One-Planet
Security' speech by Rt hon David Miliband MP Secretary of
State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at the WWF One Planet
Living Summit
DEPARTMENT FOR
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS News Release (NA) issued by The
Government News Network on 27 March 2007
One-Planet
Security' speech by Rt hon David Miliband MP Secretary of
State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at the WWF One
Planet Living Summit
LONDON 27TH MARCH 2007
I am delighted to be here at this One Planet living summit. Since
the foundation of the WWF in 1961, your organisation has become a
truly a global network, covering not just the protection of
endangered species but the whole range of environmental threats.
The idea of 'One-Planet living' is increasingly moving
from margins to the mainstream of political debate.
I want to use my speech today to make three points:
First, I want to highlight the scale and urgency of the challenge
we face, not just in terms of climate change, but other scarce
natural resources. Second, I want to argue that the goal
championed by the WWF of One Planet Living provides an invaluable
lodestar for economic and social policy in our country. It also
has the virtue of being comprehensible. But we must achieve it not
by cutting our consumption by two-thirds, but by dramatically
increasing the productivity with which we use natural resources.
Third, the dividend of this country and others moving towards
One-Planet Living is more than environmental, or even economic;
One-Planet Living is our best hope of addressing the underlying
causes of future conflict in the world, and is as significant for
foreign policy as it is environment policy.
The challenge
As you know, when I became Environment Secretary, I was struck by
the WWF's description of the challenge facing us: the idea
that if every citizen in the world lived as we do in the UK, we
would need three planets to support us rather than one.
That is why I have defined our mission as a department in terms
of One-Planet Living, both in relation to climate change but also
the protection of other natural resources from water and food to
land and marine ecosystems. You will be very familiar with the
science, so let me make just three points.
First, while the focus in media coverage and politics is
understandably on climate change, carbon is not the only example
of a society consuming resources at an unsustainable rate. As the
Millenium Ecosystems Assessment highlighted, 15 out of 24 of our
ecosystems services are being degraded or used unsustainably. Our
fish stocks are dwindling as the total mass of commercially
exploited marine species has been reduced by 90% in much of the
world. Our landscape has changed irreversibly with more than half
of the original area of many types of grasslands and forests
converted into farmland. Water withdrawals from rivers and lakes
for irrigation or for urban or industrial use have doubled between
1960 and 2000, with many parts of the world struggling to access
water. There are approximately 100 documented extinctions of
birds, mammals, and amphibians over the past 100 years, a rate of
extinction far higher than historic levels. That is why I was very
pleased the week before last at the G8 plus 5 meeting of
environment ministers to support the Potsdam Declaration on biodiversity.
Second, climate change will exacerbate each of these trends. This
is why I do not see the dual focus of Defra - on climate change
and natural resource protection - as pulling in different
directions. For example, faced with a rise in temperature above 2
degrees, we would see reductions in crop yields: the effects would
be on people and nature. Ditto in respect of marine life. The two
dimensions of One-Planet Living - tackling climate change and
protecting natural resources - are intertwined.
Third, while many changes in our environment are gradual and
predictable, the dangers are also of abrupt and non-linear change.
There are thresholds beyond which rapid and irreversible change
occurs, and the feedback effects lead to a vicious cycle.
So the science tells us that we are living well beyond our
environmental means. The challenge is to move from three planet
living to one-planet living.
That is why the government is proposing the UK become the first
economy in the world with a legislative framework to reduce carbon
dioxide by 60 per cent - in effect legislating to become a
one-planet economy in relation to carbon. By demonstrating
leadership we can show the developing world that industrialised
countries are prepared to act and break the logjam of distrust
where each country will only act if they think others will follow
suit. By moving early, we can ensure our transition to a low
carbon economy is gradual rather than abrupt and costly, and
provide the long term clarity businesses require for investment.
This commitment on climate change is matched in other areas:
- a landmark Marine Bill White Paper setting out a new integrated
planning framework for the sustainable development of our seas
- commitments to international biodiversity, including a £50
million fund, announced in last week's budget, to reduce
unsustainable deforestation in the Congo Basin - the second
largest tropical forest in the world.
- in waste, last week's budget announcement of a further
increase in the landfill tax escalator is a major step towards
reducing methane emissions by diverting waste from landfill to recycling.
Our challenge is to frame these policy initiatives in a way that
aligns action by government, business and individuals.
Vision of One Planet living
There are two visions of a future where we consume just one
planet's worth of resources.
One involves the UK cutting our consumption by a third, expecting
other countries to adopt similarly dramatic cuts, and restricting
growth from India, China and the developing world.
The other focuses on continuing to consume and develop, but
transforming the productivity with which we use natural resources:
developing ways of giving people access to light, warmth,
mobility, food and water without damaging the environment.
I think it is neither practical nor, in the case of the
developing world, morally justifiable to expect citizens to lower
their aspirations and miss out on better living standards.
But nor is it necessary. The positive news is that it is possible
to see a world where we produce far more for far less,
particularly in relation to greenhouse gases.
The majority of greenhouse gases produced in the UK come from
three main sources: electricity, heat and transport. In each area,
it is possible to see how light, warmth, and mobility can be
provided in a low-carbon way. In each we are adopting policies
that will drive the transition.
Housing
In housing, we know it is possible to create homes that emit zero
net carbon emissions. This can be done by minimising the amount of
heating and electricity required by the homes, and producing
renewable energy within or near the home that can be exported to
neighbouring communities or onto the grid.
A third of the homes that will be standing in 2050 are yet to be
built, so a radical approach to new homes can make a major
contribution. DCLG will therefore shortly be publishing the detail
of proposals to make all new homes 'Zero-Carbon' by
2016. The policy will be delivered by ensuring that Building
Regulations escalate towards the zero-carbon standard, following
the trajectory set by the voluntary Code for Sustainable Homes.
Alongside investment in new homes, as the Chancellor recently set
out, our ambition is to ensure that every existing home for which
it is practically possible should become low carbon over the next decade.
Electricity and power
In power generation, it is possible to see a shift from gas and
coal that emit high levels of carbon emissions to low-carbon
sources. This will include renewables such as solar, wind and wave
power, incentivised through the combination of the Renewables
Obgliation and the European Union Emissions trading Scheme, with
our aim of increasing the proportion of electricity from
renewables four-fold by 2020. Nuclear power is also a low-carbon
source, and in the context of climate change must continue to be so.
But at a time when China builds a new coal-fired power station
every week, we have to look at ways of using fossil fuels, which
are still in abundant supply, in a way that lowers carbon
emissions. Carbon Capture and Storage does exactly that. It is a
technology which reduces carbon emissions from a coal-fired power
station by up to 90 per cent.
As set out in the budget, we will be holding a competition to
develop the UK's first full-scale demonstration of carbon
capture and storage, the result of which will be announced next
year. And to help share expertise we are currently working with
China on a Near Zero Emissions Coal project. The EU is also
currently considering a proposal to ensure all new coal-fired
power stations built from 2020 are fitted with carbon-capture and
storage, and those built before then, are made 'capture ready'.
Transport
Finally, in transport, the most ambitious approach to a
low-carbon society has emerged from Sweden. In December 2005, the
then Prime Minister Goran Persson appointed a Commission on Oil
Independence. The primary rationale for the Commission was to
address climate change. For the avoidance of doubt, it was not
about protectionism or about a fear that oil will 'run
out'. The first milestone towards an oil-free economy,
proposed by the 'Commission on Oil Independence', and
agreed by the Government was to reduce petrol consumption by 40 to
50 per cent by 2020.
A post-oil economy is not an unrealistic prospect. Over a
generation, it is possible to see the evolution of road transport
initially towards much greater fuel efficiency, greater use of
biofuels and hybrids, and ultimately fully-electric cars. The
leading edge technologies already show startling performance in
terms of speed and duration. The Lotus built Tesla has a topspeed
of 130mph and the battery charge lasts for 250 miles. Over a
twenty year period, it is possible to imagine the car industry
providing the investment and innovation required to move to a
post-oil economy, if governments, preferably across a major market
such as the EU, can provide a clear long term signal about the
regulatory landscape.
The EU has already proposed to replace the current voluntary
agreements to reduce emissions from new cars, which expire in
2008-9, with a mandatory scheme. Under the proposal, new car CO2
emissions would be restricted to, on average, 130 grams per km by
2012, compared with the average of 167 grams today, reducing new
car emissions by 20 per cent. Our view is that the objective
beyond 2012 should be to reduce average new car emissions to 100
grams per kilometre. Beyond that, as set out in the budget, we are
setting up a review to examine the vehicle and fuel technologies
which over the next 25 years could help 'decarbonise'
road transport.
Double dividend
One-planet living is both necessary and possible. The
technologies exist or are on the horizon. The most difficult
challenge is how we mobilise the political will to reach a
critical mass at a European and international level. Environmental
groups such as WWF have an international reach that can mobilise
support among hundreds of thousands of members and can play a
critical role. Within government, through the G8+5 and leading to
the UNFCC summit in Bali, I believe 2007 could be the year when we
begin to agree the building blocks of a post 2012 international
framework to succeed the end of the first period of the Kyoto Protocol.
However, there is a wider lesson that I want to draw out. The
fight against climate change has developed huge momentum in this
country and elsewhere. But if this movement is to have stamina,
and if it is to embrace the other scarce environmental resources
under threat, we must move the debate out of the box marked 'environment'.
Al Gore calls this a 'planetary emergency'. It is. But
one of the reasons why the world has been slow to wake up to the
threat from climate change is that is has been bracketed as an
environmental issue - a threat to nature rather than people. It is
more than that. It is a potential humanitarian emergency - since
the consequence of failure to mitigate and adapt to climate change
will be suffering on a grand scale. It is a development issue, as
the poorest nations will be affected the most even though they
have done least to cause it. And as Sir Nicholas Stern's
report showed last year, it is also a financial and economic issue
- while the cost of arresting climate change is around 1 per cent
of global GDP, the cost of dealing with the consequence is between
5 and 20 per cent of global GDP.
Perhaps an area which has received less attention is the impact
of the environment on the conflict and security around the world.
In the final part of my speech, I want to make the case that
seriously addressing climate change and protecting environmental
resources should be an integral part of our mission to create a
more secure, peaceful world. As Margaret Beckett has argued,
tackling climate change must be as critical to the Foreign Office
and Defence Ministry as it is to Defra.
Historically, the environment has played a critical role in past
conflicts. Jared Diamond's book, Collapse, charts the way
environmental factors have played a critical part in the collapse
of countries and civilisations from the Vikings of Greenland to
Haiti. The familiar pattern he identifies is of population growth
leading to intensified agricultural production that in turn
results in an unsustainable use of natural resources, from
deforestation and soil erosion to overfishing and water shortages.
The food shortages, starvation and migration that result lead to
conflict and societal collapse.
For example the Ogaden war between Ethiopia and Somalia in the
1970s was rooted in an environmental crisis. Deforestation and
soil erosion led to poverty, famine and mass migration from the
Ethiopian highlands towards Somalia. In Darfur today, some argue,
though this is contested, that it is the first climate change
conflict, with settled farmers pitted against nomadic herders in a
scramble over access to water. The flow of the Jordan River has
long been an aggravating factor in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In future, the combination of rising population, economic growth
and climate change will massively exacerbate the risk of
environment-related conflict.
* If greenhouse gas emissions continue along a business as usual
path, argricultural yields will change dramatically: some areas
will become more fertile, while others will suffer from severe
drought. According to the IPCC, up to 600 million people could
face the risk of famine.
* Water scarcity will also be exacerbated. 97.5 per cent of the
world's water is salt water. Of the remaining 2.5 per cent,
two-thirds is unavailable for human use as it resides in glaciers,
snow, ice or permafrost.
* The migration that could result from the effects of climate
change - from rising sea levels, water scarcity and the loss of
agricultural land - also represents a major risk. In Bangladesh,
rising sea levels could see mass migration on a scale larger than
even the partition of 1947.
These environmental problems may not cause conflict in
themselves. More often they aggravate tensions that are already
there, and act in conjunction with other sources of instability
from weak governance, existing armed conflicts, and existing
ethnic or religious tensions.
The implication I believe is clear. It is important to focus on
the short term triggers of conflict, important to recognise the
role of 'hard power' and military solutions to
humanitarian crises, important to recognise the role of culture
and religion in tearing societies apart. But we also need to focus
on addressing the long term and underlying causes of conflict, on
non-military security solutions, on the material and environmental
factors as well as the ideological.
That is the significance of Margaret Becket's decision to
make climate change a new strategic international priority for the
UK, and the new DfID/Defra element of the Environmental
Transformation Fund. As set out in the Budget, the fund, worth
£800m over three years, will support development and poverty
reduction through environmental protection and will help
developing countries invest in clean energy, avoid deforestation,
and adapt to climate change. The Foreign Secretary's proposed
debate in the UN Security Council next month on climate and
security is an opportunity to develop this theme further.
A serious focus on climate change would not just reduce the risk
of conflict triggered by migration, water scarcity, and loss of
agricultural land. It would have another spin-off benefit. Our oil
dependence creates real dangers. The New York Times Columnist
Thomas Friedman makes a striking assertion when he says 'we
are financing both sides in the war on terrorism: the US army with
our tax dollars, and Islamist charities, madrassas and terrorist
organisations through our oil purchases'.
In the United States, a growing band of 'green hawks'
have been making the case for energy independence in the United
States, focusing mainly on the hidden costs of Middle East oil.
They are right to do so: the cause of energy security can help the
world develop the ambition, pace and institutions to move to
embrace environmental sustainability.
The prize is potentially immense: a green dividend laying the
foundation for a peace dividend.
Conclusion
The lesson I believe is clear: environmental interest, economic
interest and security interest, can create a triple bottom line
for the shift to a low carbon economy. What is more, the
environmental imperative, in respect of climate change and natural
resource protection, holds the key to important aspects of our
economic and security future. As WWF have, to be fair, always
said, one planet living is not just an environmental concept.
END