Rather than taking concrete action on climate change, the UK looks set to use creative accounting to meet its legal obligations to tackle global warming.
The UK has a binding target of reducing emissions 80 per cent by 2050. To get there, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) sets rolling five-year carbon budgets. Between the second of those budgets 鈥� 2013-2017 鈥� the UK overperformed and cut by more than needed.
On Tuesday it emerged ministers have controversially agreed to count those historical savings against future targets, which the UK is set to miss.
Advertisement
The move would be legal, as the Climate Change Act, which sets the binding target, permits the use of such 鈥榝lexibilities鈥�. But that does not make it a good idea. The step would be a 鈥渃lear case of gaming the system鈥�, says Sam Fankhauser of the London School of Economics. 鈥淎llowing more emissions in the future instead of making actual progress on cutting emissions is short-term thinking.鈥�
Previous governments thought it was a bad approach. Ed Davey, energy secretary between 2012 and 2015, it was best to meet the 2050 goal through action, not 鈥渟tatistical loopholes.鈥�
Ministers can鈥檛 pretend they haven鈥檛 been warned of the dangers of cooking the books. In February the CCC wrote to climate minister Claire Perry, its unequivocal advice for the government was not to carry forward the carbon surplus.
There has been a lot of subsequent wrangling within the government, with progressive figures saying the advice should be accepted, government sources tell New 杏吧原创. But chancellor Phillip Hammond and business secretary Greg Clark have won out, , and the UK will count the savings against future targets.
The CCC has made crystal clear why that鈥檚 bad. Such accounting would add 鈥渦nnecessary costs鈥� to meeting the 2050 goal, said John Gummer, the group鈥檚 chairman, in his February letter.
It would also be inconsistent with the Paris agreement, the major UN climate deal that nearly 200 countries forged in 2015, he added. That matters. Not just for the goals of the climate accord, but because it could even damage the UK鈥檚 bid to host next year鈥檚 UN climate summit.
As if all that wasn鈥檛 bad enough, carrying forward a surplus would also 鈥渦ndermine the integrity鈥� of the UK鈥檚 whole framework for cutting carbon, Gummer said.
Counting previous carbon cuts, some of which came about simply because of the 2008 financial crash, is not a good idea when greater ambition is needed. The government is expected to imminently set a target of upgrading the 2050 target to reduce emission to net zero, as the the CCC recently demanded. Getting to net zero means new policies, not accounting tricks.
Finally, using loopholes to meet carbon targets could hurt the UK鈥檚 standing on the international stage and its justified claim to leadership on climate change. Counting historical cuts 鈥渋s absolutely not leadership,鈥� said Gareth Redmond-King of WWF, in a statement.
The government has publicly neither confirmed or denied the move, so it may still not come to pass. But if it does become official, CCC chief executive Chris Stark he is sure the group will 鈥渉ave a view鈥�.
