Trident and climate change - demand for answers before 28th Feb from DECC

Dear Lacy, 

Thank you for your email response. However, you have not answered the questions that I asked.

To be clear, I asked what proposals DECC would put forward to the Durban Platform on the 28^th February that would increase the level of co-operation on climate change needed to avoid runaway climate change. Other than the EU-ETS, you have provided none. As you are aware the EU-ETS is not a beacon of co-operation on climate change. The Chinese, American and Indian government's are all working together to overturn it and the carbon trading scheme under which it operates has been proved to be a mechanism for fraud and obfuscation.

The lack of vision your department is showing is highly disturbing.

You quote “Research by GLOBE International has found that every major economy has now enacted climate or energy related legislation.” However I can find no reference to this on their web site. You have also not provided evidence on the effectiveness of their proposed legislation in reducing the totally of CO2 emissions. I would therefore appreciate a copy of GLOBE International research that you refer to.

In contrast to GLOBE International, the International Energy Agency have a much more pessimistic view of our future. They predict that current policies are locking us into global warming in excess of 6 deg C as we continue building carbon dependent infrastructure.

The events in this country over the recent weeks supports the IEA vision of the future. Our government wants to pursue a major additional hub airport in the Thames, has authorised a high speed rail requiring locomotives with 12 times the power consumption of those used in the past and supports a range of other high carbon industries.

In your response to me to, you asked that I refer the question of Trident to the Ministry of defence. However, as it is the job of your department to speak to others with regard to carbon budgets, then can you confirm the following to me:

• What discussions has your department had with the Department of Defence about incorporating the carbon budget of building, operating, maintaining, defending and disposing Trident within the UK carbon budget and Climate Change act?
• What discussions has your department had with the Exchequer about quantifying the carbon produced from the section of society that must keep consuming and producing to raise taxes to fund Trident and how this will be incorporated into the Climate Change Act?
• What discussion has your department had with the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Business about accommodating the carbon for the arms and weapons systems we manufacture for other nations into our carbon budgets? As you should be are aware, we are providing Saudi Arabia with arms such as the Typoon jet. This is despite Saudi's record of impeding climate change negotiations and the majority of the suicide bombers flying planes into the Twin Towers coming from Saudi Arabia.
  
• If you have not yet instigated  these discussions, can you confirm that they will immediately commence and that conclusions will be made public before the 28th Feb.

Trident and climate change - have DECC asked about Trident's carbon budget

Dear Mr Lister,

Thank you for your email to my colleague Hadiza Kasimu, in response to her correspondence to you (reference TO2011/23141) about nuclear disarmament and climate change agreements.

I appreciate your concerns at the Durban outcomes but must emphasise that while Durban may not immediately place the world on the path to limiting climate change to our two degrees objective, it does make this path possible in a way it was not before. Durban acknowledged the gap between countries; existing mitigation pledges and the global 2 degree goal. It also agreed to a work programme to look at options for addressing this gap, with a view to increasing global ambition.

Aviation is an area where we are committed to press ahead despite the lack of international action and where the EU is standing firm. But a lot is already being done in Europe to lead the way and re-energise the debate. In January 2012 the EU has successfully included in the EU emissions trading system all emissions from incoming and departing flights into the EU territory. We are determined to make this work and the UK and EU are engaging with governments and industry around the world to make this happen.

Whilst we agree that there is still work to be done, it is not fair to say that countries will only start to reduce their emissions in 2020. Countries accounting for around 80% of global emissions have already pledged mitigation commitments or actions to 2020, and research by GLOBE International has found that every major economy has now enacted climate or energy related legislation. It is particularly encouraging that the large developing countries of Brazil, China, India, and South Africa – who together are likely to represent the engine of future global economic growth – are developing comprehensive laws to tackle climate change.

I note your comments on Trident and nuclear strategy. However, I can only reiterate the points made by my colleague Hadiza Kasimu about the Government’s position on this issue. That is, the Government believes that we need to take action to safeguard our national security at home and abroad. Clearly, the renewal of a nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile system is not a decision to be taken lightly. However, the Government’s view is that this is not the right time for the UK to give up its nuclear deterrent. In many respects, we face a more dangerous situation now than we have for several decades. There are substantial risks to our security from emerging nuclear weapons states and state sponsored terrorism.

So, while committed to the long-term goal of nuclear disarmament, we believe we can best protect ourselves against these threats by the continued operation of a minimum, credible nuclear deterrent.

Accordingly, this Government has committed to maintain the deterrent and to continue with the programme to renew it as debated and approved by Parliament in 2007. Whether or not you agree with it, Parliament has taken a conscious and well informed decision and we are not sliding towards Trident’s replacement.

We are not in a position to answer the specific questions you ask about nuclear strategy. We can only outline the Government’s position as above and anything more specific on strategy is a matter for the Ministry of Defense.

I hope you find this response helpful.

Yours sincerely,
Bill LacyPreview
DECC Correspondence Unit

Protesting the Olympics and Met Police Support

Dear Theresa May,

What a strange story on the news tonight. You are reported as doing all you can to stop protest at the Olympics, yet the assistant commissioner of the Met Police, Bob Broadbent speaks out in favour of protecting the right to protest.

The Olympics is about the politics of power. It always has been and it always will be. The London 2012 Olympics has as its sponsors powerful mega-companies such as Shell, BP, BA, BAA amongst others. These are the very companies who have done everything to delay agreements on climate change and will continue to do so. Their business plans rely on continuing environmental destruction despite overwhelming evidence on climate change.  They are deliberately and knowingly pursuing a scorched earth policy.

The last organisation that ran the Olympics and attempted to implement a scorched earth policy was the Nazi party. Today’s corporations use the Olympics to justify their hold on power in exactly the same way.  Fortunately for this generation, the Nazi’s were not successful. Unfortunately for the next generation, the companies using this event to legitimise their business plans are on track to be totally successful with their scorched earth policies. 

Bob Broadbent speaking out so publicly on the right to protest is hugely significant. So far, the mega-corporations have had protection from the monopoly of legitimate violence that nation states use to impose laws that are pro-growth and pro-environmental destruction. Perhaps Bob Broadbent recognises preservation of the status quo is not in his interest or in the interest of the men and women under his command. Once the people who implement the violence of the state become repulsed with the recognition their mission is to support its destructive corporations then we will get genuine action on climate change.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

Response to DECC - urgent proposals needed for Durban Platform

Dear Hadiza

Thank you for your email, reference TO2011/23141 in response to my letter linking the failure to achieve nuclear disarmament and the failure to agree climate change agreements.

Your letter confirms the worst fears.  We should prepare for the worst possible future of global heating, nuclear war and economic collapse. 

To address your points:

The Durban platform is flawed. It is premised on starting CO₂ reductions in 2020, we cannot wait this long. Atmospheric emissions are currently rising faster than the worst-case scenario of the IPCC report. Section 4 of the Durban platform suggests a review of the IPCC report is carried out over 2013-2015.  A two-year review is unnecessary and time wasting. Basic maths that is within the capabilities of a secondary school student shows the worst case scenario is already being significantly exceeded.

In 2010 the biggest ever atmospheric greenhouse gas increase of 6% was recorded.  If this trend continues annual emissions will have increased by 69% in 2020. We are not witnessing a mere increase in greenhouse gases. We are witnessing an explosion.

The situation is so severe that even cutting emissions to zero today would not guarantee that global heating can be kept below 2 deg C. By contrast, a downward reduction starting at 2020 following the exponential increase that we expect over the coming years makes planetary survival impossible.

In these circumstances it is absolutely incredible to hear that time continues to be wasted with debate on what to do with unused carbon credits from the first period.

It is hard to see how you can be so positive that the Durban Platform sends a signal to industry and business to invest in low carbon technology. There are no targets, other than to acknowledge that the existing targets will not keep the planet's temperature rise below the 2 deg C threshold and the leisurely timescale allows them 10 years of unfettered growth.

By contrast, restoration of economic growth remains the objective of all nations along with increasing greenhouse gas output. In the UK we are seeing proposals being put forward for an additional airport in the Thames, an energy consuming high-speed rail network and support for virtually every other high carbon industry. This country is no different from any other country in the world. There is absolutely no evidence of any substantive behavioural change since the Durban COP. Instead, there is increasing effort to preserve the business as usual scenario, despite it being manifestly more impossible and immoral to sustain. The current efforts by USA and China to overturn aviation's incorporation into the EU ETS further highlights how little the Durban COP has impacted actual behaviour.

This failure to see significant change in behaviour is in contrast to the opening sentence of the Durban Platform which acknowledges, “that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation.” However, the nation-state system that forms the basis of the COP compels nations to compete economically and militarily. Failure to achieve success in either sphere results in national collapse. The cooperation that is needed is therefore impossible in a competitive environment and it becomes impossible to transform to a zero carbon economy.

The epitome of this competition is the possession of nuclear weapon systems such as Trident. They require huge resources to build and huge economies to raise enough taxes.  The maximum cost estimate quoted in your response of £17billion for the platform and warhead is impossibly low. It takes no account of cost growth, which is likely to be high given the technological risks involved. It does not include operational costs, or the costs to defend Trident. Greenpeace’s well-prepared report suggested a more likely figure would be £100billion for the entire through life cost. Even their report does not include the cost for the eventual decommissioning of the submarine and disposal of the nuclear waste from both the reactors and the warheads.  Once the decision is made to pursue Trident, it becomes impossible to build a zero carbon economy, as consumption must be kept high to raise the taxes and a high carbon industry must be kept in place and operational to build it. Trident massively increases the stakes in a competitive environment.

What makes this expenditure totally inappropriate is that it is impossible to foresee any time when Trident could be used. Your letter correctly suggests, “We face a more dangerous situation now than we have for several decades. There are substantial risks to our security from emerging nuclear weapons states and state sponsored terrorism.”  If deterrence is credible we must be prepared to pre-emptively destroy cities such as Tehran in the event of a nuclear threat from Iran and before they strike our cities. It is hardly surprising they feel the need to build their own nuclear weapons. Likewise if a terrorist group such as Al Qaeda obtains nuclear weapons, which is not affiliated to a state, though gets state support such as from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, are we proposing to destroy Islamabad or Riyadh? It is better by far to focus on the dirty work of stopping nuclear weapons proliferation.

Given the strategic failure of Trident in the face of climate change, it is hugely disturbing that the initial gate document states a primary objective of the decision to proceed with a Trident replacement is that “We must retain the capability to design, build and support nuclear submarines and meet the commitment for a successor to the Vanguard Class submarines.”  This objective will be shared by our competing nations who also must continue to build nuclear submarines to keep their submarine building capability intact. This is the ultimate paradox; the thing that is meant to protect us has become our biggest threat. The nation states have become more concerned about the preservation of their arms industries than the security of their people. Both the UK security review of 2008 and the American Centre for Naval Assessment concluded that their biggest threat was climate change.

As a further disconnect from reality, the initial gate document states that the Trident replacement will “deliver our minimum credible nuclear deterrent out until the 2060s.” This is beyond 2050, when the planet is not expected to be habitable through global heating. If Trident is successful in preventing nuclear war, then the last survivors on the planet will be the crews of the Trident submarines and their equivalent submarines from other countries. If for no other reason, this is the strongest reason for not proceeding with replacement. There will be no intact economy able to safely decommission the submarines and these will pose too big a risk to the few survivors.

Section 8 of the Durban Platform states “Parties and observer organizations to submit by 28 February 2012 their views on options and ways for further increasing the level of ambition.”  As a party to this I would ask that by this date you raise the linkage between nuclear disarmament and action on climate change.

I would therefore ask that you submit the following proposals for submission by the above date:

1.       There is a global agreement to stop further building of strategic nuclear forces.

2.       The existing strategic forces are put under a multinational command and any country committed to greenhouse gas reductions can join this grouping and seek protection from it.  

3.       That an alternative economic system is introduced based on personal carbon rations and these are tradable within the countries committed to carbon reductions.

If you are not able to advance these ideas, then please advise what alternatives you propose that will allow the international co-operation needed to avoid disaster.

This correspondence will be made public on my blog http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

Response from DECC about the linkage between Trident and Climate Change

The following response has been received from the Department of Energy and Climate Change in response to my letter to Chris Huhne prior to the Durban Climate Conference. My letter argued that maintaining a nuclear arsenal makes it impossible to agree the greenhouse gas reductions we need for planetary survival.


---------------------------------------------------------

Department of Energy & Climate Change

3 Whitehall Place

London 

SW1A 2AW

www.decc.gov.uk

Our ref: TO2011/23141

     
9 January 2012

Dear Mr Lister, 

Thank you for your email dated 28 November to the Secretary of State, about climate change and Trident. I have been asked to reply and apologise for the delay in doing so.

The Coalition Government regards climate change to be one of the biggest challenges facing the world today. The United Nations climate conference in Durban took place from Monday 28 November to the very early hours of Sunday 11 December. The UK and EU had one overriding goal for Durban – to secure agreement to a roadmap which would lead to a new global legally binding agreement with emissions reduction commitments for all but the poorest and most vulnerable countries – and we were successful in getting this. This is referred to as the Durban Platform. Countries have committed to negotiating this new agreement no later than 2015 and that it should enter into force from 2020.

We also agreed that we would adopt a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol next year. Between now and the next conference in Qatar we will need to develop the detail of a second commitment period - including emissions reductions targets and how we will deal with surplus assigned amount units (carbon credits) from the first commitment period.

This is a major step forward in tackling climate change. But there is still work to be done. The emissions reduction pledges countries have put forward to date are not enough to meet the goal of limiting average global temperature increases to below 2°C. That is why in Durban we agreed a work plan to enhance mitigation ambition and explore options to close the gap to 2°C. This work will start immediately.

The Durban deal sends a very strong signal to industry and business that governments are serious about climate change – giving them the confidence to invest in low carbon. While Durban may not place the world on the path to limiting climate change to our two degrees objective, it does make this path possible in a way it was not before.  

The Government also believes we need to take action to safeguard our national security at home and abroad. Clearly, the renewal of a nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile system is not a decision to be taken lightly. However, the Government’s view is that this is not the right time for the UK to give up its nuclear deterrent. In many respects, we face a more dangerous situation now than we have for several decades. There are substantial risks to our security from emerging nuclear weapons states and state sponsored terrorism. 

So, while committed to the long-term goal of nuclear disarmament, we believe we can best protect ourselves against these threats by the continued operation of a minimum, credible nuclear deterrent. Accordingly, this Government has committed to maintain the deterrent and to continue with the programme to renew it as debated and approved by Parliament in 2007. Whether or not you agree with it, Parliament has taken a conscious and well informed decision and we are not sliding towards Trident’s replacement. 

We have carefully reviewed the replacement deterrent programme to ensure that it represents the absolute minimum capability that we require. We have concluded that we can reduce the maximum number of nuclear warheads onboard each submarine from 48 to 40 and reduce the number of operational missiles that the submarines carry to no more than eight (on 29 June 2011, we announced that the implementation of these reductions had already begun). We also concluded that it is possible to extend the lives of the existing submarines so that the first of the new submarines need not be delivered until around 2028. Main Gate, the point at which we will sign the main construction contracts and when we will decide how many submarines to build, will be in 2016. In all, the review has saved £1.2 billion and deferred spending of up to £2 billion over the next ten years from the submarine and nuclear programme. 

However, this does not mean that we need to take no action until 2016; indeed the Parliamentary vote in 2007 gave the Ministry of Defence a clear mandate to proceed with the programme and on the 18 May 2011 the Government announced the approval of the Deterrent Submarine Initial Gate. This is the point at which initial investment decisions in the programme are confirmed and where the broad design parameters are decided. A summary of these decisions was published in Parliament in May 2011. 

In this report, the Government also provided an update on the overall cost of the programme, confirming that we still expect to deliver the programme within the estimates made in the 2006 White Paper (i.e. £11-14Bn for the platform and £2-3Bn for each of the future warhead and infrastructure elements, all at 06/07 prices).

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Hadiza Kasimu

DECC Correspondence Unit