Author: Nyla Sarwar

"Big Heads" seek financing for climate change (Image by: Oxfam)

An ambitious and positive draft text presented at the UN climate summit has failed to impress developing countries, who argue that more finance is needed to support their low carbon development and adaptation in some of the most vulnerable nations.

The so-called “long-term action plan text” believed to be much more positive that the “Danish text” leaked earlier in the week, sets GHG reduction targets for developed countries of around 25-45% by 2020 against a 1990 baseline. These targets are expected to be extremely ambitious, and will require the sequestration of already emitted atmospheric carbon, potentially limiting worldwide temperature increases to 1.5C - 2C. The text is now up for negotiation, and demands much stronger commitments from the developed counties, compared to figures already laid out on the table.

UK PM Gordon Brown has been actively engaged in the negotiations to encourage the EU to confirm its more ambitious commitment to reduce GHG emissions by 30% by 2020 against a 1990 baseline. It is expected that this will require the UK to contribute 40% emissions reductions by 2020, instead of the 34% share previously committed.

Gordon Brown has also been pivotal in negotiations among EU leaders to provide immediate finance for developing countries to adapt to climate change. Announcing that the EU would commit 7.2bn euros (£6.5bn, $10bn) for adaptation in developing countries over the next three years, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt reaffirmed Europe’s commitment to moving the Copenhagen negotiations closer to a global deal.

The UK’s promise, at £500m ($800m; 553m euros) a year, was the highest. Reports from Brussels suggest the German contribution will be 480m euros per year from 2010 to 2012. Earlier, Mr Brown and France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy told a joint news conference their two nations would contribute at least £1.5bn (1.7bn euros; $2.4bn) spread over the three years.

The money pledged is for a “fast start” fund to help the world’s poorest nations tackle rising sea levels, deforestation, water shortages and other consequences of climate change between 2010 and 2012, and reduce their own emissions.

The promised EU contribution will make up a sizeable portion of a proposed global figure of $10bn (7bn euros) annually.

Financial discussions in Brussels saw EU leaders during the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to consider a global tax on financial transactions to reduce the risks of a further financial crisis and raise funding for tackling climate change.

“The European Council encourages the IMF to consider the full range of options including insurance fees, resolution funds, contingent capital arrangements and a global financial transaction levy in its review,” the summit’s final statement said.

Whilst the text confirms the consensus between nations that halting forest protection is crucial, the details of measures to reduce deforestation are still al long way off. Developing countries are still demanding more funding from developed countries, and the details of a long term and fundamental financial package still remains hugely uncertain. The new text also requires developing countries to cut their carbon emissions by 15-30% by 2020 compared to BAU, and developing countries retired from the plenary requesting further time to digest the potential consequences of such commitments.

Additionally, reports suggest that the EU and US have finally agreed to a twin track deal which ensures that the Kyoto protocol - the only legally binding treaty that forces rich countries to cut emissions - continues at least until a new legal treaty is signed.

“This is very, very complicated. It’s tough because the world is trying to peak emissions. There is a long way to go. We are anxious and conscious of the scale of the challenge that remains,” said the UK climate and energy secretary, Ed Miliband.

The text will be negotiated in more detail next week, with details of a finance package and forest protection measures expected to dominate discussions. Developing countries will be calling for tougher commitments, and as Nasa scientist Jim Hansen recently commented - the climate agenda is not amenable to half measures. “It would be like saying, I’ll agree to cut 40% of slavery.”

The clock is ticking. The UNFCCC’s Copenhagen summit is just 7 days away, and recent reports have been encouraging. Shortly after China and the US made announcements on commitments to reduce their GHGS, Commonwealth leaders backed a $10bn Climate Change fund. Proposed by UK PM Gordon Brown, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the fund seeks to provide immediate financial support to those States most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

UK PM Gordon Brown said on Friday that half of the fund should be aimed at helping the most vulnerable states to adapt to climate change, whilst the other half should be targeted at measures to reduce GHGs in the least developed countries.

The first funding would be made available early next year, before any international agreement could take effect, whilst there are suggestions that funds for the most vulnerable small island states would be fast-tracked and made available immediately.

This agreement by the Commonwealth demonstrates how climate change can unite different countries - small/large, rich or poor to find a resolution; and delivers some promise for next week’s summit.

The Commonwealth leaders also agreed to seek a legally binding international agreement, though it is widely believed that “a full legally binding outcome” might have to wait to 2010.

The Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, added that any commitments they would announce would be “ambitious”, though it is highly likely that will be subject to significant commitments by other influential nations too.  This prisoner’s dilemma characterises the negotiations, and also represents the biggest threat to a global deal.  However, the recent flurry of announcements for GHG reduction commitments from many of the key players has sparked hope that all is not lost yet.

The countdown begins. I will attend the final week of negotiations with a focus on proposals from the developed nations.

The UK’s energy security prospects are once again making the headlines, as Ed Milliband this week announced the top 10 suitable sites for the next generation of nuclear power plants, describing nuclear power as a “proven, reliable source of low carbon energy”.

The announcement comes amidst heightened concerns surrounding the peak oil debate, with the UK ERC claiming that conventionally extracted global oil production could ‘peak’ and go into terminal decline before 2020.

However, the environmentalists have criticised the decision, warning of the “deadly legacy” of radioactive waste, and argued that investment should be focused on renewables instead. Interestingly, one of the oldest and most efficient windfarms in Britain will be dismantled at Kirksanton to make way for the nuclear plant, to the dismay of some locals.

Faced with the prospect of depleting supplies from the North Sea, the UK is now paying the price for its ‘dash for gas’, following the closure of the coal mines in the 1980s. To support the development of this next generation of energy infrastructure, the UK Government has announced a host of measures to reduce the planning constraints that are likely to hamper such large infrastructure projects, and hopes to have the first new nuclear plant operating by 2018.

Professor Barry Brook at the University of Adelaide has welcomed the announcements from the UK government, and encouraged the Australian government to take heed. He highlights that unlike the situation for uranium power, the electricity price is strongly tied to the fuel price for gas and therefore fluctuations in gas prices lead to price spikes in power prices.

Cheap uranium energy, on the other hand, provides a much more secure proposition to meet both energy security and climate change goals; and he adds that

“…there is enough uranium to provide the whole world with zero-carbon power for millions of years.”

Nuclear power is the only proven electricity generation technology that can simultaneously meet reliable baseload demand, anywhere, and yet emit no carbon dioxide when operating. Along with hydropower from dams, it is the only clean energy technology that has been shown to be scalable.

France is a case in point. It derives nearly 80% of its electricity from 59 nuclear plants and is the world’s biggest electricity exporter. It has the cheapest power rates in Europe, and has the lowest carbon footprint per person.

However, the significance of radioactive wastes and contamination threats should not be underestimated if we really want to promote sustainable development that considers the intergenerational impact and legacy of such technologies. In this vein, it might be argued that the significant funds for these large infrastructure projects would, in fact, be better targeted at scale-up and capacity building for renewable technologies such as wind, solar, tidal and others, which don’t generate such controversial by-products.  For now, the pressure is on in the UK to streamline the planning process to enable the speedy construction required to bridge the expected energy gap.

Speaking at the recent Conservative party Conference in Manchester, held on 5-8^th October, shadow energy and climate change secretary Greg Clark claimed that the UK needed an ‘emergency plan to rescue our energy policy’ within days of a general election.

The current UK energy policy from a glance appears to contain many strong ‘green’ policies, but in some cases, and a certain level of financial commitment to funding these policies.  But unfortunately the impact of these policies is simply too early to tell.   It may be argued that the Labour Party have made several large strides in leading the way forward to the global talks in Copenhagen, by being the first country to call a UN Security Council meeting on climate change, and by being the first country to introduce a Climate Change Bill with the aim to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 20% by 2020.

Despite the above strides, the Conservative’s argue that UK is in a ‘dire position’ and is in absolute need for a new ‘Green Deal’ which aims to; 

• Provide £6,500 to every household to upgrade the energy efficiency of their home
• Improve the carbon footprint of the least efficient homes and save 9.4 million tonnes of CO2
• Create around 70,000 jobs, including 3,500 apprenticeships
• Open up a market worth £2.5 billion a year
• Authorise five GW of clean coal capacity fitted with carbon capture and storage
• Immediate publication of the planning needed for new nuclear power stations
• Give the right for every community to host wind farms and keep the revenue from business rates generated for 6 years
• Make the national grid extend its network offshore
• Build Marine energy parks
• Lastly, scrap Labour centralised, target led approach to house building

Over the past 12 years the UK government has seen 15 Energy Ministers tackle the climate change agenda.  The most recent drive from government, led by Ed Milliband in concentrated in the delivery if the Low Carbon Transition Plan and more widely known, the UK’s Climate Change Action Plan.

Supported by the establishment of the Department of Climate Change, another Labour initiative, a number of policy commitments are designed to create a low carbon economy, these include;

• Introduction of the Renewables Obligation
• Climate Change Levy (see rates through the HMRC link)
• Carbon Reduction Commitment
• Implementation of long-term legal Frameworks e.g. Committee for Climate Change to measure these changes
• Zero carbon homes target setting by 2016
• Development of a £100m blueprint for renewable energy - to target supply
• Adoption of a Waste Strategy aimed to deliver 9.3 million tonnes of savings of CO2 per year by 2020
• Water and air is recordable cleaner than 1997 levels and waste recycling has quadrupled

So how much of these green pledges are just talk?  The government has pledged big targets to reduce CO2 in the UK, but many of the Party members are aware of the small details on how they will be delivered.  For example, according to a study carried out by ComRes research of 150 MPs, it revealed that 72% were unaware of the government’s target for all new housing to be zero carbon from 2016.  The study further identified that members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group were unaware that a quarter of MPs didn’t know that more than a quarter of UK emissions came from Housing. 

Perhaps the green campaigns from both parties need to target their members, as well as communicating plans to its voters.  There are many successes attributed to the policies employed by the Labour Party to date, however, it is also clear of the recent challenges in delivery, for example, the Part-L planning consultation, the nuclear debate, and the changes to the Carbon Reduction Commitment timescales for its implementation. 

Once a policy is made, does it stand up strongly to meet the realistic outcomes, to time and budget, or simply sound good to the voters in Britain - you can decide, its your vote!

The Committee on Climate Change released its latest report today highlighting the devastating impact the economic recession has had on carbon trading schemes and investment for low carbon technologies. The report emphasises the vast investment needed in efficiency through green housing, power and transport in Britain, to service the goal of meeting the commitments in the Climate Change Act.

The Committee has called for ‘dramatic improvements’ in efficiencies across the economy, suggesting that more ‘forceful’ policies may be required to increase annual cuts in emissions by four-fold.

The Committee also recommends

- The introduction of 1.7m electric cars, with 3.9m drivers trained in fuel-efficient techniques, by 2020

- Building 8,000 new wind turbines, alongside four new coal power stations fitted with carbon capture technology and three new nuclear power plants, to slash emissions from the power sector by 50% by 2020.

The Government’s largest proposed clean coal plant to be fitted with CCS was shelved by E.ON last week, also reportedly as a result of the recession. However, the announced delay in the Kingsnorth project, which had become the focus of protests against climate change, heavily targeted by climate camp activists and the media; leaves politicians wondering how they might fill the expected energy supply gap in 2016.

The recession has also had a significant impact on the world’s emissions trading schemes - expected to be pivotal in driving market signals for low carbon investment. The drop in energy consumption, which led to the shelving of the Kingsnorth project in the UK, has also led to a drop in emissions in Europe, resulting in a surplus of carbon credits in the EU ETS. It is feared that this might result in a carbon price of just €20 a tonne in 2020, rather than the €50 a tonne used for its previous analysis.

The Committee has suggested that options to strengthen the carbon price, including the government underwriting a minimum price or intervening in the electricity market, should be “seriously considered”. On Friday, a report from Ofgem suggesting domestic energy bills could rise 14-60% by 2020 was seen by energy industry experts as an acceptance that the market-driven system has failed and the government needs to be more interventionist.

So the recession has played its role in dampening the prospects of the low carbon investment opportunities, and strong leadership will be essential to deliver the ‘radical’ and ‘dramatic’ improvements that the Committee has demanded. With Ed Milliband’s small budget, and uncertainties over changes in government next year, the UK needs to dig deep to create green opportunities that rescue the nation from the dire straits, courtesy of the economic recession.

A Calm North Sea

According to UK’s  Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) the North Sea has potential to store over 100 years worth of UK power station CO2 emissions.

In the build up to the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) in London on 13^th October, DECC has launched a UK wide consultation to explore the idea to develop and manage the potential carbon storage sites under the North Sea, to harness the huge potential for storing CO2.

According to the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Milliband says:-

“There’s enough potential under the North Sea to store more than 100 years worth of CO2 emissions from the UK’s power fleet.  We are also working closely with Norway and other North Sea Basin countries to ensure the North Sea fulfils its potential in the deployment of CCS in Europe. We want to get the UK regulatory framework in place so we can harness that potential and make the North Sea part of the CCS revolution.”  (Source: DECC)

The future talks of The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), which is made up from a private and public member (including Ministers from 23 countries) will build on the foundations of the G8’s ambition to launch twenty CCS demonstration projects globally by 2010; and prospects of a global agreement on CCS prior to the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen this December. (Source: DECC)

 “Without CCS there is no solution to climate change.   As well as getting things in place in the UK and Europe we need that consensus at the global talks in Copenhagen.   The meeting in London will be a pivotal part of moving the discussion on CCS forwards.”  (Quote: Ed Milliband).

Subject to the outcome of this consultation, DECC aim to make and lay regulations in the first quarter of 2010 in order to bring the regime into force in April 2010. (Source: DECC)

This CCS target will form part of the UK’s Low Carbon Transition Plan which was first introduced in 2008, it sets out how the UK will meet the 34 percent cut in emissions on 1990 levels by 2020.  The plans set out to reach the following target by 2020:

• More than 1.2 million people will be in green jobs
• 7 million homes will have benefited from whole house makeovers, and more than 1.5 million households will be supported to produce their own clean energy.
• Around 40 percent of electricity will be from low-carbon sources, from renewables, nuclear and clean coal.
• UK will be importing half the amount of gas that we otherwise would.
• The average new car will emit 40 percent less carbon than now. 

In times of financial and economic instability, the government has committed a very large sum of £405 million towards developing low carbon technologies to meet the Transition Plan targets. This commitment to CCS is prevalent in the recent announcement to support a multimillion-pound research facility in Yorkshire, The Centre for Low Carbon Futures.  This is an innovative £50m research centre that combines the expertise and research power of the Yorkshire universities, with funding from Yorkshire Forward.  The centre aims to build a competitive, sustainable and carbon-efficient regional economy, while providing climate change solutions of national and international significance in collaboration with local business.

So far, the Centre has already identified its first four pilot research projects, which include:

• The regional economics of climate change
• Low carbon supply chains
• Biorenewables
• Carbon Capture Technology

In September 2009, the UK government has also injected £20m into early stage works for developing advances in wave, tidal, fuel cells, solar and energy efficiency technologies.   Announced in September, the ‘clean energy technologies fund’ will be like the ‘Dragons Den’ Venture Capitalists TV series, aiming to attract private sector finance in coming forward to fund new innovative clean technology projects.

 Simon Walker, Chief Executive of the British Venture Capital Association, said:

“Low carbon energy technologies backed by venture capitalists will play an important role in creating a sustainable energy future for the UK. In 2009 we have seen a dramatic fall in the amount invested into clean energy companies in the UK. We welcome any initiative which boosts the supply of capital into this crucial sector.”

Penny Shepherd MBE, Chief Executive of UK Sustainable Investment and Finance said:

“Government support now is vital to develop the UK low carbon technology businesses that we need for lasting prosperity. This commitment shows that the Government is serious about promoting a low carbon economy and sustainable investment in the UK.”

With the financial commitment from government and the new opportunities exposed by the CCS storage capacity in the North Sea emerging, the academic support is absolutely paramount into driving UK’s commitment to achieving further gains in meeting not only the UKs carbon reduction targets, but also to share these technologies with the rest of the world at the UN Summit in Copenhagen to contribute to the global efforts needed.

The UK’s Department for Energy & Climate Change (DECC) this week announced a £20m injection of government-backed venture capital support, for the deployment of recent advances in innovative, low carbon technologies.

Whilst private funds for early stage commercialisation and technology development have fallen significantly as a result of the economic downturn, this investment demonstrates the rising priority and commitment of the UK government to the climate change agenda. The funds will level the playing field for new and emerging technologies, to support capacity building, develop skills and demonstrate capabilities of renewable energy sources to meet the insatiable needs of the global economy.

This announcement complements initiatives announced in the UK’s Low Carbon Transition Plan in July 2009, aimed at reducing the UK’s emissions by 34% by 2020 (18% of 2008 levels); and ultimately 80% by 2050, as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. At the heart of the Act and the Low Carbon Transition Plan lies the carbon budgets, which have been assigned to all Government departments responsible for regulating different sections of the UK economy; with a requirement to produce a plan to demonstrate how they intend to stay within the assigned budget. If the Government fails to ensure that the UK can live within its carbon budgets, it will have to purchase carbon credits from international emissions trading schemes.

The UK has committed to procure 40% of energy needs from low carbon sources by 2020; an extension to the legally binding commitment in the EU Renewables Directive, which obligates the UK to generate 15% of total energy (electricity, heat and transport) from renewable sources by 2020.

The Low Carbon Transition Plan introduces a range of efficiency measures, including the ‘pay as you save’ insulation scheme, as well as a Clean Energy Cash-back Scheme, which aims to incentivise the generation of green power by individuals and organizations by providing a fair structure to sell green energy back to the National Grid. Ed Milliband, has talked about the inspiring communities by encouraging the UK’s top 15-20 cities, towns and villages to compete at the forefront of green innovation, to initiate the UK’s green revolution. Whilst climate change is a driving force, significant policy drivers include resource and national security, as the race to limit dependencies on finite resources begins.

The UK is keen to cement its position as a leader in the run up to the 15^th Conference of Parties (CoP-15) in Copenhagen in December, and Ed Milliband has called for the same decisive approach to climate change as the G20 demonstrated earlier this year on the global economic downturn (McLachlan, 2009).

Discussions held at the UN’s climate change summit last week, and the Pittsburgh G20 summit; provide a broad practical framework of what may constitute a succinct ‘Copenhagen treaty’, but Jeffery Sachs argues that the climate change issue may be too complex to solve in a ‘Kyoto II’ type agreement in December. Instead climate negotiations should aim for an interim agreement on general principles, financing and technology transfer, with practical programmes and steps, which can be introduced and further developed for immediate action. Sachs (2009) adds

“There is still time for a three-part package: a political framework, a financing package, and a series of practical steps announced by all major regions to tilt the trajectory on emissions.”

The political framework would outline the fundamental agreement - that all countries have “common but differentiated responsibilities”, and that drastic quantifiable emissions cuts are required to stay under a 2C rise. A financial package from the most developed nations should support the least developed countries to invest in clean technologies, and adapt to the disastrous impacts, especially since the majority of poor populations reside in tropical regions vulnerable to the major effects of climate change.

In addition to all the negotiations, Sachs adds that governments should announce a meaningful set of immediate practical programmes to reduce emissions on a large scale. The initiatives introduced by the UK Government in its Low Carbon Transition Plan do just that, but the bigger challenge remains to encourage the fundamental participation of the US, Europe, China, and India to do the same.

Bangladesh Floods (source: oneworld.net)

Last year the UK pledged £75 million to Bangladesh, often cited as one of the countries that will be hit very hard by climate change. Even modest sea level rises could flood 20% of land. The cash will be used for things like raising homes in high-risk flood areas, provide flood-resilient crops, and a national early warning system for cyclones.

Gordon Brown made a widely praised speech a few weeks ago promising that the $100bn needed every year for adaptation would come “separately from and additional to our promises on aid”. He did leave a small loophole in there though, saying that 10% could come from existing budgets.

It turns out however that the £75m for Bangladesh was announced previously under existing DFID budgets, so has already been accounted for and doesn’t therefore qualify under the additionality principle, which I suppose is fair enough. A little confusing though…

This additionality principle is something which NGOs have been calling for ever since financing for adaptation was set to become a reality. The argument runs as follows: since rich countries bear the bulk or responsibility for causing climate change, adaptation finance for poor countries should be over and above what has already been promised to them in terms of aid that is not related to climate.

Meanwhile, the Tories have not explicitly committed to Brown’s pledge that adaptation financing will be additional to ODA. It is perhaps telling that in their Green Paper on development (launched last week), they say they will “mainstream” adaptation, but makes no mention of a cap, like the 10% proposed by Brown.

Copenhagen's famous mermaid (source: about.com)

The leading think-tank Chatham House held a conference on Monday and Tuesday this week, entitled “The Politics of Climate Change Agreement”.  There were some high-level speakers, including Joan Ruddock (DECC minister), the head of UNEP, and the chief negotiator of Papua New Guinea (he who told the USA to “show some leadership or get out of the way” at Bali).There was a vein of optimism running through the discussions - after all, who would have thought three years ago that the US would (almost) have a cap-and-trade bill, that India and China would have mitigation plans, and in 2008 investment in renewable energy would exceed investment in both nuclear and fossil fuels.

The main focus of the conference was what needed to happen politically to get a good deal at Copenhagen. The position of most developing countries is that annex 1 countries must provide binding targets for emissions reductions by 2020, consistent with keeping us on a 450ppm pathway or below. Secondly, there will be no deal without clear commitments by rich countries on adaptation financing. There was general agreement that Gordon Brown has broken the logjam on this with his speech last week finally putting a price tag of $100bn a year.

These are both likely to be forthcoming, but the extent of rich country cuts are still unclear - the Waxman-Markey bill in the US is unambitious, and recent figures put out by Russia and Japan were also disappointing. An aggregation of commitments so far gives a 16-26% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020. This is not good enough, as the IPCC says we need 25-40% cuts by 2020 to stay on the 450ppm pathway.

On the rich country side, the US in particular wants developing countries to commit to binding emissions cuts (cf. previous stand-offs with India), which many of them see as unjustifiable. This will probably be the major sticking point at Copenhagen. The piece of UNFCCC jargon for developing country emissions cuts is “Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions” (NAMA) by poor countries, which implicitly mean a move away from business as usual. This move is critical, because even if OECD emissions were zero, developing country emissions would still need to fall in order to meet 450ppm.

It is clear that we need a political deal at Copenhagen, even if the technical aspects take another year to hammer out. Regional or national negotiations targets around CCS and industry will be important, but a global political agreement is needed to hold it all together. The worst outcome would be a deal with vague or insufficient emissions reductions, including lots of greenwash around REDD. In conclusion, four essential elements for a good deal probably include (i) emissions targets for rich countries consistent with staying below 2 degrees warming, (ii) NAMAs for developing countries, (iii) a decent institutional framework, (iv) financing for adaptation.

December 2009 is the key date when global world leaders aim to agree a ‘Global’ climate change plan at the forthcoming UN Summit at Copenhagen.  UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, outline what they would like to see emerge from the December 2009 Copenhagen summit in replacement to the Kyoto Protocol, which is due to expire in 2012. 

In his recent speech, Gordon Brown revealed a ‘Road to Copenhagen’ document which was presented to Parliament, and sets out why a Copenhagen deal is so important, and for the first time, what deal the UK Government is pushing for; some aspects are outlined below:

Emissions Reduction: Commit to firm reductions in amount of greenhouse gases they emit at Copenhagen.  The European Union has already pledged that it will reduce emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, and by 30% if other countries commit to a similar level of action in a global agreement.

Adaptation: The UK wants a deal which gives developing countries the support they need to develop their own national plans to adapt to climate change. Other Adaptation actions could include better water conservation, new farming methods and plans to build new homes and businesses away from flood plains.

Tackling deforestation: The UK wants to see a deal which at least halves the rate at which we are cutting down tropical forests by 2020, with a complete end to global forest loss by 2030 at the latest.

New technologies: Carbon Capture and Storage to prevent emissions from fossil-fuelled power stations entering the atmosphere; Electric vehicles that produce lower emissions; Solar and other renewable power that produces cleaner energy; Energy efficient products for use in homes and business.

The UK plans for action are based on the UK Climate Projections a few weeks ago, that showed that Britain will also suffer if we do nothing to reduce global carbon emissions.  By the 2080’s temperatures could, under a high emissions scenario, be up to 12 degrees C warmer on the hottest summer days and sea levels could rise by 36 cm.  

Together with our EU partners we have already made a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, with an offer to reduce emissions by 30% if an ambitious global deal is agreed. 

The talks will discuss the sectors in which the greatest reductions can be achieved.  This will also vary on a country by country basis, as the largest carbon emitting sectors will vary, and the impact on national strategies in preventing future growth which will almost certainly cause debate for some.

As part of a broader marketing campaign within the UK, Ed Milliband is the forefront of ‘Act on Copenhagen’ the official UK government website launched on 26th June, and designed for activities in the lead up to global climate change negotiations in Copenhagen.  In addition, thousands of pamphlets will be issued to schools, citizen’s advice centres and libraries explaining why a global deal is vital and giving 15 top tips on what each of us can do to cut our carbon footprint as part of the global effort.

Not everyone will hold the same view as the UK and therefore anticipate that a convincing argument will need to be pitched at some world leaders, and China is one of them.  In the face of a strong and ever growing, and prosperous economy, what actions will be taken to limit the growth of factories, air travel and industrialization?

Developing nations are emitting up to 50.3 per cent of world emissions, a study provided by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, therefore, Gordon Brown will play a leading role in not only to pledging to reduce emissions from all members, but in leading the securing of a global agreement on climate change – a role which many leaders may wish to take.  With Ed Milibands recent announcement for a UK coal consultation Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) demonstration, this may be the driving force for the UK to show that they are leading the Copenhagen debate, and not following it. 

Gordon Brown plans to meet with the President Obama administration at the September meeting of the G20 in Pittsburgh before presenting his plans, with the hope of a successful outcome at Copenhagen in December.