How much progress has the UK made in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions?
A little? Just about kept emissions from increasing?
A little? Just about kept emissions from increasing?
Great news! The UK has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by over a quarter since 1990. Under the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions the UK was required to reduce its emissions by a mere 12.5%. We’ve achieved twice this.
This reduction in emissions has occurred despite the amount of energy we use increasing by 2%. Nor are these falls merely a result of the recent economic recession and people turning down the central heating: emissions have been steadily falling across for two decades. In fact, the real income of people in the UK has risen by almost 50% since then. We’re much richer and still emit far fewer greenhouse gases than in 1990.
How does this compare across Europe?
As the graph above shows, the relative change of the UK’s greenhouse emissions since 1990 is the best in Europe . The UK has achieved the largest per capita reduction in greenhouse gases of any country in Western Europe. Some might predict that cutting back on emissions may cool the economy as well as our climate. So has this been at the expense of GDP?
Fortunately not: as you can see below, the UK now produces three times as much GDP for each unit of emissions. This increase is the second only to mighty Luxembourg.
The UK has achieved these reductions using four different climate change policies:
· A levy on Climate change
The EU setup an emissions trading scheme which issues permits to emit greenhouse gases. These permits can be traded, and they are currently worth around £12 per ton of carbon. Each EU country was given a quota of permits and most of these were given to companies which emit greenhouse gases. Companies which produce less carbon than expected can sell spare permits. This provides strong financial incentives to reduce emissions. In the future, the number of emissions permits will be steadily reduced.
The renewable obligation requires electricity companies to produce a least 11% of their energy from renewable sources in 2010/2011. This proportion is due to rise to 15% in 2015. Unfortunately it is a rather expensive way to reduce emissions. A recent report by the department for energy and climate change (DECC), estimated a cost of £30bn over the next 19 years. However, these policies are only expected to reduce carbon emissions worth £5.9bn. It would be more cost effective to buy £6bn worth of emission permits and not use them. This would save £24bn and achieve the same reduction in carbon emissions. This is equivalent to £390 for each person in the UK.
Feed-in tariffs provide subsidies to small producers of renewable energy. For example, people who fit solar panels to their houses can sell electricity to their energy supply at four times the retail cost. This makes small scale investments profitable. However, is this a sensible policy? Given the typical amount of sunshine in Manchester or Stoke, you may be able to guess the answer. Another report by the DECC suggests that these measures will cost £20bn over the next 19 years. However it will only save £1bn of carbon emissions. Again the UK could save £19bn by buying £1bn worth of emission permits and not using them. This is equivalent to £300 for each of us.
The climate change levy is a tax on energy used by businesses. Energy produced from renewable sources is not taxed. This means the policy rather poorly targeted at energy use rather than the real problem, which is the amount of emissions. For example, energy from nuclear power is subject to the levy despite creating few emissions. It would be more efficient to directly tax the use of emissions permits from emissions trading scheme.
What about the future? Under the 2008 climate change act the UK has set itself a target by 2020 of reducing emissions by 30% compared to 1990. Given the history of emissions over the last 10 years, a further 5% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions could be realistic and affordable. However, policies need to be as cost effective as possible. Can we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions further without reducing our living standards? Or have we exhausted all the low hanging fruit, the easy changes to make? The example shown by other countries suggests much more progress is possible. Sweden emits 30% fewer emissions per head than the UK and has a similar climate and income per person. If the UK achieves Swedish levels of emissions, then we would have halved our emissions from 1990. How did Sweden achieve their reductions? They introduced a carbon tax in 1990, which is currently around 130 euros per ton of carbon.
To further reduce carbon emissions, the UK should phase out inefficient, costly and ill-targeted policies such as feed-in tariffs, renewable obligations, and the climate change levy, and replace them with a simple tax on emissions. If we fail to do this, energy price rises due to climate change policies will become the norm, and this will make us all worse off.
Can you give a link to the raw data. Thanks
ReplyDelete"The UK has achieved these reductions using four different climate change policies ..."
ReplyDeleteWrong. Most of the fall 1990-2005 was achieved by substituting gas-fired electricity generation in place of coal-fired, a.k.a. the 'dash for gas' (This is the only way of reducing emissions on a big scale that doesn't require a subsidy.)
Most of the drop since 2007 was achieved by the recession! We may be in for another such fall in the next couple of years, but only cave-dwelling greens would advocate this as a policy.