select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
UK experts commented on the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group 3, Summary for Policy Makers. This document is the third of three summaries of the 4th assessment report released in 2007. It focused on the mitigation of climate change.
John Morton, Chief Executive Officer of the Engineering and Technology Board, said:
“This report demands a global response. The UK must play a leading role, harnessing its world class science and technology. No one sector has a panacea. Government, industry, the city, academics and individuals must work together, and on an unprecedented scale. Government should lead by example, for instance by requiring energy intensive procurement projects to include technologies which mitigate the effects of climate change, thereby sending a clear signal to financial institutions to support new businesses which exploit these technologies.”
Prof Geoff Levermore, Lead Author, IPCC WG3 and Prof of the Built Environment, University of Manchester, said:
“It is good that the IPCC WG3 Summary for Policy Makers, SPM, has been agreed and most of the key points have not been altered, although it has been softened slightly for developing countries where the barriers to change may be greater. The SPM shows that there is the technology available, it is affordable but that improved Government policies around the world are now required to help reduce emissions. The built environment is a key area with global emissions around one third of the total (up to 50% of the total for developed countries) but good design and refurbishment, efficient appliances and lighting coupled with effective, performance-based regulation can make a significant difference as Chapter 6 of the IPCC WG3 Mitigation Report shows.”
Ian Arbon, Chairman, Energy, Environment & Sustainability Group at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, said:
“While we welcome the report it appears that engineers have been completely been left off the radar. It will be engineers that will be implementing and creating the technologies which will combat Climate Change and at present, in this country, we are only scratching the surface. I would say we are not even using 2% of the main renewable technologies we have, wind, solar, biomass, hydropower, geothermal, and then there is marine and tidal – we need to be using these technologies 50 times more than we are now. We can’t wait 20 to 30 years to do something, it has to be today – but putting ‘green’ taxes on everything is not the answer.”
Dr Sue Ion, Royal Academy of Engineering Vice President, said:
“This is probably the most important report from IPCC because it starts to tell the policy makers what they can actually do about the problem. It also carries stark warnings about the fact that although some reductions in emissions have been observed in some regions, the scale is not large enough to make a difference.
“We also welcome the fact that it highlights the importance of both supply side and demand side measures, particularly in relation to emissions from buildings. Here in the UK we often seem obsessed by the supply (of electricity) side.”
Dr Dave Reay, School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, said:
“Stern said it, now the scientific community have said it. We must have a fair ‘price of carbon’, one that reflects its true cost to people and ecosystems around the world. The Working Group 3 report shows how great the potential for cutting greenhouse emissions at the demand side – us – actually is. The energy used in our homes, the fuel we use to get us around, and the mountains of stuff we consume, all come with a hidden price tag in terms of climate change. It’s time we saw those price tags, it’s time the ‘polluter pays’ principle came home.”
Professor Roger Kemp, Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said:
“The report points out the high growth in emissions from transport which, in the UK, has been a steady 2% p.a. for 30 years. If the Government’s aspirations are to be met, this growth must be reversed and we need to see a 2 per cent reduction per annum for the next 30 years.
“There is no ‘magic’ technological solution to this problem. The IPCC identifies better use of existing technology, such as more efficient vehicles, rapid public transport and a growth of non-motorised transport. We support these conclusions but they will only be effective if linked with measures, such as land use and housing policies and location of schools, hospitals and shopping centres, that reduce the need for travel – particularly commuting – and that encourage motorists to drive smaller and not just more efficient vehicles.”
The Institution of Chemical Engineers’ director of policy, Andy Furlong, said:
“It’s no surprise that carbon capture and storage take centre stage in the IPCC’s latest report. Whilst the rapid pursuit of a global energy policy based on non-fossil fuels is essential to securing sustainable development in the longer term, it is unrealistic to hope that this change will happen overnight.
“We have to accept that fossil fuels are going to be with us for several decades to come. So, if we’re to reduce their impact on the environment, we must ensure they are burned using the best technologies available and that the carbon emissions produced are captured and stored or reused.
“Coal is in the ascendancy in the developing world and hundreds of new plants are planned or under construction – without carbon capture capability. National governments, both in the West and developing countries, must raise their game. We need incentives at a global level to kick-start the take up of carbon capture technologies and the research and development of non-fossil resources.
“There is a further massive hurdle to implementation of the strategy set out in the report – skills. Media Studies students will not go on to design and build low-carbon power plants. This job will fall to engineers and scientists and we’re going to need an awful lot of them. Here in the UK and in all of the developed economies governments must bring about a step change in the number of young people studying maths and science.””
Centre for Alternative Technology, Development Director, Paul Allen, said:
“The cost of failing to meet the challenge of climate change is unlimited – it is a false economy not to take the measures required by the most up to date climate science.”
Dr Jeremy Leggett, CEO solarcentury, said:
“The depth and breadth of the policies considered feasible in this report fail to match the seriousness of the warning in the IPCC scientists’ report. In particular, if renewable energy can only meet 35% of world electricity by 2030, we will find out if the IPCC’s scientists are right, or – as is more likely – whether they have underestimated the threat facing us from climate change.”
Dr Bruce Tofield, Innovation and Change, CRed Carbon Reduction Programme School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia , said:
“The authors of the report are to be congratulated for their efforts. They show clearly that climate change mitigation with a major impact on global temperature rise is both possible and affordable. Sadly, until the UK and the developed world takes action to tackle their own emissions, until action is taken to halt massive emissions from deforestation, until we think seriously about the positive contribution agriculture could make, and until there is global agreement to cap emissions and price carbon at realistic levels, the mitigation potential revealed in the Summary will remain just that, potential.
“While business as usual remains the default option of the global economy, emissions will continue to rise and dangerous and possibly irreversible climate change will be the almost certain outcome. While focus will inevitably be on China and other rapidly developing countries, action at home, in the UK and the other countries of the developed world, is essential to kick-start the process of emissions reduction.
“By starting now and by being serious and effective we will all benefit. The Stern Review only a few months ago summarised the argument in compelling words: “The benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs.””
Jeff Burley, Board Chairman, C-Questor plc, and Director-emeritus, Oxford Forestry Institute, said:
“The report shows the importance of forestry as a set of mitigation actions In addition to their direct and continuing contribution to carbon sequestration, forests offer a wide range of market and non-market benefits that contribute rapidly and significantly to sustainable development. These include land restoration and enhanced land value, biodiversity conservation, soil and water quality and quantity, employment plus individual and community welfare of people and livestock. The report does not list (Table SPM 1) the technology improvements that are becoming available to forestry as well as to agriculture, e.g. genetic improvement of planted trees, reduced impact logging of standing forests, and energy-efficient plantation methods; all of these reduce carbon emissions while enhancing economic value.”
Robin McGill, Chief Executive of the Institution of Engineering and Technology, said:
“The report identifies that technology is at the heart of understanding the cause of and tackling climate change. We must now recognise that it will be engineers who will be at the heart of delivering the solutions to the major challenges facing the world. If we are to successfully tackle climate change then government and society at large must engage with those in the science and engineering communities who can provide impartial credence based advice.”
John Armstrong, President of The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE), said:
“The report confirms that there is great scope for new and existing buildings to be more energy efficient, to significantly reduce carbon emissions, and to save the owners or occupiers money in the process but initiatives such as CIBSE’s 100 Days of Carbon Clean-Up, have demonstrated that the potential savings will not be realised without expert help.”