If, as according to superstition, wood provides reassurance when touched, then the Climate Change Act 2008 performs the same consoling function when it comes to Brexit and UK climate policy. “We won’t be serious about tackling climate change without the guiding hand of the EU”, people may fret, only to contemplate the solid legal fact of the Act and find their fears subsiding. And yes it’s true that the Act, regardless of EU membership status, commits the country to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. But however ambitious this seems, the reassurance offered looks less and less solid the longer and harder you look.

For a start, although the 2050 goal seems to lock Britain in long-term, in the global context of achieving net zero emissions some time before 2100, it leaves fifty years unaccounted for. As Charlotte Burns of the University of York points out, one justification for the stringent carbon budgets in the Act was that the UK would be required to meet them anyway under EU law. Out of the EU, and outside its obligations, it follows that carbon legislation for post-2050 may not be so tough. Then there’s the possibility we don’t adhere to the Act in the period to 2050. Even within the EU there are concerns about whether we will meet our carbon budgets. Out of the EU this lack of commitment could transform into something much worse: a watering down of the Act or even, as UKIPand some Tories advocate, repeal.

It’s worth remembering too that the UK’s climate change mitigation efforts aren’t just determined by our own Act: renewables targets are set by European directive. Under theRenewables Directive, 15% of all energy consumed in the UK must come from renewable sources by 2020 – and another policy commits the the EU as awhole to meeting 27% of final energy consumption through renewables by 2030. Although support for renewables is implicit in the Climate Change Act, EU legislation makes it explicit and clearly signposts the direction of travel for the industry. Without it, Britain’s green industry would have only the mixed messages of the UK government, investor confidence would be further undermined and a question mark placed and over its future.

The position of renewables could also suffer because of Brexit’s implications for energy security. Decreased interconnectivity of supply, reduced harmonisation of energy markets and less investment in the UK by multinational companies could all be consequences of leaving according to a House of Commons briefing paper. The resulting increase in energy insecurity would “increase focus on all aspects of UK generation” it is thought. In other words it may become more important to generate enough electricity by whatever means – including via gas and coal – than to meet renewables goals.

Brexit also means participation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme would no longer be compulsory. The 1,000 or so UK installations which currently take part could in theory continue to do so under a new voluntary agreement, but it is equally possible they will simply exploit a new freedom to emit once outside the cap and trade scheme.

Beyond all this, of course, is the fact that global warming is (no surprises here) a global problem. It’s important for the UK, as the 15^th largest emitter, to cut emissions, but we also need other countries to do the same. In the past Britain has challenged the EU to up the emission-cuts ante, pushing back the horizon of ambition. Outside the EU there is little chance of this or indeed of exerting any influence on the rest of the continent’s mitigation policy. Yes the UNFCCC offers a framework for the UK to influence global climate goals, but given the number of competing voices and the power of some of the players, it is unlikely a lone actor would wield much, if any, influence.

Step aside from mitigation and you run into yet more problems. EU funding to tackle natural disasters caused by climate change? Not if you’re outside the union. Funding for climate research? Not as muchaccording to Julia Sligo of the Met Office, who said Brexit would diminish the quality of their climate models and their climate advice.

Taking the above together, it’s difficult not to conclude that leaving reduces the likelihood of the UK making its rightful contribution to the cuts needed to avoid dangerous warming. It also lessens our ability to study and adapt to climate change – and if, as seems unlikely at the moment, the UK wants to push others to cut deeper, leaving the EU diminishes our ability to do so.

Still, forget all that if you like and look on the bright side. Leave or stay, there’s always the Climate Change Act to fall back on. That’s not going anywhere. (Touch wood.)

 

Full references for hard copy sources:

Burns, C. (2013) The Implications for UK Environmental Policy of a Vote to Exit the EU. Friends of The Earth.

Miller, V. (2016) Exiting the EU: impact in key UK policy areas. Briefing Paper Number 07213, House of Commons Library.

[Source: http://www.voxeurop.eu/en/content/news-brief/4931129-brexit-would-put-europe-stake]

The front page of The Economist this week (February 27^th-March 4^th2016) proclaims “Brexit: Bad for Britain, Europe and the West”. Turn tothe Leader on page 9 and it is argued that not only would Brexit be damaging to the UK’s economy and security, it would also have wider European and global ramifications that “go beyond economics”.  Whilst examples of these wider impacts are given, the article makes no reference to Brexit and climate change.  There is, however, considerable debate, elsewhere.

Carbon Brief is a UK-based website currently tracking the opinions of key players in energy and climate change, in addition to other influential views that reference these topics in relation to the 23^rd June vote. As of 27^th February 2016, the tracker had twenty entries; four ‘leavers’ and sixteen arguing that Britain should stay in the EU.  Whilst the quotes from leavers focus on the perceived damage to the UK from EU energy policies, if challenged with regard to action on climate change, they may perhaps choose to focus on the fact that (in theory) the Climate Change Act 2008 commits the UK to reducing greenhouse gas emissions irrespective of EU membership status.

However, the ‘remainers’ are more vocal on this, with some interesting examples of cross-party consensus.  For example, Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP, is quoted as saying “Of course it is the treatment of catastrophic climate change which hangs over everything else we’re doing to protect our environment….If we join forces with other countries, strengthening the EU-wide rules on carbon emissions that are already in place, then we have a chance of keeping future generations safe”.  Ed Miliband, MP and former leader of The Labour Party argues that “We are two per cent of global emissions, the EU is 20 per cent of global emissions. Let us not fall for the myth that somehow we will be more influential and more powerful outside the European Union”.

Whilst the arguments of those campaigning to stay in the EU are compelling, there is an interesting twist when considering the potential implications of Brexit for the continued unity of the UK.  Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s First Minister, has warned recently that a vote to leave the EU against Scotland’s wishes would “almost certainly” trigger another Independence referendum.  Writing in The Guardian, Martin Kettle is right to point out that even if Britain leaves the EU, there are many hurdles facing any renewed bid for Scottish Independence.  These include the fact that it is only the UK parliament that has the power to call a second referendum and whether or not it would be possible to retain the pound and not commit to the euro and the strict borrowing limits that go with eurozone membership.  However, it is interesting to consider what Brexit, and a successful subsequent campaign for Scottish Independence, might mean for climate change policy and action in Scotland.

Scotland has failed, so far, to meet its annual climate change targets.  Whilst the aspirational nature of the targets can still be applauded and progress reporting has been affected by changes in baseline data reporting, measures introduced by the Conservative government, since election in May 2015, including the ending of subsidies for onshore wind, are arguably exacerbating the challenge of achieving an annual target, which would hopefully provide an encouraging and motivating success story.

The Scottish Government has a target to deliver the equivalent of at least 100% of gross electricity consumption from renewables by 2020, with a significant expansion in onshore wind arguably an easy and early win in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland.  Representing the Scottish renewable energy industry, Scottish Renewables undertook an analysis in 2015 and concluded that Scotland will fall short of its 2020 target by 13 percent, unless new price guarantee contracts are awarded to onshore and offshore wind projects.  Speaking only last month, Nicola Sturgeon described the UK government’s cuts to renewable energy subsidies as “an absolute, total disgrace”.

In the short term, and subject to funding (a significant challenge even prior to the recent drop in oil revenues), Independence would enable the Scottish Government to override these decisions and to provide a greater level of support to renewable energy projects in Scotland.  However, looking longer term, beyond Scotland, and at the more challenging aspects of climate change mitigation, including the significant need for technological innovation, we are arguably ‘better together’ (Scotland in the UK and the UK in the EU).  To quote Julia Slingo, the Met Office’s Chief Scientist “The more we can be integrated in how we view what our science needs and our policy needs and our understanding of the risks that we face from climate change, the better our response will be”.

Key Information Sources

The real danger of Brexithttp://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21693584-leaving-eu-would-hurt-britainand-would-also-deal-terrible-blow-west-real-danger

http://www.carbonbrief.org/eu-referendum-opinion-tracker-energy-and-climate-change

The Climate Change Act 2008http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents

Oral Statement by Amber Rudd, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on ending subsidies for onshore wind, 22 June 2015https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statement-on-ending-subsidies-for-onshore-wind

2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland – Update 2015, Scottish Government http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00485407.pdf

The Scottish Greenhouse Gas Emissions Annual Target 2013, Scottish Government, 2015 http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00487828.pdf

Update on Scotland’s 2020 Renewable Electricity Target, Scottish Renewables, November 2015https://www.scottishrenewables.com/media/filer_public/97/53/9753d54b-72ac-4867-a474-347c636b94b0/sr_briefing_-_update_on_scotlands_2020_renewables_targets.pdf

Promoting Technological Innovation to Address Climate Change, OECD,http://www.oecd.org/env/cc/49076220.pdf