快猫短视频

Sheep don鈥檛 like it either (Image: John Harris/reportdigital.co.uk)

IF IT fails to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, the UK could be taken to court.

The government was warned earlier this year that the country was not on track to meet its climate goals. But instead of intensifying its efforts, it has blocked a series of green measures, veering even further off course.

The announcements have disappointed groups from climate change campaigners to . The news is already damaging investment in sustainable technologies. 鈥淚t鈥檚 very severe,鈥� says Jeremy Leggett, director of solar energy company SolarCentury. 鈥淭he magnitude of the cuts is unexpected even in our worst case analyses.鈥�

The UK鈥檚 鈥溾�� on environmental policies has not gone unnoticed internationally. There are fears that it could undermine efforts to get countries to commit to big emissions cuts at the UN鈥檚 December summit in Paris.

Lawyered up

So what happens next? The government is expected to say that the policies it reversed were flawed, and claim that it has an alternative strategy. This relaunch is expected before December, to stop Prime Minister David Cameron losing face when world leaders meet in Paris, says Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace UK. 鈥淏ut whether it is a meaningful attempt or PR we still have to find out.鈥�

The UK鈥檚 own climate targets have been enshrined in law with the 2008 Climate Act, which requires it to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. If the government fails to get back on course to meet these targets, it can be taken to court. ClientEarth, a group of activist lawyers, has already successfully sued the UK government over its failure to reduce air pollution, and has told 快猫短视频 that it is considering such action on the climate targets.

鈥淏y turning climate change targets into law, the UK made a promise to meet them. But already we are starting to see the strength of that commitment tested,鈥� says head of ClientEarth James Thornton. 鈥淭his law is not for show 鈥� it is a law like any other, which has real consequences for those who don鈥檛 follow it.鈥�

Prime ministers from Tony Blair onwards have claimed that . And on paper at least, they can point to apparently impressive progress. The UK鈥檚 emissions are now 36 per cent below 1990 levels, if the provisional estimate of an 8 per cent fall in 2014 is correct.

But little of this fall is due to a switch to renewable energy. In fact, earlier this year the EU warned that the UK is not on track to meet its target of getting 15 per cent of its energy from renewables by 2020. That鈥檚 despite being set a lower target than most: the EU-wide target is 20 per cent.

What鈥檚 more, the single is not wind or solar, but biomass. Much of this energy comes from coal plants converted to burn wood pellets. Critics argue that this does not reduce emissions nearly as much as claimed and could even be increasing them.

Instead, the fall is due to a switch from coal to gas, a decline in heavy industries and 鈥渆xporting鈥� emissions to other countries (see graph). Nor does the 36 per cent figure include emissions from aeroplanes, which have .

The fall in emissions is a fragile achievement, says , chief executive of the Climate Change Committee 鈥� the independent organisation set up to monitor progress on the Climate Act. The big drop in 2014, for instance, was largely to do with a warm winter and less coal being burned, as well as a rise in the price of coal. There鈥檚 nothing to stop energy companies burning more coal if it becomes cheaper.

On 30 June, the Climate Change Committee that a range of policies intended to boost renewable energy and increase energy efficiency were due to expire in the next few years. It said this would lead to the UK missing its targets for emissions for the 2023 to 2027 period. The committee made several recommendations, such as extending some subsidy schemes to 2025 to encourage investment, implementing plans requiring new homes to be 鈥渮ero carbon鈥� and maintaining support for electric cars.

The government has not only disregarded the committee鈥檚 recommendations, it has done the opposite in several cases. Instead of extending subsidy schemes for solar and onshore wind, for example, it plans to cut them.

Why? Parts of the Conservative party have long opposed wind farms. And some environmental policies are funded by , which the government wants to remove. But the government seems to have cut policies it doesn鈥檛 like without any thought of the impact on businesses, investment and its credibility 鈥� and without any understanding of its legal obligations.

鈥淭he government seems to have cut policies without any understanding of its legal obligations鈥�

鈥淥ne can only conclude that they have been listening too much to powerful lobbyists,鈥� says Leggett. The Climate Change Committee is concerned enough that it took the unusual step of .

鈥淭he committee is aware that the cumulative impact of these announcements has drawn into question the speed at which the UK is going to progress to meeting its climate obligations,鈥� says Bell. 鈥淎ction is needed and fairly soon.鈥�

So with the government cutting support for onshore wind 鈥� the cheapest renewable energy source 鈥� as well as solar and biomass, what鈥檚 the alternative? One possibility is more nuclear power. But the costs of the one new reactor already planned at Hinkley Point are soaring. Not a single reactor of this design has yet been completed 鈥� and we can鈥檛 spare the time it would take to build more.

Then there鈥檚 fracking. But few believe the claim that fracking can 鈥渂ridge the gap鈥� to renewables. It may not be commercially viable, either. The US fracking boom is turning to bust because of lower gas prices. A concluded that this process in the UK should not be subsidised and would have to be combined with carbon capture and storage 鈥� which would make it even more expensive. It could also be a bigger vote-loser for the Conservatives than onshore wind.

Massive U-turn

So it鈥檚 far from clear how the UK can get back on track to meet its targets. 鈥淭hey are going to have to do a massive U-turn during this parliament,鈥� Leggett argues.

Failing to get back on track would leave us in unknown territory, says Bell. The UK may not start breaching its target until the 2020s, but Karla Hill, a member of the ClientEarth team, says the terms of the Climate Act mean legal action could be taken before this point. 鈥淚n our view, the government could face legal action sooner rather than later,鈥� she says.

In theory, the UK could repeal the act but no one 快猫短视频 spoke to thought this was likely. For one thing, it would still have legally binding obligations to increase renewables and cut emissions as a member of the EU.

Other developed countries have far worse records than the UK. Japan鈥檚 emissions have been rising, for instance, while Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol altogether. So it would be wrong to describe the UK as a climate villain. But it is now very far from being the leader it claims to be.

This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淯ngreen and not-so-pleasant land鈥�