Energyand Climate Change CommitteeHouse of Commons London SWl A OAAlel 020 7219 2158 Fax 02072195998 Emoil ecc@parlioment.uk Website www.parlioment.uk/ecc

From Tim Yeo MP, Chairman

Rt Hon Greg Barker MPSecretary of StateDepartment of Energy and Climate Change3 Whitehall PlaceLondon SW1A 2AW

5 November 2012

A' \.~ L - J v-y-r,

Aviation and ShiPPin1emiSSions: Inclusion in Carbon Budgets.

Thank you for your pa~iciPation in the recent evidence session on the inclusionof international aviation and shipping emissions in future carbon budgets. Inlight of the importance of this issue for UK climate change policy, I write onbehalf of the whole Committee in order to highlight our concerns and to expressour view that the Government should seek to include international aviation andshipping emissions in the accounting framework of the Climate Change Act,when it puts forward its proposal to Parliament later this year.

The advice of the Committee on Climate Change is very clear on this issue: ifwe are to make our fair share of effort towards a global 2°C climate objective,annual UK greenhouse gas emissions - including international aviation andshipping emissions - need to fall to around 160 MtC02e by 2050. Ifinternational aviation and shipping are excluded from the accounts, an 80% cutwould allow other sectors to emit 160 MtC02e, with aviation and shippingemissions occurring in addition to this. This would lead to total emissions ofaround 200 MtC02e, which is not consistent with meeting a global 2°C climateobjective.'

Cont'd ...

I Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence, Inclusion of international aviation and shipping emissions incarbon budgets, 16 October 2012, He 638-1, Q 3

- 2 -

Whilst the letter of the law does not currently include these emissions, the spiritof the Climate Change Act which determined the 80% 2050 target was alwaysto include international aviation and shipping emissions. MPs voted for an 80%reduction target on this basis." The fact that carbon budgets to date have beenset in line with a 2050 target that includes international aviation and shippingemissions demonstrates that this was indeed the intention behind the legislation.

We heard that the Government's analysis shows that the cost would be a"certain degree" less if international aviation and shipping were excluded, butthat we would not get the "environmental benefits". There was no indication thatany assessment had been made to quantify the costs associated withenvironmental benefits that will be forfeited. If this is the case, it suggests theGovernment's analysis is somewhat one-sided. However, we were not able toundertake proper scrutiny of the Government's methodology because theTreasury refused our invitation to take part in the session and did not respond tomy written request to explain whether it had made its own assessment of theassociated economic costs.

In any case, Parliament voted for the 80% reduction target on the basis that itwould cost up to 2% GDP in 2050. The CCC's cost assessment of meeting an80% target that includes international aviation and shipping has not increasedand still stands at between 1-2% GDP in 2050.

A decision from Government now to exclude aviation and shipping from thecarbon accounts will in effect water down the UK's 2050 target, to the extentthat it is no longer consistent with meeting a global 2°C climate objective. Sincethe Government has not presented any evidence to suggest the 2°C objective isno longer appropriate (indeed, in the response to my Committee's report onUNFCCC COP 18, the Government restated its commitment to this qoal''), aproposal to exclude aviation and shipping emissions would seem to imply thatthe Government no longer takes the threat of climate change seriously.

2 During the passage of the Climate Change Bill, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change(Ed Miliband) said to the House: "Last week, Lord Turner wrote to me with the committee's conclusions,which have been placed in the Library of the House. His report found that to hold global warming to 2°above pre-industrial levels-commonly accepted as the thresholdfor the most dangerous changes in theclimate-global emissions must fall by between 50 and 60 per cent. by 2050. Lord Turner concluded thatto play its proper part, the United Kingdom should cut its emissions not by 60 per cent. but by 80 per cent.He concluded that the target should apply not just to carbon dioxide but to all six Kyoto greenhousegases. He also concluded that while there were uncertainties about how to allocate emissions frominternational flights and shipping, they too should play their part in reducing emissions. The Governmentaccept all the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change. We will amend the ClimateChange Bill to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, a target that will be binding in law. "Hansard, 16 Oct 2008 : Column 9393 Energy and Climate Change Committee, The road to UNFCCC COP /8 and beyond: GovernmentResponse to the Committee's Second Report of Session 20/2-/3, Third Special Report of Session 2012-13,24 October 2012, He 633, p 1

- 3 -

While the current uncertainty surrounding the future of the EU EmissionsTrading System might mean that it is not possible to incorporate aviation andshipping emissions immediately into the UK accounts, we very much hope thatwhen the Government presents its proposal to Parliament, it will at the veryleast support the principle that these emissions should be included.

As an issue of crucial importance to UK climate change policy which will surelyimpact upon international climate change negotiations and the 2°C climateobjective, the Committee felt compelled to draw these facts to your attention.

The Committee will also be writing to Ministers at HMT and OfT. I haveenclosed a copy of the transcript of our evidence session for your informationand look forward to hearing back from you soon.

--'r

I ---