This is a response to the UK Government's Consultation on its Climate Change Review, which may be found at
It is placed here because it expounds a number of principles that are of more general interest, especially in the realms of government planning. Please feel free to make use of it and link to it. Here is a summary of the main principles:
|Section (click)||The principle it espouses|
|ToR.1 The eventual 60% Target||The necessity of achieving the 60% reduction and how that should be reflected in all policy. The key principle.|
|ToR.2 Aspirations of Less Developed Nations||People in 'less developed nations' aspire to our way of living. To 'make poverty history' might be self-defeating unless we urgently set the example of CCE reduction now.|
|Q2.1 Problems with Relying on Technological Advance||Technology seldom delivers all its early promise nor what the early adopters expect. So it is unwise to rely on technology to achieve a 60% reduction.|
|Q5.1 On Signals and Example-setting||We in the U.K. must set an example, and give clear signals that we mean business.|
|Q6.1 A comment on ETS||Some reasons why Emissions Trading Schemes are likely to be counter-productive.|
|Q7.1 How to calculate targets||Targets tend to get missed (e.g. the U.K.'s target of 20% will be 30% out). So take this tendency into account and set more stringent targets.|
|Q7.2 Targets should be plan-led, not demand-led||If we predict demand and provide for it, our climate change emissions will rocket.|
|Q8.1 Lifestyle: Ways of Living and Working||Our lifestyle -assumptions, habits, expectations and aspirations - is the real problem. We must change them. This Programme ignores this important issue.|
|Q9.1 Ensure Measures do not Mislead||We in the UK seem to be meeting our Kyoto targets - but only by shifting emissions to other parts of the world. Our measures should be for global, not UK, reductions.|
|Q9.2 An Integrated Approach||Climate change is not the only environmental problem we face.|
|Q9.3 Attitude and Responsibility||We should show a attitude of responsibility, not of competition or defensiveness.|
|S6.1 Additional Preliminary Comment on Energy||This section should focus on energy use, not energy supply. Reduce use, and then supply will reduce too.|
|S7.1 Additional Comment: Indirect Impacts and Pull-Through||It's all very well making business processes more efficient. But if more products or services are sought, then the total emissions will still rise. We must recognise indirect pull-through effects.|
|S8.1 Additional Comment: Questioning Mobility and Demand for Travel||The government assumes we need mobility for a prosperous economy. We do not. We must cut mobility.|
|Q28.1 Transport: A Deceitful, Misleading Section||The only figure in this section has a large 'lie factor'. And the important issues are studiously avoided. Why?|
|Q29.1 Fuel Duty Escalator||The fuel duty escalator was making a significant contribution to reducing road use. It sent an important signal. But it was scrapped for political reasons.|
|Q33.1 Aviation||Air transport is even worse than the car. Yet flights are being encouraged. Why?|
|S12.1 Measurements and Structural Mechanisms r.t. Actions||We need action, not merely measurement.|
|S12.2 Global Adaptation||200 million refugees are likely when climate change really gets going; what are we going to do with them?|
|Q51.1 Stakeholder-led Adaptation, Enforcement and Leadership||The government should lead.|
|OC.1 Religion and Theology of Climate Change||Religion is important to most parts of the world outside Europe; we need a theology of climate change.|
Now comes the text as sent to the Government ...
Size of visual effect --------------------- Size of data effect.
"38. One measure which has already delivered reductions in emissions from road transport is the fuel duty escalator - annual fuel duty increases above the rate of inflation. The escalator was introduced in 1993, first at an annual rate of 3% above inflation and then at 5%. It was increased to 6% in July 1997 and has been very successful. It sent a clear signal to manufacturers to design more fuel efficient vehicles, and to motorists to avoid unnecessary journeys and to consider alternatives to the car. Taken in isolation, increases in duties between 1996 and 1999 are estimated to have produced annual carbon savings of between 1 and 2.5 MtC by 2010."
Furthermore, on 6th July 1999, Patricia Hewitt, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, said in Parliament:
"Our environmental assessment is that if the road fuel duty escalator is continued until 2002, it will, by 2010, save between 2 million and 5 million tonnes of carbon--an extremely significant contribution towards our Kyoto targets."
Last updated: 22 March 2005 16 May 2011 link to andrew.html repaired.