THEY stand 鈥渟houlder to shoulder鈥� in the war against terrorism. But in the
battle to slow global warming, Britain and the US are very much at odds.
Last week Britain published the first draft of a strategy for cutting its
carbon emissions by a fifth in the next decade, and by half or more by 2050.
Meanwhile, George Bush was announcing a strategy that is likely to boost US
emissions by more than a quarter in the coming decade, and who knows what
thereafter.
In his first major statement on climate policy since pulling out of the Kyoto
Protocol last March, President Bush laid out the new targets for the US: an 18
per cent cut in greenhouse gases for every unit of gross domestic product.
Advertisement
The policy is meant to lower the country鈥檚 rate of emissions 鈥渇rom an
estimated 183 tonnes per million dollars of GDP in 2002 to 151 tonnes in 2012鈥�,
the White House says. It would 鈥減ut America on a path towards stabilising
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere in the long run, while
sustaining the economic growth needed to finance our investment in a new,
cleaner energy structure鈥�.
But for Bush the long run is 鈥渕any generations鈥�. The US is already the
world鈥檚 largest emitter of carbon, and even if it meets its target for lowering
emissions per unit of GDP, its overall emissions are likely to rise rapidly as
the economy grows. 鈥淭his will leave the US producing at least 35 per cent more
greenhouse gases in 2010 than would be permitted under the Kyoto Protocol,鈥� says
Chris Flavin, president of the Worldwatch Institute in Washington DC.
Britain鈥檚 strategy comes from an energy review by the Prime Minister鈥檚 think
tank, the Performance and Innovation Unit, and is not yet government policy. It
proposes a 20 per cent improvement in energy efficiency by 2010, and says
renewable energy such as wind and solar power should provide a fifth of the
country鈥檚 electricity by 2020. It leaves open the options of building more
nuclear power plants and of cleaning up future coal-burning power stations by
capturing CO2 as it is produced.
Bush did announce tax breaks for wind and solar energy, for running cars on
fuel cells and for farmers and foresters who find ways to lock up more carbon on
their land. But he reckons that meeting the 7 per cent cut that the Clinton
administration had promised under the Kyoto Protocol would have cost $400
billion and put nearly 5 million Americans out of work.
The British report, by contrast, concluded that the costs to the economy of
even big cuts in emissions are likely to be small. And it takes the threat posed
by climate change far more seriously. It declares that there is 鈥渁 strong
likelihood that the UK will need to make very large carbon emission reductions
over the next century鈥�.
Bush鈥檚 plan has outraged many around the world, who see it as a
dismal鈥攊f not unexpected鈥攆ailure to deliver the credible alternative
to Kyoto he promised. But Bush claims his approach of reducing emissions per
unit of GDP could attract the support of developing nations. 鈥淭he greenhouse gas
intensity approach鈥ives developing countries a yardstick for progress on
climate change that recognises their right to economic development,鈥� he says.