Source: BBC Radio 4: Today Programme
URL: N/A
Date: 20/10/2014
Event: Jim Skea on EU carbon emission cuts: "40% by 2030 is leaving it just too late"
Credit: BBC Radio 4: Today Programme
People:
John Humphrys: Europe's leaders are meeting this week and they'll be talking about climate change and cutting carbon emissions - they've agreed they have to be cut by 80% by the middle of the century and 40% over the next 15 years. But one senior figure on the UN's panel for climate change, Professor Jim Skea, says that 40% figure is not high enough.
Jim Skea: 40% by 2030 is leaving it just too late. I mean, if you can imagine a 40% cut means that you will be emitting 60% of your 1990 emissions by 2030 - if we want to get to an 80% reduction it means we have to be emitting 20% of our 1990 emissions by 2050. That means we've got to reduce our emissions by a factor of three over 20 years, which is going to be just an extraordinary, unprecedented rate of change.
Roger Harrabin: So we're setting ourselves, basically, to fail.
Jim Skea: My guess would be: 40% would be too little, too late, if we're serious about long-term targets.
John Humphrys: Well, Professor Skea was talking to our Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin, who is on the line now. Roger, is that a fairly maverick view?
Roger Harrabin: Oh no, it's not a maverick view at all, John. We're faced with this old problem about, you know: how do we frame this issue? The scientists want it framed in terms of "What do we need to do to protect the climate?" and the politicians see it from the other point of view, which is "What can we - what do we feel we can afford to do now?", especially given the state of the economy.
So this target, the 40% target for 2030, is actually still being quite closely contested - it's been agreed by the Commission but Poland is holding out and saying that, with its coal-based economy, it simply can't afford that, and it worries about the effects on the economy of Europe. And this is particularly the case where we look over to the USA, see lots of cheap fuel, shale gas flowing and helping industries, and Europe is worried about leaving itself in the doldrums. On the other hand, it also wants to be a climate change leader - it has been, in the past. So it's tussling with what's realistic and what's necessary.
John Humphrys: Yeah, but isn't that the point - I mean, you can set as many targets as you like, it's whether you can meet them or not.
Roger Harrabin: Yes, yes indeed, John. I mean, the technical experts, people like Professor Skea, say that actually the targets are achievable, although, as we go through the century towards 2050, they become more and more difficult, and we need to have more innovative technologies that we don't have at the moment. But if you speak to him a little further, he will say that what we've done so far is: we've taken the low-hanging fruit, all the energy efficiency, the things that actually benefit the economy anyway, because we waste so much energy. We've done all the easy stuff, and then we're going to do some more fairly easy stuff up until 2030 - put in some more renewable energy, for instance. But then, after then, you know, where are leaders going to turn to, to get clean energy and to stop us using so much? And it's too big a task, he says.
John Humphrys: And they can't make brilliant new technology happen, can they?
Roger Harrabin: Well, do you know, John, what's really interesting in this sphere is that there's an awful lot happening. There are many, many, many new technologies coming through, very exciting. The thing is, we don't know yet how viable they're going to be. So, only last week a major manufacturer said it possibly had got a scheme for nuclear fusion. Now, we don't know yet whether that will work or not - if it did work, it would be fantastic. So politicians are left with not knowing what technologies are going to come through.
John Humphrys: Roger, many thanks.