All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group Is a Cross-Party ...

electorate would have no choice, and that compromise would inevitably lead to the adoption
of ‘lowest-common-denominator’ policies. A number of contributors felt that meaningful
agreement would be impossible, and should not be attempted. For a few of such submissions,
the need to focus effort on tackling poverty and inequality received a higher priority than
mitigating climate change, and there were also – rare - expressions of the view that climate
change is either not a problem or can’t be stopped anyway.
34. To conclude, there was very broad agreement across the majority of submissions that a
cross-party consensus on climate change would be desirable, that this should be
grounded in the scientific evidence, and that the existing emissions targets provide
important existing points of consensus. For some, the most recent scientific assessments
make imperative the achievement of a consensus on even tougher emissions reduction
targets than those already agreed to by the parties.
35. Regarding the latter point, we note that the existing political consensus on a target 60%
cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (UKCCP 2006 and Annex 1) may need to be
revisited, in the direction of a cross-party commitment to even tougher action, when the
4 th assessment report from the IPPC is published in 2007. We also note the need for an
effective post-Kyoto international framework agreement that includes concentrationsbased
targets for stabilising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
36. Given the almost overwhelming support for the principle of a cross-party consensus in
the submissions, we recommend that the Government seek ways to take this forward in
a constructive and practical manner and with some urgency.
37. In addition the opposition parties should not abandon their efforts to find common
ground for building upon their initial consensus proposals.
2.2 A Consensus on Targets Plus Some Means?
38. Although there was general agreement that a consensus on targets could be forged, there was
far less agreement on whether this might extend to the means for delivering those targets. The
greatest number of the submissions felt that consensus should, to a greater or lesser degree,
cover means for reaching targets as well as the targets themselves. For many contributors this
meant agreement on a broad framework and direction for policy, including, for example, a
fiscal framework favouring a low-carbon economy. Others felt that consensus on means
should encompass detail, for example on the choice of electricity-generating technology or
transportation systems. However, contributors were often sceptical about the possibility of
actually reaching consensus on means (see also the following section), with many also keen to
see continuation of vibrant political debate, not least to “keep the issue in the limelight where
it belongs” (Tim Chapman), because of the need to maintain a degree of electoral choice, and
because “which set of measures, and which combination, is ‘best’, will most likely depend
upon political values” (Greenpeace).
39. Agreement on means was considered important by many because of the need for specific
policies, such as fiscal measures, that would survive across different administrations, and
hence provide long-term stability and support long-term planning. This was seen as necessary
to encourage business and public investment in appropriate research and development, new
technologies and major infrastructure, especially in the energy and transport sectors.
40. Critically, consensus on means was also judged by many to be necessary to allow really
effective, sometimes difficult, policies to be implemented which parties would otherwise not
12