gases a year in CO2 equivalent and the current stock of all greenhouse gases, in CO2 equivalent is around 430ppm. And these stocks affect temperatures with a lag. For example, we are already committed to at least ½ºC more in the next few decades from emissions we have already made.

"The slide shows eventual temperature increases corresponding to different levels of stabilised stocks. Red lines show ranges corresponding to two studies IPCC(2001) and Hadley (2004) which have formed the basis of our risk analysis. Grey bars give the range of existing studies. We have been fairly cautious. Some more recent studies show a bigger range at the upper end.

"And there is uncertainty in linking temperature change to amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, it is clear that as the levels of greenhouse gases rise, the ranges shift to the right, i.e. to higher temperatures. At the upper end of the ranges, the climate is entering very dangerous territory. Thus the risk analysis must include the possibility of very powerful effects.

"450ppm means around a 50:50 chance of keeping global increases below 2°C above pre-industrial. At this level, it is unlikely that increases will exceed 3°C. At 550ppm, there is around a 50:50 chance of keeping increases below 3°C, but it is unlikely that increases would exceed 4°C. 550ppm is risky, but far less risky than business-as-usual: continuing on the current path until the end of this century gives at least a 50:50 chance of an eventual temperature rise above 5°C.

"Given where we are (as I noted 430ppm and adding 2.5ppm per year and rising); given the obvious dangers of going over 550ppm, this strongly suggests that we should aim somewhere between 450 and 550ppm CO2e."

He then goes onto say:

"What is involved in stabilising? The slide shows the paths of flows of emissions which are required in gigatonnes of CO2e per annum.

"450ppm is already nearly out of reach. 450ppm means peaking in the next 5 years or so and dropping fast.

"550ppm means peaking in the next 10-20 years and falling by between 1 and 3% per year.

"It is clear that stabilising at 550ppm or below involves strong action. For example, the power sector around the world will have to be at least 60% de-carbonised by 2050 and with a bigger proportion de-carbonised in rich countries. But such stabilisation is feasible. If action is delayed by 20 or more years the ability to stabilise at or below 550ppm could slip away, or the costs would rise sharply."

And finally if you also look at things like this from Lord Beaumont:

"We also need to take responsibility for all the carbon production in the whole of our economy... the UK's rising levels of CO2 emissions are an under estimate of what our economic activity produces. For we are in effect now exporting the production of CO2 abroad, to China and other countries. When we consume products manufactured abroad, they use carbon in production and transit. The production is counted in the carbon figures where it is produced, and the transportation, under Kyoto, is not considered at all.

"If we took these factors into account, our society would be seen to produce around 20% more carbon emissions."

When you bring all of this together you can't help but be worried about the disjunct between rhetoric and action! At 550 ppm CO2e, according to Chit Chong, there is only a 16% chance of coming below a 2C rise, and at 450ppm there is around a 50% chance (Chit calculated these figures by using the following method: "I just looked at the summary charts on Stern presentation, and measured the 5% to 95% distribution at the various concentrations of CO2e, and scaled them assuming a more or less even distribution."). This point is confirmed by the ippr when they say, "stabilising at 550ppm, the basis of the Government’s current 2050 target [60 per cent cut of CO2 emissions by 2050], would provide only a 10-20 per cent chance of keeping global temperature rise under 2ºC." Many scientists say that a dangerous temperature increase would be around 2 degrees Centigrade. This is the temperature at which serious climatic effects is predicted to have widespread impacts. Why then is the government still aiming to stabilise at 550 ppm C02e? Even the Stern presentation lays out the risk that above 2C there is an increasing likelihood of abrupt and major irreversible changes.

When asked about this in the House of Commons by Colin Challen, David Miliband (Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) gave quite an ominous response:

Colin Challen: "Is my right hon. Friend going to review our 2050 target of a 60 per cent. cut in emissions in the light of the Exeter conference and of the most recent report by the Tyndall centre, which shows that, if our current transport appetite continues, we will have to reduce emissions by 70 per cent. by 2030 and by 90 per cent. by 2050?"

David Miliband: "I will deal with these issues, but I always say that we must try to achieve at least a 60 per cent. reduction in our carbon dioxide emissions, compared with 1990 levels, by 2050. There is always a danger in changing an ambitious target that has a widespread degree of buy-in and consensus. The CBI, voluntary organisations and, I think, the Opposition parties recognise the power of that 60 per cent. target, so I am slightly loth to start changing it too soon. But I recognise the value of the point that my hon. Friend makes."

Criticism of Des Turner's response to my letters (see below)

I must preface my criticism of Des Turner by saying that he is obviously very dedicated to working on climate change. As I say below, I have always been impressed by his commitment to the issue.

I must also admit that some of my questions to him in the letters (see below) could have been more concise (especially in the first two letters to him), however this is no excuse for Des Turner to consistently avoid answering them. He also ignored my request for him to ask several questions to David Miliband on my behalf. Not only did he avoid answering many of my questions and requests, but I would say that the last letter that he wrote to me (dated 14th Nov 2006) was quite rude and patronising.

To top it all of, he also consistently got my name wrong! He kept addressing the letters to my brother David, instead of me!

While I understand that he is a busy (how can he not be, as according to this "the size of constituencies varies according to a number of factors but on average a constituency will contain approximately 67,000 electors" - I still don't understand how one person can possibly represent the interests and values of that many people), he could have at least tried to give me some honest answers to my questions. This exchange inevitably makes me feel like I can trust politicians even less.

As the Power Inquiry reported:

"Contrary to much of the public debate around political disengagement, the British public are not apathetic. There is now a great deal of research evidence to show that very large numbers of citizens are engaged in community and charity work outside of politics. There is also clear evidence that involvement in pressure politics - such as signing petitions, supporting consumer boycotts, joining campaign groups - has been growing significantly for many years. In addition, research shows that interest in 'political issues' is high. The area of decline is in formal politics: turnouts for general elections has declined very significantly since 1997; turnout for other elections has remained stubbornly low for years; party membership and allegiance has declined very severely over the last thirty years; elected representatives are held in very low esteem and widely distrusted." [my emphasis] (Power Inquiry, p.16)

The report goes onto say:

"Surveys consistently display very low levels of trust in politicians at least since the 1980s. These tend to find that those who say they trust politicians rarely rises above 25 per cent and usually hovers at just below 20 per cent." (Power Inquiry, p.50)

The report goes into more detail on the lack of trust in politicians and formal political institutions in the chapter The Myth of Apathy which starts on page 41.

To be honest, when Des Turner consistently evades answering the questions that I asked him I can't help but trust politicians even less. All I wanted was honest and in-depth answers to my questions! Is that too much to ask when I am asking about an issue which is of such importance for the future of life on this planet?

Anyway, please feel free to read the correspondence below and make your own mind up. HOWEVER, I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT IF EVERYONE WHO READS THIS CORRESPONDENCE EITHER SUGGEST IDEAS TO ME ON HOW TO RESPOND TO HIM AND/OR WRITE TO HIM YOURSELF ABOUT IT. As I noted in my last blog entry, long-term targets (such as those for 2050) make it difficult to keep current politicians accountable because the deadline will not occur on their watch. We need to keep the pressure up to ensure that real change happens now and the political agenda of today's government is changed.

Correspondence with Des Turner

Friday 6 October 2006

Dear Desmond Turner,

I have seen you speak on several occasions on climate change and I am always impressed by your commitment to the issue. For that, I thank you.

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 Centigrade 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 at the Old Market in Hove yesterday, 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 wanted to know:

1) What is your position on this?
2) What is the official government response to the Tyndall report and to George Monbiot's claims of a 90% reduction needed by 2030? and
3) What the UK government is planning on actually doing about this?

As I am sure you understand, I am deeply worried about this issue, not only for myself but for my future children and grandchildren.

To me it seems that while politicians have faced up to the seriousness of climate change, they are not willing to match words with action. If the UK government supposedly has a strong policy on climate change, how can it simultaneously expand airports and roads without it being accused of being deeply hypocritical? To me this just does not make
sense.

As my representative, I hope that you will fight for as much political action on emissions reduction as possible as well as an end to hypocritical policies on climate change.

Many Thanks,

Edward Griffith-Jones

(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/

Des Turner took so long in replying that I wrote him a letter on carbon rationing in the intervening period:

Wednesday 25 October 2006

Dear Desmond Turner,

I am writing to ascertain your position on carbon rationing. Carbon rationing seems to me to be the only equitable solution to climate change (and the only solution that will actually work), although I am worried about the bureaucratic implications and the fact that the state would have yet more information about our whereabouts/activities.

The rich will carry on abusing the worlds resources with eco-taxes as they have the money not to care. Eco-taxes will potentially make the poor even more worse off as they wont be able to afford basic services (for example, people on low incomes not being able to afford heating bills).

For more information, see the following two explanations. First an article in the New Statesman:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200610230015

and a four page summary on how it would work from the Tyndall Centre:

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/research/theme2/dtqs_summary.pdf

I would love to know if you support the introduction of a carbon rationing system in this country and if you will push the Labour Party to support such a scheme? If you do not support this scheme, could you tell me why not?

Maybe we could meet in person to discuss this further?

Yours sincerely,

Edward Griffith-Jones

Des Turner replied to the first letter (see pdf of it here):

30th October 2006

Dear Mr Griffith-Jones,

Thank you for your email dated 6th October 2006. I apologies [sic] for the delay in responding to you.

I agree with the Tyndall Report. I do not know what the official Government response but the Government is doing what it has already advertised in terms of its climate charge [sic] policy.

Yours sincerely,

Des Turner MP

And then a reply to the second letter came through the letter box soon after (see pdf of it here). He also sent me a copy of his Summer 2006 Parliamentary Report/newsletter. Please note that the majority of the text below has been copied and pasted from this press release which he issued a little while ago:

3rd November 2006

Dear Mr Griffith-Jones,

Climate Change and carbon rationing

Thank you for contacting me with regard to the crucial issue of climate change. In my view there is no more important issue facing us at the present time, and it remains at the top of my agenda. Since being re-elected in May 2005 I have tabled an Early Day Motion on climate change and renewable energy. In January of this year I organised a major conference at the House of Commons on climate change, at which the keynote speaker was Professor Sir David King, the Chief Scientific Advisor to the Government.

One of my main successes during my first two terms in Parliament was bringing in legislation to force the electricity regulator Ofgem to give priority to renewable sources of energy, such as wind, wave and tidal. In 2001 I introduce a Home Energy Conservation Bill to reduce domestic C02 output, subsequently the government took up the proposals and passed them into law as part of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003.

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, of which I have been a member since 1997, has produced two reports on renewable energy which have done a great deal to promote interest in wave and tidal energy generation. Commercial prototypes supported by government funding are now being developed and could be making a considerable contribution to Britain's energy supply within five years.

Having met its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, the UK is now committed to cut carbon emissions by 20% before 2010 and 60% before 2050. I will back a new law which requires the government to make steady annual progress to meet these targets. Please be assured that I have signed EDM 178 on Climate Change and will continue to push for further urgently needed progress on this vital issue, including moves toward carbon neutral/carbon rationing policies.

Yours sincerely,

Des Turner MP

Friday 3 November 2006

Dear Desmond Turner,

Many thanks for your reply dated 30th October 2006.

While it was encouraging to see that you support the recent work of the Tyndall centre (which suggests that we need a 90% reduction in emissions by 2050 if airline and shipping emissions are included in the calculations), I was disappointed to see that you did not answer my questions on the predictions outlined by George Monbiot and the Met Office. I am enclosing the article below by George Monbiot which outlines his position for your interest [for those reading it online, you can find it here].

In your last letter you stated that: "I agree with the Tyndall Report. I do not know what the official Government response but the Government is doing what it has already advertised in terms of its climate change policy." I was wondering if you think that the current policy that you refer to has been sufficient, especially as CO2 emissions have actually risen since 1990 when you include emissions from shipping and aviation? Do you agree that the government must stop airport and road expansion if it is serious about reducing emissions? Do you agree that the government should heavily subsidise renewable and CHP technologies in line with subsidies given to fossil fuel industries in the past and with the subsidies currently being handed out in countries like Germany and Denmark?

I was also disappointed to see that the proposed climate change bill commits the Government to reduce emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. Why is the government not aiming towards the 90% reductions by 2050 as suggested by the Tyndall centre (1, 2) (or even the 90% reductions by 2030 suggested by George Monbiot and the Met Office (3))?

As my representative, I hoped that you could ask the Environment Secretary, David Miliband, the following questions on my behalf:

1) What is the official government response to the Tyndall Report (to reduce emissions by 90% by 2050) and the figures outlined by George Monbiot and the Met Office (to reduce emissions by 90% by 2030)?
2) Will the government reassess its long term emissions targets in light of the recent work by the Tyndall Centre, the Met Office and George Monbiot?
3) Will the new independent Carbon Committee look at - and challenge - the long term emission reduction targets set by government? Will the Carbon Committee be able to set and adjust the targets in light of changing circumstances and new scientific evidence, instead of just overseeing the government's progress in cutting carbon emissions?
4) Does the government plan to stop airport and road expansion?

Yours sincerely,

Edward Griffith-Jones

(1) http://foe.org.uk/resource/reports/low_carbon_economy.pdf
(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1873070,00.html
(3) http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09/21/an-87-cut-by-2030

Des Turner replied (see pdf of it here):

14th November 2006

Dear Mr. Griffith-Jones,

Thank you for your email dated 3rd November 2006. I have to say that I do not need George Monbiot to tell us that we have a serious problems on your hands [sic]. I suggest you wait for the Climate Change Bill.

Yours sincerely,

Des Turner MP

Please help me respond to him. If you have any ideas or questions that you think I should ask him, please just email me at ed -AT- acrewoods -DOT- net (replace AT with @ and Dot with .). Alternatively, write to him (or your MP) about it yourself.