Blair still hung up on CO2 variations caused by the weather

Downing street staff install one CFLIn the interview below, Blair is still saying that variations in the weather are the reason for not having annual CO2 targets. Annoyingly, interviewers seem to forget to suggest that the government statisticians would be quite able to adjust for this. He's also talking about carbon footprinting and budgeting; lobbying by David Miliband seems to be working.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1993581.ece Blair: Who says I'm not green ? By Michael McCarthy, Environmental Editor Published: 18 November 2006 Britain is seeking international agreement on a global target for stabilisation of greenhouse gases, which would halt the progress of global warming, Tony Blair has told The Independent. The radical measure would be a major leap forward from the Kyoto agreement and the biggest step yet in the fight to combat climate change. The Prime Minister outlined his move in a wide-ranging interview, arguing a staunch defence of his Government's record in tackling the issue of global warming and repeating his assertion that climate change was the greatest long-term threat to the world. "We're sometimes attacked as being back-markers here, but nowhere in the rest of the world sees us like that. "Of course we've got to do more, but we have achieved a lot. The difference between being a politician responsible for taking decisions, and a pressure group that puts pressure on those who take the decisions, is that the pressure group can put forward maximum demands, but the politician who actually takes the decision has got to balance competing demands." Mr Blair dismissed criticism of his opposition to annual targets to cut British carbon emissions as "posturing, not practical politics". He also implicitly ruled out aviation taxes, another measure favoured by the green lobby, insisting that a much better way forward was to deal with aircraft emissions under the European Union's emissions trading scheme. The Prime Minister, on a visit to the nuclear plant at Sellafield in Cumbria, launched a defence of his position on nuclear power. He said: "There is a decision we now have to take, as to whether we're going to replace our nuclear power stations and develop a new generation of nuclear power. I believe we should. I've given my view that if we want to deal with energy security and climate change, we've got to have the right policy for the future, and it's got to include nuclear." Mr Blair also revealed that Britain would seek agreements to make future EU coal-fired power stations carbon neutral through improved technology. And he hinted that a planned Energy White Paper would address the issue of personal carbon allowances - the idea that each individual would have a carbon "budget" to spend on motor fuel, electricity and other activities that impact on the environment. The move has already been floated by David Miliband, the Environment Secretary. But the measure that will be most welcomed by green campaigners is likely to be the proposal to set a global target for stabilisation of greenhouse gases. If set by the leading nations of the world, such a target - meaning the point beyond which concentrations of carbon dioxide and other gases would not be allowed to grow - would be a decisive move, and the biggest step forward yet in the fight to combat climate change. Mr Blair is hoping that agreement on the principle of a global goal can be agreed next spring by the G8 group of rich nations, currently the world's biggest CO2 emitters, in partnership with the five big developing countries, led by China, which will soon be emitting even more. China is likely to overtake the US as the biggest CO2 emitter by 2010. At the G8 summit in Gleneagles in Scotland last year, Mr Blair persuaded the developing nations to talk about their emissions for the first time. If the Chinese - plus the Indians, Brazilians, Mexicans and South Africans - can be persuaded to sign up to a target, the Prime Minister hopes the US may sign too, and thus end its hugely damaging isolation from the main climate change policy process which has lasted since George Bush withdrew the US from the Kyoto protocol in 2001. Although Kyoto set out a series of targets for nations to cut back their own greenhouse gas emissions, no one has yet agreed on aiming for a target the other way round - for stabilisation of the total amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere. This is much more important, and if agreed, would offer governments and business all over the world the clearest possible signal of exactly what needed to be done. At present the atmospheric CO2 level is about 382 parts per million by volume (ppm), and rising at more than 2ppm annually. When all the other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide are included, and expressed in CO2 terms, the figure is about 430ppm. This is known as "carbon dioxide equivalent", or CO2e. The target Mr Blair and his officials have in mind would seek to halt the growth of greenhouse gases somewhere below 550ppm CO2e, perhaps between 500 and 550 - the figures are still being discussed, but 550 is regarded as the upper limit. It would involve legally binding cutback agreements from those who signed up to it, and has been put forward by the UK to be taken on during the German presidency of the G8 next spring. The initiative - which has German support - would offer a major way forward for when Kyoto comes to an end in 2012. On the vexed question of compulsory annual emissions reductions, highlighted by The Independent earlier this week, Mr Blair said: "Look, the plain fact of the matter is, the reason why Kyoto and the European Trading System went for targets over longer periods, over five-year periods, is because even changes in weather or changes in fuel price can make a huge difference to whether you can meet an annual target or not, and it ís just too inflexible." There was a difference between "practical politics, and posturing," he said. "The difference between serious policy-making and non-serious policy-making in this area is the difference between people who think they might actually have to implement the decision, and people who don't. "The cold weather in 2001 produced a variation of, I think, an additional 3 per cent in CO2 emissions. If you had a binding target to reduce CO2 emissions by 3 per cent, you could find you were suddenly being asked to put up fuel duty massively. Governments aren't going to be doing that. So you've got to have sufficient flexibility built into your system, and targets over a longer run." On the question of what should be done about the rapidly rising CO2 emissions from aviation, he struck a similar note: "Put it [aviation] in the European Emissions Trading System, that's the single most important thing you could do. But the danger - again it's the difference between practical politics and posturing - is that if we prevented people in Britain taking cheap flights, but people in Europe were still able to do it, you wouldn't make a great deal of difference except you'd make travel a lot harder for low-income families." Britain was pushing hard for aviation to be included in the ETS, he said. But what Britain would be doing, he said, was to help people to come to terms with their own personal "carbon footprint" through measures in the forthcoming Energy White Paper. "I think the idea of saying to people, look, you can actually measure you[r] own impact and do something about it, the idea of a] carbon budget, is very powerful," he said. "One of the things we will come out with in the Energy White Paper is how your ordinary citizen, each of us in our own way, make a difference." Asked if he was talking about personal carbon allowances, he said: "We're looking at all those things for the purpose of the White Paper, but you'll have to wait until it comes out." His hint will be widely welcomed by environmentalists. But another part of what he said will have many of them grinding their teeth. Despite fully sharing their belief in the seriousness of the climate threat, Mr Blair parts company with the likes of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth over what he sees as a key part of the solution, and they do not - nuclear power. Asked if he accepted that there were public fears about nuclear power, he said: "Yes, there are public fears, but they're often generated less by knowledge than by people saying well, if something has got the word 'nuclear' in it, then there must be a problem." On the issue of nuclear waste he was equally unapologetic. (The Government has announced that Britain's long-term nuclear waste store will be deep underground, but only located in a community that volunteers to take it. It may yet be decades away.) He was asked: "What do you say to people who say, you're creating more nuclear waste with a new generation of nuclear power stations, when we still don't have a site for disposal of the waste that's been created over the last 50 years?" Mr Blair replied: "Well, we're going to have to get that site, in any event, and we said that's best done by people volunteering. And the new nuclear power stations generate about a tenth of the waste [of the old ones] - but in any event we're going to have to find storage for that. "But when you actually go into the details of the science of that storage, some of the fears that are raised seem to me at any rate to be completely exaggerated." Few would deny that Mr Blair has done more than any other world leader to raise the profile of the climate change issue on the international agenda, and - especially if the greenhouse gas stabilisation target can be achieved, or even initiated, on his watch, that will be seen as a major part of his political legacy. However, he dismissed the idea of a legacy and declined to use the personal pronoun, contenting himself with saying: "I think what we have done on climate is important." He was then asked if he might consider continuing to work on the climate issue after he leaves office, perhaps for the UN. He said: "I don't know. I will retain a strong interest in it because I believe passionately in it. As I've said, it is the greatest long-term threat that faces the world. But I tend not to answer questions about what I'll do afterwards, because I'm not in afterwards - yet." The PM's policies Kyoto, Mark II: PM is seeking international deal to limit global greenhouse gas emissions Aviation taxes: Blair believes it is better to deal with plane emissions on a Europe-wide scale Cleaner coal: PM wants all new EU coal-fired power stations to be carbon neutral Personal responsibility: A White Paper may address individuals' carbon allowances

Take the Politics out of Climate Change !

In response to John Acker's post about the Independent article :-

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1993581.ece

I got as far as the following paragraphs before I sighed in despair,
and then felt a rising anger.

Tony Blair clearly has a mental block about the issue of Climate Change.

And that is because this is not an "issue" at all - we don't really have
options about taking action on Carbon Dioxide emissions.

It's not a case of whether we have blue curtains or red curtains in the
Prime Minister's Cabinet room. It's not a question of choice, or pressure
groups, or lobbying.

This is a very real crisis. It's not about politics, or ideology.

Read the paragraphs that incensed me again :-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The difference between being a politician responsible for taking
decisions, and a pressure group that puts pressure on those who
take the decisions, is that the pressure group can put forward
maximum demands, but the politician who actually takes the
decision has got to balance competing demands."

Mr Blair dismissed criticism of his opposition to annual targets to
cut British carbon emissions as "posturing, not practical politics".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, we are back to this attitude : "Be nice to us. Stop complaining.
We can't listen to you. We can't move very fast or very far at the
moment because there are strong links between the economy and
the Fossil Fuels industries. In fact, cheap oil and gas underpin our
whole economy, and we can't do without them, or the industry
support. You lot are making public derision of sensible policy. Stop
it. We can't possibly set targets, because we've failed the last lot
from Kyoto. And anyway, George W Bush has got away with not
setting targets in emissions reductions - merely setting targets in
intensity levels - which amounts to diddly squat [ translation = not
a lot ]. And then the Canadians have followed suit. And the Australians
don't give a fig [ translation = not much ] about this game at all."

Tony, for all our sakes, cut the carp and CUT THE CARBON !

This is not a game. And it shouldn't be subject to political expediency
[ translation = what you can get away with when everyone's shouting
different demands ].

I don't care HOW you do it, or what you CALL it - it amounts to
the same thing - regulate, legistate and enforce CUTS in
Carbon Dioxide emissions.

It's CARBON TARGETS : we can't lose all our emissions overnight
in 2050 when we've promised to make a 60% reduction by. We must
do emissions cutting year by year.

It's a CARBON BUDGET, with reductions year on year.

It's CARBON RATIONING, at a personal, national and international level.

This is not posturing. This is the only way to manage the crisis.

Tony Blair said "I think the idea of saying to people, look, you can actually
measure you[r] own impact and do something about it, the idea of [a] carbon
budget, is very powerful...One of the things we will come out with in the
Energy White Paper is how your ordinary citizen, each of us in our own
way, make a difference."

A Carbon Budget is not just a powerful idea, it's essential. And it's got to
be national, not just personal. If every person gets a Carbon Ration, then
people will have more babies and invite more Eastern Europeans to come
live with them...and the Carbon Dioxide emissions total will go up.

IF placing taxes on Carbon-rich activities can be shown to cut
Carbon Dioxide emissions by reducing participation in those
activities, then we should set Carbon Taxes to try to change behaviour.

But Carbon Taxes on their own CANNOT set an overall cap on
Carbon Dioxide emissions. They just make it slightly more expensive
to emit.

The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme EU ETS is a
joke : the national allocations are too high and some countries
are refusing to reduce them in the next round.

Carbon Trading cannot possibly constrain Carbon Dioxide emissions,
and rein them in to match the reductions dictated by the science,
unless there are targets which are legal and binding and enforceable.

Tony, you've lost the plot. You were wrong about Iraq. You were
wrong about Nuclear Power. You are wrong about avoiding targets
on Carbon Dioxide emissions.

De-carbonisation, De-carbonisation, De-carbonisation.

We CANNOT make progress in tackling Climate Change without
SERIOUS policy to CUT THE CARBON. Don't try to duck this !

You cannot decide policy based on competing demands on this
"issue". That's RIDICULOUS. You MUST follow the science.

Watch this, politicos, you who think this is all about judging the mood
and following the general trend : and see how YET AGAIN we have
been suckered into following along behind American non-policy on
this "issue" :-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Denial Machine : CBC : the fifth estate
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
In the past few years, a hurricane has engulfed the debate about global warming.

This scientific issue has become a rhetorical firestorm with science pitted against
spin and inflammatory words on both sides.

A recent British report [ Stern ] estimates that the projected costs of global warming
to be as costly as both world wars and the Great Depression added together.

Yet, with such consequences, some scientists still insist that climate change, if it is
happening at all, could be a good thing.

The Denial Machine investigates the roots of the campaign to negate the science
and the threat of global warming.

It tracks the activities of a group of scientists, some of whom previously consulted
for for Big Tobacco, and who are now receiving donations from major coal and oil
companies.

Who is keeping the debate of global warming alive ? The documentary shows how
fossil fuel corporations have kept the global warming debate alive long after most
scientists believed that global warming was real and had potentially catastrophic
consequences.

It shows that companies such as Exxon Mobil are working with top public relations
firms and using many of the same tactics and personnel as those employed by
Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds to dispute the cigarette-cancer link in the 1990s.

Exxon Mobil sought out those willing to question the science behind climate change,
providing funding for some of them, their organizations and their studies. The
Denial Machine also explores how the arguments supported by oil companies
were adopted by policy makers in both Canada and the U.S. and helped form
government policy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Roland has written to me about this after watching the stream from CBC :-

A good point that it can take time to discover or corroborate evidence of bankrolling.

One journalist made wide-ranging claims about Richard Lindzen receiving oil industry money (see Realclimate or Wikipedia) which last year's New Scientist feature didn't (dare ?) mention (see my links at http://portal.campaigncc.org/impacts).

I think the film should have put a particular rebuttal to the notion that scientists overnight became enamoured with the global warming theory. Namely, that it has taken many years for scientific thought to move from poignant conjecture to today's consensus reflected in last year's joint statement by leading science academies.

The line about improving carbon intensity, used by the Bush and Harper administrations, was also used by Gordon Brown in his speech to the G8 energy and environment ministers' conference, London 15/3/05.

[The line about] improving air quality : wasn't that a defence put out by Drax during the Climate Camp ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Miliband makes me weep as well - he started out so well - talking about
Carbon Rationing on Day 1 of his appointment. Now he's being dismissive about
targets, budgets which are essential to underpin Carbon Rationing and make it work.

It seems he has been nobbled [ translation = compromised, make to recant,
change path ] He has not grasped the logic of a Carbon Budget it seems.

Here's a sample :-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,1947588,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
David Miliband has rejected the idea of the UK establishing binding annual carbon
emission targets as "silly", as the government prepares to unveil its key climate
change bill tomorrow.

The environment secretary, podcasting exclusively for Guardian Unlimited from
the UN climate change talks in Nairobi, said a more "sensible" approach was to
have annual reporting back to the Commons on cuts and reductions.

The environment secretary also said he was neither optimistic nor pessimistic as
to whether the talks in Kenya would achieve a result by the end of the week.

"It's genuinely uncertain as to whether the world community can come together
and put aside its short-term interests," he warned.

The Conservatives and Lib Dems support the concept of an annual target for
carbon emission cuts.

Mr Miliband said he was not going to "slag off politicians" over the issue, but it
was more important to have the overall target of 60% by 2050 "enshrined in
legislation so business knows what path we are on".

"I don't think that binding annual targets are necessary. It's something the
international community has said is not sensible.

"We think binding annual targets are silly, really, because if the weather is bad
in one year it doesn't make sense to change your policies. You need to know
you are on track in the medium term."

"You don't just have to take my word for it - the international community at Kyoto
in 1997 didn't think annual targets were sensible. Annual reporting is sensible."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CARBON BUDGET, anyone ?

Which political party will be the first to put forward a comprehensive CARBON BUDGET ?

I'll vote for them : will you ?

jo.

Carbon Budget

I agree with what Jo says, but I think it's important not to focus solely on annual targets, important as they are. I'm very concerned that there has been more criticism of the lack of annual targets in the media than there has been of the government sticking to the 60% cuts by 2050 target. The 20% cuts by 2010 seems off the agenda now. SCC were calling for 75% cuts by 2050 (well, I think that's what 3% cuts a year amount to). Really, neither figure is based on up-to-date science, nor on any framework. The 60% figure is based on 550 ppm stabilisation, which would horrify a great deal of climate scientists! It was originally based on contraction and convergence (when proposed by RCEP), but the government have never accepted this. The 75% figure doesn't seem to be based on anything in particular. George Monbiot's call for 90% reductions by 2030, on the other hand, is based both on current scientific knowledge and on the contraction and convergence model.

The policies and technologies which might lead to 60% cuts by 2050 are not all the same as those bringing us a 90% cut by 2030. To meet those different targets you would actually invest in different kinds of infrastructure: For the government target, you might invest heavily in rail, some of it high-speed. For George Monbiot's target you would invest mainly in an integrated bus service. CHP with natural gas (and without carbon capture) would go a long way to meet the 60% target, but not the 90% one. We can't necessarily start cutting emissions somehow and then simply crank up the action to achieve a higher target.

Yes, we need annual targets, but also the right long-term trajectory, based on an equitable and logical global framework. If the long-term targets are too low then the result is that the rest of the world will see the UK insisting on more than it's fair per-capita share of future emissions. Putting such an inadequate target into legislation might well move a future global climate change agreement further out of reach.

Caught Between Indecision & Catastrophe

I understand what Almuth is driving at - in fact I am a full supporter of Contraction & Convergence.

I understand what C&C makes an absolute imperative - that Contraction should ensure stabilisation of the Greenhouse Gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

Our goal is a stable climate.

This year, the science tells us that we need something in the order of a 70% to 80% Carbon Cut worldwide, which George Monbiot correctly interprets as a moral imperative for Big Hitters (Emitters) to aim for a 90% Carbon Cut. This is the current science.

Next year, after some more monitoring, we may find that the cut required is more, or less, although "less" seems less probable.

However, we need to set out on the road using the available data.

Our aim this year is a 90% Carbon Cut by 2030.

If you do a simple calculation using an Excel spreadsheet to help you do the compound interest calculation, that works out at about 9% per year, year on year Carbon Cut.

Here's a badly tabulated cut and paste :-

Year Carbon 9% Cut per year Total Cut
2006 100.00 0.00
2007 91.00 9.00
2008 82.81 17.19
2009 75.36 24.64
2010 68.57 31.43
2011 62.40 37.60
2012 56.79 43.21
2013 51.68 48.32
2014 47.03 52.97
2015 42.79 57.21
2016 38.94 61.06
2017 35.44 64.56
2018 32.25 67.75
2019 29.35 70.65
2020 26.70 73.30
2021 24.30 75.70
2022 22.11 77.89
2023 20.12 79.88
2024 18.31 81.69
2025 16.66 83.34
2026 15.16 84.84
2027 13.80 86.20
2028 12.56 87.44
2029 11.43 88.57
2030 10.40 89.60

I think the analogy that Tina Fawcett made between Carbon Cuts and dieting is useful. If I have, say, 30 kilograms of excess weight that I should lose on medical grounds, I can aim to lose it all by the end of next year, but if I don't give myself a daily regime of exercise and strictly control my calorie intake, I will never, ever achieve my goal.

I can't start late and expect to win the prize here. I have to go with taking on a share of the cut now, today.

This is Carbon Watchers, the Low Carbon life. In the case of my excess adipose tissue, this is Carbon in the hydrated form. In the case of the Planet, for Global Cool, we need to stop burning Fossil Hydrocarbons.

Just like dieting for the obese, it is possible to achieve our goals if we start with small steps, at once. Plan to continue making small extra steps, and as time goes by, the steps mount up.

Also just like dieting, we have to recognise the problem as one of control, not reward-and-punishment. There are people who yo-yo diet, because they reward themselves with comfort food when they achieve weight loss.

We have to get in control of our Carbon Dioxide emissions. That means strict controls on our hydrocarbon intake into the economy.

Either we constrict the flow of Fossil Fuels at the upstream end, where production and supply originate, or we constrict the flow of Energy use at the downstream end with personal/household Carbon Rationing on a monitored Carbon Budget. Or we do both.

But we cannot continue to let this stay out of control.

There is no point in waiting for total consensus on what we call an annual Carbon Cut, or how it gets implemented.

Like the voluntary Carbon Rationing groups and the EcoTeams and the BLACKOUT groups and the Association for the Conservation of Energy and many, many other groups, we need to get on with it.

We also need to maintain the demand for regulation from our national leadership. Skirting the issue of "annual targets" is like saying "We'll start the diet...later...when we've eaten this meal."

Blair taking written questions via FOE's websiite

Blair is (allegedly) going to reply to comments left here.

http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/news/blair_juniper/index.html

The quality of the existing comments is variable!