We asked Professor Paul Hardaker, Chief Executive of the Royal Meteorological
Society, Peter Ainsworth, MP, Shadow Environment Secretary, Dr Chris Tuppen,
Head of Sustainable Development and Corporate Accountability at BT, Paul
Golby, Chief Executive of E.ON UK, Tom Delay, Chief Executive at the Carbon
Trust and Mark Henderson, The Times Science Editor, to give us their views
on whether science, politicians or businesses can save the environment. Who
do you think has the most power to improve the health of our planet? Read
the contributions and send in your own views using the form at the end of
the article.
Paul Hardaker: Of course we need both scientists and politicians to
help protect the environment, but it goes much deeper than that. I believe
our environment faces some serious challenges from the changing climate and
the sustainable use of global resources. Whether you agree with me or not,
without the science to deliver both the evidence and the understanding, with
all its uncertainties, of the implications for mitigation and adaptation we
stand little chance of coming to well founded conclusions that are useful to
either policy-makers or the environment. Importantly, the science must be
impartial and without policy bias. It is for the elected policy-makers to
use the scientific information to inform political dialogue between
governments and with the electorate. My experience of the interface between
science and politics is that it is a difficult one. It is not enough simply
to present the evidence and expect politicians to grasp what are often
difficult scientific issues. The scientists have to work together with
politicians and policy-makers to help them through what the science is
telling us, so that policies can be based on sound scientific evidence.
Scientists need not be afraid of the political process as long as they
understand their role within it.
That is all well and good, but there is also a final, critical part to the
jigsaw - and that is all of us as citizens. In the end it is our actions
that will protect our environment. We would all hope that the scientists
will work hard to push the boundaries of their work and communicate that to
us in an understandable and informative way, and that the politicians will
be bold enough to intervene with policy instruments where they feel it is
necessary to do so; but it is ultimately about us all taking responsibility
for our environment and the impact we individually and collectively have on
it, guided of course by both the scientific and political process. It is the
priorities of people that will, in the end, make a difference.
Peter Ainsworth: Without scientists, we have no hope of cutting carbon
emissions. Climate scientists can tell us - with reasonable accuracy - what
we are doing to the environment, and by how much we will need to cut
emissions in order to mitigate climate change. Current science is now
suggesting a need to cut carbon emissions in the developed world by 80 per
cent by 2050 if dangerous climate change is to be avoided. Politicians have
a duty to take the best available scientific advice. If 2,500 climatologists
tell you with "a 90 per cent degree of accuracy" that man is
irrevocably harming the climate, that advice cannot be ignored.
For at least 15 years, the scientific consensus has been that man-made
emissions are leading to climate change. It is a shame that politicians are
only just catching up with the news.The scientific community can also help
by getting out of the lab and taking their knowledge into the media and into
politics. Margaret Thatcher was a formidable force when it came to
campaigning against CFC emissions precisely because she was a trained
chemist. Unfortunately, most politicians and journalists are not
scientifically trained - a fact that often shows when you catch some of the
sceptics in debate. Whilst it is the industrial application of science over
the past 200 years that has got us into the mess we're in today, it is
science that offers the best hope of getting us out of it. We turn to
scientists in the search for the new technologies needed to cut emissions.
The holy grails are the infamous "hydrogen economy" and clean coal
(as the majority of future emissions will probably be down to burning coal
in developing countries).
In reality, of course, politicians have no idea of the best future
technologies to slash emissions, which is why funding streams should be as
broad as possible to allow as much innovation as possible. Government money
will never be enough to create the sort of technologies we need. Private and
commercial funding is, and will remain,crucial. However, private investors
will not come forward unless they know any low carbon design will actually
be useful – to paraphrase Lord Oxborough, investors want to know that
politicians and the public won’t just get bored of climate change in the
next five years. That is why a political commitment to tackling emissions is
essential, and which is why we are supporting a robust Climate Change Bill
to place a legal burden on every Government until 2050 to produce annual
emission cuts. This will send the clear signal the business community needs
to channel money into low carbon technology.
Finally, the good news is that many of the technologies we need to cut
emissions already exist – they just need scaling up. Government can set
standards, can promote carrot and sticks and can use some of the £125
billion of public procurement money spent each year to get these
technologies onto a fully commercial footing. Politicians have got to take
the best available scientific advice, make it easy for the private sector to
put money into low carbon technologies, and easy for the public to adopt
them. Science and technology have many, but not all of, the answers.
Political will is an essential ingredient and, despite the airy rhetoric, we
have seen far too little of that from the present Government.
Chris Tuppen: The answer, for me, is simultaneously no-one and
everyone. No one sector of society is responsible for climate change, and no
one sector of society can save our planet. Businesses have to remain
competitive to survive and, from the corner shop to the largest of
multinationals, they must aim to be increasingly profitable. Politicians can
influence through national legislation and taxation regimes, but their
authority is declining as the international market place becomes ever more
powerful - not forgetting of course that politicians are always mindful of
the next election when considering long-term action. And scientists provide
the evidence for action but don’t hold the levers of delivery. Of course
citizens / consumers also play an equally crucial part. Their influence
through their voting and purchasing behaviour delivers the mandate for
action by politicians and businesses. It's only together, with everyone
sharing the common goal, that we can tackle climate change. This means
gradually but significantly changing the whole way in which we live, work,
play, learn, do business and invest.
If that's the case, what should the role of business be? At present, and until
real external environmental and social costs are integrated into the prices
of products and services, no company, no matter how well intentioned, can
operate in a completely sustainable way and survive commercially. But that's
not an excuse to sit back and do nothing. Businesses must accept the need
for change. They need to understand not only the social and environmental
consequences of their direct operations, but also those arising from their
supply lines and products. And they need to contribute to the educational
campaigns that are needed - whether run by the green movement or Government
- to change people's understanding of the role they play in climate change.
The good news is that the dialogue has begun and a common understanding is
beginning to evolve. The challenge, as always, is to put the rhetoric into
action. And the big question: can we all work together to do it in time?
Paul Golby: Anyone reading the International Energy Agency’s prediction
that China’s carbon emissions will overtake the United States before 2010
may be left wondering why they should bother trying to tackle climate
change. The reality is that the pressure on politicians to negotiate a new
international agreement for significant reductions in greenhouse gases grows
ever more urgent. Within Europe it is encouraging to see the recent
agreement by Heads of Governments for a unilateral reduction in greenhouse
gases – international agreement will only be achieved by this kind of
leadership. It demonstrates commitment to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
and gives confidence for businesses like mine that they are serious in
tackling climate change. We do however, at EU and national level, need to
see policies which convert aspirational targets into real ‘on the ground’ action
plans – they otherwise remain merely aspirations.
Let’s be clear, over the next few decades we will have to deliver a radical
transformation in how we supply and use energy. As Co-Chair of the Energy
Research Partnership, I have no doubt that research and development will
change the way we approach energy and make better use of emerging
technologies such as tidal and marine generation. To be successful, the
early commercial deployment of any new technology will need to be done at a
scale which is equivalent to hundreds of megawatts.
Yet having the technology available is sometimes not enough because businesses
like mine are left to struggle with the current consenting process. Too
often projects are not seen in the context of the overwhelming national
need. A closer alignment of energy and planning policies is vital if we are
to see the UK develop a diverse and sustainable energy mix. I believe that
it is within our grasp to move forward with tackling climate change.
Politicians have to deliver the framework for businesses like mine to
operate in, for scientists and engineers to develop new lower carbon
solutions, for businesses to develop lower carbon products and services that
customers want to buy and ultimately for all of us to create this demand and
to take a serious look at how we live our lives.
