|
›
King Review: Use available car technologies now |
 |
Bringing existing technologies to market now is key to achieving significant GHG reductions in the UK, Prof. Julia King stressed at a Brussels event yesterday. Meanwhile, Nicholas Stern, author of the high-profile report the King Review was based on, admitted that he largely underestimated the risks of climate change.
|
2008-04-29
|
Shifting the short-term focus back from biofuels to existing low-carbon car technologies is crucial to lower global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from road transport by 80% from 2000 levels by 2050, a new report by Julia King, Professor at Aston University, estimates. Presenting “Part II – recommendations for actions” of her independent review in Brussels on 28 April, King also stressed that only a firm EU-wide 130 g CO2/km target by 2012 and more ambitious long-term targets every 7 to 10 years would help the UK car industry and the EU to limit environmental damage to a tolerable level.
King, commissioned last year by the UK government to review technologies that could help de-carbonise transport over the next 25 years, specifically listed more consistent and effective car labelling on GHG emissions and fuel economy, and larger public R&D funding as key strategies to support the car industry in developing new and marketing already available technologies “from the shelf to the showroom”. Motivating young academics to research into promising solutions and optimize their performance should therefore be a top priority for public authorities and the industry. Her recommendations, based on the “Stern Report” from 2006 and not steered by any political group, will be reviewed by the UK government this summer to translate them into concrete legislative actions.
Threat largely underestimated, Stern & IPCC admit
|
Meanwhile, Nicholas Stern has warned that the gloomy predictions of his high-profile review of the future effects of global warming underestimated the risks, and that climate change poses a bigger threat than he realised. Stern, basing his estimations on IPCC findings from 2001, said that new scientific findings showed GHG emissions were causing more damage than was understood in 2006, when he prepared his study for the UK government. Pointing to last year's reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , he admitted that emissions were growing much faster than previously thought at higher environmental and economic costs. Critics blaming him for exaggerating were thus proven “profoundly wrong”, he told a newspaper earlier this month.
|
|
|
His warnings were reflected by Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Professor at the Catholic University of Louvain and member of the IPCC Working Group II, who told participants at the Brussels event on Monday that to limit global temperature rise to below 2°C a concentration of 350 ppm of CO2 was needed, 200 ppm lower than previously considered to be sufficient. Moreover, to stay below that threshold, countries would need to reduce GHG emissions by 85% from 2000 levels, a significantly higher reduction than the Stern Report and the King Review assumed. 2°C, targeted by the EU as the maximum allowable temperature rise over the next decades, might also be too high as recent IPCC findings have shown that far-reaching climate changes could happen at even lower temperatures. As a conclusion he urged the car industry and drivers to opt for more sustainable solutions capable of delivering necessary reductions, calling also on the international community to speed up efforts.
Background
In March 2007, UK Chancellor Gordon Brown commissioned Professor Julia King to undertake an independent review examining vehicle and fuel technologies which over 25 years could help to „decarbonise“ road transport, and in particular cars. Her review, consisting of two parts launched in October 2007 and March 2008, was based on the Stern Report estimating the costs of global warming at 20% of the world’s GDP while the cost of addressing the problem would be limited to 1% of GDP.
|
More information:
› King Review - Part I: the potential for CO2 reduction, Oct 2007
› King Review - Part II: recommendations for action, March 2008
|
