Robert Watson thinks it has

The Climate Change Bill, currently before the House of Lords, is in my view, a vital and historic piece of legislation.

It will make the UK the first country in the world to have a legally-binding, long-term framework to cut carbon emissions and adapt to climate change, confirming our place in the forefront of international action on climate change. It will create a new approach to managing and responding to climate change in the UK, by establishing clear and regular accountability and a carbon budgeting process. Perhaps most interestingly, it will provide a very clear example of how policymakers, working with and listening to the public, scientists, business and other stakeholders, can work together to create a stronger and more transparent piece of law.

The Climate Change Bill was published in draft for parliamentary scrutiny and public consultation on 13 March 2007. It set out clear, legally-binding targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the UK by at least 60 per cent by 2050 and 26 to 32 per cent by 2020. These reductions will be based on a new system of five-year ‘carbon budgets’ set at least fifteen years ahead.

The Bill also proposed the creation of a new body, the independent, expert Committee on Climate Change, to advise the government on the best reduction pathway to 2050. The Committee will also produce annual reports to Parliament, to which the government must respond, on the UK’s progress towards its targets and budgets, and will report regularly on the risks to the UK from the impact of climate change.

Responses improved the Bill

The reaction to the draft Bill has been very positive – almost 17,000 responses were received to the consultation – reflecting the wide and increasing support for action on climate change. These responses have, in the words of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Hilary Benn, ‘helped make a good Bill better’.

So what did the public say about the draft Bill and how did it make the Bill better? A significant proportion of the responses to the consultation focused around two key points: the level of the target for emissions reductions and whether or not international aviation emissions should be included.

Interestingly, these are perhaps the two most complex issues in the Bill. The 60 per cent target for reducing CO2 emissions was based on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) in their 2000 report. While the science has undoubtedly moved on, and there were calls from the consultation for a higher target, there has been no comparable cross-cutting piece of research and analysis since the 2000 report, upon which revised targets could be based. Nor is there currently an agreed way forward on how to allocate national responsibility for international aviation emissions.

Changes to the Bill

In response to the feedback from the consultation as well as Parliamentary scrutiny, the government produced a Command Paper outlining how the Bill has changed as a result.1 The issues raised in the consultation are complex and there is little consensus on them – they need more thought and investigation. Since the Command Paper was published, the Prime Minister has announced that the government will ask the Committee whether the long-term target of at least 60 per cent should be tightened up to 80 per cent.

The Committee will also look at the implications of including other greenhouse gases and international aviation and shipping emissions in our targets. Once the rules for including aviation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme have been finalised, the Committee will also be asked for its advice on whether there is a viable way of including international aviation emissions in our targets.

The Committee’s independence from government has also been strengthened by confirming that it will appoint its own chief executive and staff, and by increasing its analytical resources. The new Bill also requires the government to report annually to Parliament on emissions from international aviation and shipping, and strengthens Parliament’s ability to hold government to account. The government will be required to explain its reasons to Parliament if it does not accept the Committee’s advice on the level of the carbon budget, or if it does not meet a budget or target.

For me, the whole process of public consultation has been very encouraging. Apart from the clear improvements that it has brought to the content of the Bill, the feedback demonstrated an important point – that the argument over whether or not our actions are causing dangerous climate change is over. The challenge now, for government and for science, is to help people act.

Reference

1. ‘Taking Forward the UK Climate Change Bill’, 29 October 2007; see www.defra.gov.uk/environment/

Professor RobertWatson is Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs