See blue for point I find interesting ...
This is exactly what I DON'T want to see happen in the US.Q&A: Climate change bill
The government's plans for a climate change bill, claimed to be the first of its kind in the world, were laid out today by the environment secretary, David Miliband. Hilary Osborne looks at the initiative
Tuesday March 13, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
What is the point of the bill?
Launching the bill, Mr Miliband, said the bill was designed to set the framework for moving the UK to a low-carbon economy, and demonstrate the country's leadership as it moved towards establishing an international agreement to come into force post-2012 when the Kyoto targets were due to end.
Its introduction follows last year's government-commissioned Stern Review which suggested that the cost of doing nothing to tackle climate change would be much greater than the cost of taking action now to reduce carbon emissions. Keep this in mind, it's ironic when you read the rest of the article.
What does the draft bill say?
The bill sets out targets for cuts in UK carbon emissions and makes them legally binding (wonder what the consequences are?); it proposes an independent committee on climate change to monitor and advise on the progress towards these targets; and it calls for new powers to enable the government to more easily implement emissions policies.
What are the targets?
The targets are for a 60% reduction on 1990 levels by 2050 - a target that has already been set, but which will become legally binding under the bill. It also includes an interim target of a 26-32% reduction by 2020.
As expect, the government has rejected calls for annual targets, but has included a provision for an annual progress report to parliament, compiled by the committee on climate change. On top of this there will be five-year "carbon budgets", set in advance, which will aim to limit total emissions over the period. The first will run from 2008-2012, and the government will set the budgets at least three periods, or 15 years, ahead.
It argues that this scheme provides certainty, while giving more flexibility than annual targets. The size of the carbon budget will be based on advice from the new committee and will take into account a number of factors including the long-term target for emissions, the latest scientific knowledge on climate change and economic circumstances.
At the same time as any new budgets are set, the bill proposes that the government at the time should be legally obliged to set out, in a published report, its proposals and policies for meeting them.
Once set, the budgets can only be changed with the agreement of parliament and following the advice of the committee.
Who will be on the committee?
The committee will be a non-departmental public body made up of a chairman, plus five to eight board members who are experts in their fields. Between them they will have knowledge of climate science, business, emissions trading, technology and economics. They will be supported by staff who will conduct analysis and research for them.
The committee will advise the government on its targets and how to achieve them. One of its first jobs will be to decide if the recommended carbon budget for 2008-2012 is consistent with the government's target of a 20% cut in emissions by 2010, compared to 1990 levels. The target is looking increasingly optimistic and the government says it is vital it receives advice on whether it still fits with its longer-term targets.
Practical considerations, such as how emissions reductions purchased overseas, and how trading schemes contribute to cuts will, also come under the committee's remit.
How will emissions be reduced?
The bill doesn't outline how this will happen, but it does make provision for the government to implement policies that will help it meet its targets. These include new trading schemes for businesses not included in the existing EU emissions trading scheme, and bringing new sectors and gases into existing schemes. This is interesting, right? Remember from before they said "[...] cost of doing nothing to tackle climate change would be much greater than the cost of taking action now [...]". How does one come to such a conclusion when you have no idea how much these changes will cost and at what sacrifice to the economy?
Alongside the bill, the government has published a strategy document. This outlines how the UK can move to a low carbon economy by investing in new energy technologies, such as solar power and carbon capture; reducing energy usage; and encouraging households and businesses to produce energy, not just to consume it. Hmm ... they don't know how they'll reduce carbon emissions, but the gov't will provide funds to business to help build new technology. Interesting.
What do people make of the plans?
Friends of the Earth says it is pleased the government has recognised the need for a law on climate change, but it doesn't believe the targets are strong enough. It wants the final bill to include a 3% reduction in CO2 emissions each year and include international aviation and shipping emissions in the calculations.
The employers group the CBI says the bill is good news for British business, striking the right balance between clarity and flexibility.
The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, who have both called for annual targets in the past, are unhappy that these are not included in the bill. The Conservatives have also called for the committee on climate change to actually set the targets, rather than just advising the government on them, while the Liberal Democrats believe the five-year budget periods are too short. The Lib Dems are also concerned that the 60% reduction target for 2050 is now "at the unambitious end of what the science now suggests is necessary".
What happens next?
The consultation period for the draft bill will run until June 12. A full climate change bill is expected to be published in the autumn and it could become law by next Easter. In the meantime, the government is set to publish an energy white paper, which will outline how much energy it plans to get from renewable energy sources in the future.
A bill that gives open-authority to the government to spend as they see fit and benefit those companies that provide funds to one party or another. Not to mention, there is no outline on how the goals are met.
Sounds like the same planning that occurred pre-Iraq, doesn't it?