From: Aubrey Meyer
Subject: Tories - Step Up or Give Up
http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/DontGiveUpOnTwoDegrees.pdf
Yesterday this climate change paper: -
“Don’t Give Up on Two Degreesâ€
by Conservative MP Nick Hurd
was published by the Conservative “Quality of Life Groupâ€.
http://www.qualityoflifechallenge.com/documents/DontGiveUpOnTwoDegrees.pdf
or if the link is broken: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/DontGiveUpOnTwoDegrees.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Getting the science rightâ€
In one sense - getting to grips with the ‘science’ better - the paper is
very useful. It correctly takes Sir Nicholas Stern to task over 450-550
ppmv CO2 e. It points out that this concentration value of GHG in the
atmosphere is too high if we are to avoid a more than a two degrees
Celsius overall global temperature rise. The paper poses 400-450 ppmv as
the limit of what's needed. This is more realistic.
“Getting the framework rightâ€
In another sense  the plain logic of global time-dependent limits to
consumption - this group is fragments and all at sea. It seems to me
that despite the input of Mark Lynas, Peter Ainsworth and others, they
still aren’t doing the arithmetic. The section called “Getting the
framework right†[see below] has a good title, and some not unhelpful
exhortative remarks but no methodological content. In this area all we
get is a string of right-on sounding buzz words with no real value due
to their contradictory usage.
The “critically right†framework turns out to be words: - a “cross-party
kick-start†to a “throttle up or down†at “political†will . . . with which
we can speed up or slow down to manage the risks both locally and
globally to accommodate the two opposing trend tendencies of doing too
much too soon [fat chance] versus too little too late . . . without a
global emissions framework being mentioned once.
The sad fact seems to be this: - John Gummer, whose group this is, was one of
the earliest and sharpest C&C advocates. Now, for reasons un-stated
accompanied by what can now better be described as publicly almost
foaming at the mouth, John’s anti-C&C views are damaging the chances for
competence in this ‘Quality of Life Group’.
With time running out, the “Right-Framework†part of the report avoids
the discipline of time-dependency in emissions management. This, if
anything, will only confuse and damage the cross-party consensus the
Conservative Party want to lead.
Its dead simple or we're dead, if C&C does not lead the cross-party
consensus, there will be no consensus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
REPORT EXTRACT
"Whether the long term goal is 60% or 80% could be dismissed as almost
beside the point in 2006. Either way we must assume that we will travel
down the road to decarbonisation of the world economy, and the most
pressing challenge is how to kick start the collective political will to
take the first serious steps on that journey.
However there is no point settling for 60% at this stage if that goal is
inadequate in the face of our risk assessment. We may be setting
ourselves up for an even more expensive process further down the track
both in terms of mitigation and adaptation policy.
On the other hand, the framing of a more ambitious long term goal not
only sends a strong signal about the direction of travel: it should also
jolt the short term policy response into more urgent action. This is
hugely important given the need to generate some momentum behind
emission reductions, particularly if the Prime Minister is right that
‘without radical international measures to reduce carbon emissions
within the next 10-15 years, there is compelling evidence to suggest we
might lose the chance to control temperature rises.’ [18] A more
ambitious approach also gives us the flexibility to throttle back if the
climate science is revised. A worse outcome would be one in which we
were forced to accelerate further down the track at a significantly
higher human and financial cost.
Such an aspiration has no credibility without a statutory emissions
reduction target for 2025, proposed by an Independent Agency and
supported by a vote in the House of Commons. A medium term target of
this type is important for shaping the key investment decisions that
will be taken over the next 15 years in replacing our energy generation
infrastructure. Those decisions will shape our ability to meet the long
term goal.
Getting the framework right is critical. It needs to be flexible enough
to allow us to adjust to changes in our knowledge base and perception of
risk. It also needs to have credibility in terms of the direction of
travel and cross party commitment to the journey."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is as if we had only just become aware of this cost-problem called
“loss of control†by climate change.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
