select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
The bill included proposals for legislation setting binding limits for greenhouse gas emissions, including five-yearly carbon budgets.
Dr Dave S. Reay, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, said:
“Some will say this doesn’t go far enough, others that it is yet another target the government will inevitably fall short of. Actually, the Climate Change Bill is a huge step forward. Contrast its legally-binding 60% cut in our CO2 emissions by 2050 with the Kyoto Protocol, and its target of cutting developed-world greenhouse emissions by just 5.2% by 2012 relative to 1990. This Bill is no token gesture.
“Yes, we may need even greater emissions cuts to avoid dangerous climate change. Yes, the government has set CO2 reduction targets before and failed. Now we have the chance to put things back on track. We can show the world how a low-carbon economy can be realised, and lead the way for greater reductions globally. With the recent Stern Review and the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report, the immense scale of the climate change challenge is clear. Nothing short of an Age of Carbon Enlightenment can meet this challenge and it is fitting that the land of Hooke, Boswell and Locke may once again play host to a movement that shapes the future of human civilisation.”
Professor Peter Styring, Head Of Green Chemistry, University of Sheffield, said:
“The Committee on Climate Change is a positive move, but its membership requires careful review in order to take in the full spectrum of opinion. Certainly chemical engineers and chemists can take a leading role here in testing out the feasibility of proposals.
“It is admirable that the government is looking to act sooner rather than later on the impacts of climate change. The targets for domestic emission reductions might seem over optimistic, put if we look at the key areas of emissions then targets could be met with some sacrifice.
“Air travel is high polluting but low density, especially when compared to other activities. For example car emissions are around 3 times higher per capita than aircraft. Transportation and production emits ten times that produced in air travel.
“Carbon dioxide capture and storage is mentioned as a possible solution, however this reduces the amount of carbon available to the planet. What we need to address is carbon dioxide capture, activation and storage to recycle carbon based fuels.”
Dr Sue Ion, Vice President of The Royal Academy of Engineering, said:
“The Government has set extremely demanding targets for reducing domestic carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent of 1990 levels by 2010. In order to achieve this, the framework of mechanisms to control emissions must be simplified and secured for 15 to 20 years. This is crucial to increase understanding of the issues and to give private industry the necessary confidence to make large capital investments and commit funds to researching technical solutions.
“We must continue to reduce carbon emissions from large-scale electricity generation through a diverse mix of low-carbon fuels including nuclear power, renewable sources, biofuels and clean coal. Some of these present significant engineering challenges. Increased energy efficiency is also critical in both the domestic and public sectors, encouraging distributed generation, combined heat and power and low-energy buildings. We need to give more attention to demand as well as supply side solutions.
“The Government must invest more money in energy research, development and deployment, particularly clean coal and carbon capture and storage demonstrator projects and do more to assist the implementation of other renewable technologies such as tidal. Industry and academia need financial incentives to find innovative engineering solutions to the problems we face, but R&D funding has fallen since energy privatisation.
“Transport is the most serious and challenging sector, in which carbon emissions continue to grow. While biofuels and increasingly efficient vehicles will help, Government must start preparing long-term for a future beyond oil and to consider the potential of hydrogen and other non fossil sourced forms of energy for the transport sector.
“We need greater coherence in Government policy if the campaign against climate change is to be successful. With the DTI, DfT and Defra all responsible for various parts of energy policy and climate change, there still seems to be very little cohesion between government departments. Clear Cabinet level responsibility and accountability is required for issues as important as climate change and energy security, as is adherence to a long term plan to deliver the required objectives.”
Dr. Edward Hanna, Senior Lecturer in Climate Change, University of Sheffield, said:
“Despite remaining uncertainties about climate change, the current scientific evidence is sufficiently persuasive that far more urgent action is needed, otherwise Greenland may well be on the brink of meltdown. This Climate Change Bill is a welcome first step but doesn’t go far enough fast enough to confidently combat the significant threats posed by human-induced global warming. I fear that as we are closing the stable door, the horse has already bolted. We seem largely to be living for the present-day only. Government more urgently needs to tackle grossly inefficient energy use, waste and road-traffic congestion – and help provide us with viable cheaper and more sustainable alternative means of transport – in our throwaway consumer society.”
Professor Bob Spicer, Centre for Earth, Planetary, Space and Astronomical Research (CEPSAR), The Open University, said:
“Questions like “can we afford to tackle climate change” are no longer relevant – we can’t afford not to. This bill, coupled with the recent proposals from the European Union, can lead the way to productive dialogues with other parts of the world including those countries that are developing rapidly. The entire global community needs to be on board to tackle this urgent global problem but it requires someone to make the first move. This is it.
“No doubt there will be many who say it doesn’t go far enough and others who say it goes too far. We must not waste time arguing and risk inaction. This is a good way to start and inbuilt is the opportunity for future refinement.”
Dr Chris Huntingford, Climate Modeller, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, said:
“Computer simulations of climate are becoming more accurate and can be trusted to estimate how much warming will occur due to carbon dioxide emissions. They can also tell us about thresholds of greenhouse gas concentrations that it would be dangerous to cross. Capping emissions to avoid these thresholds will mean major alterations to our lives. It is essential that climate scientists work tightly with policymakers and the general public to show what environmental protection is achieved by putting less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”
Professor Ian Fells FREng, founding chairman, New and Renewable Energy Centre, said:
“Nuclear power has been conspicuous by its absence from the many recently published commentaries on how to achieve the 20% emissions cuts promised in future carbon dioxide emissions. Without it they will rise, not fall, as they are doing now. I will vote for whichever party comes out unequivocally for incorporating a substantial nuclear component in our future electricity supply mix.”
Miles Seaman, The Institution of Chemical Engineers, said:
“What is needed is a radical shift of emphasis. Today’s announcement goes nowhere near far enough. Chemical engineers can deliver a low carbon energy economy but this requires rational and joined up thinking that is simply impossible whilst Brown and Cameron play national point scoring. Neither the government nor the opposition has come up with workable solutions to date.”
Eur Ing Keith Plumb, Chemical Engineer, said:
“The recent announcement of EU wide emission targets moves us closer to the implementation stage of this European initiative to reduce the impact of Global Warming. As with the replacement of CFC’s (due to their damage of the ozone layer) professional engineers will play a major role in this implementation stage.
“However, in the UK the continuing shortage of new graduate engineers and the loss of those that are fully trained due to the low status of the profession mean that we will simple fail to have sufficient engineering knowledge to meet the EU targets. Not only will we fail to lead the world, we will be forced to buy technology from nations with a more highly trained and more highly respected engineering profession.”