A pretence of action

Pre-legislative scrutiny will shortly begin on the draft Climate Change Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to make the government’s commitment to five-yearly carbon budgets legally binding, with targets of a 26-32 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020 and 60 per cent by 2050, measured against 1990 emissions. ‘A world first’, according to the government.

There is, however, a significant problem with this. In practice, the Secretary of State cannot be held legally accountable for emissions that are not his own, and over which he has little power. Government policy has been to rely substantially on the market to deliver emission reductions through a system designed and run at EU level.

The legal requirement to deliver on emissions is highly unlikely to be the subject of any effective enforcement action by the courts. It is difficult to imagine any court granting an order to Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth that requires the Secretary of State to meet his obligations under the legislation.

The provisions of the Bill are so general that effective enforcement would require UK courts to determine the details of administrative action. What would a court order the Secretary of State to do? Insist that he reduce air travel by 20 per cent within six months? Cut use of coal in power stations by 80 per cent? This is not the role of courts in the UK, and neither politicians nor the courts wish it to become so. The only rationale for this Bill is to make its contents legally binding. In the absence of a genuinely effective legal mechanism, why have the Bill at all?

The government is also seeking to bind future parliaments to a set of targets determined by the present government. This is virtually unprecedented outside of international treaties. Indeed, a future government may find itself in the ridiculous situation of having a weakened position in international or EU negotiations as a result of having already committed to these reductions.

The government is insisting that future generations fulfil their obligations whilst refusing to fulfil its own obligations to them; what is needed, after all, are cuts now, rather than later. Rather than wasting parliament’s time, the government could be employing the considerable powers it already has to reduce emissions. These are unlikely to fall by six per cent, let alone 60 per cent, over the next 43 years unless government does so.

The problem is that politicians simply don’t trust themselves. They have so little faith in their ability to use the tools they do have: taxation, public expenditure, public sector practice, regulation and investment in R&D. In the face of what all three main parties accept and proclaim to be the greatest threat to human kind, government’s action has been to abdicate its responsibility to others. Now the government wants to make itself ‘legally responsible’.

Parliamentarians will recognise that this is nothing short of nonsense. What is needed from government is a set of policies that will reduce emissions in the UK, and do so quickly. That is ‘the world first’ that we should be aiming for. An honest and open dialogue with the UK’s electorate, underpinned by effective action will also help restore confidence in politics and politicians. Leadership is about making tough decisions — true — but it is also about making honest ones.

The Climate Change Bill, ultimately, is a farce. Making the Secretary of State legally responsible is in truth an illusion; these matters are inherently non-justiciable. Given that the aim of the Bill is to make emission reductions legally binding, the Bill is pointless if it cannot be enforced. It brings nothing of value to addressing climate change, merely clouding the debate with pretence, grandstanding and the illusion of action. We do not have time for procrastination. Scrap the Bill. Action, not legislation, is required. That is what taking responsibility means.