Pressure from the Americans on the right, and from climate change activists on the left - which way can the government go?

By Liz Stephens

The UK is currently the only country in the world to have introduced a long-term legally binding framework to tackle the dangers of climate change (The Climate Change Act of 2008). However, as politics.co.uk is reporting today, UK government advisors are allegedly coming under pressure from the US to tow a lax line on climate change.

From the opposite direction, the government is facing criticism from UK climate change activists who have been highly critical of its manifesto, 'The Road to Copenhagen', saying it does not go far enough to save the planet.

With the Copenhagen summit coming up in December, the pressure is on for the government to come up with a viable solution that will make a difference and not just tell others what they want to hear.

US 'grooming' allegations

Allegations were made to politics.co.uk from a source within Westminster, who said that the committee on climate change (CCC), led by Lord Turner, is "being groomed" by the US. The implication is that the US would prefer the UK to accept lower global carbon emissions targets, given its historical stance on the issue. The House of Representatives recently passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, for instance, which sets much lower targets than those of the UK.

The CCC - which was set up as an independent body following the Climate Change Act - advises the government on carbon budgets, which set the ceiling on the levels of greenhouse gases that can be emitted into the atmosphere by the UK. The 'Building a Low-Carbon Economy' report it released last year has formed the basis of the government's climate change strategy.

As the issue of climate change is unprecedented in the international community, each country's actions could have big repercussions for the next. Therefore, it is understandable that countries would seek to build a consensus to protect their own interests. However, despite the advent of Barack Obama, who made "green jobs" a key feature of his election campaign, the recent Clean Energy Act shows that the weight of US industry is still largely hostile to climate change action. The Act allows US industry two billion tonnes of carbon offsets a year. These offset concessions are so generous that if they were all used, US industry wouldn't have to make any carbon emission cuts until 2026.

The Act also contains no global initiatives for tackling climate change, only US specific ones. If international consensus were built around it, things would work out well for US industry, but not so well for the environmental future of the planet.

Today's allegation comes from a single source, and is therefore uncorroborated, but it raises serious concerns about the games being played at the highest level of international relations to secure a climate change status quo which is acceptable to American industry.

Pressure from UK environmentalists

Many environmentalists are already unhappy with the current global emissions targets set by the government. Although the Climate Change Act commits Britain to reducing emissions in the UK to 80 per cent by 2050, it is only committed to a 50 per cent global reduction.
Leading climate change activist, Aubrey Meyer, author of the theory of 'Contraction and Convergence' (C&C) says the government is ignoring the true figures. In a comment piece for politics.co.uk today, Meyer says: "The government is quite incorrect to claim that a global contraction in emissions of 50 per cent by 2050 is sufficient to prevent a globally averaged temperature rise of more than two degrees Celsius."

Meyer criticises the government for not committing to an 80 per cent cut in global carbon emissions (coupled to carbon 'feedback') - which he insists is vital to saving the planet from meltdown.

Meanwhile, Friends of the Earth have criticised the government for allowing carbon markets (where countries buy and sell carbon 'credits' to offset their emissions) in their 'Road to Copenhagen' manifesto. "Continued support for offsetting through expanding carbon markets will neither tackle climate change nor set Britain on a low carbon path to new green jobs and industries," said Andy Atkins, executive director of the organisation.

So even with some of the toughest environmental legislation in world, the UK is still at the mercy of a dissatisfied green lobby. Much of the science of climate change is still confused and that leaves people arguing over the data instead of solutions to the problem. With some theories about climate change now having been in existence for over 20 years, many activists are desperate for tough decisions instead of more debate.

The Climate Change Act offers a framework to work from, but it has so far failed to turn conflicting theories into organised action. With ministers currently making decisions on the basis of a bewildering mass of confusing scientific advice and strong lobbying from all sides, there may be a need for a further statement of intent.

Preparations for Copenhagen

The UK will seek to influence other countries at Copenhagen to commit to a global plan. However, many countries have so far resisted any approach that would bind them to a rigid emissions reduction pathway.

The environmental audit committee (EAC) is currently hearing evidence in Westminster from leading climate change experts and will report back with recommendations to the government before the Copenhagen summit. Aubrey Meyer submitted evidence to the EAC and provided figures showing the Met Office's own Hadley Centre predicted an 80 per cent cut in global emissions (coupled to the carbon cycle) was needed by 2050.

In evidence seen by politics.co.uk, Met Office scientists, advising the EAC during a session on June 23rd, appear to discount their own data. One of the scientists had previously advised the CCC on the 'Building a Low Carbon Economy' report.

This situation is almost a microcosm of the big problem. When there are so many sets of conflicting opinions and data that even the scientists misunderstand them (wilfully or otherwise) it's almost understandable that this argument is still continuing.

Today's revelations make clear that the government faces sustained pressure from all sides. The EAC and CCC are in the unenviable position of receiving information (or overtures) from all these sources and making recommendations to the government which will have a far-reaching and hugely significant impact, not just within the UK but globally. What the UK does next will have strong ramifications, as the world seeks to find a solution to the ever increasing threat of climate change.