Transition Bedford

On the 15th of November i wrote a blog article about Patrick Hall’s (MP to Bedford and Kempston) decision to vote against the 10:10 bill. He kindly responded to the post and I promised to publish his response “in full” here below. In fact there’s two response letters. The first is his response to the blog post and the second is his response to my earlier request that he vote in favor of 10:10. He and i will always disagree over his decision but i have the upper most respect over his attention to mine (and i imagine other constituents)  questions and requests. Truth is we now need much much more than attention if we are going to get ourselves out of this hole. Bold leadership is imperative.

It’s also worth noting that this subject was discussed on TB google group were one of the TB Initiating Group members has put forward some really insightful comments that most certainly opened my eyes. I haven’t named the individual because i haven’t asked permission but you can read the discussion in full here.

My Ref PH/LJ

18 November 2009

Dear Mr Hughes

Thank you for your email sent 17 November 2009 regarding your recent blog post on the 10:10 campaign. After reading the content of your blog, I feel it necessary to formally respond as clearly my views have been misunderstood.

As we have communicated in the past regarding climate change and the 10:10 campaign, I will not reiterate my feelings on the importance of tackling climate change as clearly this is something we have in common.  I do not think it is fair, however, to doubt my dedication to this issue based on the arguments put forward in your blog.

In order to fully address your concerns, I will respond to the three questions posed in your blog.

1. Is Patrick Hall’s level of commitment really up to “one of the greatest challenges facing humanity”?

Absolutely.  I struggle to understand how my recent actions have made you doubt my commitment to tackling climate change, but let me assure you, I am and always have been dedicated to preserving and protecting the environment.  It may be cliché, but climate change is in fact one of the greatest challenges facing our world today and we all must accept the enormity of the task at hand.

My decision to vote for the Government amendment in the opposition day debate on 21 October 2009 fully embraced this philosophy.  If you read the Government’s amendment, you will see that it makes tackling climate change a priority for Parliament.

However, you over-simplify the debate by suggesting that it was a vote for or against the 10:10 campaign.  Nowhere in the Government’s amendment does it condemn the 10:10 campaign or discourage Government departments from signing up.  In fact, it does entirely the opposite.  Both the Government amendment and the Liberal Democrat motion endorse the 10:10 campaign, but the difference was that the Liberal Democrat motion wanted to commit the Government as a whole (whatever that means) to the campaign.  And as I stated previously, while I fully support the aims of the 10:10 campaign, I do not believe that committing the Government to the 10:10 campaign would be either cost-effective or long-term for the reasons set out in my previous letter.

Therefore, I firmly maintain that I have always voted in favour of tackling climate change, and disagree that my vote in the opposition day debate in any way contradicts this or undermines my commitment to tackling climate change.

2.  Was 10:10 a good and sound bill? Is there a better way? Was it understood by the MPs voting?

First of all, I must disagree with your suggestion that I do not understand the importance of the 10:10 campaign.  As stated in my previous letters, I fully support the aims of the 10:10 campaign.  I am also aware of the urgency of tackling climate change and completely agree that action needs to be taken now.  What you fail to mention though, is that action IS being taken now.  Simply because the Government has chosen the pragmatic course of action by using 5-year carbon budgets rather than yearly targets to structure its climate change policy does not suggest it is waiting until 2020 or 2050 to implement action.  If we are to meet these targets, even if they are five or ten or 20 years away, we need to take action now – and we are.

I also object to your suggestion that I do not believe these are achievable targets.  I have every confidence that the UK will meet its climate change targets.  The Government would not have proposed these targets if we did not think they were achievable, albeit challenging.  The target proposed by the 10:10 campaign is equally achievable, and as previously stated, the Government is on track to meet and exceed this target.  The Government amendment in no way contradicts this commitment to achieving these targets or suggests a lack of political will.

Finally, I believe it is because of most MPs’ understanding of the issue that the Government amendment was successful in the vote.  Again, the Government is committed to tackling climate change and achieving its targets, but as agreed under the Climate Change Act, the best method of achieving these targets is by implementing 5-year carbon budgets, and this is what was reflected by the vote.

3. Does our political system have the ability to deal with the level of change needed?

I believe our political system does have the ability to deal with the level of change needed.  I am confident that the policies, schemes, and initiatives the Government has already implemented and will continue to advocate for are the first step towards achieving these goals.  It is an ambitious strategy, but necessarily so.  The Government is tackling climate change from every angle – transport, business, fuel, homes, etc.  It is a comprehensive approach.

I do, however, agree with you that climate change cannot be tackled by political will alone – it requires the concerted efforts of every individual in the UK and the rest of the world.  The Government has therefore put in place a number of financial incentives for individuals and businesses to encourage everyone across the UK to do their part to reduce the UK’s carbon footprint.  The Government must lead by example, but it cannot accomplish this task alone and this is reflected in the Government’s climate change strategy.

Finally, I would ask that in the future if you choose to reference a letter I have written to you in the past that you display it in its entirety, rather than select phrases that disfigure the meaning of my intentions.  I agree with much of what you state in your blog, including the urgency of the situation and the need to reduce emissions immediately.  However, you have dismissed the crucial point made in my previous letter that rushing through policies to meet the 10:10 goal is short-sighted.  The Government is still on track to meet and exceed the 10:10 goal regardless of whether it formally commits to the campaign, but by basing its climate change policies on 5-year carbon budgets rather than yearly targets, we can better respond to and manage fluctuations.

Ultimately, not signing up to the 10:10 campaign does in no way indicate a lack of commitment on the part of the Government to tackle climate change.  Rather, it demonstrates the foresight that measures rushed through to meet the 10:10 goal would not be in the best interests of long-term reductions in emissions.  The 10:10 campaign is a fantastic way for individuals, businesses and even Government departments to reduce carbon emissions in the UK; it is not, however, a forum for formulating Government policy that needs to last beyond 2010.

I look forward to discussing this further on Friday.

Yours sincerely

PATRICK HALL

Member of Parliament for Bedford and Kempston

My Ref: PH/LJ/

23 October 2009

Dear Mr Hughes

Thank you for your email sent XXX October 2009 regarding the opposition day debate on climate change on 21 October.

I understand your concerns relating to climate change and share your commitment to tackling this issue.  Climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing our world today.  Both as a nation and as a member of the global community, the UK needs to do everything it can to create a greener, more sustainable future.

It is for this reason that I voted in favour of the Government’s amendment on climate change following the debate on 21 October.  I appreciate that this may be disappointing, but allow me to explain the nature of the debate and motions presented.

The Liberal Democrat motion and the Government’s amendment were both devised in the spirit of recognising the importance of tackling climate change.  The enclosed text of both the motion and amendment demonstrate consensus among both parties that climate change is a priority for this Parliament.   With this fact agreed, the debate centred on how best to tackle climate change, specifically, whether or not the Government should, as the Liberal Democrat motion stated, “sign up to the 10:10 campaign.”  While the 10:10 campaign is praiseworthy for its efforts to encourage all individuals to make lifestyle changes that will reduce carbon emissions, there are several reasons, however, that committing the Government to such a campaign would be unwise.

First and foremost, reducing emissions over the long term will take planning and efficient use of funds.  Thus, rushing through policies to meet 2010 targets might risk bad decisions being taken.

Cont’d

23 October 2009

In addition, under the Climate Change Act 2008, Parliament voted to empower the Climate Change Committee to recommend carbon budgets rather than yearly targets, as yearly changes in circumstances (such as a cold snap) could make it impossible to meet emission reduction targets one year.  Carbon budgets are based on 5-year periods with annual reviews and reports to Parliament.  Using a budget like this for a period of a few years will help manage fluctuations, and more realistically put emissions on a downward trend.

Furthermore, reducing emissions from buildings can be complex and involve a major building works.  It could not be done for the whole public sector over the course of just a year.

However, some Government departments could achieve such a target in a cost-effective and quick way, and this was recognised by Joan Ruddock MP, Minister of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, during the debate.  The Environment Agency, for example, has signed up to the target and aims to meet it through relatively simple measures such as mileage targets for all its vehicles and voltage regulators in its main offices.  The Government itself is on track to meet and exceed its carbon emissions target of 12.5% by 2010/11.

Therefore, while I fully support the aims of the 10:10 campaign, I do not believe that committing the Government to the campaign would be the most cost-effective or long-term course of action.  Instead, I believe the best method of domestically tackling climate change and meeting the UK’s emissions reduction goals is through the comprehensive strategy set out by the Government.

This begins with the Government reducing its own emissions.  As noted above, each government department has been set a departmental carbon budget for its own emissions.  The Government has also committed all departments to participate in the Carbon Reduction Commitment, a legally binding climate change and energy saving scheme in which organisations have to measure their carbon emissions and pledge reductions.  They can trade-selling surplus reductions to others, or buying credits if they produce too much carbon.  The scheme extends much further into the public sector as schools, hospitals, prisons and local authorities will also be included.

Furthermore, in line with the Liberal Democrat motion to make all homes warm in

Britain by 2020, 1.2 million homes received some form of insulation over the past year as part of the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target.  This programme is being upgraded to make 20% more money available for energy saving measures for homes.

The Government also recently launched the Community Energy Savings Programme which will help 90,000 homes in the poorest areas achieve a 20% cut in CO2 emissions and savings of around £300 in their fuel bills.

Cont’d

23 October 2009

However, domestic measures alone are not enough to effectively tackle climate change, and this requires international cooperation.  The UK played a key role in securing international agreement at Kyoto in 1997 and we are the first country in the world to meet our Kyoto targets to slash carbon emissions, and by almost twice the amount required.  With the expiration of Kyoto impending, the UK will once again assume a leading role in climate change negotiations this December.

The UN climate change conference to be held in Copenhagen, this December, will again be calling for an international agreement on areas such as the reduction of greenhouse emissions and commitment by the major developing countries as to how much they are willing to do to limit their emissions.  It is hoped that during this conference a signed deal will be reached on these matters.  Therefore, the level of commitment by political leaders on this issue is vital in securing the desired outcome.  It is for this reason that that the Prime Minister himself will be attending the conference in order to ensure that an agreement is reached.

Unlike other parties to the conference, the UK has published its specific priorities for the Copenhagen agreement prior to the conference.  You can read the publication entitled The Road to Copenhagen in its entirety at:  http://www.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/en/ambition/road-to-copenhagen/.  In short, the publication calls for firm, binding targets from developed countries; and significant action by developing countries, with appropriate support from developed countries, to reduce their emissions below “business as usual” levels.

Based on the Government’s domestic and international strategy to tackle climate change as laid out above, I am confident that it will deliver long-term sustained reductions in carbon emissions, not just in 2010, but to 2022 and beyond.

Yours sincerely

PATRICK HALL

Member of Parliament for Bedford and Kempston

Enc