coalâ, were the principal technologies listed as needing expansion. Home and office insulation together with increased vehicle efficiency also brooked large.
The Committee followed up with a further authoritative report in 2009. 13 In tracing out pathways towards the countryâs long-term emissions reductions targets, the report argued that a âstep-changeâ was needed from current practices and policies. The recession made it easier to meet the next carbon reduction budget, but deep structural changes are needed. A pathway to âdeep decarbonization of the power sectorâ by 2030, the Committee concluded, was demanding but feasible.
Figure 4.1Â Â Per capita CO2 emissions for select major emitters, 2007 and 2030 (projected)
Source: World Resources Institute: http://www.wri.org/chart/capita-co2-emissions-select-major-emitters-2007-and-2030-projected
In May 2010 a coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats came to power. The new government retained, and vowed to further develop, the framework that its predecessor had left. The prime minister, David Cameron, promised to lead âthe greenest government everâ. Although the Liberal Democrats had been hostile to nuclear power, as part of the coalition they agreed to the building of new nuclear power stations, as long as they were not subsidized with public money. A new Energy Bill was introduced in 2011, with the objectives of increasing energy efficiency and promoting investment in low-carbon technologies. Other measures were promised, including placing a floor price on carbon.
On the face of things, the UK has the most robust framework for reducing carbon emissions in the world, supported by a cross-party consensus. Because the country has lessened its dependence on coal, it is in some ways in a more favourable position than, for instance, Germany. Yet as with every other country with ambitious aspirations to reduce emissions, the practical difficulties are formidable. As far as renewable energy is concerned, Britain at the moment lags far behind. Among the 27 EU countries, in such terms it is near the bottom of the league.
Looking at where the countries discussed above stand drives home how far there is to go in order to make significant progress towards major emissions reductions. The nations discussed are among the best performers in the world and even their progress is relatively limited. Germanwatch and Climate Action Network produce an annual ranking comparing 59 countries in terms of the effectiveness of their climate change policies. Sweden is top of the list, but the organizers of the ranking say that no country in the world is so far on a path compatible with keeping temperature rise below 2ºC. An interesting feature of the ranking is that Brazil was placed second, largely because of progress made in reducing deforestation. (For more on Brazilâs climate change policies, see below, pp. 225â6.) The index of the 10 largest emitters of CO 2 is alarming because some countries one might expect to take the lead rank very low down. The United States and Canada place very poorly, with the US in 53rd position and Canada last, at position 59. 14
Climate change policy and the US
It is worth commenting at this point on climate change policy in the United States. The US may or may not be a fading power in global terms, but its importance in respect of climate change is enormous. With 4 per cent of the worldâs population, the United States consumes 25 per cent of global energy each year and generates over 20 per cent of the worldâs carbon emissions. Yet far from being in the forefront in seeking to reduce its emissions, it has been a laggard in climate change policy, especially at a federal level. Of course, the US is far larger and more diverse than those countries discussed earlier in the chapter, and on a regional and state level the picture is more complicated.
The Clinton administration played a part
The Committee followed up with a further authoritative report in 2009. 13 In tracing out pathways towards the countryâs long-term emissions reductions targets, the report argued that a âstep-changeâ was needed from current practices and policies. The recession made it easier to meet the next carbon reduction budget, but deep structural changes are needed. A pathway to âdeep decarbonization of the power sectorâ by 2030, the Committee concluded, was demanding but feasible.
Figure 4.1Â Â Per capita CO2 emissions for select major emitters, 2007 and 2030 (projected)
Source: World Resources Institute: http://www.wri.org/chart/capita-co2-emissions-select-major-emitters-2007-and-2030-projected
In May 2010 a coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats came to power. The new government retained, and vowed to further develop, the framework that its predecessor had left. The prime minister, David Cameron, promised to lead âthe greenest government everâ. Although the Liberal Democrats had been hostile to nuclear power, as part of the coalition they agreed to the building of new nuclear power stations, as long as they were not subsidized with public money. A new Energy Bill was introduced in 2011, with the objectives of increasing energy efficiency and promoting investment in low-carbon technologies. Other measures were promised, including placing a floor price on carbon.
On the face of things, the UK has the most robust framework for reducing carbon emissions in the world, supported by a cross-party consensus. Because the country has lessened its dependence on coal, it is in some ways in a more favourable position than, for instance, Germany. Yet as with every other country with ambitious aspirations to reduce emissions, the practical difficulties are formidable. As far as renewable energy is concerned, Britain at the moment lags far behind. Among the 27 EU countries, in such terms it is near the bottom of the league.
Looking at where the countries discussed above stand drives home how far there is to go in order to make significant progress towards major emissions reductions. The nations discussed are among the best performers in the world and even their progress is relatively limited. Germanwatch and Climate Action Network produce an annual ranking comparing 59 countries in terms of the effectiveness of their climate change policies. Sweden is top of the list, but the organizers of the ranking say that no country in the world is so far on a path compatible with keeping temperature rise below 2ºC. An interesting feature of the ranking is that Brazil was placed second, largely because of progress made in reducing deforestation. (For more on Brazilâs climate change policies, see below, pp. 225â6.) The index of the 10 largest emitters of CO 2 is alarming because some countries one might expect to take the lead rank very low down. The United States and Canada place very poorly, with the US in 53rd position and Canada last, at position 59. 14
Climate change policy and the US
It is worth commenting at this point on climate change policy in the United States. The US may or may not be a fading power in global terms, but its importance in respect of climate change is enormous. With 4 per cent of the worldâs population, the United States consumes 25 per cent of global energy each year and generates over 20 per cent of the worldâs carbon emissions. Yet far from being in the forefront in seeking to reduce its emissions, it has been a laggard in climate change policy, especially at a federal level. Of course, the US is far larger and more diverse than those countries discussed earlier in the chapter, and on a regional and state level the picture is more complicated.
The Clinton administration played a part
Similar Books
