MEETI NG REPORT

LI VI NG I N A LOW CARBON W ORLD: THE POLI CY I MPLI CATI ONS OF RATI ONI NG

30th June 2005, Policy Studies I nstitute, London

Editors: Mayer Hillm an and Tina Faw cett August 2005

Event organised and sponsored by:

UK Energy Research Centre www.ukerc.ac.uk Meeting Report DR1 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

Executive Sum m ary

This m eet ing report sum m arises the presentations and discussions at “Living in a low carbon world: the policy im plications of carbon rat ioning” – a one day sem inar held on Thursday 30th June 2005 at the Policy St udies I nstitut e, London. The key purpose of this day was to raise the profile of carbon rat ioning and to explore what its introduct ion would m ean for key sectors of society and t he econom y.

The urgent challenge of clim ate change and the need for m ore radical policies was introduced by Mayer Hillm an, Tina Fawcett and Colin Challen MP. Following this, six distinguished speakers ident ified how personal carbon rat ions would affect different aspects of society and the econom y.

Roger Levett began by speaking about the role of the planning system in creat ing a lower carbon society. He concluded that m ore not less planning would be required, and t hat it m ust be ‘system s literate’. Reducing em issions requires a vigorously int ervent ionist approach, upfront and unapologet ic that som e collective goals, notably clim at e security, require restrictions of som e individual choices, especially ones that increase car and air travel. Tony Grayling report ed on transport, and identified technological and behavioural routes to lower em issions. He concluded that deep reductions in em issions from transport achieved gradually over a period of decades m ay not necessarily m ean drastic reduct ions in t he am ount of personal travel and freight t ransport. The effect of carbon em issions lim its on transport pat terns will depend on t he developm ent and deploym ent of new vehicle and fuel technologies, as well as changing behaviour.

Chris Jardine looked at options for carbon saving wit hin t he dom estic sector, and considered whet her t he int roduction of personal carbon rat ions would be sufficient to encourage people to adopt additional efficiency m easures and household-level renewables. He concluded they could be very effect ive under the right circum stances. Robin St ott spoke about the healt h im pacts of living in a lower carbon societ y. He suggested a low carbon world would be very posit ive, as it would involve m ore use of hum an energy (walking and cycling), better sources of food, and increased social engagem ent , all of which would reduce ill-health. I n addit ion, the incom e redistribut ion effects of carbon rat ions would help reduce health inequalities.

Caroline Lucas MEP gave a wide-ranging presentation on the econom y, em ploym ent and polit ics. She suggested that a low carbon econom y would present m any new em ploym ent opportunities in various sectors. The audience was left wit h three key questions. First ly, what are the im plicat ions of a low carbon fut ure for growth in the developing world? Secondly, what is t he optim um area in which to introduce carbon rationing – UK, EU, OECD? Finally, how can workers who lose out in the transit ion to a lower carbon econom y be support ed?

George Monbiot discussed t he wider polit ical cont ext in which carbon rationing sits. He stressed that voluntarism could not be effective in m aking t he huge carbon savings required. Regulation and com pulsion are necessary. People need to press the governm ent to take t he lead, but for this to happen clim ate change m ust becom e the biggest polit ical issue in the industrialised world. He suggested it would be necessary to ident ify ‘enem ies’ who are blocking the way to a low carbon econom y, and take the fight to them , to get effective public engagem ent wit h t he issue.

Throughout the day t he audience contribut ed t o the debat e and raised m any int eresting issues which are detailed in t he m ain report. Key discussion points included the following: - The language used t o describe policy tools based on carbon rat ioning could be im portant for polit ical acceptability. For exam ple, ‘rat ioning’ m ight m ake people think of say food rationing during the dark tim es of t he second world war,

Page 2 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

whereas term s such as ‘citizens em issions reduction shares’ places em phasis on a posit ive equity-based good. - Several part icipants suggested a ‘war on carbon’ m entality would be needed before significant carbon cuts could be m ade. The use of this language drew both strong objections and st rong support. - The need for a great er role for com m unit ies and cities in delivering carbon reductions

The following t opics were suggested in the final discussion session. • A good area for research would be at the city-region level – how can such a scale of com m unity achieve an 80% cut in its em issions? (Roger Read) • I dentify what legislat ion needs to be put in place to rule out what is unacceptable in carbon t erm s (Trew in Restorick). • GAP has an Eco-t eam s database, where households from all over the count ry are in-putt ing data on actual energy use and degree days. He offered to m ake these data available for research (Trew in Restorick). • What would t he price of carbon have to be to m ake people change t heir habits? • I s there a good link to be m ade between ‘peak oil’ and clim at e change? I t was suggested the peak oil issue has spurred people into action in North Am erica. • A ‘system s lit erat e’ approach is needed, looking at the way decisions and changes in one policy area affect others in a dynam ic way, and t rying to ident ify t he ‘tipping points’ that determ ine whet her people choose sustainable or unsustainable opt ions. (Roger Levett). • Three key areas for further research can be ident ified: DTQs and EU Em issions Trading System ; DTQs and I T; and DTQs and fuel poverty ( Richard Starkey) . • How far will rationing itself do t he t rick, or do we still need t o reinforce its effectiveness with, for instance building regulat ions? (Derek Osborn). • A clearer program m e of what we want the governm ent to do on carbon allowances, and the pace of change that t his entails needs to be ident ified (Derek Osborn).

Proceedings were closed by Derek Osborn who drew together t he m ain them es of t he day and reflected upon conclusions drawn by the speakers. He took inspirat ion from Churchill to sum m arise the m ain m essage of t he conference: ACTI ON THI S DAY.

Page 3 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

Content s

I ntroduction to the event 5

A brief introduction to personal carbon rationing 5

I ntroductory session 8 Mayer Hillm an Tina Fawcett Colin Challen MP: Musings on t he polit ics of carbon rat ioning

Session 1 : Planning, travel and transport 1 4 Roger Levett: I m plications for planning Tony Grayling: I m plications for personal travel and freight t ransport Discussion on session 1

Session 2 : Housing and health 2 0 Chris Jardine: I m plications for housing Robin St ott: I m plicat ions for health Discussion on session 2

Session 3 : The econom y, em ploym ent and politics 2 1 Caroline Lucas MEP: I m plications for the econom y and em ploym ent George Monbiot : Som e polit ical observat ions Discussion on session 3

Session 4 : W here do w e go from here? 3 2 Mayer Hillm an Tina Fawcett Discussion on session 4

Sum m ing up 3 3 Derek Osborn

Afterw ord 3 5 Mayer Hillm an

Biographical notes 3 8

List of attendees 4 1

Page 4 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

I ntroduction to the event

This docum ent sum m arises the presentat ions and discussions at “Living in a low carbon world: t he policy im plications of carbon rationing” – a one day sem inar held on Thursday 30 th June 2005 at the Policy St udies I nstit ute, London. The key purpose of t his day, sponsored by Policy St udies I nstitute and the UK Energy Research Centre, was to raise the profile of carbon rationing and to explore what its introduction would m ean for key sectors of society and the econom y. I t was hoped that it would provide a starting point for cont inuing dialogue and action and cont ribute to building a com m unit y of int erest around the concept of personal carbon rat ions.

Six expert speakers addressed the sem inar, and each of t hem has provided a sum m ary of the t houghts they present ed on t he day. The speakers were asked to im agine t hat it was 2015 and personal carbon rat ions had already been introduced. Then t hey were asked to discuss what t he im pacts for their sector of activity could be under a reducing nat ional carbon cap. What would change? What m ight be t he balance between technology, behavioural and structural change? How would changes in the rest of society affect their sector? What would be the benefit s of living in a lower carbon world (apart from reducing clim at e change)?

Mayer Hillm an, Tina Fawcett and Colin Challen MP introduced the event , and Derek Osborn provided a sum m ing up – sum m aries of their rem arks are also included.

Contribut ions from t he expert invit ed audience were a very im portant aspect of t he day. A num ber of them es em erged across several discussion slots: the interaction of carbon rationing with other policy m easures, localisation of the econom y, the use of a ‘war on carbon’ m etaphor and the role of choice in decision-m aking about clim ate change. Key points which arose in discussion have been recorded at t he end of each session.

Som e of the them es from the sem inar have been report ed in The ENDS Report 366, July 2005.

I f you want t o get in t ouch to discuss any of the issues raised in this report, you can contact Mayer Hillm an and/ or Tina Fawcett: m ayer.hillm [email protected] [email protected]

This docum ent was edited by Mayer Hillm an and Tina Fawcett. Cont ribut ors include all the speakers at the sem inar as well as Gavin Killip who recorded and sum m arised the audience discussions.

A brief introduction t o personal carbon rat ioning Mayer Hillm an, Policy St udies I nstitut e, London. Tina Fawcett, Environm ental Change I nstit ute, Universit y of Oxford & UKERC

Sum m ary Personal carbon rationing w ould be a UK- w ide allow ance system covering the carbon em issions generated from the fossil fuel energy used by individuals w ithin the hom e and for personal transport, including carbon equivalent em issions from air travel. I t w ould account for around half of current UK carbon em issions from energy. The prim ary aim of the schem e w ould be to deliver guaranteed levels of carbon savings in successive years in an equitable w ay. The governm ent’s current target of a 6 0 % reduction by 2 0 5 0 , or m ore stringent targets, w ould assuredly be m et in this w ay.

Page 5 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

Key features The m ain feat ures of personal carbon rat ions (t he word ‘rat ions’ is used for clarity t hough ‘DTQs’, ‘allowances’, ‘entitlem ents’ or ‘quotas’ could equally well be used) are: • An equal annual ration is allocated for each adult , wit h a sm aller one for children • Rat ions are t radable • The ration covers the direct energy used in the household and for personal travel • A phased year-on- year reducing ration is signalled well in advance • The arrangem ent is m andatory, with Parliam entary approval,.

Wit hin a schem e of equal rations, it m ight be thought necessary to give addit ional rations to som e vulnerable people such as the elderly or fuel poor. However, in the longer term , it would m ake m ore sense for the governm ent t o subsidise efficiency and/ or renewable energy m easures for them rather than give them extra allowances. This is because the m ore exceptions that are m ade, the lower the available ration has then to be for everyone else. Trading on the open m arket will be an integral part of the carbon rationing schem e as the carbon ration necessary to cover current consum pt ion will vary considerably bet ween individuals. Those who lead lives wit h a relatively low energy input by invest ing in household efficiency, renewables, and by travelling less will not need all of t heir rat ion and will t herefore have a surplus to sell. Those who live in large or inefficient hom es or who travel a lot, will need to buy t his surplus t o perm it t hem t o continue with som ething like t heir accustom ed lifestyle. I n addition, by incorporat ing trading within the rat ioning schem e, econom ic theory suggests that savings are likely to be m ade at least overall cost. Personal carbon rations would cover everyone’s direct use of energy in the household and for personal transport, including air t ravel. By including all these activit ies, half of the energy-related carbon and carbon equivalent em issions in the UK econom y would be covered. I n addit ion, com bining energy use in t he household wit h personal t ransport in a single schem e would give people flexibilit y in how they use t heir rat ion. Carbon rations w ill have to decrease over tim e in response to t he need to reduce global em issions in a sm oot h transit ion and to allow for t he expected rise in nat ional populat ion. To allow for the expected growth in the UK populat ion, personal rat ions would have to fall by a little m ore than 60% below today’s average by 2050 (designed to stabilise atm ospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at 550ppm ). I f a m ore risk-averse target for concent rations of 450ppm were chosen, then t he reductions needed by 2050 would be around 80% . I n order to be effective, carbon rationing w ould have to be m andatory. A voluntary approach would not succeed: the ‘free-rider’ would have far t oo m uch t o gain.

Carbon rationing in practice Adm inistrat ion should be straightforward. Each person is given an electronic card Carbon Allowance Card 2010 containing the year’s carbon credits. I t would have to be presented for deduction of the correct am ount of carbon on purchase of energy or travel services. The 1234 5678 9101 1121 technologies already in place for direct debit Valid from 1/10 Expires end 12/10 and credit cards could be used. There are relat ively few sellers of gas, electricit y, Ms A N Other petrol, diesel and ot her fuels, and flows of fossil fuels are already very well recorded

Page 6 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world and t ight ly regulated in the econom y – t hereby easing introduction of such a system .

Benefits of personal carbon rations The m ost im portant benefit of carbon rat ioning is that it provides a fram ework for assuredly delivering governm ent targets for carbon reductions. Current policies do not do this. Second, it does so in an equitable way – everyone has an equal share of t he UK’s.em ission allowances. There are also ot her benefits, for exam ple, under carbon rationing, t he carbon ‘m arket’ will reflect the advantages of using renewable energy, household insulat ion and low carbon m et hods of transport . No longer will it be necessary to have separate governm ent policies and program m es to prom ot e everything from taking up cycling to buying efficient refrigerat ors. For individuals, carbon rationing will provide choice, allowing people to reduce t heir em issions in the way that suits them best - whether through t echnical efficiency im provem ent s and using m ore renewable energy, or through behaviour/ lifestyle changes such as turning down t herm ostats and holidaying closer to hom e. People opting for lower carbon lifestyles will be rewarded by being able to sell their spare rations. Their value will rise steadily as the yearly ration is reduced, thereby creating an ecologically virt uous circle.

The int ernat ional context Personal carbon rat ioning as a UK solut ion em erges from t he Global Com m ons I nstitut e’s key global fram ework proposal - “Contraction and Convergence” (Meyer 2000) - see also http: / / www.gci.org.uk/ briefings/ I CE.pdf. This is aim ed at delivering global carbon savings fairly and wit h certainty. I t will do this by first agreeing a contraction of global carbon em issions t o ensure that a ‘safe’ concentrat ion of em issions in the atm osphere is not exceeded, and second, converging to equal per capita em issions allowances, by an agreed year. Carbon rationing is designed as a policy which will enable the UK t o m ake nat ional savings as its cont ribut ion within a global agreem ent on lim it ing greenhouse gas em issions based on t he sam e principles of C & C.

Further reading The argum ents in favour of carbon rat ioning, and a vision of what a society wit h rat ions would look like are developed in detail in: Hillm an, M. & Fawcett, T. 2004, How we can save t he planet, Penguin Books, London. A sim ilar schem e across the whole econom y called ‘Dom estic Tradable Quotas’ (DTQs) has been proposed. For details see: Anderson, K. & Starkey, R. 2004, Dom estic tradable quotas: A policy instrum ent for t he reduction of greenhouse gas em issions, Tyndall Centre for Clim ate Change Research, Norwich. Meyer, A. 2000, Contraction and convergence: the global solut ion to clim ate change, Green Books, Tot nes, UK.

Page 7 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

I N TRODUCTORY SESSI ON

Brenda Boardm an, the Chair of t he event , opened t he m eeting and set out t he program m e for the day. Then Malcolm Rigg, the Director of t he Policy St udies I nstit ute, welcom ed speakers and guests.

I ntroduction – part 1 Mayer Hillm an (Policy St udies I nstitut e)

Last year, Penguin published our book How w e can save the planet. All that has happened since t hen appears to reinforce its em phatic conclusions: 1 Current fossil fuel-based lifestyles m ust be drastically changed to lim it carbon dioxide concentrat ions in the at m osphere and t hereby t he harsher im pacts of clim at e change. The Exet er Conference of internat ional clim at e scient ists in February and t he recent statem ent of the Joint Science Academ ies added to the already ext rem e concern on t he subject.

2 A blind eye is being collect ively turned to t he gross insufficiency of action being taken in the face of t his calam itous prospect. The public is in denial on this m ost crit ical of issues, carrying on deluding itself t hat our energy profligat e activit ies, let alone their spread, as reflected for instance in the continuing rise in road, rail and air travel, do not have to be curtailed urgent ly. Even well-inform ed people would, albeit reluctant ly, adm it to excesses in this regard. Ask anyone what they intend to do in ret irem ent , and t he great m aj orit y will say “see t he world” . Ask anyone whether t hey think governm ent will be prepared to curtail choice t o that end, and they will say “no”, glibly and out rageously im plying that we are too selfish to save t he planet.

Most of t he green lobby plays along wit h cam paigns clearly designed to avoid alarm ing the public too m uch as t o the true extent of necessary change - Friends of the Earth currently stating t hat ‘we all need to act’, calling for a personal annual reduction in CO2 em issions of no m ore than 3% , and wit hout even indicating a global context. At t hat rate, the target of em ission reduction that it agrees to be essent ial would be reached far too lat e to avoid catastrophe.

The m edia, while feat uring alarm ing evidence of clim ate change, brazenly prom otes fuel- use int ensive attractions, such as second hom es overseas, the Olym pics (in any city), internat ional tourism and gas-guzzling cars. No doubt, the need for revenue from advertising explains this but, even if not iced, t he crude cont radiction is treat ed as a j oke.

I ndustry cont inues to act as if investm ent in energy efficiency program m es, the developm ent of a hydrogen-based econom y, carbon sequestration, and a renaissance in nuclear power, will necessarily deliver a sufficient ly effective target for reducing em issions. Confidence in its capacity to do so in t im e can hardly be gained from its progress to dat e.

Meanwhile, the governm ent wilfully cont inues to hold to the view, in t he face of t he evidence, that econom ic growt h and prot ection of the global environm ent are reconcilable obj ectives when it is clear that this growt h is too closely coupled to greenhouse gas em issions for t his t o be possible. I t has yet to acknowledge the inappropriateness of the use of m arket forces as a m eans of regulating the use of a basic com m odit y that is finite. And it rem ains wedded to its wholly inadequate target of a 60% reduction in CO2 em issions by 2050 at a concentrat ion way beyond what the consensus

Page 8 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world of clim at e scientists, including its own expert advisers, has established to be essent ial if the runaway effect of global warm ing is to be prevent ed.

3 The only policy that can prevent the ‘safe’ concentrat ion of carbon em issions accum ulat ing in the at m osphere being exceeded is the global fram ework proposal of t he Global Com m ons I nstitute - Contraction and Convergence - t he contraction of em issions com bined with a program m e of convergence t owards an annual per capita ration for the whole population. Support for C& C is growing so rapidly - all the m ain polit ical part ies, wit h the except ion of Labour, now do so (as does the Royal Com m ission on Environm ent al Pollut ion, the Synod of t he Church of England, t he House of Com m ons’ Environm ental Audit Com m ittee, to list but a few prom inent bodies) - that it is difficult to believe that a consensus will not be reached very soon t o ensure no int erruption to all-party agreem ent on its long-t erm and im m utable adoption and to its early introduction in t he form of a steady annually reducing carbon rat ion.

4 This rat ioning will have to be m andatory as the considerable scale of reduction will not be achieved wit hin the tim escale available through t he m edium of a voluntary approach based on education and appeals to people’s duty to behave responsibly - com bined with alert ing them to t he cost-effectiveness of fuel-saving practices. The m ost im portant benefit of personal carbon rat ioning is that it will provide a fram ework for assuredly delivering t he essential reduction needed in carbon dioxide em issions and in an equitable way. The parallel with food rat ioning during WWI I is instructive: it was not done as a plea to alt ruism , it was obligatory for everyone t o com ply. I t will drive forward green practices by industry as well as by individuals far m ore efficient ly t han by industry seeking support and subsidy for it s work. There are other benefits too: these include the issue of social just ice, in particular wit h regard t o the Third World and Africa. The governm ent will no longer need to det erm ine a notional value for a tonne of carbon or to have separate policies and program m es to encourage individuals to be good citizens: t hey will choose the way that suits them best for reducing their em issions - whether through buying into energy saving m easures or through changes such as m aking locational decisions enabling local patt erns of t ravel t o be adopted, holidaying closer to hom e – or not using seven years of their rat ion t o fly to Australia! Trading in t he carbon ‘m arket’ will encourage this as people opt ing for lower carbon lifestyles will be rewarded by being able to sell their spare rat ions, t he value of which will rise steadily as the yearly rat ion is reduced. The process will create an ecologically virt uous circle.

There can be little doubt that t he scope for adopting pract ices allowing for perfectly reasonable lifestyles under a carbon rat ioned regim e is considerable.

I ntroduction - part 2 Tina Faw cett (Environm ental Change I nstit ute & UKERC)

Personal carbon rat ions / allowances are a m eans to guarantee carbon savings from personal energy use in an equitable way. Rationing would cap carbon em issions from privat e individuals’ direct energy use wit hin t heir hom es and for travel (including all air travel – national and internat ional). Rations would be equal, tradable and m andatory and would reduce over t im e. They would cover about 50% of carbon and carbon equivalent em issions in t he UK; another m echanism would be needed to tackle t he other 50% .

Current ly personal carbon em issions vary hugely. A lim ited pilot study showed a factor of m ore t han t en difference between individuals’ annual em issions. This variation in current em issions shows that t here would be m any ‘winners’ as well as m any ‘losers’ under a rationing system . We do not yet understand well enough t he distributional im pacts of

Page 9 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world introducing carbon rat ions, or how t his would com pare wit h an alt ernative policy such as m assive carbon taxat ion.

There are m any details of carbon rations yet to be worked out, and questions about t heir im pacts, costs, adm inistrative feasibility and polit ical and social acceptabilit y rem ain. However, these questions will be pursued t hrough ongoing research and fut ure sem inars and consultat ions. Today is not about t he details of carbon rationing, but about the bigger picture. How will carbon constraint becom e part of the way we live our lives? What will a low-carbon societ y and econom y be like? How will we live in a low carbon world?

Musings on the politics of carbon rationing Colin Challen (MP for Morley & Rothwell)

I n considering the wider im plications of the int roduction of carbon rat ioning, two chicken and egg questions stand out. Are we too selfish to support it or even allow it t o happen? And does it not entail the em ergence of a new t ype of politics?

Looking at this from anot her angle, isn’t it clear that the new polit ics of collective responsibility m ust precede its introduction. I s it not rather m ore likely in the present ethos which extols individual m at erialism , t hat we will fail t o m ake the huge changes needed in the tim escale available - in the absence that is, of either a cataclysm ic event or an unprecedented non-violent shift in public attitudes?

Hum ans do have the capacity to m ake enorm ous changes. I n order to try t o understand how we could m obilise a carbon lite econom y, we could do worse than study how the industrialised econom ies transform ed t hem selves into war econom ies. Of course t hey did not cease t o be industrialised econom ies, since war is one of t he great est progenitors of industrialisation. However, m y point is that the whole engine of product ion can be shift ed in relat ively short periods of tim e if the ext ernal threat is great enough. After Pearl Harbour, car production in the Unit ed St ates ceased within 12 m onths, wit h m anufact uring plant being turned over t o t he war econom y. The car m anufacturers objected but they had to bend t o t he political im perat ive. 1

At present, t he effect of clim at e change seem s to be rat her less horrendous t o t he general public than t he prospect of aerial bom bing. We know that t he effects of clim ate change will hit others first – hence our ecological debt to the developing world – and m any of us in t he West know we will be able to buy t im e wit h the present day equivalent of air raid shelt ers, that is m it igat ion m easures which will help us to cont inue t o live com fortably without taking the decisive action that is required.

I f we cease to be selfish, a new style of politics will em erge. This could happen overnight – the equivalent of Cham berlain’s declaration of war and m obilisation of our forces. But it is m ore likely to happen over a m uch longer period: att em pts will be m ade to delay t he inevitable departure from business as usual for as long as possible - the equivalent of Cham berlain’s earlier policy of appeasem ent.

We are current ly in the clim at e change appeasem ent period. Most people want t o get on wit h their lives. As long as clim ate change only m akes a significant im pact on little count ries a long way away ‘about which we know not hing’ and care even less, then we will only m ake relatively m inor changes. The body polit ic has an overwhelm ing urge to carry on business as usual, it fears urgent or unplanned shift s.

Even aft er Cham berlain’s belated call to arm s in 1939, let’s rem em ber that there were m any well placed, influent ial figures who want ed to do deals with t he fascist regim es, t o

Page 10 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world negot iate a peace during what was dubbed ‘t he phoney war’. This leads m e to another concern – that the new polit ics which m ust be m arshalled in t he clim at e change crisis will always have its detractors. They will point to any straw blowing in t he wind which shows that there m ay even be benefits from clim ate change – for us that is - that we m ay even get som e com parative advant age, or that pursuing a harder line weakens our com parative advantage. I ronically the det ractors will not lose any power if our anti- clim at e change policies work. I ndeed they could even gain m om ent um as people begin t o question whet her their sacrifices were really necessary in t he first place. That was certainly t he case in 1940, as anyone who has read Clive Ponting’s excellent book on t he year 1940 will know. 2

Aft er all, t he reward for defeat ing clim at e change is m erely that things won’t get any worse in a vague, global sense. But m any people will definitely t hink things got worse for them personally, if for exam ple t hey had t o give up t heir car. We are asking people to be count er-int uit ive – that is t o give up now t o receive later, when all our consum er m essaging is about getting now and paying later. I t is difficult t o see how a polit ical m essage in a clim ate of cynicism , not to say distrust of polit icians, could effectively convey what needs t o be done whilst t hat m essage is countered by consum er advertising. Tony Blair has repeatedly said that clim ate change is at the t op of the G8 sum m it’s agenda. But even if people are rem ot ely interested in the subj ect, this will have little m eaning for t hem . How do you translate the discussion about clim ate change at Gleneagles into a discussion around your fam ily table? Not least if you aspire to be a ‘Chelsea t ractor’ m um and your son com es in wearing a hoodie?3

We should study the com ponents of what it t akes to wage total war when we live in a dem ocracy m ade up of selfish individuals. One of the first questions m ust be how fast can we int roduce conscript ion? Volunt arism is not working. I f t he answer is tom orrow, then t om orrow we will have t he new polit ics – whet her som e people like it or not. The elem ents of t his form of conscription, t hat is the enforcem ent of carbon rat ioning or quotas for the adult populat ion, will not be popular, but I would wager that if t he governm ent successfully pulls off the feat of re-int roducing I D cards in the UK, the m ove to carbon quotas will be m ade very m uch easier.

This m ight sound like a surprising prediction. But by virt ue of the fact that I D cards could event ually becom e com pulsory for every adult, (and of course people are likely t o be quite averse to having t o pay a sizeable sum for this im posit ion) we will be taking a very im portant com ponent from t he arm oury of total war and putt ing it into place. This is perhaps the first step that m ust be taken, since it will be the first tim e for a long t im e that the governm ent has said to every individual ‘you m ust do t his’ because we have decided it is good for the state (and world) of which you are a part. Selfish people m ay or m ay not like I D cards. But I D cards signify an individual’s contract with t he state, a contract which can only be m ade void by perm anent ly em igrat ing, for m ost people there can be no escape. I D cards underpin the not ion of cit izenship, even a sense of belonging, and this sense is an essent ial requirem ent if selfishness is to be defeated. I believe I D cards are an opt ion which m ust be taken

Let’s consider anot her aspect of t he polit ics of carbon rat ioning which also touches on t he issue of selfishness and is another com ponent of the total war that m ust be fought against clim at e change. This is t hat the econom y has to be transform ed with t he objective in m ind not of creat ing growth but being less carbon-reliant, year on year. Obviously this m eans stopping doing bad things and starting doing good things. There is a role for technology here, and I have to say I do not have any quibbles wit h Bush’s agenda t o increase expendit ure on research into t hings like hydrogen, albeit wit h the caveat that his is a lim it ed agenda since it is only about trying to reduce carbon intensit y relat ive t o GDP, not to reduce carbon em issions per se.

Page 11 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

The point I want t o m ake is that whatever we do, we need to m aintain high em ploym ent, and technology m ay offer us that possibility. Consider t he fut ure of electricity distribut ion: a m etaphor would be the digital switch-over when one long standing system gives way to another, and that change leads to the dim inut ion of dom inant TV stations (think power stations) and we get a m ult it ude of sm aller ones, aka m icrogenerat ion. This calls for a revolut ion in power distribut ion which will have far reaching consequences. Now I think it is the turn of t he electricity generators who, like the m edia m oguls in their own industry, will be powerless to resist change.

One of t he m ain explanat ions for the reduction in UK greenhouse gas em issions in t he late eighties and early ninet ies was the destruction of m uch of our m anufacturing base. We all decried t he growing service econom y t hen, but it t urned out to be greener. I f we look at the carbon lite econom y of t he fut ure, it will have to be very m uch m ore service- based. This m eans im proving and developing the t hings we have, m aking t hem last longer, and im proving t he im age of those who do this work. I t m eans a fundam ental shift to re-use and re-cycling. The EU has already m ade a good start , for exam ple by specifying the am ount of vehicle cont ent that m ust be reusable. The challenge will be to see how re-use can be com bined wit h innovat ion.

I f we did not m aintain high em ploym ent, t here would be a huge reaction against t he policies we advocate t o reduce greenhouse gas em issions. Hum an beings are creat ive and productive anim als. We will fail to reduce carbon em issions if our policy is m erely to switch to inactivity. We have to have int elligent activit y. So, at the risk of sounding like a new Labour clone, let m e say that t he t hird strand of our policies in the next ten years, as we head towards the carbon rationed future, has to be education followed by education and educat ion.

Educat ion, let’s be blunt, is the great est service indust ry t here is. I t is also t he greatest econom ic lever t hat we have. I f we are t o t ransform our econom y into a low carbon econom y whilst m aint aining high levels of em ploym ent, it will only be because we invested considerably m ore in higher educat ion. But I also think this m eans that the governm ent has to be m ore selective about how it invests in it. I t has to say that som e subjects are vastly m ore im portant to our national purpose than others. For exam ple, m aths and physics, the cornerstones of engineering, are crucially im portant. Whatever the technologies are that em erge in t he next twenty years which deal with clim at e change, t hey will be built on t he basis of knowledge in t hese areas. At the m om ent we are failing and it is one of those sad litt le illustrations of where joined-up governm ent sim ply doesn’t exist.

I would like to t hink that in the age of carbon rationing, our great est bulwark against any selfish reaction from the public would be education. We would need t o do som e t hings different ly. I t m ay be for exam ple that t he gap year would becom e a com pulsory com ponent of a university or college education, spent at the taxpayer’s expense in areas of environm ental or developm ent work. I f we can broaden students’ horizons, so m uch the better, especially if it m eans them not m aking t he obligatory round t he world flight for less than a thousand pounds. Gap years need not be confined to the student populat ion of course, but should be ext ended to the whole working populat ion. This will be t he ‘holiday of a lifetim e.’ Aft er all, m em bers of the Territorial Arm y m ore or less do it already.

That brings m e back to m y running m etaphor. One thing which I have perhaps failed to m ent ion in m y reference to total war as a m etaphor in t his struggle against clim ate change is that t his tim e we are the aggressors.

References 1 Lester R. Brown, Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilisat ion in Trouble, Earth Policy I nstitut e, 2003.

Page 12 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

2 Clive Pont ing, 1940: Myth and Reality, Ham ish Ham ilton, London 1990 3 Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson, Age of Propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion, WH Freem an and Co. New York 1991. Unless we understand the concept of ‘cognitive dissonance’ we are doom ed to failure. The propagandists rule the world because t hey rule our dream s (Colin Challen, 2005).

Page 13 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

SESSI ON 1 : PLANN I N G, TRAVEL AND TRANSPORT

I m plications for planning Roger Levett (Partner, Levett Therivel, Sustainability Consultants)

I f there was an effective carbon rationing system in place, sensible people would seek hom es and lifestyles where t hey could be confident of cont inuing to enjoy a good quality of life wit h a steadily dim inishing carbon bubble. Suddenly, the kinds of places which plans and planners have forlornly prom oted in the teet h of consum er preferences and m arket logic - energy efficient, high density urban housing, with daily am enit ies wit hin easy walking or cycling distance, and good public transport - would be what everyone will want.

Does t his m ake planning redundant as a t ool for sustainable com m unities? Couldn’t we just leave individual decisions m ot ivat ed by carbon frugalit y to add up t o sustainable com m unit ies, just as they did for centuries before we had planning? No, because we are starting not from a clean slat e but from unsustainable living patterns which are both ent renched and self-reinforcing.

We drifted int o unsust ainability through t he m utually reinforcing effects of individually perfect ly sensible decisions: decisions to m ove to suburbs, which left inner urban areas less attractive to rem aining residents who t hen also tried t o m ove out; decisions to drive which m ade the bus service decline, encouraging m ore people t o abandon it , and which encouraged m ore businesses to m ove t o locations only easily accessible by car.

But we can’t drift back, because we are now in the grip of several interlocking vicious circles. Planning policies to push developm ent to sustainable locations have lim ited effects because people don’t want to live in inner urban areas because the environm ent and local public services are perceived as crum m y. Businesses don’t want to be there because of congestion and parking problem s. Even when public transport is subsidised to high quality, few drivers switch to it because it still can’t m atch the car for com plex journeys between fragm ent ed locat ions. Serious disincent ives or rest rict ions to driving are polit ically unacceptable while land use patterns are so dispersed, and public transport so poor, that m any people do indeed need to use their cars to get a reasonable qualit y of life.

The t hree com ponents - sustainable spatial patterns, good public transport and car restraint are each a precondition for t he practicability and success of t he ot her two. We can only m ake any of t hem work if we do them all. And we have to m ake them all work, because carbon rat ioning is only going to win public support if it com es packaged with convincing and attractive pathways to m ore sustainable lifestyles. Co-ordinat ing intervent ions to offer practicable and attractive pathways to low-carbon lifestyles is therefore the j ob planning m ust do.

The solut ion t o the problem of interdependence is to isolat e relat ively self-contained parts of the hum an/ settlem ent system where the vicious circle could be flipped into a virtuous circle, with vicious feedbacks held at bay sufficient ly t o allow a different self- reinforcing dynam ic t o becom e established.

This would be easiest in new developm ents big enough to establish their own internal patterns of econom ic life, service provision and m ovem ent as well as built form . Sustainable sett lem ents such as Vauban in southern Germ any show t hat norm al people are happy to ‘buy in’ t o a package which includes building t o ext rem ely high energy efficiency, buying heat and power only from the on-site plant at a tariff designed to

Page 14 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world discourage use, and paying a steep extra charge for a parking space at som e distance from their hom e if they wish t o own a car, in ret urn for t he benefits - including for exam ple a good on-site kindergarten t hat 5 year olds can safely walk t o unescort ed.

At a sm aller scale, BedZed in south London dem onstrat es the sam e: property prices are higher than would be expected for ‘standard’ accom m odation at t he sam e places. Two hundred years ago, Edinburgh’s New Town showed t hat int rusive interference wit h how people live can be an attraction: its m iddle class residents were delighted to com ply wit h its elaborate codes and st andards of design, m aintenance and plum bing because they knew these would ensure their neighbours also would build elegant houses, keep t hem in good repair, and not hurl sewage out of their windows into t he street.

The job for planning in new settlem ents is to set a fram ework of rules which would ent rench virt uous rat her t han vicious circles from t he start. The Governm ent’s com m itm ent t o m assive new housebuilding is – whatever its other problem s – a golden opportunity, and the failure to require it t o be genuinely sustainable in ret urn for this bonanza for the housebuilding industry is perhaps the Governm ent’s crassest m issed opportunity on clim at e change (t hough t he com petit ion is stiff).

Existing settlem ents are a tougher challenge. However the re-colonisation of cent ral Manchester, Leeds or Clerkenwell in inner London dem onstrates that particular groups of people, in particular circum stances, can establish counter-trends. I n these cases it was affluent young professionals attracted to a vibrant leisure scene. But this need not be t he only group, or t he only trigger. I think the Governm ent could m ake young fam ilies of all incom e levels throng into virtually any unprom ising inner city if they prom ised to keep the schools up t o excellent standards, guarantee a place to every child living wit hin walking distance, and not allow any children from outside the area.

Anot her way to create a ‘bubble’ of virt uous feedback m ight be to ban privat e car traffic from one m ain corridor into a city and run free public transport at the standard of service expected in m ost civilised European cit ies – such as a tram every 5 m inut es from early m orning to late night. The higher qualit y of life t his would offer m ight lead residents on other corridors to dem and t he sam e.

All t his calls for ‘system s literate’ planning, based on understanding the feedback loops that det erm ine knock-on effects of decisions, and t he tipping points that determ ine which path people go down. I t calls for integrat ed planning of all the relevant variables, including t he quality of public services (not j ust their exist ence) and t he costs and prices of (for exam ple) car parking and public transport. I t requires a m ore sophisticated idea of efficiency, sanctioning spectacular ‘inefficiencies’ in t he provision of individual public services for the sake of whole-system goals, for exam ple following Vienna’s practice of running em pty tram s to new settlem ent s before anyone m oves in, to support the Cit y Council policy that nobody should have to resort to a car dependent lifestyle because public transport is not working.

Above all, it requires a vigorously int ervent ionist approach, upfront and unapologetic that som e collective goals, notably clim at e securit y and genuinely sustainable com m unit ies, require restrictions of som e individual choices, especially ones that increase car and air travel. This is, of course, only a m odern m anifestation of the ancient polit ical idea of t he social cont ract, where we all accept lim itations on individual freedom s in return for collect ive benefits, such as renouncing individual violence for the sake of public law and order.

Page 15 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

I m plications for personal travel and freight transport Tony Grayling (I nstitute for Public Policy Research)

Major reductions in em issions from transport will be essential to m eet or go beyond the Governm ent’s target to cut the UK’s carbon dioxide (CO2) em issions by about 60 per cent from their 1990 level by 2050 (DTI 2003). The Governm ent ’s target is based on t he assessm ent by the Royal Com m ission on Environm ental Pollution (RCEP) of what the UK needs to do as part of a global effort to stabilise the atm ospheric concentrat ion of this gas to around 550 part s per m illion by volum e (ppm v), wit h convergence on equal per capita em ission entit lem ents between count ries (RCEP 2000).

At the tim e of the RCEP report, it was believed that stabilising em issions at this level (about double the pre-industrial concentrat ion) would be likely to lim it the average global surface t em perature increase t o no m ore than about 2oC above t he pre-industrial level. There are serious consequences for people and nat ure even wit h that tem perature increase but above it t he likelihood of severely negat ive im pacts of clim at e change on hum an and ecological welfare increases significant ly, as does the risk of runaway clim at e change (Retallack 2005). Hence the EU and ot hers have set a long term goal of lim iting the rise t em perat ure t o 2 oC.

Analysis com m issioned by ippr, however, suggests that stabilising at 550 ppm v would result in no m ore t han a one in five chance of lim it ing t he increase t o 2 oC. To have a high chance (four in five) of lim it ing the increase to 2 oC or less requires stabilising all greenhouse gases at about 400 ppm v CO2 equivalent. To m eet this goal, ippr recom m ends that t he UK Governm ent aim s for a 90 per cent cut in CO2 em issions from the 1990 level by 2050 (Retallack 2005).

I n this context, transport presents a m aj or challenge. I t accounted for over a fift h of the UK’s dom estic carbon dioxide em issions in 2004, of which 95 per cent was road transport (DTI 2005). On current trends, those from dom estic transport are forecast to rise as the effects of growth in traffic outweigh the benefit s of im provem ents in fuel efficiency (HM Governm ent 2004). The problem is further com pounded by em issions from int ernational shipping and aviat ion: these are not at present included in the dom estic total and are not subject to any regulat ion.

Already a significant am ount, em issions from int ernat ional flights to and from UK airports are growing fast. The UK should arguably take responsibilit y for half of these em issions and t he ot her half should be att ribut ed to the count ries at the other ends of the flights. On t his basis, the UK was responsible for about 12.3 m illion tonnes of CO2 em issions from internat ional aviat ion in 2000, adding about 8 per cent on top of dom estic em issions that year, forecast to increase about t hree-fold to between 32.5 m illion and 37.1 m illion tonnes by 2030 (HMT and DfT 2003). The clim ate change im pact of aviation is com pounded by ot her em issions from aircraft at high altit ude wit h the result t hat the total estim ated warm ing im pact is two to four t im es the effect of CO2 alone. These effects, however, are m ore local and ephem eral and are not directly relat ed to CO2 em issions. They require further research and different solutions which are likely to include regulat ion and substantial charges for em issions.

I n the cont ext of cutting the UK’s CO2 em issions by 60 per cent - or as m uch as 90 per cent - by 2050, it is clear t hat transport present s a m aj or challenge. Meeting t hat challenge requires a speedy transition to low carbon fuels, low carbon vehicles and low carbon journeys, m eaning short er, slower journeys instead of the current t rend t owards longer, faster journeys, especially by car and plane. As an aside, it could be observed

Page 16 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world that people’s qualit y of life and healt h would be im proved if t hey were able to m eet m ore of t heir needs close to hom e on foot, bike or bus.

Highly efficient vehicles, com bined wit h renewable fuels, could also m ake a big contribution to achieving the scale of em ission cuts required from road transport . To illustrat e the point with existing technologies, em issions from cars run on et hanol produced from sugar cane in Brazil are up to 80 per cent lower t han from petrol cars, including t he em issions during fuel production. Hybrid internal com bustion-electric engine cars have em issions about one third lower t han t heir com bustion only equivalents. Hence the hypothet ical hybrid car run on et hanol m ight produce less than one seventh of t he em issions (14 per cent) of a convent ional car run on petrol.

Other highly efficient technologies, such as stop-start, are already at hand and t here is technical pot ent ial for furt her im provem ent. Som e see hydrogen as the fuel of choice in the long term , wit h electric vehicles powered by fuel cells run on renewably produced hydrogen, wit h vehicles run on bioet hanol and biodiesel as an interm ediate step.

There is no room for com placency given the scale of t he challenge. New technologies will not be developed or becom e com m ercially viable wit hout constraints on the use of fossil fuels and other support ive public policies. Different renewable fuels produced by different m eans achieve very different carbon savings and t here are questions too requiring satisfactory answers about how m uch land can be available for growing fuel crops, though co-production with food is an option (e.g. using grain for food and straw for fuel). Fuel crops also have potentially harm ful biodiversity im pacts that would have to be m anaged. Producing fuels from woody crops perhaps has the best long-term potent ial: two studies have suggested that t he UK could event ually supply between a quart er and the whole of its transport fuel needs in t his way (E4Tech 2003, Eyre et al. 2002).

Hence there are potent ial solut ions on the horizon for road t ransport. The sam e cannot yet be said for aviat ion, while t he im pact of em issions from int ernat ional shipping requires urgent assessm ent . I t is wrong to assum e, however, t hat deep reductions in em issions from transport achieved gradually over a period of decades will necessarily m ean drastic reductions in the am ount of personal t ravel and freight transport from present levels. That is only one of t he possible outcom es, depending on how lim its on greenhouse gas em issions result in the developm ent and deploym ent of new vehicle and fuel technologies, as well as changing behaviour. The im perative is to get the carbon constraints and com plem entary public policies in place to ensure that, under no circum stances, are safe levels of em issions from the use of fossil fuels exceeded.

References DTI (2003) Our energy fut ure – creat ing a low carbon econom y DTI (2005) Energy Trends, March 2005 Eyre, Nick; Fergusson, Malcolm and Mills, Richard (2002) Fuelling road transport : im plications for energy policy Energy Saving Trust, I nstitut e for European Environm ental Policy and National Society for Clean Air E4Tech (2003) Liquid biofuels and hydrogen from renewable resources in the UK to 2050: a t echnical analysis DfT www.dft.gov.uk HM Governm ent (2004) Review of t he UK Clim ate Change Program m e: Consultat ion Paper,DEFRA, Decem ber 2004 HMT and DfT (2003) Aviation and t he environm ent : using econom ic instrum ents RCEP (2000) Energy – the changing clim ate Retallack, Sim on (2005) Sett ing a long-t erm clim at e objective: a report for the I nternational Clim ate Change Taskforce www.ippr.org

Page 17 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

Discussion on Session 1 Using the w ar m etaphor in relation to policy on carbon em issions ( 1 ) At points during the day it was suggested t hat a ‘war on carbon’ m entality would be needed before significant carbon cuts could be m ade. I n addition, specific com parisons wit h t he Brit ish experience during the World War 2 were m ade. This use of language drew bot h strong objections and strong support .

Catherine Mitchell said that war is not a helpful analogy because war is always negat ive and we need to be sending positive m essages. Clim at e change needs a long- term solut ion not a quick fight : it’s about collaborat ion, not conflict in order t o succeed. Also, t he im age of war plays into t he hands of the nuclear lobby as the war im age im plies that any low-carbon technology can be justified because of the acute situation we face. I nstead, we need to be clear that not all low-carbon technologies are equal and that we should not be advocat ing nuclear as the only way out of the crisis. Other audience m em bers agreed that a m ore posit ive com parison than war is needed. However, Roger Levett defended the war m etaphor as justified to give clim at e change t he necessary sense of graveness, urgency and need for determ ined collective act ion.

Bio- fuels for transport Tony Grayling had referred t o t he fut ure range of bio-fuels in his presentation. This led t o som e debat e. George Monbiot said that bio-fuels are not t he answer. I t would take 25 m illion tonnes of rape on 4m ha to m eet current dem and. We should be using agricultural land to feed people, not cars, especially as we know that land use is dictated by cost, not hum an need. I n a future econom y where fossil fuel is constrained, t he rich would prefer to use land for fuel than for food for poor people. Tropically-grown bio-fuels are, in theory, m ore efficient but would bring another catastrophe – even greater disparit ies between poor and rich, wit h great er hardship for t he m ajorit y populations in the Sout h. Don Mathew expressed concern t hat reliance on oil-seed rape for bio-fuels would creat e m ore m onocult ure. Kevin Anderson raised t he possibility of using t he resource of waste from the food chain to creat e low carbon bio-fuels. I n response, Tony Grayling said that his projections were based on ‘second generat ion’ bio-fuels which could be creat ed from woody m aterial. He stressed that he com plet ely accepted t he need for big reductions in carbon em issions, but t hought technology could be very helpful in gett ing us there.

Language and long term goals David Hirst said we need to be careful at this stage about the words we use. We should talk about em issions reductions trading, as that is the positive ‘good’ we are dealing with. DTQs (Dom estic Tradable Quotas) is not catchy enough - what about clim at e shares or coupons? Aubrey Meyer suggested that we need t o target zero carbon em issions by 2060 in t he UK under t he C&C m odel. Tony Grayling agreed that the UK needs to cut em issions by 90% by 2050. But he held it was wrong to present the issue as a question of sacrifice – t his is polit ically unacceptable and would not get us anywhere.

Other issues Kevin Anderson said that Tony Grayling’s presentation had m issed out em issions from m arine sources. As m arine transport is responsible for em issions equivalent to about 50% of privat e road t ransport em issions, this form of t ransport should be included in the analysis. Don Mathew said the planning system is current ly led by developm ent (which is a form of econom ic growth). I t should be led by an over-arching plan of how t o get where we want to go. He noted t hat the conference was rat her light on representation from local governm ent, yet local aut horities will need to help deliver m uch of what was being debat ed. He drew attention to the Local Governm ent Associat ion’s new vision for a low carbon future. Trew in Restorick suggested t hat we could not afford to wait for t he

Page 18 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world introduction of carbon rations. We need m ore regulat ion now t o restrict carbon profligate behaviour.

Proposals for ‘first step’ actions ( 1 ) Roger Levett suggested that all planning policies and decisions, and developm ent project s, should be tested against the crit erion of whet her t hey would increase or decrease net greenhouse gas em issions. Ones that add to net em issions should be referred to a governm ent m inister who would only grant perm ission in except ional circum stances. Don Mathew recom m ended a carbon audit of all governm ent spending and procurem ent. Caroline Lucas said that we need to challenge GDP and other m easures of well-being. Econom ic growth has increased over the last 30 years but satisfaction has rem ained stagnant. As a first step carbon could be adopted as a parallel indicator of well-being, wit h t he long-t erm aim of it replacing GDP. Julian Darley referred to Canadian experience in which car co-ops reduced car ownership per person by a large am ount (100 cars for 2000 people) but with usage per car only up 15% . Roger Levett caut ioned t hat if it is to reduce car use a car club needed a supporting environm ent, e.g. preferent ial parking for club cars, , good public transport, and bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly streets to m ake t he alternat ives viable for t he m ajority of t he populat ion. Wit hout t hese, a club risks helping non-car-owners to drive m ore, rat her t han helping form er car-owners to drive less. David Flem ing called for wider understanding of t he principle of ‘lean thinking’ which is widely used in industry. I n the classic organisational hierarchy, m anagers m ake decisions and order t heir juniors to do t he work to carry out t he decision. This m odels an initiative PUSH. I n lean thinking, the initiat ive com es from the juniors them selves (ie t he ones who have to do the work actually decide how best to do it). This equat es to an init iat ive PULL. I n industry, it is possible to achieve 80-90% im provem ents t hrough devolut ion of decision-m aking. This m odel has huge im plications for t he local/ regional governm ent agenda. We need to m ake strat egic choices in a system s-literat e way.

Page 19 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

SESSI ON 2 : HOUSI NG AN D HEALTH

I m plications for housing Chris Jardine (Environm ental Change I nstit ute, University of Oxford)

Significant reductions in carbon dioxide em issions are essential to avert catastrophic clim at e change. Under the C&C (Contraction & Convergence) fram ework, the progressively reducing personal carbon allowances will act as a key policy m echanism to achieve the transform ation. Considerable im provem ents in the housing stock will be required, wit h householders playing t heir part by seeking the sim plest and m ost cost- effective ways of doing so. These im provem ent s are arguably one of the best ways as, in the short -term , t hey would entail m inim al disruption to lifestyle (transport, holidays etc.).

Two steps have to be taken: first, dem and for energy wit hin the hom e should be reduced as far as possible, t hen that dem and should be m et by renewable or low-carbon supply, especially the use of m icro-generat ion within the hom e. Heat dem and can be reduced by thorough insulat ion of the building (roofs, cavity walls, solid wall, underfloor insulat ion, double/ triple glazing). Electricity dem and can be m inim ised by the use of efficient and appropriat ely sized appliances. Behavioural changes to introduce careful energy m anagem ent such as turning off lights and appliances on standby will also help reduce electricity dem and.

I t is also possible t o use low or zero-carbon technologies (LZCs) for generation of heat, electricity, or in the case of CHP both. A wide range of technologies could be ut ilised. These are sum m arised in Table 1.

Table 1 . Low and zero carbon technologies for use in the hom e.

Heat Heat and electricity Electricity Low carbon Heat pum ps Gas-fired m icro-CHP Zero carbon Solar t herm al Biom ass in m icro-CHP Solar Photovoltaics Biom ass Micro-wind Geotherm al

The scale of challenge is vast. A recent study (Boardm an et al, 2005) shows that average heat dem and will have to reduce from 14,600 to 9,000 kWh per annum , and that each house will have to cont ain an average of 1.7 of t he LZCs outlined in Table 1, if a 60% reduction in carbon dioxide em issions is to be achieved. Under the C&C fram ework, even m ore severe cuts are likely t o be needed.

The question is: will personal carbon allowances act as sufficient of an incent ive to drive such m assive uptake of efficiency m easures and LZC installat ions? Many of the m easures have very short pay-back tim es and are therefore already cost-effective. Most insulat ion m easures will rapidly pay for t hem selves, solar therm al system s will pay back within 15 years (when replacing electric heat ing), and green electricity can be purchased at virtually t he sam e price as convent ional elect ricity. Newer LZC t echnologies are m ore expensive, and not as cost-effective as stand-alone m easures. However, when considered as part of a package of lower carbon m easures, even these can som etim es be installed at zero overall cost to the householder.

Page 20 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

Given t hat this is the case, why are householders not im plem enting these m easures anyway? The key barriers to im plem entat ion are: • Educat ion: a lack of awareness of t he cost -benefits of reducing dem and; • Lack of priority: refurbishm ent of t he house t owards a lower carbon needs is not seen as requiring short -term act ion , and accordingly is not acted upon; • Up-front costs: the im plem entat ion of the m easures outlined above does require free capital to be available for t he installation before t he benefits are apparent.

The introduction of personal carbon allowances (PCAs) would certainly alt er t his percept ion. Rationing would certainly raise t he im portance of low carbon housing and awareness of the m easures that could be taken would alm ost certainly rise. I ndeed, personal carbon allowances are likely to be m ore effective as an im petus to action as a financial incentive.

As in any t rading schem e, t he price of carbon is determ ined by the balance between supply and dem and. Current trading schem es are operating around t he £10/ t onne m ark – a price which is unlikely to act as a sufficient incentive for installing m any LZCs m easures. To overcom e householders ‘threshold of indifference’ would require a m arket very short on supply so that prices were m uch higher.

There is a further danger in t hat int roduction of PCAs m ay be very successful in encouraging people to im plem ent m easures wit hin t he household. Should the populat ion realise t hat t hese m easures are already cost-effective, sudden and widespread im plem entation could result in a trading m arket long on supply, and a subsequent price crash and loss of m arket liquidity.

I n conclusion, PCAs are likely to be an extrem ely effective tool for encouraging householders t o im plem ent energy conserving m easures and to instal LZCs, especially those t hat are already cost-effective. However, their effectiveness as a financial incent ive for taking up these m easures will be strongly dependent on the price of carbon dioxide em issions on the m arket. This will be det erm ined by the m ix of supply and dem and of credits, which in t urn will depend on how m uch em issions have been reduced in t he household already, and how m uch any slack is taken up by use of transport.

References Boardm an, B., Darby, S., Killip, G., Hinnells, M., Jardine, C.N., Palm er, J., Sinden, G., (2005) 40% House, Environm ental Change I nstitute, University of Oxford, Oxford, Report No. 31.

Page 21 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

I m plications for healt h Robin Stott (Sustainability Advisor to the Mayor of London)

Whilst technological fixes are im portant they cannot in t he foreseeable fut ure com pletely replace fossil fuels. To deliver t he low-carbon society within t he regulatory fram ework of C&C (Cont raction and Convergence) m eans that we will have to reduce our energy consum ption. The good news is that this process will have m ajor healt h benefits.

The health of individuals and society at large is a product of the social circum stances in which we live, our networks of relat ionships with ot her hum an beings, and our interactions wit h our built environm ent, wit h nature and so with the planet. Our genet ic m ake-up and healt h care service are of lesser im portance. Global warm ing is already having an im pact on t hese wider det erm inants of health.

Unpredictable exposure to ext rem es of weat her are already creating m ajor problem s for food growing and wat er availability. Prospects are dire: for instance, a sea level rise of 1 m etre will displace 120 m illion people, and t he fem ale anophelene m osquito responsible for m alaria will increase its range, producing an estim ated 60 m illion additional cases of m alaria each year. All t hese will provoke social, econom ic and dem ographic dislocation. For our cont inuing good health we m ust cont rol global warm ing. Most observers now agree that t he only practical way of doing so is to regulat e our carbon use by im plem ent ing a carbon cap and trade m echanism , as the Global Com m ons I nstitut e’s C&C fram ework proposal details.

I f we look at t he epidem iology of deat h in rich countries, we can im m ediat ely understand why. I n t he UK heart attacks and strokes account for around 300,000 of the 550,000 deaths each year. Many of these deaths occur in young people. At herom a, the gum m ing up of arteries, is t he pathology which underlies m ost of these strokes and heart attacks. At herom a was virtually unknown in t radit ional, low carbon societies. I t has em erged to be t he biggest killer in m odern indust rial societies, ironically societies which have also provoked global warm ing.

The factors underlying this atherom a epidem ic are well-known. Perhaps the m ost im portant are lack of exercise and diabetes, which is prim arily a disease of t he non- exercising obese. High energy, salt and fat rich diets and high blood pressure, a consequence of all these, are also im portant risk factors. Add to these unem ploym ent, lack of social engagem ent , social disadvantage, and sm oking (which is com m onest in m arginalised com m unit ies), and we get a profile of t he circum stances in which at herom a flourishes.

Thus the social changes com m on to industrial societ ies have provoked bot h atherom a and global warm ing. They are both consequences of the sam e cause, and will both respond t o the sam e m easures, which I out line below.

I n the low-carbon, low-energy society, the im pacts of which we are discussing, we will necessarily all use m ore hum an energy, as was the case in societ ies before t he em ergence of at herom a. We will walk, bike and use public transport, activit ies which will reclaim t he streets, enhancing the sense of com m unit y and percept ions of safety. We will eat m uch less m eat, m oving towards organic, locally-produced m ainly vegetarian diets, all of which great ly reduce the present substantial use of fossil fuel required in the production of the food we eat.

We will insulat e our hom es, and find innovative ways of using renewable energy, with both carbon reducing and j ob creat ing benefits. We will m ove the balance of activity towards leading our lives increasingly within a local environm ent. These changes will help

Page 22 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world create a fitter, slim m er m ore engaged population and fortunat ely one which delivers governm ent health targets.

A final healt h benefit of the C&C regulatory fram ework is that there will be a transfer of resources from t he rich to the poor. An outcom e of adhering to the principle of equit y is that each individual will get an equal allocation of the capped am ount of carbon. Those who don’t use their allocation, m ainly the poor, will be able t o sell it at m arket rates to those who wish to use m ore t han their allocation, m ainly the rich. This redistribut ion of wealth will reduce disparit y, a crucial m easure if we really wish t o im prove public healt h. Given t his m arket m echanism , it will be in everyone’s interest to m inim ise the am ount of carbon we use. Just as all of us strive to live within our financial m eans, we will strive to live wit hin our carbon m eans, wit h t he evident financial benefit t his brings. I n essence the C&C fram ework m oves society toward the social environm ental and econom ic circum stances which prom ot e good health.

The healt h service itself will also be beneficially touched by C&C. At present, around 90% of healt h int ervent ions take place locally. I n line wit h the governm ent’s health strat egy, and enabled by t he inform at ion revolution, this high percentage is rising. Low energy societ ies will accelerat e this trend to locally-based healt h provision. Finally, health facilit ies can be exem plars for m any low-carbon initiat ives, as shown in the London regions initiat ive ‘Building for health’.

To sum m arise, a public healt h init iat ive guided and regulated by the C&C fram ework will help us m eet governm ent targets for personal health. I n addit ion, this conceptually sim ple idea will help m itigate t he two m ajor problem s underm ining global healt h - global warm ing and the disparit y of resources between t he m at erially rich and the m aterially poor. Everyone is int erested in healt h. All of us m ust be delighted that we have an elegant solut ion t o so m any of our healt h problem s. Let’s m ove to im plem ent it as soon as possible. Let’s use C&C as a short -hand for good public health.

Discussion on Session 2 Green elect ricity There was a detailed debate about the value of consum er purchasing of green electricity and alternative m echanism s to encourage electricity generat ion from renewable sources.

Keith Allott said that green tariffs do litt le to help the ‘clean-ness’ of the system as a whole. Green electricity sim ply creates the illusion t hat som ething positive is happening. Bill Bordass reported that green electricity tariffs have recently been abandoned in Sweden. However, Chris Jardine said that the am ount of ‘green’ electricity sold contributes to t he t otal m ix of generat ion sources wit h the result t hat overall it does have a posit ive effect. He also described several barriers to account ing for m icro-renewables, which m ake it difficult to encourage t hem via the current system . Catherine Mitchell suggested that we need an addit ional m echanism to encourage m icro-generation, eg feed-in tariff whereby each unit of green electricity is bought at a prem ium , t hereby rewarding clean energy generat ion (the current grant system in UK only provides incent ives for capital outlay, not an ongoing reward for energy generated and carbon). These issues are im portant to achieve a large scale take-up of m icro-generat ion. Chris Jardine responded that feed-in tariffs are a good idea and could be com plem entary to PCAs. Finally, Adam Poole said that Windsave m icro-wind t urbine m anufacturers plan to ‘collect’ the highly dispersed units of energy generated from all t he sm all t urbines t hey sell and then to collat e the t otal for ROCs so that the owners of t hese turbines receive a bigger dividend from t his system than t hey do at present and t o incentivise m ore people to buy t urbines in t he first place.

Page 23 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

The role of com m unities and cit ies Trew in Restorick highlight ed his Global Action Plan which pioneered an approach based on neighbourhood discussion and shared learning. Colin Challen suggested that greater attent ion should be paid to the com m unit y-owned renewables sector as this generat es incom e for (m arginalised) com m unities as well as energy. Roger Read said we also need to look at this at the city/ region level. Many cities across Europe are signing up to deep cuts in carbon em issions but generally the cit y/ region level of governm ent doesn’t exist in a form t hat can achieve t hese aim s.

Localisation of the econom y George Monbiot put forward t he case for locating m anufacturing where t he prim ary resources are to be found, rat her than having, say, alum inium sm elters dott ed around the globe and lots of freight fuel spent on transport ing bauxite. We need the lowest carbon cost solut ions. Julian Darley support ed t he call for a need to re-localise t he econom y and noted t hat the big gap in infrastructure is local m anufacturing. Roger Levett responded t hat m anufacturing is m ore com plex than a localisat ion issue. We m ay wish for conditions in sweatshops to be im proved, but the people who have the jobs want the incom e. We need to be discerning about what gets m anufactured where.

Cont raction and convergence and personal carbon allow ances Several speakers em phasised the links between C&C (Cont raction and Convergence) and personal carbon rat ions. Aubrey Meyer noted that both are constit utionally based on equal rights to the global com m ons. Robin Stott said that one of the beaut ies of t he C&C fram ework is that it is a m echanism for allocat ion of the global com m ons from rich to poor. Healt h benefits will only com e if we use less non-hum an energy. Aubrey Meyer. argued t hat C&C is first and forem ost a logical proposit ion. The politics of the fut ure could easily be a bloody tribal war. All world citizens have a stake in ensuring that clim at e change is dealt wit h adequat ely.

Other topics W alt Patterson m ade the powerful point that we need to use less fossil energy, not less energy per se. Asset accountancy and other financial policies are relevant to changing the syst em . Half t he price of a unit of electricity is arbitrary because of t he relat ionship between regulator and suppliers. Derek Osborn noted t he conflict ing units that were being used in t he discussion. I n housing, t he unit is the household, but PCAs are based on an allocation on an individual basis. Another audience m em ber said that PCAs allow the poor to benefit financially from clim ate change but the fuel poor continue to suffer. What is needed first of all is a better understanding of the m any connections between carbon em issions, poverty and health. Kevin Anderson rem inded t he audience of t he role of behaviour in achieving t he necessary cuts in carbon. Chris Jardine suggested that the difference bet ween t he EU Em issions Trading Schem e and the idea of PCAs lies in the different agents involved. With PCAs, responsibilit y for carbon lies with t he end- user so the rewards (and disbenefits) accrue directly to the user of goods and services. Mayer Hillm an referred to the fact that t here would be an addit ional benefit from carbon rat ioning. The reduction in the gap bet ween rich and poor that it will bring will im prove public healt h as research has shown t hat longevity is lower in count ries wit h a wider distribution of incom es. Reduce t he incom e gap and you im prove healt h.

Page 24 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

SESSI ON 3 : THE ECON OMY, EMPLOYMEN T AND POLI TI CS

I m plications for the econom y and em ploym ent Caroline Lucas (Green Party MEP for the SE of England Region)

During this session, m y focus is on the econom y and em ploym ent – looking at which businesses are likely to grow and which to shrink in a low carbon world; exam ining the im plications of t his for education and training; looking at the im plications for int ernat ional trade, and exploring t he extent t o which GDP is invalidat ed as the m easure of econom ic progress.

The econom y I have to say that, personally, t he area t hat fascinates m e the m ost is the last one - t he way in which the issue of carbon rat ioning brings right back to the top of the agenda the whole debate, which has been raging for at least 30 years, about lim its to econom ic growt h. The flaws and lim itations of using GDP and econom ic growt h as yardsticks for well-being have been recognised for m any years. That m akes it all the m ore extraordinary that econom ic policy still seem s to be designed as though m axim ising GDP were its sole object ive.

Presum ably, one of t he explanations for t his is sim ply that polit ically it is very difficult to adm it that growth, with its alm ost religious connotat ions of ult im ate goodness, m ust be lim ited. I wish there were tim e to get into all the debat es about the extent to which im proving t he efficiency of resource use can help, and t he issues around decoupling econom ic growth from fossil fuel consum pt ion – but as there isn’t t im e to do so here, suffice t o say that these debat es are given added urgency and clarit y in t he context of carbon rationing. I think carbon rationing brings added focus to an increasing recognit ion that it is ult im ately im possible for t he world econom y t o grow its way out of povert y and environm ental degradat ion. I n the eloquent words of Herm an Day, writing well over 10 years ago:

“The t erm sustainable growth when applied t o the econom y is a bad oxym oron – self- contradictory as prose and unevocative as poet ry.”

One of the key quest ions this raises is about poverty eradication in developing count ries. This will certainly require m ore growth, but how do we in richer countries adapt to ensure that can happen in a technologically posit ive way? What does seem certain is that a low carbon fut ure will also be a low GDP fut ure – in t erm s of m at erials and energy throughput. So we had better hurry up and develop alternat ive indicators which in any case m ore accurat ely express well-being, and develop policies based on ideas like t he I ndex for Sustainable Econom ic Welfare, or Gross Dom estic Happiness m odifying them to include a m easure of t he carbon int ensity of our econom ies.

I nternational trade Since international freight transport accounts for one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas em issions, it is clear t hat a low carbon fut ure will be one in which there is far less internat ional trade – we can argue about how m uch less but it is going to be less – and in which t he relocalisation of our econom ies is t he new goal.

Over a period of t im e, there will have to be a transition away from dependence on internat ional export m arkets, towards the provision of as m any goods and services as feasible and appropriat e from nat ional and local sources. And we should also bear in m ind that alt hough cutt ing back on internat ional trade m ay com e across as heretical, it is not as draconian as it m ight sound – around 50% of all int ernat ional t rade involves the

Page 25 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world sim ultaneous im port and export of roughly the sam e product between the sam e count ries. I ’m rem inded of t he words of Herm an Daly again, who was looking at t he huge am ounts of unnecessary int ernat ional freight transport – biscuits going from the Net herlands to t he United Stat es for exam ple, and US cookies com ing back the other way, and m em orably rem arked – ‘wouldn’t it be so m uch easier sim ply to exchange recipes?’

To look at a few facts about t he food trade, as a case study. Food actually accounts for the largest proportion of int ernat ional freight – 49% by com m odity – and it is increasingly inefficient : When transport ing food long dist ances, we put in m ore energy (in t he form of fossil fuels) than we get out (in the form of food calories). For every calorie of iceberg lettuce flown in from Los Angeles, we use 127 calories of fuel. Even wit h organic food, it’s still the case that one sam ple basket of im ported organic produce could release as m uch CO2 into t he at m osphere as an average four-bedroom household does through cooking m eals for 8 m onths.

And, rat her than im port ing what they can’t produce them selves, m any count ries appear to be sim ply “swapping food” . I n 1997, the UK im ported 126 m illion litres of m ilk and export ed 270 m illion litres. I t is the sam e story for a num ber of m eat products as well.

The im pact of less internat ional trade on developing countries is one that needs to be exam ined. Fewer m ange-t out from Zam bia perhaps, but there is at least som e evidence that support ing countries to rebuild their own econom ies and com m unit ies, rather than skewing their m arkets for exports, or having these econom ies underm ined by cheap im ports, is a m ore effective developm ent policy. Take t he case of one of the poorest count ries: Haiti was bulldozed by the I MF int o liberalising its rice m arkets wit h t he result that it was flooded wit h cheap US im ports, local product ion collapsed, and thousands of livelihoods were destroyed. Ten years ago, it was self-sufficient in rice. Today it spends half its export earnings im port ing rice from t he US.

Evidence from UNCTAD also shows that free trade and open m arkets may not necessarily be t he best way to eradicate poverty. I f that is the case, we need t o urgently ret hink developm ent policy wit h it s em phasis on export-led growth and ensure that t here is a significant transfer of resources to t he Sout h t o support their developm ent . Anot her danger is that if carbon rationing is introduced in one country at a tim e, and if industrial goods are covered, then industries in those count ries which are not com pliant will have at least a short -term com petit ive advantage over those which are. One way of addressing this could be to levy border tax adj ustm ents on im ports.

Em ploym ent What are the im plications for job generat ion in the UK?

A low carbon future will inevitably create winners and losers. And although there is evidence to suggest that winners will out num ber losers that is not m uch com fort to the latter. I t is clear that m ore people will be involved in production and m anufacturing in t he UK, rat her than in t he business of im ports and exports. Som e jobs – like those in long- distance t rucking – sim ply won’t be necessary any m ore. We t herefore need to focus on the im portance of transitional policies, including those support ing retraining and wider take-up of appropriate skills. The m ain barrier is lack of policy certainty and therefore clear m andat ory targets on energy efficiency are needed to encourage industry t o invest in new products and research. Carbon rat ioning is likely to prom pt this.

Energy conservat ion and renewables Let’s have a quick snapshot of a range of sectors – starting wit h the energy sector itself. An Association for the Conservation of Energy study int o t he em ploym ent im pacts of 44 energy efficiency investm ent program m es in 9 EU count ries showed that, wit h rare

Page 26 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world except ions, overall em ploym ent levels were increased. A joint research project int o sustainable job creation in the EU carried out by a range of trade unions and environm ental organisations in 1999 concluded that “ every single euro invested in energy conservat ion (and renewables) creat es m ore em ploym ent t han one euro invested in the convent ional energy supply.” The latest update on t he progress of the Hom e Energy Conservation Act estim ates t hat between 1999 and 2001, over 12,000 jobs were sustained in installation work.

I ncreases in em ploym ent from investm ent in renewables look sim ilarly posit ive. The European Com m ission estim ates that a doubling of electricit y generat ed from renewable sources from 6% to 12% could create between 500,000 to 800,000 new j obs in the EU. I t has been estim ated that raising the contribution of offshore wind alone t o 30% would result in a net increase of UK jobs equivalent t o 76,000 people working full-tim e.

Recycling/ resource use Com pared t o unsustainable waste disposal options of land-filling or incinerat ion, recycling also presents m any m ore j ob opport unit ies. I ncinerat ing 10,000 t ons of waste creates one job; land-filling t he sam e am ount creates six j obs, while recycling the sam e quant ity creates 36 j obs. A report by t he think-tank Dem os suggested t hat an intensive recycling program m e in Britain would result in 15,000 jobs in collect ion and sort ing, and between 25,000 and 40,000 jobs in m anufacturing and processing.

Transport Som e years ago, Friends of the Eart h m ade som e calculat ions on t he im pact on j obs of a m ore sustainable t ransport policy. Based on fairly m odest assum ptions of a fall in traffic levels of 10% between 1990 and 2010, and using targets published in the Royal Com m ission on Environm ental Pollut ion's Eight eent h report "Transport and t he Environm ent" to forecast future use of trains, buses and bicycles, it concluded t hat by 2010 green policies to prom ote public transport, cycling and walking could lead to t he creation of 130,000 new jobs - m ore than offsetting the loss of around 43,000 jobs in t he m otor industry as a result of decreasing car use. Furtherm ore, if m easures were taken to encourage t he use of cleaner, m ore efficient vehicles and leasing rather t han car ownership, another 35,000 jobs could be created. A report highlighted by the Union I nternational des Transports Publics notes that public transport generates twice as m any jobs per passenger kilom etre as the car.

Tourism Clearly, t ourism which involves aviation – t he fastest growing source of greenhouse gas em issions – will account for a m uch sm aller sector in t he world of carbon rationing. Contrary t o the m yths, tourism via aviat ion is a net drain on the UK balance of paym ents because far m ore tourist m oney flies out of t he UK t han flies in - £17.7 billion a year com pared t o £9.1 billion. That's an £8.6 billion annual drain on t he UK balance of paym ents due t o air t ourism alone. As cheap subsidised flights tem pt far m ore Brit ons abroad than are persuaded to visit the UK, t his deficit has increased. Carbon rationing is likely t o lead to m ore holidays being taken wit hin t he UK, or at least t o destinat ions m ore easily accessible by road, rail or sea. I n ot her words, dom est ic tourism will gain but with corresponding losses for international tourism .

Agricult ure St udies show that em ploym ent is on average 10% to 30% higher on organic farm s than on convent ional ones. Given that 70% of UK organic produce is im port ed and t he UK rem ains one of t he fastest growing organic m arkets in Europe, wit h dem and growing at 33% a year, t here are considerable opport unit ies for m axim ising job opport unit ies from developing our organic agriculture sector. Sustain, which has been spearheading t he Organic Targets Cam paign, calculat es that, using a conservat ive estim ate of 10% for t he increase in jobs on organic farm s, an additional 27% of land used in this way (taking us to the target of 30% ) would yield an addit ional 16,600 j obs in the UK, of which over

Page 27 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

8000 would be regular and full tim e. The dom inance of the superm arkets could also be expected to end, wit h m ore local sourcing and local distribut ion, m ore econom ic players in the sector, and the chance for British farm ers to get a decent return on their produce wit hout being undercut by cheap im ports.

Training Developing t he skills t o design and build sustainable com m unit ies requires a radical change to t he setting of educat ion, em ploym ent and social inclusion targets linked to funding. And it ’s urgent , because t he academ ic and professional com m unit y has already voiced serious concern that the UK will not have a sufficient workforce to m eet its existing EU carbon reduction obligat ion or nat ional targets in legislat ion like the Energy White Paper. There are sim ply not enough qualified people - in part icular in t he fields of engineering, building services, construction and ut ilities – to build and m aintain sustainable com m unit ies. A 2003 report from the Electricity Training Association (ETA), for exam ple, predicted that the UK would need a three-fold increase in dem and for electrical engineers alone if the UK is to m eet the 10% renewable energy target by 2010.

One of t he problem s is that t he Governm ent has separat e policies on social exclusion, em ploym ent, t raining, and environm ent. Effective long-t erm sustainable developm ent requires int egrat ing all four areas. Regional and nat ional fram eworks should be developed to facilitat e the greening of training and apprenticeship initiat ives. And the Governm ent should lead by exam ple: for exam ple, it cont inues to run an unsustainable procurem ent policy despite having nat ional waste and energy targets. Com panies, training and professional bodies should be required to integrate sustainability into t heir strategies and daily practice, in m uch t he sam e way as Equal Opport unit ies.

Key questions for debate Growt h versus developm ent –what are the im plications of a low carbon fut ure for growt h in the developing world?

What is optim um area in which t o introduce carbon rat ioning – UK, EU, OECD? And what are the trade and com petit iveness im plications?

Policies for transit ion – people in unsustainable j obs shifting to m ore sustainable em ploym ent, and the need for conversion t echnologies. How are these workers to be phased out of current em ploym ent and into sustainable em ploym ent and what is the role for trade unions in delivering t his t ransition?

Som e political observat ions George Monbiot (Aut hor and Guardian colum nist)

We’ve now seen two leaked versions of the G8’s draft agreem ent on clim ate change. The first one was terrible. The second one is worse. The G8 leaders seem prepared to wage war on everyt hing, except on preventing t he destruction of the biosphere.

I n the absence of governm ent action, it is always tem pting to go private: to opt for consum er dem ocracy. This was what a m an I adm ire – Charles Secrett, the form er director of Friends of the Eart h – was urging in t he I ndependent a couple of days ago. “We need to be aware of the consequences of our own actions and not rely on the Governm ent t o legislate and save us,” he wrote. “I t would be beneficial for the Governm ent to introduce stringent pollut ion taxes But how far do we want legislation to go? What sort of society will it be when governm ent has to legislate for everyt hing we do to avoid terrible pollution and the cat astrophic effects of clim ate change, tram pling on

Page 28 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world our civil liberties in the process? We as individuals need to act to prevent such a green Orwellian nightm are.”

I understand what he is saying, but I think he is wrong. We rely on the governm ent for the sim ple reason t hat it isn’t going to happen any ot her way. Why? Because, wit h the glowing except ion of Mayer Hillm an, we are a bunch of hypocrites.

Let m e give you som e exam ples. I n an int erview with the Guardian recent ly, Chris Mart in, the lead singer of Coldplay and all-round good guy, spoke of his concerns about clim at e change. On his new album there's "an intense, angry t rack encouraging people t o m ake t he right decisions about how they live their lives and how t hey t reat t he planet." A few paragraphs on, he revealed that he was about t o "fly by private j et to Palm Springs ... The band can now afford to fly wherever possible". Neither Martin nor the int erviewer appeared to recognise t he cont radiction.

At t he beginning of his "Organic Bible", Bob Flowerdew explains t hat organic gardening m eans m inim ising "any bad effects we m ay have on t he environm ent." He goes on to boast that "when m ost people are only plant ing their [ new potatoes] on Good Friday ... I am eat ing m ine." How? By growing them in a heated greenhouse.

We had a wonderful green m eal today, and I com m end the caterers, not least because this is the first eco-conference I ’ve att ended where neit her tuna nor prawn sandwiches were served. But did we have to have Am erican blueberries, during our own raspberry season? Robin Stott this m orning told us about the bicycle trip he took t hrough Africa. But how did he get t here?

I don’t excuse m yself: the tem ptation to take advantage of our staggeringly cheap sources of fossil fuel is overwhelm ing for all of us, except Mayer. Charles Secrett finishes his art icle wit h these words. “We are already running out of t im e and com m on sense tells us to start t oday. I t is lazy and irresponsible to leave a m achine on standby, so switch it off.” I applaud the int ent ion, but t his is as pious and im potent a statem ent as the rem onstrances of t he tem perance m ovem ent .

There are several problem s wit h consum er dem ocracy – som e people have m ore votes than ot hers and t hat it can only pull - it can’t push. But the overwhelm ing one is t his: it doesn’t work.

We will do anyt hing but change our habits voluntarily. The urge t o seize and use as m uch energy as possible long pre-dates hum an civilization. I t reflects the biological need to keep entropy at bay. We will exercise it unt il we are stopped. St opping us will, I am afraid, require som e restraint of our civil liberties. I t involves restraining, for exam ple, the freedom t o t ravel wherever we like, whenever we like, by what ever m eans we choose. I don’t know whet her such curtailm ent am ounts to a green Orwellian nightm are. I do know t hat it is t he only m eans by which clim ate change will be adequat ely addressed.

The problem , of course, is that no one ever riot ed for austerity. People take t o t he streets because they want m ore, not less. But I think that will change. I think it will change as the ext raordinary m oral challenge of clim at e change begins to bit e. I think it will change as people begin, for t he first tim e in history, t o understand t hat it is better t o curse the darkness than to burn your house down.

But for this to happen, we m ust turn clim ate change into the biggest polit ical issue in the industrialised world. For that we need one t hing above all ot her: enem ies. The cam paigns which have succeeded over the past few years – such as the fight against the Tory road building program m e and the cam paign against GM crops – worked because we knew who the enem y was. A set of corporat e and polit ical interests were im posing som ething on us

Page 29 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world we didn’t want. By forcing those players to fight in the open, we used t he superior power of dem ocracy to defeat their oligarchic cont rol of policy.

Clim at e change is m ore difficult, as all of us are participants. But our consum pt ion is being prom ot ed and enhanced by a clearly defined set of int erests. By articulating precise dem ands and target ing particular industries, we will force them t o fight back, and therefore to take a publicly visible posit ion. I t’s only then t hat the cam paign takes off. While the false consensus – that governm ent, industry and cit izens are all working toget her to solve the problem – persists, the public appetit e for confrontation will continually be sapped, and t he business of destroying t he biosphere will go on as usual. The oil com panies can dialogue the whole world to deat h. A false consensus is precisely what t hey have sought to engineer.

We m ust turn this into a fight in which governm ents are forced to take sides: in which they recognise that t hey cannot sim ultaneously suck up to Exxon and ingratiat e them selves with t he public. As m ore and m ore people understand t he consequences of clim at e change, a straight fight is som et hing t hat Exxon cannot win. I t’s about tim e we ditched consum er dem ocracy and invest ed instead in plain dem ocracy.

Discussion on Session 3 Peak Oil ( 1 ) The im portance of the issue of ‘peak oil’ was cited as was its relationship with the developm ent of policy on com bat ing clim ate change. David Flem ing suggested t hat oil and gas deplet ion is actually m ore urgent than clim ate change (certainly for t he m ainstream ). The peak is forecast for 2007. We need 20 years to re-cast the econom y but we are on t rack to hit the wall before then. Therefore, he believed that oil rationing will com e in before carbon rat ioning. Richard Douthw aite said t hat the Wuppertal I nstitute claim s that oil and gas depletion will solve clim ate change through a 3% annual reduction in fuel consum ption. But it is not a solut ion that would be at all equitable – only the rich could afford the fuel. I n his view, t he quest ion of m oney supply is at t he heart of the problem . This needs reform , but he t hought it was probably not a debate for t he conference. George Monbiot asserted that the oil peak won’t solve t he carbon em issions problem on its own. We should be careful about welcom ing oil price rises as the solution: a $10 rise in oil price will lead to 0.5% less growt h in t he UK – but m ore in poorer countries. I n addit ion, talk of oil/ gas deplet ion ignores the fact abundant coal still exists. There is an estim ated 3 trillion t onnes of coal with potent ial for partial underground com bust ion – a t echnique for exploit ing ot herwise uneconom ic reserves. Also, m ethane hydrates in the tundra are anot her new source of fossil fuel, and m et hane is a m ore potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Should carbon rationing extend to other GHGs, such as m ethane? Finally, Caroline Lucas considered that it m ay be beneficial to explore these issues of oil/ gas peak to find pot ent ial synchronicity wit h the carbon rat ioning agenda, alt hough she recognised that George Monbiot ’s argum ents were com pelling.

Choice ( 1 ) Catherine Mitchell said that the com m on t hread is giving people choice, both at a local level and an internat ional level. Roger Levett cautioned that our current choices are leading us in the wrong direction. We need collect ive choice as well as individual choice, and our future quality of life depends on m aking collective decisions that restrict certain individual choices. George Monbiot suggested we need to restrict choices that destroy the fut ure of hum anit y. But this is not about m aking everyone wear a Mao suit. At t he m om ent, environm entalists are failing to m ake clim at e change t he central issue t hat it needs to be. Look at t he level of opposit ion to clim at e change (ie deniers of clim ate

Page 30 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world change). The fact that t his opposit ion is so pathet ic is an indicat ion of how we are failing to win the argum ent.

Using the m etaphor of a ‘w ar on carbon’ ( 2 ) An audience m em ber objected t o George Monbiot’s language – too m uch fixat ion on conflict, war, and on ‘Us & Them ’. People need freedom t o choose and to live m ore richly – there is no precedent for t he problem of clim ate change and no previous paradigm t hat we can rely on. Prom oting conflict will not help. Caroline Lucas com m ent ed that she did not like the war rhetoric, but it does engender a sense of urgency. We need a consistent com m unicat ions strategy and we need t o expose t he cont radictions that abound – eg Blair claim ing that clim ate change is the m ost im portant polit ical issue but a tax on aviat ion fuel is polit ically unfeasible.

Page 31 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

SESSI ON 4 : W HERE DO W E GO FROM HERE?

Mayer Hillm an opened discussion under t his heading highlight ing a num ber of them es he considered to be particularly im portant :

The runaway effect of clim ate change is already with us. Precious t im e is running out as we go on looking for an alt ernative t o C&C as a fram ework for action. There isn’t one. And let ’s recognise t he ot her highly significant benefits that will com e in t rain with carbon rat ioning – considerably im proved healt h and social justice.

Doing better is not enough – as a m atter of urgency, we need to get down to an annual personal rat ion of j ust over one t onne of carbon dioxide per year.

We do not have t he right to exceed our rat ion, and there is no question of ‘choice’ in this regard. Even we, the experts on this issue, do not seem prepared to reduce our carbon em issions sufficient ly. I t needs governm ent action. We need to be telling governm ent t o get off t he fence.

I t is incum bent upon us – those who have a reasonable claim t o understand t he consequences of different policy opt ions – to educate all people t o take clim at e change seriously and that C&C is the answer to the problem . We have a higher responsibility to fut ure generations than at any t im e in hum an history. I n his view, carbon rationing is closer than anyone realises: Econom ic growt h in the way it is currently m easured can have no fut ure in a world heavily constrained by the need to severely lim it greenhouse gas em issions is on t he way out as t he fram ework for social/ polit ical action.

Tina Faw cett suggested that a clear research agenda is am ong t he m any act ions that are needed. One activity that is already being carried out is to pilot a survey of UK citizens so t hat we understand bett er the spread of carbon em issions from different lifestyles. I deally, t his pilot will lead t o a bigger survey wit h a m uch bigger sam ple.

Discussion on Session 4

Robin Stott said he has been part of a group of people who have been analysing their carbon em issions over several years. But even though t hey are reasonably com m itt ed, well-educated, t hey have found it hard to lim it their em issions. I n his view, legislat ion is the only answer.

Peak oil ( 2 ) Julian Darley reiterated the point t hat peak oil is the urgent issue and the one likely t o m ake people take note. Aubrey Meyer agreed that we should link clim ate change t o oil depletion. Richard Douthw aite said Mayer Hillm an was too optim istic about the pace of change that can be expected. Oil deplet ion m ay drive a fall in consum ption but we need to find an equitable way to achieve t he ends we seek, such as setting up a consortium of fossil fuel im port ers to m atch and count er-balance OPEC. Such a system could set a protocol for m anaging oil deplet ion at a pre-set price. Note that t oo high a price could lead to ext rem e uncert ainty, which could in t urn lead to price collapse. I t is therefore in the interests of producers as well as consum ers to m anage the m arket and avoid this uncertainty.

Page 32 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

Choice ( 2 ) Roger Levett considered t hat different kinds of system require different kinds of intervent ion. Choice is alm ost always taken to m ean consum er choice in current debat es. But that m any sustainability issues can only be tackled through collective choice m ust be taken int o account, even though it m ay lead to restricting individual choice. Richard Starkey suggested that the quest ion of regulation versus choice is a non-debat e. We need t o set a cap on em issions with people t hen free to exercise choice wit hin it .

Research agenda The following t opics were suggested in the final discussion session. • A good area for research would be at the city-region level – how can such a scale of com m unity achieve an 80% cut in its em issions? (Roger Read) • I dentify what legislat ion needs to be put in place to rule out what is unacceptable in carbon t erm s (Trew in Restorick). • GAP has an Eco-t eam s database, where households from all over the count ry are in-putt ing data on actual energy use and degree days. He offered to m ake these data available for research (Trew in Restorick). • What would t he price of carbon have to be to m ake people change t heir habits? • I s there a good link to be m ade between ‘peak oil’ and clim at e change? I t was suggested the peak oil issue has spurred people into action in North Am erica. • A ‘system s lit erat e’ approach is needed, looking at the way decisions and changes in one policy area affect others in a dynam ic way, and t rying to ident ify the ‘tipping points’ that determ ine whet her people choose sustainable or unsustainable opt ions. (Roger Levett). • Three key areas for further research can be ident ified: DTQs and EU Em issions Trading System ; DTQs and I T; and DTQs and fuel poverty ( Richard Starkey) . • How far will rationing itself do t he t rick, or do we still need t o reinforce its effectiveness with, for instance building regulat ions? (Derek Osborn). • A clearer program m e of what we want the governm ent to do on carbon allowances, and the pace of change that t his entails needs to be ident ified (Derek Osborn).

Final inspiring thought Bill Bordass noted that the UK had led the world into t he carbon era through the industrial revolution, and that we are responsible for 15% of global historic em issions. I n these circum stances, it is highly appropriat e for the UK to lead t he world out of the clim at e change problem .

SUMMI N G UP Derek Osborn (Com m issioner for t he Sustainable Developm ent Com m ission)

The urgency of t ackling the clim ate change issue has been dram at ically illustrated and reinforced during t he day. The graphs illustrat ing the im pacts of clim ate change bearing down on us look like a global tsunam i – we know we have very little t im e t o avoid disaster. The 60% reduction target by 2050 seem s am bit ious but is alm ost certainly not enough.

So far t he pace of change in public awareness, in Governm ent policy and in actual behaviour is depressingly slow. Society as a whole is still heading in t he wrong direction.

For our final goal we need to keep em phasising the logic and the m oral im perat ive of Contract and Converge. There is no defensible alternat ive. This principle provides a rationale for the allocation of long term goals and tradable targets between different

Page 33 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world count ries. Taken t o t he individual level it provides the rat ionale for allocating PCAs (personal carbon allowances), dom estic tradable quotas or rat ions to individuals.

The day has illustrat ed that living with a system of PCAs set at levels that are substantially below current average UK levels of consum ption will pose big challenges and will require big changes. Som e of the changes are easier t o envisage than ot hers, and som e are likely to be m ore easily acceptable t han ot hers. But it is im portant not to be overwhelm ed either by the scale of the problem or the challenge. As well as problem s, the day has revealed m any excit ing opport unities for m aking the changes needed to contribute t o t he well-being of society as a whole.

Major changes to our housing stock to reduce its energy consum ption are not difficult t o im agine, and only lack the necessary incent ives and requirem ents to m ake them happen. Once achieved we would all benefit, and would wonder why we had not m ade it happen earlier.

Changes to personal transport behaviour are harder to t hink t hrough, and the im plied lim itations to personal t ransport choices are harder to conceive as being popular. There will need to be a m ajor effort to ident ify and prom ote the health and social benefits of relying less on m ot or cars and aeroplanes

How far could t he introduction of tradable PCAs itself drive all the other changes that are needed by setting such a high price on acquiring ext ra PCAs from the m arket t hat everyone will have the strongest incent ive to secure greater energy efficiency and drive down t heir own carbon consum pt ion? Or will we need to continue on parallel tracks with m any ot her detailed regulatory and fiscal int ervent ions t o reduce carbon consum pt ion?

The t endency of t he discussion was to favour ’belt and braces’ and to pursue all possible lines for policy int ervention. But it m ight be wort h considering furt her whet her PCAs would be such a powerful tool that they could actually be coupled with som e deregulatory init iat ives on particular topics so as to let the m arket in PCAs do the work of securing m any of t he efficiency gains needed. I f there were effective PCAs would we, for exam ple, need ever tighter building regulat ions as well? And tight ening standards on appliances, vehicles etc?

Or is it t he ot her way round? Do we need t o m ake m uch m ore progress on im proving standards of buildings, vehicles, appliances etc before PCAs could be polit ically acceptable? How does t he tim ing of it all need t o fit t oget her?

Tony Blair is to be congratulat ed for putting clim ate change on t he int ernat ional polit ical agenda, but we need t o get t he UK into a position where it leads in actions to m it igate clim at e change, not just in rhetoric. Som e have urged a com parison of our sit uation wit h that at the st art of World War I I when there was a strong collective sense of crisis and solidarity which m ade the introduct ion of rat ioning im m ediat ely acceptable and even popular. Ot hers have found it less helpful t o evoke a wart im e com parison wit h its im plication of an enem y to be ident ified and overcom e. Do we need t o fabricate enem ies?

All agree however t hat leadership and solidarity are key. What is required at the highest polit ical level is a sense of urgency that translates int o m eaningful action. Perhaps there should be som e kind of Governm ental ‘overlord’ for clim ate change driving a co-ordinat ed program m e t hrough every Departm ent and giving serious political attent ion to t he possibility of introducing PCAs. At the sam e tim e we need to reinforce the sense that we are all in t his toget her and can only get out through concerted act ion and equitable sharing of the tasks.

Finally t he sum m ary m essage from today’s conference is very Churchillian: ACTI ON THI S DAY.

Page 34 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

AFTERW ORD Mayer Hillm an (Policy St udies I nstitut e)

I n his sum m ing up of this Conference, Derek Osborn refers to the im perative of achieving reductions in carbon dioxide em issions, substantially lower than t heir current levels, and the “big changes” t hat this will entail, but stresses the im portance of not being “overwhelm ed” by the scale of the challenges posed. However, judging by t he evidence, rather than presiding over a steady and significant fall in em issions over the last 15 years, governm ents have found this intent ion to be beyond t heir capabilities, delivering only a very m odest reduction. And m uch of this has nothing to do with policy on clim ate change but is attributable t o the loss of t he country’s m anufacturing base and the so- called ‘dash for gas’ in electricit y generation.

For what ever reason, failure can be not ed in several key respects, m any of t hem referred to in our int roductory rem arks at the start of t he Conference:

the urgency wit h which solut ions m ust be found has not been em phasised nor have the m assive changes in percept ions been conveyed to t he public of what life is likely to be in a severely carbon-constrained world;

the targets set for carbon dioxide reductions bear little resem blance t o reality if catastrophic ecological outcom es are t o be avoided. Moreover, it is all too apparent, t hat to m eet a realistic target, m aj or behavioural change is required as well as the widespread t ake-up of the cost-effective m easures that t echnology has m ade available and is likely t o m ake in t he near future;

even t he spurious figures em ployed to m easure progress towards achieving the lim ited target s exclude the significant am ount of fossil fuels used in air and m aritim e t ransport ;

the conventional view is still held t hat econom ic growth and protection of the global environm ent can be m ade com patible objectives in face of overwhelm ing evidence that this growth is too closely coupled to greenhouse gas em issions for this to be possible wit hin the lim ited window of opportunity before t he predicted runaway effect of global warm ing is irreversibly set in t rain.

Given the conclusions of the recent Exeter ‘Sum m it’ of Clim at e Scient ists about the very few years left before the concent rat ion of em issions rises to a level above which prevent ive m easures can no longer be brought into effect ive play, and the recent statem ent by t he Joint Science Academ ies around the world of t he increasingly serious threat of clim ate change, it is very difficult to account for the insufficiency of present policies and t he awesom e im plications of t his for the fut ure healt h and well-being of t he planet and its inhabitants.

The likely explanat ions for t he failure are:

fearing t he electoral consequences of effective action, part icularly as past errors of j udgem ent on t his crucial t opic will t hen have to be adm itt ed;

having to com e to t erm s with the phenom enal changes that m ust be m ade in personal behaviour and in com m ercial and industrial practices that are in any way energy-int ensive;

preferring t he ‘cross-fingered’ route of education com bined wit h persuasion, m ild legislative changes and financial incent ives so that people do what is needed on a voluntary basis;

Page 35 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

lacking the political will to take the int ervent ionist approach, as articulat ed by Roger Levett at the Conference, in order to m ore deliberately encourage ‘system s- literate’ planning and to prom ote sufficient ly eco-friendly lifestyles and industrial practices, and by Caroline Lucas in m aking the case for integrat ing t he concept of sustainability into policies on social exclusion, em ploym ent, t raining and the environm ent ;

pandering to an electorate which governm ent has failed to educate and, as a consequence, cannot be expected to support the adoption of restrictive policies which will result in narrowing rat her than widening its fut ure choices. As George Monbiot said, ‘no one every riot ed for austerity’!;

com ing to term s with the unpalatable evidence of a near-universal collective am nesia on the subj ect and of claim s t hat prevent ing people from choosing where they live and work and where t hey take their holidays can be interpreted as an unacceptable rest rict ion on their civil libert ies.

Even polit icians, civil servants, people in business and other m em bers of the general public well inform ed of t he horrendous outcom e of m aintaining energy-intensive lifestyles entailing a grossly unfair share of the planet’s safe level of greenhouse gas em issions are not in practice prepared to voluntarily forego t heir energy profligacy.

Against this background, the consequence of both t he governm ent’s lack of resolut ion in facing up t o its responsibility and its failure to educate the public about the gravity of t he situat ion have inevitably led to its pursuit of short -term rem edies. The attract ions of t his strategy are all too obvious. Though obviously inadequat e, they can be shown to result in som e m easure of progress.

Confidence in this form of ‘m uddling along’ is strengthened by highlight ing t he wealt h of ‘escape routes’, such as the m eans set out by Christian Jardine showing t hat a 60% reduction in carbon em issions from the building stock could be achieved by 2050. And then t here are the prospects that developm ent s in science and t echnology tantalisingly offer and that , if successful, would t hen m ake it possible to avoid draconian m easures having to be taken. As Tony Grayling point ed out, solutions for road transport are on t he horizon though we cannot be assured that, for that reason they will necessarily m aterialise. Moreover, he drew attention to t he fact that no substantive solut ion is in prospect for t he fastest growing sphere of t he t ransport sector, aviat ion. Allied to t his lies the problem that, in a dem ocracy, governm ents find it alm ost im possible to adopt policies that run t he distinct risk of opposition part ies with less dem anding proposals replacing it at the next election.

As its point of departure, this Conference was deliberately aim ed at ‘j um ping the gun’, drawing on t he conclusions of our book How we can save the planet t hat only the Global Com m ons I nstitut e’s fram ework proposal of Cont raction & Convergence and the early introduction of personal carbon rat ioning have an assured prospect of achieving the challenging scale of reduction in em issions. No one has been able to put forward a realistic alternative that stands up to equivalent scrutiny.

We sought to open debate on t he im plicat ions for six sectors of the econom y and societ y of what we consider to be the inevitability of governm ent taking this course of action. I t was very apparent from both the int roductions to the sessions dealing wit h t hese sectors and the following discussions that wide benefits will com e in the wake of adopt ing this strategy. Not least of these will be that people who are not contributing to t he degradat ion of the planet’s clim at e system will be the recipients of revenue arising from the sale of their unused carbon ent itlem ents to those still disengaging from t heir energy- profligat e activit ies. The ent itlem ents will m ean that t here is no longer ‘aid’ or ‘benefits’

Page 36 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world being ‘generously’ donated to t he ‘deserving’ poor. This is equal shares for all within t he discipline of a global lim it. And t his structured synergy between social justice, m arket forces and hum an survival m akes the ‘price of carbon’ equal to the price of survival. Moreover, as Robin St ott argued, t he outcom e of rationing will be t o reverse the process of a widening of t he gap between the m at erially rich and poor which has been shown t o be so inj urious to public health.

That is not to say that the adopt ion of carbon rat ioning will not result in any losers. Activit ies which are highly energy-intensive, such as m otor m anufacturing and use, internat ional tourism and world-em bracing events such as the Olym pics, can have no fut ure in a world that m ust urgently adopt carbon-thrifty lifestyles. That represents a sm all price t o pay to prevent inevitable environm ental degradation from clim ate change!

Few can doubt that progress cannot be m ade against a background in which polit ical parties vie wit h each ot her for political support. But there are encouraging precedents for ant icipating a process by which t he polit ical parties bury the hatchet on crit ical issues – there is every reason to believe that clim ate change is par excellence t he m ost appropriat e one on which they can t oget her form an alliance. Already, m ost of the polit ical parties have publicly lent their support to t he all-em bracing Contract ion & Convergence proposal. The fact that the day before t he Conference t he inaugural m eet ing of t he All-Part y Parliam entary Clim at e Change Group, wit h Colin Challen as its Chair, was packed, suggests that a polit ical consensus could soon be reached in favour of the int roduction of a steadily annually reducing carbon rat ion.

The urgency with which t his needs to be undertaken was indeed illustrat ed by t he reference m ade by Colin Challen to t he stages leading to war and his assertion that whilst we are at present in the appeasem ent phase, it needs to be recognised t hat we are the aggressors - as well as running the very real risk of being potent ial vict im s. This is of the essence: without resolut e polit ical action now, we will be handing over the dying planet t o t he next generation.

July 2005

Page 37 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

Biographical notes

Brenda Boardm an Program m e Leader, Lower Carbon Futures group at the Environm ental Change I nstitut e, Universit y of Oxford, and Co-Director of t he UK Energy Research Cent re. She specialises in the efficient use of energy in the UK dom estic sector, with an em phasis on energy policy in relat ion t o clim ate change and equity issues. She considers the econom ic, social and technical aspects of the subject and her work has a strong policy em phasis. She has been a m em ber of t he DTI 's Energy Advisory Panel and is widely viewed as one of the m ost experienced in her field. She was awarded an MBE in 1998 for her work on energy issues.

Colin Challen Labour MP for Morley, Middleton and Rot hwell in 2001. He has served on t he Environm ental Audit Select Com m ittee since 2001, launched a private m em bers bill prom oting Dom estic Tradable Quotas in 2004, won t he first Parliam ent ary Renewable and Sustainable Energy Group (PRASEG) House of Com m ons Award in 2005, and is Chair- elect of t he All Party Parliam entary Group on I nt elligent Energy. He is a founder of t he All Party Group on Clim ate Change which has just been launched.

Tina Faw cett Senior researcher at t he Environm ental Change I nstitute, University of Oxford, working wit hin the UK Energy Research Centre. Her research focuses on household energy use, UK carbon em issions and personal carbon rations / allowances. She has recent ly com pleted PhD research on this topic at UCL, and is co-author wit h Mayer Hillm an of a book about carbon rat ioning: How We Can Save the Planet (Penguin, 2004).

Tony Grayling Associate director of and head of the sustainability team at the I nstitut e for Public Policy Research (ippr) since 2002. His work m ainly focuses on energy, transport and clim at e change. He joined ippr as a research fellow in 1999. From 1997-98 he was a special adviser t o t he Minister for Transport, Gavin Strang MP during the developm ent of t he transport White Paper A new deal for t ransport. He was environm ent policy officer for the Labour Party from 1994-97 and before that a researcher successively t o Labour MPs Ron Davies and Anne Cam pbell.

Mayer Hillm an Head of the Environm ent and Quality of Life Research Program m e from 1970, when he joined Policy Studies I nstitute, to 1992 when he was appoint ed Senior Fellow Em erit us of the I nstitut e. His research has been concerned wit h t ransport, urban planning, energy conservation, healt h prom ot ion, road safety, environm ent and clim ate change policies. He is the author or co-author of m ore t han 40 books on t hese topics. He was one of t he first proponents of carbon rationing as the only realistic way for the world’s populat ion to lim it dam age from clim ate change. Together with Tina Fawcett, he com pleted a book on this subject last year. I t was com m issioned by Penguin Books and published under t he title How We Can Save t he Planet.

Chris Jardine Researcher at t he Environm ental Change I nst itut e since 2001. His research has been prim arily concerned wit h the t echnical perform ance solar photovoltaics, and his research produced a laym ans guide "Photovoltaics in the UK". Ot her research interests include t he role of non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as m ethane, t he int egrat ion of renewables int o the electricity network, and wider aspects of renewable energy policy. He serves on t he com m ittee of UK-I SES, t he UK branch of the Solar Energy Societ y, and is also involved in projects prom oting awareness of renewable energy and clim at e change issues in schools.

Page 38 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

Roger Levett Partner in Levett-Therivel, sustainabilit y consultants. He draft ed the LGA’s 1998 m anifesto Energy services for sustainable com m unit ies and the 2005 LGA/ Energy Saving Trust Long t erm vision on sustainable energy and clim ate change. His publications include A better choice of choice (Fabian Society, 2003, wit h I an Christie, Michael Jacobs and Riki Therivel) and Towards the Ecopolis (Dem os/ Com edia 1998, wit h I an Christ ie). Recent ly, he has assessed the UK’s progress for the Sustainable Developm ent Com m ission and carried out Sustainability Appraisals and St rategic Environm ental Assessm ents of various regional and local plans and strategies, and has worked on sustainable consum ption, housing, transport and planning.

Caroline Lucas Green Mem ber of the European Parliam ent for S.E. England since 1999 and Principal Speaker for the Green Party. As Mem ber of the Com m ittee on the Environm ent, Public Healt h and Food Safety, her work has included am ending legislation to strengt hen the case against GM crops, pushing for stricter controls on t he regulat ion of chem icals, and m aking the case for stricter targets on CO2 em issions to com bat clim ate change. I nt er alia, she is a Mem ber of t he Com m itt ee on I nternational Trade, Vice-President of t he Anim al Welfare I ntergroup, President of t he Globalisation I ntergroup, and Vice-President of the newly form ed Consum er and Health I ntergroup. Recent publications include the pam phlet , co-aut hored wit h Mike Woodin, Taking t he Cons out of the Constit ution and Green Alt ernat ives t o Globalisation: a m anifesto.

George Monbiot Weekly colum nist for the Guardian newspaper and aut hor of the best selling books The Age of Consent : a m anifesto for a new world order and Captive State: the corporate takeover of Britain. He has held visit ing fellowships or professorships at the universit ies of Oxford (environm ent al policy), Bristol (philosophy), Keele (polit ics) and East London (environm ental science). He is current ly visit ing professor of planning at Oxford Brookes Universit y. I n 1995 Nelson Mandela presented him wit h a Unit ed Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environm ental achievem ent.

Derek Osborn A senior environm entalist advising on long-t erm strategic issues for governm ents, internat ional bodies, business and the voluntary sector. I n the public sector, he is currently a Com m issioner for t he Sustainable Developm ent Com m ission. From 1990 to 1995 he was Director General of Environm ent Protect ion in t he Departm ent of t he Environm ent. From 1994 to 1999 he was chair of the European Environm ent Agency. I n the business sector Derek Osborn is a non-Execut ive Director of Severn Trent plc, and chairs the Board's Environm ent Com m itt ee. He chairs Jupit er Global Green I nvestm ent Trust. He also provides environm ental advice to ERM CVS, I nnovest and WSAtkins. I n the voluntary sector he is Chairm an of UNED-UK Forum . I n addit ion, he is a visit ing professor at the School of Public Policy, UCL.

Malcolm Rigg Appointed Director of Policy St udies I nstitut e in 2004. I n his career, he has covered a wide spectrum of the social and m arket research world as practitioner, com m issioner and m anager. He was Head of Social Research t hen Managing Director of BMRB I nternat ional, Director of Research at COI Com m unications, Head of Public I nterest Research at Consum ers’ Associat ion and a Senior Fellow at the Policy Studies I nstitute. He is a Fellow of the Market Research Society and a form er chair both of its Professional Standards Com m ittee and its Professional Developm ent Advisory Board. He has published and spoken on a diverse range of subjects including training and developm ent , the graduat e labour m arket, t he provision of governm ent services and evidence-based policy and practice.

Page 39 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

Robin Stott Before ret irem ent, worked as a physician in Lewisham universit y hospital, a com m unity- based teaching hospital in Sout h London. I n addit ion to his clinical practice, he served as Medical Director and site Dean for ten years. As a result of his long-st anding int erest in the overlap between the econom ic, environm ental and social circum stances which underpin both healthy and sustainable societies, he was appoint ed a m em ber of t he London Sustainable Developm ent Com m ission, and sustainabilit y advisor to t he elected m ayor of Lewisham . He is vice-chair of Medact, a global health charity which undertakes research and advocacy on the health im plications of violent conflict, econom ic disparit ies and environm ental change.

Page 40 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

Att endees This list is correct to the best of our knowledge.

Jo Abbess I T m anager Workface Energy Consultants Tanzeed Alam CarbonSense Keit h Allot Features editor The ENDS report Jillian Anable Senior researcher Robert Gordon Universit y Decarbonising Modern Societies Kevin Anderson Universit y of Manchester (Tyndall) Karen Anderton Researcher The Clim at e Group David Begg Professor Robert Gordon Universit y Environm ental Change I nstitut e, Brenda Boardm an Head, Lower Carbon Futures Universit y of Oxford Bill Bordass Director William Bordass Associates Environm ental Change I nstitut e, Christian Brand Researcher Universit y of Oxford Jam es Bruges Architect and aut hor Chris Bryant DTi Golnaz Bybordi Adm inist rat or UKERC Colin Challen MP Mart in Chilcott Mart in Chilcott Consulting (Green Valley) Energy for Sustainable Robert Cohen Developm ent Royal Society for the Paul Crake Program m e director Encouragem ent of Arts, Manufactures and Com m erce Julian Darley Post-Carbon I nstit ute Environm ental Change I nstitut e, Sarah Darby Researcher Universit y of Oxford Econom ist, journalist and The Foundat ion for t he Econom ics Richard Douthwait e author of Sustainabilit y (FEASTA) Sim on Dresner Researcher Policy Studies I nstitut e Duncan Eggar Defra Environm ental Change I nstitut e, Tina Fawcett Senior researcher Universit y of Oxford David Flem ing I ndependent policy analyst and author Herbie Girardet World Fut ure Council Tony Grayling Associate Director I nstitute of Public Policy Research Chris Groven BP Barbara Ham m ond Office of Science and Technology Mayer Hillm an Senior Fellow Em eritus Policy Studies I nstitut e David Hirst Hirst Low Carbon Solutions Ltd Environm ental Change I nstitut e, Christian Jardine Senior researcher Universit y of Oxford Peter Jones BI FFA Rudra Kapila Assistant UKERC Meet ing Place Sarah Keay-Bright Manager UKERC Meet ing Place

Page 41 of 42 UKERC m eet ing report : Living in a low carbon world

Environm ental Change I nstitut e, Gavin Killip Researcher Universit y of Oxford Tim Lang Professor of Food Policy Cit y University London Environm ental Policy and Lecturer in Energy Policy and Matthew Leach Managem ent Group, I m perial Technology College Matthew Ledbury Deputy Edit or Local Transport Today Levett Therivel Sustainability Roger Levett Partner Consult ants John Loughead Executive Director UKERC Caroline Lucas MEP Director, Action for a Global Peter Luff One World Trust Clim at e Com m unity Don Mathew Sustrans Aubrey Mayer Director Global Com m ons I nstit ute Cat herine Mitchell Principal Research Fellow Warwick Business School George Monbiot Author and Guardian colum nist Director of Environm ent al The Bartlett, University College Tadj Oreszczyn Design and Engineering London Sustainable Developm ent Derek Osborn Com m issioner Com m ission Associate Fellow, Sustainable Royal I nstitute of I nternational Walt Patterson Developm ent Program m e Affairs Adam Poole Reader Whitby Bird Engineers Sustainable Developm ent Alison Pridm ore Com m ission Chartered archit ect and town METREX - Network of European Roger Read planner, Secretary General of Metropolitan Regions & Areas METREX Trewin Restorick Director Global Action Plan UK Malcolm Rigg Director Policy Studies I nstitut e Elliot Robertson Environm ent Agency Head of Healt h I m pact Harry Rutter Sout h East Public Healt h Group Assessm ent Town & Count ry Planning Robert Shaw Policy officer Association Ashok Sinha Director The Clim at e Movem ent Jim Skea Research Director UKERC Liz Sleeper Assistant to Norm an Baker MP Decarbonising Modern Societies Richard Starkey UMI ST (Tyndall) Robin Stott Sustainabilit y Advisor to Mayor of London and Deputy Chair Lex Waspe Com m unications Manager UKERC Helen Watters Researcher Leeds University Chris West Director UKCI P London School of Hygiene and Paul Wilkinson Tropical Medicine

Page 42 of 42