TalkClimateChange

Following our recent commentary on the somewhat creative approach to UK greenhouse gas emissions measurement, where we asked Is Sir Humphrey Appleby In Charge of Climate Change Policy?, we greeted the recent announcement by the British Government of a 2% reduction in UK emissions with some caution.

Following release of the figures, environment secretary Hilary Benn proudly announced that "These figures show we are making progress in cutting emissions and are on target to go beyond our Kyoto targets."

Progress is always good, but there is progress, and then there are happy accidents dressed up to look like progress.

Robin Smale, an energy analyst at Vivid Economics explains the real reasons for the reduction: "It has nothing to do with government policy. Coal became more expensive than gas so [electricity producers] switched some of their production to gas." Gas creates less Co2 per equivalent energy unit than coal.

Considering that Benn’s figures also omit emissions from aviation and shipping, as well as emissions from the production of goods imported into the UK, it seems that Benn’s progress is more like a disaster dressed up to look like good news.

In fact, with the UK’s emissions commitments continuing to diverge from the government’s wooly policies on the issue, it has been suggested that climate change could become for Gordon Brown what Iraq became for Tony Blair. Did I mention disasters dressed up to look like good news?

In fairness, Benn went on to recognize and outline the true challenges ahead:

"We need to see a major change across the whole of the UK economy if we are to meet the ambitious emissions reduction targets set in the Climate Change Bill. To aid this, the Government will develop carbon markets and promote the development of low carbon technology, while continuing to work to get international agreement on global emissions targets."

The question that we now ask (almost weekly) is, what this will actually mean, in terms of clear policy in crucial areas such as energy, transport, manufacturing and housing?

These are critical areas, not just in terms of emissions, and not just because businesses and individuals need to be able to plan. They are critical because of the additional costs and constraints that may well be placed on ordinary people - I can already hear the Red Team asking "Did we mention disasters dressed up to look like good news?"