|
This is a long cycle of correspondence with civil servants pressing
them to use Simultaneous Policy in controlling global warming
by Contraction and Convergence. It is rather boring and develops
slowly: you may wish to go to the bottom to see the latest state
of play, because things are picking up a bit in June 2006.
As you see, both the Foreign Office and DEFRA are involved. They
assure me they are closely co-ordinating their roles.
You can help enormously by picking up the points in the last
letter, and sending them to your MP at the House of Commons, London
SW1A OAA, asking her/him to put these points to the responsible
Minister. This will bring forward the time that Government begins
to take practical and realistic action to stoe Climate Change.
16.02.05
Mr Bill Rammell, MP
Parliament Under-Secretary of State,
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Dear Mr. Rammell
Contraction and Convergence with Simultaneous Policy
I have read the transcript of your evidence to the House of Commons
Environmental Audit Committee on Climate Change and Contraction
and Convergence. In it you state the difficulty of agreeing on
this kind of international action: "I think the other more
substantive difficulty is that to actually get a target and a
cap regime itself agreed internationally, we know from our experience
from Kyoto, is extraordinarily difficult. To set our stall out
for that at this stage when not only has the United States set
its face against it, not only has Australia done that but the
G77 as well has done that, in those circumstances to emphatically
say that is the way forward at this stage I do not think would
help us achieve the kind of consensus that we need."
If we accept for the moment that the reactions to Contraction
and Convergence are as you say (which is questionable), I would
like to point out a way forward on this supremely important question.
The UK can give a pledge in principle to support C&C, and
when a sufficient number of other states had done the same, that
group of states can move together to implement their pledges.
This way of working is called Simultaneous Policy (SimPol) and
is set out in detail on http://www.simpol.org/dossiers/dossier-UK/html-UK/interface-UK.html
. You will see there that although it is a very new initiative,
it has already gained support from MPs and MEPs of all parties
in the UK, and from politicians in several countries.
Now that the Kyoto Agreement is in place, it is important to
start moving forwards, towards taking steps that will lead to
effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, as the Prime
Minister is repeatedly stressing in the media.
I am sure that he will welcome this innovative means of achieving
his stated aims without compromising Britain's competitiveness.
I would be very grateful if you would consider this proposal
and let me know your thoughts.
Yours sincerely
Richard Lawson
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
Climate Change Impacts
Climate Change & Energy Group
09 March 2005
Dear Dr Lawson,
Thank you for your letter of 16 February to Mr Rammell, and for
drawing our attention to the Simultaneous Policy initiative, following
the Minister's recent evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee.
I have been asked to reply.
As the Prime Minister has made clear, climate change is one of
two priorities for the UK's Presidency of the G8, and also a priority
for our EU Presidency in the second half of this year. Throughout
our Presidencies, our prime objective is to raise the profile
of climate change as a matter deserving the urgent attention of
Heads of State in the 08 and outside it, so as to promote an international
consensus on the need for further action to control emissions.
You asked about the government's views on "Contraction and
Convergence". As you say, this is one of the proposals for
future international action on climate change that has attracted
support and interest. A number of other models for future frameworks
to reduce emissions have also been proposed, for example the "multi-stage
approach", the "global triptych" approach, energy
intensity targets, and co-ordinated policies and measures. In
addition, there are differing views internationally on how far
future international frameworks should address the effects as
well as the causes of climate change.
The UK is committed to finding a workable and equitable framework
for longer-term action to tackle climate change effectively. The
architecture needs to be realistic (relevant to countries with
different national circumstances), robust (capable of being adjusted
if necessary in the light of experience and ever improving scientific
knowledge) and durable.
For any such framework to be effective, it will be necessary
for it to achieve wide global acceptance. Inter-governmental negotiations
on action to follow up the Kyoto Protocol after 2012 have not
yet begun. At the recent round of UN climate change talks in Buenos
Aires in 2004, the UK worked hard with EU partners and other countries
to secure agreement for a "Seminar of Governmental Experts"
to meet in May this year. This will be the first opportunity for
countries to exchange views in the UN framework on action to follow
up Kyoto after 2012.
At this early stage of the international debate, we need to be
flexible and open-minded about any international framework to
make deep cuts in emissions in a cost-effective way. We therefore
believe that it is important that all suggestions for future frameworks
are considered and that nothing is ruled out yet, irrespective
of the relative advantages and disadvantages of the options on
the table at present. We shall therefore continue to consider
the "Contraction and Convergence" approach along with
other proposals, as we and the EU develop positions for future
climate change negotiations.
I am copying this letter to Mr Rammell's Office.
Yours sincerely,
Alan Richmond
cc: APS/Mr Rammell
13.3.05
Mr Bill Rammell, MP
Parliament Under-Secretary of State,
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
cc Alan Richmond
Climate and Energy Group
Dear Mr. Rammell
Contraction and Convergence with Simultaneous Policy
Many thanks for asking Mr. Richmond to reply to my letter of
February 16. I am grateful for his review of the present state
of play, and am encouraged to read that Government continues to
consider the Contraction and Convergence (C&C) approach. I
was especially glad to note that C&C fits neatly into the
criteria given, since it is realistic, robust and durable. It
is particularly robust, being flexible with regard to the degree
of CO2 reduction and the degree of convergence required.
The burden of my letter was to show that the UK can give a pledge
in principle to support C&C, setting an example for other
states to make the same pledge. This will be especially effective
while the PM holds the EU and G8 presidencies, and I am confident
that the PM will welcome a briefing on this initiative as being
fully in keeping with the leadership that he is rightly giving
to the overwhelmingly important topic of climate change.
The advantage of this "Simultaneous Policy" approach
is that the fear of losing competitiveness disappears. The number
and make-up of pledging states can be defined in advance, and
the pledge can be laid down with minimum effort while other options
are discussed. When a sufficient number of other states had done
the same, that group of states can move together to implement
their pledges. This way of working is called Simultaneous Policy
(SimPol) and is set out in detail on http://www.simpol.org/ .
I would be very grateful if you would let me know whether you
will present a briefing on the Simultaneous Policy to the PM.
Yours sincerely
Richard Lawson
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
Climate Change Impacts
Climate Change & Energy Group
19 April 2005
Dear Dr Lawson,
Thank you for your letter of 13 March to Mr Rammell about using
the 'Simultaneous Policy' approach to give a pledge on the contraction
and convergence proposals on climate change. I have been asked
to reply.
We will continue to consider all proposals and options on their
merits to find a workable and equitable framework for longer-term
action to tackle climate change effectively. We are also working
in a variety of different fora to create momentum and to look
at new ways of engaging the global community in the climate change
debate.
For example, the UK recently held an Energy and Environment Ministerial
Roundtable, attended by ministers from 20 countries, including
all G8 countries, China, India, South Africa and Brazil, and representatives
from international organisations, business and nongovernmental
organisations. Participants welcomed the opportunity to consider
the key practical approaches to climate change and energy policy
in an informal and innovative forum and contributed positively
to the discussions which identified areas of common interest around
the issues of the accessibility and affordability of modem energy
systems, security of energy supply and the need for local and
global environmental protection. The discussions also identified
a range of priorities for further working, both in terms of methodology
and in relation to specific issues such as energy efficiency.
The wide and committed participation of all concerned enabled
the Roundtable to provide a real opportunity to build trust and
to look for ways in which the international community might continue
to work together in future.
Given the wide range of policy options and ideas, and the differing
views internationally on how far future international frameworks
should address the effects as well as the causes of climate change,
it remains our view it would not be helpful at this stage to limit
our options and pledge support for one idea over another.
There are no plans to present a separate briefing on a 'Simultaneous
Policy' approach to future climate change actions, however, please
be assured that your views will be forwarded to 10 Downing Street
for the attention of the Prime Minister.
I am copying this letter to Mr Rammell's Office.
Yours sincerely,
Alan Richmond
29.04.05
Alan Richmond
F&C O
Climate Change & Energy Group
Dear Mr. Richmond
It seems that I have not had a reply from you to my letter of
29 April. [this was my mistake - RL] You may recall that
we were discussing measures to combat global warming.
In response to your previous letter, fully appreciate the delicacy
of the task of getting ministers from 20 countries to agree on
the kind of policies required by climate change. On the other
hand, I am sure that we both appreciate the capacity for these
fora to lose their way, and drift aimlessly. The Prime Minister
has declared his intention to lead in this matter, and I am sure
that, once he grasps the opportunities offered by both C&C
and Simultaneous Policy (SP), he will be more than grateful to
you for having brought these tools to hand.
The beauty of SP is that it can exist alongside the conventional
process of obtaining international agreement. All it takes is
for leaders to make their pledge that they will back C&C once
a given number of other states do likewise. The pledges can stand
as tokens of intent. Their existence, hopefully in growing numbers,
will not interfere with any other aspect of the debate and discussion,
but rather, will act as a focus for the discussion, alongside
yet gently influencing the process. It is not, in short, a case
of holding either informal exploratory talks or putting down an
SP pledge for C&C, but a case of both putting down a Simultaneous
Policy Pledge and holding exploratory talks.
Of course, I may be ignorant of some technical factor which requires
that it is indeed a case of either/or. If this is the case, I
would be most grateful if you would enlighten me. If this is not
the case, I hope that you will be able to let me know that you
will be introducing Simultaneous Policy as a component of your
activities.
Many thanks for your attention to this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Lawson
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
Climate Change & Energy Group
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
King Charles Street
LONDON SW1A 2AH
27 June 2005
Dr Richard Lawson
The Old School House
Station Road
Congresbury, North Somerset
BS49 5DX
Dear Dr Lawson,
Thank you for your letter of 29 April 2005 to Alan Richmond about
using a 'Simultaneous Policy' approach to give a pledge on the
contraction and convergence proposals on climate change. I have
been asked to reply. I apologise for the delay in replying to
your letter.
Given the differing international views on how far future international
frameworks should address the effects as well as the causes of
climate change, it remains our view that it would not be helpful
at this stage to limit our options and pledge support for one
idea over another.
We are continuing to consider all proposals and options on their
merits to find a workable and fair framework for long-terrn action
to effectively tackle climate change. We are also working in a
variety of different fora to create momentum and to look at new
ways of engaging the global community in the climate change debate.
Please be assured that Contraction and Convergence and Simultaneous
Policy will remain within those deliberations.
Yours Sincerely
Tom Franey
Climate Change & Energy Group
28th September 2005
Tom Franey,
Climate Change & Energy Group,
FCO, King Charles St
LONDON SW1A 2AH
cc John Penrose MP
Thank you for your letter of 27 June 2005. I have an embarrassing
confession to make. On sorting my papers, I found that I had indeed
received the letter at the end of June, but had misfiled it. I
apologise for an unintended slur on your efficiency.
I understand that there are widely differing international views
on how far future international frameworks should address the
effects and causes of climate change. However, it is the mainstream
view of nations that adhere to scientific rationality that climate
change is a process that is beginning to happen now, and that
we must address its causes and effects with great urgency.
Given that there is divergence, there is a need for leadership,
albeit leadership that is sensitive to diverse positions so that
it manages to keep the group together. In the context of climate
change negotiations, it must surely be the case that Contraction
and Convergence is the leading solution, in the sense of being
the most robust and equitable, yet most flexible. It is ahead
of Kyoto, in the sense that it offers the more radical solution.
It is a leading concept that it is progressively gaining acceptance
in a wide variety of decision making committees.
I am glad to note that you did not dispute the point that I put
forward in my letter of June 21st, that it would be possible to
put down a Simultaneous Policy Pledge for radical action at the
same time as holding exploratory talks in the normal way. The
SP pledge would lay down a target that would serve as a focus
for the talks. As the talks progressed, other countries would
doubtless add their names and weight to the pledge, thus strengthening
the seriousness of the subject matter. For this reason, it remains
the case in my view that it would be helpful at this stage to
pledge support for the most radical and best developed plan available.
All this assumes that the FCO does indeed hold to the view that
international agreements to limit emissions of greenhouse forcing
gases is an overriding priority for this Government. I would be
grateful for reassurance on this point.
I am pleased to note that you are working in a variety of different
fora to create momentum and to look at new ways of engaging the
global community in the climate change debate. Does the term global
community include civil society.
Many thanks for your time in responding to these points, and
again, please accept my apologies.
Yours sincerely
Richard Lawson
Tom Franey,
Climate Change & Energy Group,
FCO, King Charles St
LONDON SW1A 2AH
cc John Penrose MP
16.12.05
I do not appear to have received a response to my letter of 28th
September, and as my postal vigilance has improved since my previous
error, I presume that either the post office has failed to deliver,
or that our correspondence has understandably been swamped by
events in Montreal.
The key question from my last letter is to know whether international
targeted agreements to limit emissions of greenhouse forcing gases
is an still an overriding priority for this Government? I would
be grateful for reassurance on this point.
I would like to focus our discussion of Contraction and Convergence
and Simultaneous Policy (SP) onto this question: If, in future
negotiations on Climate Change, other parties to the negotiations
should lay down SP pledges to the effect that they would adopt
scientifically based targets along the lines of C&C, at what
level would the UK Government be prepared to join in? Would we
join if a quarter, or a half, or three quarters of the parties
around the table had made the commitment? Or are there no circumstances
under which HMG would give a pledge to adopt Contraction and Convergence,
even if all other parties would be prepared to do so?
Many thanks for your time in responding to these two questions.
With best wishes for a relaxing and pleasant Christmas to you
and the entire Climate Change & Energy team,
Richard Lawson
Department for Environment
Food and Rural Affairs
Katrina McLeay
3/88 Ashdown House
123 Victoria Street
London
SW1E 6DE
17 February 2006
Dear Mr Lawson
Thank you for your letter to Tom Franey at the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office, concerning future action on climate change and referring
specifically to the Contraction and Convergence Framework. This
letter has been passed to the Climate Change team at Department
for Environment Food and Rural Affairs for reply.
The recent agreement at Montreal illustrates the significant
impact that the UK's leadership on climate change has on the rest
of the world. The eleventh Conference of the Parties to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate change (COPI 1) and the first
Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOPI) took place
from 28 November to 9 December. Margaret Beckett, UK Secretary
of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, led the European
Union delegation.
The discussions on action beyond 2012 will be taken forward on
two tracks:
o Developed country Kyoto parties (Annex I Parties) will consider
further targets beyond 2012; and
o All countries under the UN Framework Convention onClimate Change
(including all Kyoto parties, both Annex I and non-Annex I Parties
such as China and India, plus rron-parttesr]nctuding the uS and
Aus~alia) iiave agreed to begin talks on the longer-term future.
These discussions will enable us to further consider the most
effective way in which the UNFCCC objectives can be met through
global participation.
The decision of the COP/MOP on art 3.9 (the Kyoto Protocol track)
initiated a process to consider further commitments for parties
included in Annex I for the period beyond 2012. The process will
be taken forward in an open-ended ad hoc working group. Parties
agreed that the group would aim to complete its work and have
its results adopted by the COP/MOP in time to ensure there is
not gap between the first and second commitments periods, which
represents a significant and time-limited process for determining
future commitments. The EU is committed to this process and is
currently preparing its
Submission on how to take it forward, to be presented to the UNFCCC
Secretariat in March.
Parties are also invited to send in a submission for the Convention
Dialogue (by 15 April 2006) which should focus on their 'initial
views the issues to be discussed in this dialogue and to enable
the secretariat to provide the necessary support for the dialogue.'
The Decision also highlights that the purpose of the Dialogue
is' to exchange experiences and analyse strategic approaches for
long-term co-operative action to address climate change.
These agreements represent a hugely significant step in the global
effort to tackle climate change but despite this unprecedented
progress the international debate on what that the framework post
2012 should be is still at a comparatively early stage. It is
important, therefore, to note that the negotiations under the
Climate Change Convention, including those on future commitments,
will follow an evolutionary process. It is to be expected that
Parties will look at the principles that should guide the discussions
and that we will negotiate the key elements I building blocks
of a post-2012 regime.
At this stage, therefore, it is important that we remain flexible
in looking at the options, that all existing suggestions for future
frameworks, including the contraction and convergence framework,
remain on the table, and that full consideration is given both
to the possible frameworks themselves and to the elements within
them that could be used to form part of a workable solution.
In considering any future regime, the UK Government's long-term
view is that the architecture of a future framework needs to be:
i. Realistic (relevant to countries with different national circumstances);
ii. Robust (capable of being adjusted in the light of experience),
and;
iii. Durable (will not become irrelevant after a few years)
But for any such framework to be effective, it would be necessary
for it to achieve a wide global acceptance and to deliver results
in terms of significant emissions reductions. The Government is
committed to finding a solution to the issue of climate change
that meets these criteria.
Katrina McLeay
Global Atmosphere Division
Katrina McLeay
Global Atmosphere Division
DEFRA
2.4.06
Dear Ms McLeay
Simultaneous Policy for Contraction and Convergence
Thank you for your letter of 17th February. I apologise for the
delay in replying. It is helpful to have a concise account of
the framework for international action that you have set out.
I note that the Kyoto Protocol track will consider post-2012 targets
in an open-ended working group. This would be an ideal opportunity
to deploy the Simultaneous Policy approach to C&C. You will
recall from my correspondence with the FCO that under Simultaneous
Policy the UK would "nail its colours to the mast" by
declaring itself ready to adopt a Contraction and Convergence
policy, which would be implemented when a specified number of
other parties make the same pledge.
Since it is clear from my correspondence with the FCO that HMG
would fight shy of initiating this policy, I would now like to
explore the degree of resistance that you would offer to this
approach. If another party deployed the Simultaneous Policy tactic
to bring about Contraction & Convergence, at what stage would
HMG join in with its own pledge? Would it come in with the first
third, the second third, the last third, or would HMG not participate
in C&C in any circumstances whatsoever?
Many thanks for applying yourself to this question.
Yours sincerely
Richard Lawson
Katrina McLeay
31B8 Ashdown House
123 Victoria Street
London
SWIE 6DE
Date 22 June 2006
I'm sorry for the lengthy delay in replying to your letter on
simultaneous policy and appreciate your patience in bearing with
first the cabinet reshuffle and then our attendance at the meeting
of the subsidiary body meetings in Bonn. I understand you have
already had some discussion with one of my colleagues on the points
in your letter and related issues.
As I think you discussed in the course of that conversation,
the current state of the international debate on future action
on climate change is such that it is not yet at a stage that would
allow any substantive discussion of any specific framework. In
Montreal, we were able for the first time to agree that there
needed to be a discussion, not just on the future commitments
to be taken on by developed countries, but on the implementation
of the Convention as a whole. Getting widespread agreement to
start this sort of a process was difficult and the decision represented
a significant step forward in negotiations that had, up to that
point, lost momentum. At the meeting in Bonn, the Parties held
the first session of this Convention Dialogue.
The discussion in this first session was constructive and some
new ideas were forthcoming from some key players, most notably
South Africa. All parties participated constructively, including
some, such as the African countries, whose voices are seldom heard
in the debate. It was clear from the discussion that there were
plenty of ideas on the table, but that there is still some way
to go in building the level of consensus within the international
community that would be required to agree on a framework for the
way forward. Given this international situation, it would be premature
for the UK government to commit itself to any particular framework
at this stage. We are, however, giving full consideration both
to the possible frameworks themselves and also to the elements
within them that could be used to form part of a workable solution.
The UK would consider global acceptability to be an essential
feature of any future regime and so it is unlikely that we would
be willing to sign up to any framework on a unilateral or even
partially multilateral basis, such as that which you suggest in
relation to simultaneous policy
We will continue to discuss these issues with our partners; for
example, at present we are also discussing the Brazilian Historical
Responsibility Proposal and the use of Sustainable Development
Policies and Measures in the framework of the climate change convention
and we think that further discussions of the advantages and disadvantages
of various frameworks, including Contraction and Convergence,
under the auspices of the Convention would make a useful contribution
to the debate.
Please do not hesitate to call or write again if you would like
to discuss anything further.
Katrina McLeay
Global Atmosphere Division
Katrina McLeay
Global Atmosphere Division
DEFRA
3/B8 Ashdown House
123 Victoria St
London
SW1E 6DE
27.6.06
Simultaneous Policy for Contraction and Convergence
Thank you for your letter of 22nd June. I do appreciate the hard
work that you and your colleagues are doing to try to get an agreement.
It must be very exciting and satisfying at times to feel that
you are taking part in forming an agreement, or a series of agreements,
that will be remembered as a turning point in history.
You explain that the discussions are at a very early stage, that
it is too soon to be putting forward specific plans. I can well
understand the need to try to find common features of all proffered
plans, ready to form around something that may emerge with the
widest support. That is of course very wise and sensible, but
at the same time, in chemistry, crystallization occurs more easily
in a saturated solution if there is a tiny particle to start the
process off.
I have trouble with the proposition that "The UK would consider
global acceptability to be an essential feature of any future
regime, and so it is unlikely that we would be willing to sign
up to any framework on a unilateral or even partially multilateral
basis…". If you dismiss partially multilateral an option,
this can be taken to mean that there must be 100% acceptance -
in effect 192 out of the 192 UN states. Surely you cannot mean
that. It is a recipe for failure, since 100% agreement in the
UN General Assembly never happens. We must accept that some will
never agree, and these hangers-back cannot be allowed to hold
the rest of the world back from what is such an important and
necessary agreement.Would 90% acceptance be "partially multilateral?"
100% acceptance is not going to happen. It is unlikely that we
would even get 95% acceptance among the OECD countries, or any
other grouping of the larger economies or nations. Clearly, people
are going to move at different speeds. Inevitably, some nations
will have to give a lead, and others will mover forward at a slower
pace. Someone is going to have to give some leadership in this
matter.
Leadership has two aspects - practical and conceptual. The UK
is actually lagging behind our European partners in many fields
of environmental practice, (although I am sure that you will be
able to point out some leads). So the UK is not in a good position
to give conceptual leadership. It is therefore more likely that
conceptual leadership will appear from non-UK countries. So my
question still stands: if, say a group of EU countries began to
pledge that they would go for some form of C&C when a certain
level of allies had signed up also, at what stage would the UK
sign up? Would we really be the very last, as implied by the rejection
of multilateralism? Or would we sign up at the 90% level? Or at
what level of agreement?
I stress that this simultaneous policy approach can occur at the
same time as the negotiation process that you describe.
Yours sincerely
Richard Lawson
Katrina McLeay
3/B8 Ashdown House
123 Victoria Street
London
SWIE 6DE
Website www.defra.gov.uk
21.7.2006
Department for Environment
Food and Rural Affairs
Dear Mr Lawson
Thank you for your letter of 27th June relating to the issue
of simultaneous policy, in response to mine of 22nd June.
Officials continue to be guided by the views of Cabinet and are
working on looking into the different aspects of each policy and
the various options that may exist within them. Clearly this is
an evolutionary process and we will need to re-evaluate as we
go along. For the present, I think that there is little that I
can add further to the position that I outlined in my last letter
except to thank you for your views, which are helpful in stimulating
our thoughts on these issues.
Katrina McLeay
Global Atmosphere Division
Continued here
|
