Morning:
13°c
Carbon curbs will need to get tougher, warns Benn
Joe Murphy, Political Editor22.04.08
Global warming is even worse than realised and may require tougher action to curb carbon emissions, Environment Secretary Hilary Benn warned today.
"I think the science is getting clearer and clearer," he said in an exclusive Evening Standard interview. "We have less time to act than was thought to be the case."
Mr Benn's comments will alarm motorists already fuming at higher taxes on gas-guzzling cars. They come before tonight's debate on the Government's Climate Change Bill, organised by pressure group Friends of the Earth and chaired by the Standard's Anne McElvoy, where he will be called on to justify legislation that green groups criticise for being too tame.
His critics want a target written into the Bill for an 80 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2050 instead of the current figure of 60 per cent. And they are furious the target ignores carbon pumped out by aircraft and shipping.
Mr Benn said the independent committee on climate change will make recommendations by the end of the year on whether to adopt a higher target. He gave strong hints that he would accept any recommendation it made, but drew back from a cast-iron commitment.
He said: "The committee's recommendations will have huge weight and authority."
Mr Benn hailed the Bill as a groundbreaking measure that would put Britain at the head of the world in tackling carbon emissions. He believes the Bill's provision for a fiveyearly plan for the amount of carbon that can be produced will transform the green debate by forcing governments, campaigners and the public to weigh up the costs of their activities.
He urged the green movement to accept the need for a new wave of nuclear power stations, which are cleaner per kilowatt than coal or gas.
On the criticism that aviation and shipping emissions are not counted, he said: "If a ship leaves London, fuels in international waters, picks up cargo in Europe and takes it to Sydney, which country carries the carbon cost?"
Reader views (8)
It is scandalous mineral water is shipped over thousands of miles when you find local mineral springs everywhere in Europe.
Local mineral water with established health properties should be available to humanity, rather than controlled by food industry giants and supermarkets.
With a monopoly over a very small number of mineral springs, food industry giants and supermarkets are controlling the all system, and prevent anyone else to sell local mineral water at a lower cost.
This problem was first denounced in France twenty years ago but nothing has been done for some obscure reasons...
In France around one thousand MINERAL springs with exceptional characteristics have been listed in 1860, over two hundreds distinctive mineral groundwaters !
- Thierry, London , England
If Benn is serious about global warming he will forget about trivialities like 2p on plastic bags, Chelsea tractors and aircraft. The simple largest power saving measure would be to shift our lives to begin the day with daylight and end the day at dark. Is is already full daylight at 6am so we should be starting then or earlier and closing down by 9pm. Whether it is achieved by adjusting the clock 'daylight saving' or by starting work at 7 or 8am and finishing at 3 or 4pm does not matter.
- Colin, London
More "green" taxes on the way then.
- P I Staker, London
In October 2006 Sir Nicholas Stern advised the Government they needed to take strong action urgently to reduce carbon emissions. He now says he underestimated the scale of the problem. The Government must make the Climate Bill a strong Act.
- C Hughes, London, England
Mr Benn asks "If a ship leaves London, fuels in international waters, picks up cargo in Europe and takes it to Sydney, which country carries the carbon cost?"
The answer is quite simple. If the ship leaves London then it will be sailing in British waters for a part of its journey. Therefore British law should hold it accountable in some way for a share of the emissions that it is responsible for. It isn't rocket science.
Not including emissions from international aviation and shipping in any law on climate change law is a cop out. It allows the aviation industry to contribute to emissions to whatever degree they see fit without holding them in any way accountable. Not exactly democratic!
- Tom Wright, Leyton
What a ludicrous answer on shipping. Hilary Benn appears to be saying "It's a bit tricky - so no one carries the carbon cost." Well the planet is clearly safe in his hands then.
When Governments want to measure something - school attainment, child poverty, rate of growth of regional economies - they find a way of doing it and implement it. What is clear is this Government do not want to measure aviation and shipping because that would mean rethinking constant airport expansion and the like which they have promised their friends in industry.
- Martyn, London, UK
So is Mr Benn suggesting that we simply ignore these emissions because it is not black and white who is responsible for them? This seems a little short-sighted to say the least! Time and time again the government take a short-term outlook on these things because they're more worried about pleasing voters than doing the job that needs doing. Nuclear power is not a realistic long-term plan and simply changes the huge environmental problems that we will be facing in the future. We need strong legislation and accountability to change behaviour and we need it now whilst there is still the possibility of reversing this thing. This is the only way that we are going to get investment in renewable energy and cleaner technology which is what is really needed. The sooner we accept this, the less unpleasant things are going to be.
- Jon Scriven, Biggin Hill, Kent
Climate change is a reality and we all have to do something about it: individuals, communities, governments. The UK can be the first country to implement a strong climate change bill and become a role model for other countries. We have to act now.
- Karen Liebenguth, London, UK
