Emissions Targets

To reduce (i.e. mitigate) the more serious consequences of Climate Change, we must reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases. The UK has an important role in influencing / leading the world by following our emissions reduction targets. This section aims to show what these targets are, where the challenges are and how well we are doing. I start by looking at the outcome of the Copenhagen summit, and what is meant by the targets they discussed. I then move on to discuss the UK emission targets in detail.

Throughout these pages I have tried to include links to all sources of data and information that I have used. Please be aware that things are moving very quickly in this subject: news on new emissions targets, and new sources of data and evidence are happening frequently.

Global Emissions

Global emissions so far - Between 2000-2008 our emissions of carbon dioxide [i] were worse than the worst case emission scenarios, which is obviously a worrying start. Since then the global recession is expected to have brought 2009 emissions down. How economic recovery will effect emissions is going to be very important for the future.

Copenhagen analysis - Analysing the pledges that were made by 55 parties that signed up to the Copenhagen Accord, you can see that it does not make for a strong agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions. With the Accord alone, it seems very unlikely that we will meet the limit of a 2ºC rise in global temperature. The scale of emissions will be very much determined by the growth of countries like China and India, which could have us following the highest scenarios. And it all of course assumes that countries will honour their pledges, which might not be guarantee.

The following graph shows global carbon emissions for each decade from 1990 to 2100. These are compared against the highest (A1FI) and lowest (B1) SRES Emission Scenarios. The column of emissions in 2020 is based on the Copenhagen analysis, in this case assuming China's and India's economies grow by four times compared to their size in 2005.

Graph showing global emissions with ambitious and weak Copenhagen Accord pledges, compared to high and low emission scenarios and the 2degC limit, with four times growth in China's and India's economies

Conclusion

The future of global emissions is still uncertain following the Copenhagen Summit and the Accord that came from it. The pledges that countries have made to reduce emissions don't offer strong guarantees for the future: the rich countries are not offering very impressive cuts; and carbon-intensive economic-growth, of developing nations, could allow emissions to continue along the highest emission scenario line.

At the moment it looks like our only hope of following lower emissions scenarios is for poor economic performance - especially in the developing world. This is not a great position to be in but I do wonder if it might be quite likely. I am thinking about the fact that we are consuming the Earth's resources at an increasingly unsustainable rate. We are likely to run out of things like rare metals (used in modern electric motors), chemicals required for fertilisers, water(!), and even fossil fuels! Unless we can unlink economic growth from consumption, it seems likely that we will see some more wobbles in regional and global economic futures...and that is even before considering the economic damage that is likely to result from unchecked climate change and the natural disasters that seem almost inevitable.

Nothing in the pledges to the Copenhagen Accord suggest that there is any hope of limiting climate change to the stated "2ºC rise in global temperature". Even guaranteeing that we follow low emission scenarios, that might limit temperatures to 3ºC, will need much stronger international agreements. Developed nations need to pledge more ambitious emission reductions, and this will hopefully encourage the developing nations to set targets to grow without becoming so carbon intensive. It is an evolving process though, and the fact that governments are talking about trying to limit temperature rise means that there is still hope. The next talks are in Mexico.

UK Emissions

Notice that this section needs updating...it is up to a year old, which is a long time in this subject! :o) The provisional 2009 UK emissions data has been released so I need to update the graphs. Also I need to introduce you to the Low Carbon Transition Plan.

The UK is part of the 27 European countries that have pledged to cut emissions by 20% to 30% by 2020. If the more ambitious target is adopted, this will hopefully mean that the UK will be signing up to the 42% cut discussed below.

Carbon Dioxide stabilisation lines - These emissions pages discuss targets for the UK. To give meaning and perspective to these targets I have run the Global Commons Institute's "Contraction & Convergence" model to see what fair emission targets would look like for the UK. I have run the model to stabilise atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations at both 450 ppm [i] or 750 ppm by the year 2200. These stabilisation targets match those discussed in the consequences pages.

Carbon Dioxide emission targets for UK - This sections shows how the UK's legally binding emission targets compare to the CO₂ stabilisation trends.

Revised CO2 targets as part of the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) "Basket" - This section shows how dominant CO₂ is as part of all UK Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. It makes up 85% of our current emissions. Whilst the legally binding reduction targets relate to a number of different gasses, CO₂ will still need to be cut by at least 74% by 2050. Progress on cutting other gases, like methane and nitrous oxide, has been good so far and largely due to these cuts we have already met our Kyoto Protocol targets.

New UK targets - This section shows the new "Intended cut" and "Interim target" emission trends for the UK. Hopefully, the Committee on Climate Change will encourage the government to adopt a 42% GHG cut by 2020.

Cumulative effect on emissions - Greenhouse gases (especially CO₂) build up in the atmosphere. It is therefore important to consider the cumulative effects of emission trends. Having strong targets in the near future (e.g. the 42% by 2020 target) will make a significant difference on what we will have emitted by the end of the century.

The effect of delays (i.e. missing targets) - This section is makes the very important point that failures to meet our emission targets (i.e. delays) will have serious consequences for the amount of CO₂ that builds up in the atmosphere.

Does economic recession reduce carbon emissions? - At the time of writing the UK (and global) economy is in a serious recession. There are suggestions that this will reduce GHG emissions and so, at least temporarily, help to mitigate climate change. Whilst this may indeed happen, the recent historical evidence casts doubt on there being a link between emissions and the performance of the economy.

So why is the UK so important? - In this section I argue that the UK's influence on global emissions is significant, and certainly greater than you might expect for our relatively small country.

The current make-up of UK emissions: where to target our efforts - In this section looks at the contributions to UK CO2 emissions by sector (e.g. "Transport"). Looking at trends and targeting the most significant issues.

Emissions trading - The EU Emissions Trading Scheme allows countries to buy emissions from other countries. This could be useful for the UK but is not a strong or sustainable way of meeting our emission reduction targets.

Embedded Emissions - What about all of those emissions attributed to countries like China, that are making the goods that we buy; or those to do with international shipping and aviation? When these are taken into account the CO₂ emissions, that should be attributed to the UK, have shown a worryingly increasing trend: from 650 million tonnes CO₂ in 1992 to over 750 million tonnes CO₂ in 2004. That is a 15% increase and it means that our actual CO₂ emissions are about 37% higher than the figures discussed so far!

Conclusion

The encouraging news

It is important to note that our UK emission targets are encouraging. The government is engaged and working internationally to make good agreements. And nationally, government infrastructure is being put in place and strengthened to help us meet our targets, for example: UK Climate Change Programme, which now reports to parliment (see 2008 Report ), and the new Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC).
We are on track to meet the Kyoto agreement, which is our first target.
Assuming that the government are persuaded to adopt the "Intended target", recommended by the Committee on Climate Change (i.e. the 42% target cut by 2020), we could get on track to meet the 450 ppm CO₂ stabilisation curve, with a less than 2ºC rise in global temperature by 2080...which is between the Low and Medium emission scenarios (see the Consequences page).

The difficult truth

UK emissions have reduced but have not had to work very hard to achieve this. For example, our switch to gas as a more efficient fuel for electricity generation allowed demand to grow, whilst reducing CO₂ emissions.
We seem to be increasing our demand for goods manufactured overseas, which are part of our hidden carbon footprint. It looks like we have, in effect, shipped some of our problem abroad, for other countries to count the cost.
There does not seem to be another easy win on the horizon apart from emissions trading, which may be of limited value. Even the recession does not look like it will definitely keep our emissions on target.

I am not a sociologist but I suspect that these thought processes are relevant...

People do not think globally and they do not think long-term. People are most concerned with family, survival, the work they have to do, and enjoying their leisure time after that. People expect economic growth and believe that this makes their lives better. People are used to "bigger and better", more freedom, more safe, more energy. People vote in the government, and politicians position themselves to appeal to those votes. People do not vote for high taxes and they will not vote for a curb to their lifestyles. People might like the environment but they will vote for economic growth. Governments follow that...it would be interesting to compare the amount of money/effort spent (over the last six months) trying to ease the economic crisis, with the amount spent trying to mitigate climate change (over the last 20 years).
It is easy to talk about emission cuts, as long as people do not have to do anything about it. And we really do need to do a lot about it now. Even the target of a 34% cut by 2020 is a big one!