Sir David, could you please tell us a bit about yourself?
How long have you got? [Laughter]
I was professor of Physical Chemistry at Cambridge University and became chief scientific adviser to the government in 2000, advising both the Blair and Brown governments. I then set up the School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University and returned to government a year and a half ago in my present position as the Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative for Climate Change.
Tell us about your work on climate change policy.
I persuaded Tony Blair that climate change should top the agenda and Britain committed to reducing emissions by 80% compared with 1990 by 2050.
Why 80%? Because by 2050 we need to be at 18 billion tonnes of emissions per annum to stay within the limit of a 2 degree centigrade temperature rise. We’re expecting nine billion people, so you divide 18 by 9 and you get 2 tonnes per person per annum. Our emissions were 10 tonnes per person at the time.
This was built into an act of parliament in 2008. The Climate Change Act was supported by all political parties – we’ve had more consensus on this issue than we’ve had in the past hundred years in our parliament, it was really amazing. A future government wanting to overthrow it needs a two-thirds majority.
You’ve called 2015 a seminal year for the planet. What did you mean by that?
I think this is as important as 1945 was for the planet. It’s as important because this is an existential threat to our civilisation.
Are we nearing a tipping point with climate change?
A very detailed study by a group of US scientists, who are conservative on this issue, concluded that if we reach 450 to 500 parts per million (ppm) of green houses gasses in the atmosphere, Greenland’s ice will begin to melt irreversibly until it’s gone. Today we’re just approaching 400ppm.
Never mind the rest of the ice in the Himalayas and the Antarctic. If you just melt all the ice in Greenland, sea levels will rise by six metres. Most of our big cities would be under water.
So 2015 is crucial because of the COP 21 meeting coming up in Paris?
It is important because we had another meeting in Copenhagen and we didn’t manage to reach an agreement – we didn’t get 197 signatures. I don’t believe we’re going to get another shot at it. I think Paris in December 2015 has got to work because if it fails, the backlash against failure will be tremendous.
You have been sceptical of multilateralism. Is the UK’s take on this issue unique?
Paris is important: Creating an umbrella agreement is important.
But consider that the Green Climate Fund currently has about $10 billion. Britain’s own International Climate Fund has $7 billion – all from just one country.
Our aid budget, at 0.7 of GDP or $18 billion per year, is the biggest in the world and DFID programmes include climate resilience and adaptation measures. Beyond the Green Climate Fund there is a much bigger pot of money already being spent on climate issues which is being administered bilaterally.
Would you say the joint statement by the US and China last year proves your point on the efficacy of bilateralism?
That joint statement was made in the context of the Paris meeting – the two countries are saying to the world, including to the United Kingdom, that they will not block an agreement as they did in Copenhagen.
Remember, President Obama had arrived in Copenhagen without the ability to sign an agreement because his Congress had blocked him. And the Chinese said if the Americans don’t sign, they won’t sign. The statement publicises their nationally determined contributions.
So you’re just hoping for countries to announce their nationally determined contributions in Paris, whatever they may be?
Yes, so you’ve pinpointed the weakness. We have, since Copenhagen, turned Kyoto upside down. Kyoto was set up to determine limits to OECD country emissions – exactly the sort of agreement the US president cannot sign without having it ratified by Congress. Recognising this has changed the approach.
But how do you get countries to make meaningful commitments?
Bilaterally. This trip to Bangladesh, for example, is my 50th official visit on the job.
When I announced our commitments to the Brazilian government, their Environment Minister Marina Silva said: “The Brits are boasting that they will cut emissions by 80% by 2050. We in Brazil will stop all deforestation by 2025!” She managed to cut Brazilian deforestation by 80%, bringing Brazil’s emissions down from 16 to seven tonnes per person. Friendly bilateral cajoling and assistance is effective.
And incentives help, too. How does the UK’s International Climate Fund get allocated?
A joint committee reviews submissions from our embassies around the world; we have 80 dedicated climate attaches. 20% of the fund is for avoided deforestation. Of the remaining 80%, half is for mitigation and half for adaptation.
How much goes to Bangladesh?
Bangladesh is one of our biggest partner nations together with Ethiopia and Afghanistan, and receives around GBP100 million bilaterally on climate. More comes via multilateral funding.
It’s been said that proclamations from the pulpit urging voluntary limits is the Anglo-Saxon way of doing things. Is this enough?
No, I don’t think it’s enough. We need long-term goals which is why I was so keen to establish where Britain was going to be in 2050. We can’t just keep behaving as though the planet has infinite resources – sorry I am getting back on the pulpit. [Laughter]
How does one deal with free-loaders?
There will be free-loaders. I think we have to ride with free-loaders. The rest of us won’t just throw up our hands and quit, but nor can we send gunboats to deal with recalcitrant nations. This was true of Kyoto, too.
What happens if countries – say China or the United States – make promises now that they renege on later?
It is interesting you use China as an example: My belief is that whatever China promises, it will deliver.
Between the Bush and Obama administrations there has been a sea-change in the position on climate change. If President Obama commits to action and a Republican president then comes in, your question may be totally apposite. By that time, we will have an international agreement in Paris but the binding nature of that agreement is, as you are pointing out, relatively weak. But we can only work with them, we cannot issue commands.
How do you respond to economic arguments against adopting green practices?
Co-benefits have driven many changes. In China, reducing air pollution is a major co-benefit of decreasing the use of coal, but it also saves on coal imports from Australia. Cost is a major co-benefit. The EU’s feed-in tariffs to encourage photo-voltaic cell use has created a solar photo-voltaic market. The cost of installation has come down by a factor of a hundred from $70 per watt 15 years ago to $0.6 per watt today. Europe took the pain, but the world now benefits.
You have gone on record supporting nuclear power; do you think it is a good idea for Bangladesh?
I have been called a nuclear salesman. [Laughter] For Bangladesh, the siting of the plant is crucial. It is not the preferred thing – I would always prefer renewables. But I am an advocate of de-carbonisation.
Britain, for example, does not have the advantage of sunshine that you have here. Nuclear is part of the mix. But we are also the biggest off-shore wind energy installers in the world.