{"id":7496,"date":"2019-06-18T05:55:36","date_gmt":"2019-06-18T05:55:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/?p=7496"},"modified":"2019-06-18T05:55:36","modified_gmt":"2019-06-18T05:55:36","slug":"reading-the-climate-change-small-print","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/2019\/06\/18\/reading-the-climate-change-small-print\/","title":{"rendered":"Reading the climate change small print"},"content":{"rendered":"

I said yesterday that there had been wide-ranging approval for the decision to go for net-zero carbon [N-ZC] in the UK by 2050. \u00a0This is not universally the case, however, and a number of points have emerged.<\/p>\n

The first is that the move has been made by an Order in Council, which is a practice that harks back to Tudor monarch times when our embryonic parliament was routinely sidelined by action in the Privy Council. \u00a0All this continues today. \u00a0In essence, there is to be no parliamentary scrutiny or possibility of amendment of this decision and it will not be enshrined (and hence protected) in primary legislation.*<\/strong> \u00a0The government (or was that the prime minister?) simply decided and then told parliament about it. \u00a0This will make the UK the first member of the G7 to go for N-ZC. \u00a0Some say this urge to be first explains the reluctance to use the time-consuming primary legislation route. \u00a0Surely not. \u00a0Others say that it's the PM who wants the credit rather than her successor. \u00a0Such cynics.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The second is that the plan allows the UK to achieve the goal through the use of international carbon credits through which the UK can pay for cuts elsewhere in lieu of domestic emissions. \u00a0This is like off-setting your egregious carbon splurging, and Greenpeace said this would shift the burden to developing nations. \u00a0The 2050 date was recommended by the UK\u2019s\u00a0Committee on Climate Change<\/a> (CCC), but its chair\u00a0said<\/a> it was important that such credits were not used. \u00a0The Times<\/a> quotes Doug Parr, the chief scientist for Greenpeace UK, as saying that allowing international carbon credits would need to be unpicked:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cAs the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, it is right that the UK is the world\u2019s first major economy to commit to completely end its contribution to climate change, but trying to shift the burden to developing nations through international carbon credits undermines that commitment. \u00a0This type of offsetting has a history of failure and is not, according to the government\u2019s climate advisers, cost-efficient<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
The third (and see Ed Conway in The Times)<\/a> is to be found in the small print of the Committee on Climate Change\u2019s (CCC) recent report. \u00a0This says that if you take the technology we have now it would be possible to see how we might reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 96%. \u00a0But, says Conway,<\/span>\u00a0that involves a few leaps of faith: it relies on a new generation of carbon-capture power plants that have not been planned, let alone built. \u00a0It presumes that nearly every boiler in every home will be replaced (or converted to burn hydrogen), that all internal combustion engine cars and vans will be removed from the road and that everyone will eat less beef, lamb and dairy products. .<\/div>\n
\n
\n

The real problem, Conway says, is that final 4% which, the CCC says will \u201crequire some use of options that currently appear more speculative\u201d such as\u00a0fuels from algae or sucking massive amounts of CO2 <\/sub>out of the atmosphere.<\/p>\n

We shall see \u2013 I hope, although I may not make it to 2050 to see for myself.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Fourth (and it really should be 1st), just read Michael Stone's letter in the Guardian<\/a>. yesterday about carbon off-shoring and the manipulation of data.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
............................................<\/div>\n
* A lack of scrutiny means that some of the CCC\u2019s recommendations \u2013 banning international carbon credits and including aviation and shipping in the new target \u2013 are ignored.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I said yesterday that there had been wide-ranging approval for the decision to go for net-zero carbon [N-ZC] in the UK by 2050. \u00a0This is not universally the case, however, and a number of points have emerged. The first is...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":237,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-comment","category-news-and-updates"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7496","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/237"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7496"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7496\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}