Cameron's six principles to tackle climate change

Speaking in Oslo today, David Cameron has outlined six principles to guide his commitment to tackle global warming:

INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP: David Cameron challenged Tony Blair to support a new, binding international agreement to succeed the current Kyoto targets.

TARGETS AND TECHNOLOGY: Without binding targets there will be no commitment to adopt the new green technologies.

GREEN GROWTH: Our standard of living does not have to suffer from environmental action.  In fact it will suffer if we don't take the environment seriously. 

FAITH IN THE POWER OF MARKETS: Conservatives must have faith in price signals and must develop a domestic emissions trading scheme that works.

BIPARTISANSHIP: Action against global warming requires long-term stability in policy and that requires cross-party consensus.  The Tories have already reached cross-party consensus with the LibDems and nationalist parties on binding year on year reductions in carbon emissions.

SHARED RESPONSIBILITY TO ACT: Government - national and local - business, the voluntary sector, families and individuals all must play their part.  [Don't overfill your kettle etc].

Whenever David Cameron has raised environmental issues at PMQs he has been taunted by Tony Blair over his failure to support the climate change levy.  In Oslo today the Tory leader has responded by promising to replace the CCL with a new Carbon Levy.  Unlike the CCL, which taxes all energy use in the same blunt way, the Carbon Levy will distinguish between high and low carbon energy uses.  Coal generation will, for example, be penalised under the new levy whilst renewable energies and nuclear power will be favoured.

Editor's comment: "The big unanswered question raised by David Cameron's speech is 'why a Kyoto MkII treaty will work when Kyoto MkI has clearly failed?'  Tony Blair has some understanding of the failure of the Kyoto approach.  The EU-15 have had their binding targets but they are failing to adopt new green technologies on a scale sufficient to meet those targets.  They've missed their targets even though their economies have been sluggish - that oil prices have been high - and despite exporting much industrial capacity to developing nations.  David Cameron appears to be recycling a framework that has already been tried by the developed world and has largely failed."

Comments

[Richard]

GREEN GROWTH: Our standard of living does not have to suffer from environmental action. In fact it will suffer if we don't take the environment seriously.

FAITH IN THE POWER OF MARKETS: Conservatives must have faith in price signals and must develop a domestic emissions trading scheme that works

Good to see that these Tory principles are being applies. It is possible to be environmentalist without adopting the "let's go back to the 18th century* ideas of the Greens.

[Rick]

Why not impose import controls on Chinese goods until they meet EU standards on the environment ?

[Richard]

"Why not impose import controls on Chinese goods until they meet EU standards on the environment ?"

Consumer choice.

[Ted]

Agree the Kyoto approach hasn't worked but there needs to be an objective that can be measured (=target?). It's nonsensical to say these are binding - what happens if you miss?

The important thing is the means to get to the objective - exporting polution elsewhere isn't sensible (it means the US has performed better than Canada in reducing emissions). The technological, mixed generation, solution looks more hopeful than the sackcloth and ashes approach.

I like the free market & shared responsibility bits - Gordon already seems to be trying to steal the latter but I suppose we should be better people and rejoice when our opposition sees the light and takes on board our policies...

[Will James]

At least we're finally beginning to get some concrete policy commitments.

[Goldie]

To get to Oslo, an entirely unneccesary trip, Mr Cameron, his retinue and the travelling press corps have, at least on Mr Cameron's understanding of the world, done grave damage to the environment since they took a plane there.

This Oslo trip is really among the most ridiculous things he's done since becoming Leader. What a joke this guy is turning out to be...

[Richard]

I suspect Cameron's trip has been greatly overshadowed by the Queen's birthday. Dubious timing!

Good that we are getting some (decent) policies in at least one area though.

[James Maskell]

I thought he was taking the ferry? Where he was going as I understand it was a remote island.

[Deputy Editor]

The plane fuel was offset, according to The Telegraph.

There will be a Platform piece about the Norway trip tomorrow, written by a Norwegian CH reader.

[Rick]

"Why not impose import controls on Chinese goods until they meet EU standards on the environment ?"

Consumer choice.

Posted by: Richard | April 21, 2006 at 18:06

You're so right Richard......let's dump this environment crap and buy what we want. Time to de-regulate handguns too....there is far too much restrictive legislastion here - will Tories repeal the ban on handguns and return us the the 1689 Bill of Rights provisions ?

[Derek]

Unless all industrial nations agree to cut their emissions the overall result will be that emissions will go up, no matter what we do with our 2%. That is the reality and no amount of spin can change that. If China and India are exempt no climate change treaty will make any difference.

One thing that world leaders never mention any more is the world's population which is still growing at an alarming rate [2.5 billion more in 35 years]. Does no one think that might contribute to climate change?

If Professor King believes we will exceed 2C of global warming, then it is already too late to stop armageddon, according to his prediction. What a hopeless muddle it has all become.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Surely the Chinese and the Indian econcomies are less able than ours to adjust to a low carbon/carbon based fuel world? Plus, the money that'd have to be spent dealing with the effects of climate change might be beyond them. Unlike the Greens (who think the only way forwards is for everyone to live in mud huts) everyone who has written anything sensible about this issue says that tackling this issue will require more rather than less technical innovation eg designing consumer products to be disassembled and recycled, hydrogen fuel cells, greater energy efficiency across the board ect ect.

[Yet Another Anon]

USA, China, India and Japan were not prepared to sign up to a Kyoto type agreement, Arnold Scwarzenegger is attempting to take stringent action to reduce Carbon emissions and Republican and Democrat politicians and business are closing ranks against him and the voters of California look ready to throw him out.

Bill Clinton would have signed up to Kyoto but he would never have got it past Congress, that said though in USA and China there is concern at climate change - the White House is looking to cut back on oil use both for environmental and National Security reasons, George W. Bush is pushing forward a programme of new Nuclear Power Stations and development of Alternative Technologies but without any formal targets regarding reduction in emissions, China is very concerned about the effects of rapid growth on the Chinese Economy and Society (10% a Quarter GDP Growth currently) and pollution from the new industry and use of raw materials and they are now looking at more environmentally friendly ways of doing things.

Both China and India are rolling out huge Public Transport systems with fast efficent light rail systems and a Maglev Network ready to roll across China and already in use in a link from Shanghai to the airport - in some ways they are ahead of much of the rest of the world.

[Alexander Drake]

Politically, I think the imagery is quite potent. Cheer up Goldie, it's not all doom and gloom! No one said this was going to be easy....

[Richard]

"You're so right Richard......let's dump this environment crap and buy what we want. Time to de-regulate handguns too....there is far too much restrictive legislastion here - will Tories repeal the ban on handguns and return us the the 1689 Bill of Rights provisions ?"

The difference is that most people want a ban on handguns. If you start to ban "normal" consumer goods people tend not to like it. They do not consider a Chinese-built computer equivalent to a handgun. Incidently I happen to believe in legalising handguns but I would never advise putting it in a manifesto. I accept many of my more libertarian instincts are out of touch.

[PassingThru]

Not overfilling kettles slipped the list i see.

On a more serious note, none of these really mattter an iota without the first one. International consensus. Without that, all the rest are impotent and futile. If Cameron is able to achieve this and this alone, id forgo any commitment to Markets. Of course, this is the unachievable. I hate to say it, but Free global Markets are responsible for the situation we are in now. As such id only turn my vote into an environmental one if Cameron can force a global change. He cant, and until someone can, every penny taken in the name of the environnment is a tax on the poor.

Nevertheless, todays announcement on the climate levy is a step in the right direction. Energy conservation is a non-starter. We need to diversify energy sources, not necessarily conserve them. Of course, sooner or later, markets free from tax would bring about this change anyway. But as government meddling goes, ive seen worse.

Still dont see why it was necessary to travel abroad to say it though.

[Alexander Drake]

It probably wasn't necessary to go to Norway, Passing Thru. Good TV I guess. Maybe DC saw something while he was Carlton that stuck in his mind as a good angle.

[Rick]

Surely the Chinese and the Indian econcomies are less able than ours to adjust to a low carbon/carbon based fuel world?

China and Indonesia SUBSIDISE oil and kerosene. Why is China less able to adapt to a "low carbon" world ? Ah. They are indistrialising and Britain is de-industrialising.

[RodS]

Derek is right - Population Growth is a massive factor , but is never mentioned.
By 2031, on government figures UK population will rise by 10% to nearly 66m and the Optimum Population Trust calculate it will be 70m by 2050(another one and a half Londons on top of today's 60m)Meanwhile the UN says global population will rise from 6.5 billion to 9.1 billion by mid-century.

It ought to be obvious that economic growth , if built on declining quality of life and using up natural resources is self-defeating. Like building new roads at a slower rate than traffic growth.

We talk about Climate Change but will not talk about the huge increase in Climate Changers. Minor changes in lifestle and not over filling kettles will not sort it.

[James Hellyer]

The plane fuel was offset, according to The Telegraph

Offsetting is just a gimmick though, and one that actually encourages unsustainable behaviour.

Anyone who can afford to offset their emissions may feel entitled to go on flying as they always have, rather than obliged to change their behaviour.

There are also arguments about the true benefits of the projects offsetting funds. For example, some scientists argue that trees are not an effective way to mop up carbon emissions produced by burning fossil fuels.

Frinds of the Earh has expressed great concern about these schemes: "We also have concerns about tree-planting, because there are no guarantees these trees won't be felled, or, worse, burnt, soon after they have been planted,and we're concerned about some of the other projects backed, because many of them might have been funded anyway."

[Henry Whitmarsh]

The point about the kettle comment was that we waste so much electricity, water, gas, paper, plastic and food without even noticing we're doing it. The fact remains that if people took basic measures to reduce, reuse and recycle then the average household would reduce the ammount it sent to the tip by about three quarters. Also, there probably wouldn't be the danger of stand pipes this summer if people were more responsible with their water use. I ALONE use 113 gallons of water per day, and I live in uni halls, don't take baths and don't own a dishwasher. One interesting fact, the average toilet takes 5 gallons of water to flush, but it could just as well use 1.5-2 gallons. So, if each person uses the toilet 4 times per day, is that a lot of water? Take one over full kettle, multiply it several million times, and then tell me it's no big deal.

[Ted]

Henry, hope you just omitted to state that you take showers!

Have mixed views on the water issue - cannot see why there is not significant investment in increased reservoirs as it is probable that we will see both increased populations and decreasing rainfall. Yes I do see that using water wisely is sensible, energy efficient as well, but surely it shouldn't become the norm to ban hosepipes & remove hanging baskets?

[James Hellyer]

I'd have thought a few desalination plants would be just the ticket.

[Ted]

James - was just thinking that I agreed with nearly everything you had posted today but...

I once lived on a fantastic beach, coral reefs starting just offshore, great shoals of fish, stringrays & dolphins (occasional sharks) - then the saline residue pumped out = dead sea mark 2.

Desalination plant powered by burn off of gas from oilfields = CO2

Assume it could be nuclear power station + desalination as by product of steam turbine but that would leave problem of salt residue to add to nuclear waste plus difficulty of mixing a very active hot metal destroyer with safety in a nuclear power station.

[James Hellyer]

James - was just thinking that I agreed with nearly everything you had posted today but...

I knew I must have been doing something wrong.

dead sea mark 2.

I'm no expert and stand to be corrected, but I thought this sort of problem only really affected regions with low turbidity and high evaporation that already have elevated salinity.

Somewhere with coral reefs would pretty much meet those requirements.

Assume it could be nuclear power station...

And you guessed my next suggestion ;-)

[Margaret]

The American Press reporting on Dave's journey.

http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4952

[Philip]

In addition to the idea of a carbon levy replacing the Climate Change Levy, DC should surely tackle the impact of transport. This means the electrification and development of the railways to provide an environmentally better choice than roads and air for domestic travel. Perhaps only policies such as these will convince many voters he is serious on the environment.

[Rick]

The fact remains that if people took basic measures to reduce, reuse and recycle then the average household would reduce the ammount it sent to the tip by about three quarters.

Really ? Why not the supermarkets ?

I recall when toothpaste was sold in tubes without boxes (as in Germany nowadays); when screws and nails were weighed out and not packed in plastic sachets; when fruit was not shrink wrapped; when electronic components were not inplastic sachets; when batteries were not blister-packed; when plastic bags were not available and paper was used instead.

I don't recall demanding any of this....it came with the supermarket which is why German Law makes it an obligation on the retailer to recycle the wrapping. At a German checkout you can tear off all the plastic and give it to the cashier - it is her problem.

This Government just won't get its friends at Tesco to do the deed and take care of wrapping materials.

[henry Whitmarsh]

Well, arguably it's the consumers fault for being a dumbass. After all, you can't blame the supermarkets for taking a liberty when they've already seen how it's possible to sell people bottled water, bagged salad, pre-sliced boiled eggs ect ect ect. It is a sad state of affairs when the Government/EU has to issue directives in support of common sense.

[Rick]

It is a sad state of affairs when the Government/EU has to issue directives in support of common sense.

How droll...............Institutional Stupidity is a feature of most enterprises and supermakets are no different. In fact retailing specialises in over-paying the most mediocre managers to operate some of the worst merchanised operations around with huge volumes of waste and lack of stock simultaneously.

The Supermarket is institutionally wasteful from the 70 tonnes of books pulped by Asda each week at a facility in Essex, to the skips of expired food products outside supermarkets and the plethora of plastic bags.

It should be a simple rule that if it is shrink wrapped it attracts VAT @17.5% and then we can start levying VAT on food as in other parts of Europe.