London

Britain should reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide by 60% over the next 50 years, and set an international model for tackling climate change, according to a key independent report to the UK government published last week.

The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, in a report entitled Energy — The Changing Climate, says the United Kingdom has a “moral imperative” to act now to curb emissions. But it also doubts whether the government will be able to meet its target of a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in the next decade.

The commission is an independent body that reports to parliament on the crucial environmental issues facing Britain and the world. Its report also reveals that the United Kingdom spends less on energy-related research than almost any other developed nation, and warns the government that it must reverse its trend of cutting spending on such research if new energy systems are to be developed.

“We cannot expect other nations to do their part in countering this threat — least of all if they're much less wealthy — unless we demonstrate we are really serious,” says Tom Blundell, head of the department of biochemistry at the University of Cambridge and the commission's chairman. According to Blundell, the UK environment minister, Michael Meacher, agrees that a 60% reduction is needed in the long term.

Clean power: wind turbines, such as these in Jutland, Denmark, are a rare sight in Britain. Credit: TONY CRADDOCK/SPL

Blundell says that more research should be focused on the electricity grid to ensure the effective distribution of high-quality energy, including that of intermittent energy sources such as solar and wind power. The report says Britain lags far behind the rest of Europe in developing renewable-energy technologies.

The report coincides with a new round of discussions in Bonn over the detailed implementation of the Kyoto Protocol on reducing the emission of greenhouse gases. Effective mechanisms for reducing emissions must be finalized in time for a crunch meeting in The Hague this November.

Last week, three environmental groups claimed that some industrialized countries were trying to negotiate looser terms for certain mechanisms in the treaty that would undermine its effectiveness.

A number of commentators point out the irony that many of the hotly debated flexible mechanisms are there at the insistence of the United States, which is highly unlikely to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

The November meeting coincides with the US elections, and the US position is not expected to have changed by then. However, the United States does not have a blocking vote, so the protocol can be implemented without it. The new administration could still instigate mitigation measures if it chose to do so.

But observers point out that Kyoto's 5.2% target would not be reached without US involvement. Benito Muller, a senior research fellow from the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, says that although this is “neither here nor there”, more substantial steps are needed. “Industrialized nations have committed themselves to showing leadership [on global warming] and Kyoto is the tool by which we can do it,” he says.

A continuing source of controversy involves a mechanism that would allow industrialized nations to claim credits against their emissions by investing in clean technologies — such as nuclear power — in developing countries.

The nuclear industry is emphasizing the major role that nuclear energy could play in reducing global warming. But critics, including Britain's Royal Commission, warn that the issue of nuclear waste must be dealt with before it can qualify as a clean technology.

http://www.rcep.org.uk/newenergy.html