It's an interesting thought, Paul - but, as I said on your blog, although it might possibly be a useful argument for those trying to have the Act repealed, I don’t think it undermines it. For that to be true, the Act would have to state that its target is based on the IPCC report – it doesn't. It could, very theoretically, be useful as the Secretary of State’s power to amend the target (under section 2 of the Act) is exercisable if “significant developments in … international … policy make it appropriate to do so …” Arguably this might be regarded as such a development. But the SoS is not obliged to make an amendment; and in any case I don’t see Ed Davey being very interested.

This is further to my post above. In March 2009, the DECC published a document entitled "Climate Change Act 2008 Impact Assessment (March 2009)". I don't think it has any direct legal significance. But I do think it might (or should) inform political debate about the CCA (if there is such a debate) - and especially in relation to events over the next 20 months.

The next 20 months are critical because that's when I believe it will become finally clear that there is not going to be a binding worldwide deal to make substantial (if any) reductions in GHG emissions. The events to watch carefully will be Ban Ki-moon's Climate Summit for world leaders in September of this year, the subsequent UNFCCC climate conference in Lima (COP20) in December and of course the all important "make or break" UNFCCC conference (COP21) a year later in Paris - also the various working group meetings etc. between these dates.

How does this relate to that DECC document? I'll answer that by reference to some extracts which, I believe, speak for themselves. Bear in mind this document is about why the CCA exists.

1. From "Summary: Intervention & Options":

1. To avoid dangerous climate change in an economically sound way. In particular by:

• Demonstrating the UK's leadership in tackling climate change - to increase the chances of a binding international emissions reduction agreement that would stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases at a level that would avoid dangerous climate change; [My emphases]

2. From "Summary of Costs and Benefits of the Climate Change Act" S2:

The benefits of UK action will be distributed across the globe. In the case where the UK acts in concert with other countries then the UK will benefit from other nations reduced emissions and would be expected to experience a large net benefit. Where the UK acts alone, though there would be a net benefit for the world as a whole the UK would bear all the cost of the action and would not experience any benefit from reciprocal reductions elsewhere. The economic case for the UK continuing to act alone where global action cannot be achieved would be weak. [My emphasis]

3. From "Evidence Base - 2. Illustrative Costs and Benefits of reducing UK emissions - Pathways to transition 2.4.9":

The criteria include requirements that the level of the budgets must be consistent with the long term target and the overall objectives of the Climate Change Act – ensuring the UK is making a full contribution to global action on climate change mitigation. [My emphasis]

4. As above (Evidence Base - 2) "Benefits when the UK acts but the world does not":

The benefits of UK action would be significantly lower at £425billion and this benefit would be distributed across the all nations while the UK would carry all of the cost of action. ... The long-term target under such a scenario would show a small net benefit for the world as a whole, but would show a very large net cost for the UK – close to all of the costs of the UK's action. This highlights the central importance of co- operative and co-ordinated international action on climate change. [Emphasis in original text]

Paul: I've also posted the above on your blog. At present it's awaiting moderation.

Richard: I'm unsure that the absence of the target of itself destroys the foundations of the CCA. But the text of WGIII contains some phrasing that underlines the unlikelihood (arguably the certainty) that a global deal is impossible. And, for the reasons illustrated above, no global deal would appear to destroy any logical reason for retaining the Act.

Clues to that view are found in the SPM. This is from SPM.2 (Approaches to climate change mitigation):

Limiting the effects of climate change is necessary to achieve sustainable development and equity, including poverty eradication. At the same time, some mitigation efforts could undermine action on the right to promote sustainable development, and on the achievement of poverty eradication and equity. Consequently, a comprehensive assessment of climate policies involves going beyond a focus on mitigation and adaptation policies alone to examine development pathways more broadly, along with their determinants. [my emphases]

All this may sound like waffle. But, for the climate change negotiation anorak, it's highly significant: since the UNFCCC Rio Conference in 1992, "sustainability" reflects the agreed principle that developing countries, unlike developed countries, have the right to grow their economies without the constraints imposed on developed countries. Moreover "equity" refers to the developed world's obligation to compensate the developing world for the alleged damage caused by its past emissions. Thus the above wording provides a peg on which developing economies (now responsible for about 70% of global emissions) can hang their insistence that they cannot accept any binding obligation to reduce emissions.

The full WGIII Report even has a chapter (Ch 4) entitled "Sustainable Development and Equity" where the above thinking is developed further - referring for example to "a dimension ... of central importance to international negotiations". It also has references to "common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities" - more UNFCCC-speak for the above principles.

This arcane stuff is highly political. What it's doing in a scientific report beats me.

Richard: no, the "sustainable development" concept doesn't bother me - it simply means that those responsible for 70% of emissions are not about to agree to reduce them. Which means that, despite Obama's rhetoric, the US won't either. Add Russia, Canada and Japan and only the EU is left. It may wave its arms around, but even the EU is surely going to succumb eventually? The challenge is to get our "leaders" to recognise all this and to review that foolish, pointless and damaging Act. But there's no sign of that happening now. That's why I believe we have to watch the next 20 months' developments and keep trying to draw attention to what's really going on. It's a truly important fight and it's far from over. And yet, most unfortunately, too many good people are wasting time, imagination and effort with matters such as the Lew papers.

As for "equity", I'm not all that worried: the West hasn't got any money left - and anyway the compensation argument is rather silly for all sorts of reasons. So in practice we cannot/won't do anything much, false guilt or not.

Like you, I've been a fan of Paul Collier's message for some time. And, as I think we've discussed before, I'm also a fan of Dambisa Moyo's Dead Aid.

And my best wishes for the weekend to you Sir!

The current Economist has an article that's highly critical of WG III. Some of the issues it raises:

1. The IPCC claims to be “policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral”, yet this report “ignores that fine distinction”.

2. It has removed from the SPM removes a table showing the link between GHG emissions and national income.

3. It puts “enormous weight” on carbon capture and storage (CCS) – “But CCS remains unproven at a large scale”.

4. Its claim that “the world could keep carbon concentrations to the requisite level by actions that would reduce annual economic growth by a mere 0.06 percentage points in 2100” … “looks preposterous”.

5. The assumptions used to calculate long-term costs are “completely made up … estimates of the costs and benefits of climate change in 2100 are next to useless”.

Overall, it comments that the report

… bodes ill for talks on a new climate-change treaty, planned to take place in Paris next year.

Important stuff. Yet almost all the comments ignore this key message and carry on with the usual bickering about the science. I despair. As I do about the fact that this thread attracts far less interest than would another story about Lew.

I hope you're right Richard.

Having reread the interview with Oliver Geden, I'd like to add a small (but arguably significant) footnote to my post at 10:52 PM on Apr 16. I drew attention then to the SoS's power under s.2 of the Act to amend the (80%) target if “significant developments in … European ... policy [my emphasis - and extract slightly amended] make it appropriate to do so …” Although, as I said, the SoS is not obliged to make such an amendment, the pressure on him might be considerable if, as Geden suggests might happen because of pressure from the Visegrád Group, the EU is unable to announce a firm target for 2030 in October - or were to announce a much weaker target. That would be especially so if, as seems likely, the Ban Ki-moon leaders' summit in September had turned out to be largely hot air.

Thanks, Martin - perfect.

For me (a self-confessed climate change policy anorak) this is a subject of endless interest. For example, Geden says that the Eastern European countries (the Visegrád Group - see above) are now labelled (by it seems the IPCC) as "economies in transition" (EITs). Not having heard of EITs, I googled "ipcc economies in transition EIT" and found this: LINK.

As can be seen, it's section 7.5 of the WG III report. It refers to the "Special Problems" re "Mitigation Strategies" of Developing Countries and EITs. As I said re SPM.2 (7:03 PM yesterday), it looks like a load of waffle. And it is. But, once again, it's yet more verbiage that, like "sustainable development" endorses developing countries' insistence that they cannot accept binding obligations to reduce emissions. As for EITs, it provides more headaches for the EU in its attempts to determine common emission reduction targets.

(BTW - as I said before - what all this stuff is doing in a scientific report beats me: in my view, there's nothing here that can remotely be described as science.)

The bottom line: here's more evidence, if more were needed, that all those ambitions for next year's conference in Paris are doomed.