Downing Street Says » Carbon emissions/offsetting

Asked what the Prime Minister’s response was to Jonathan Porritt’s suggestion that the approach to the issue of global warming was patchy and muddled, the Prime Minister’s Offical Spokesman (PMOS) said that it was not muddled headed to double our compliance with our Kyoto target; it was not muddled headed to produce an energy review which allows us to develop clean technology; it was not muddle headed to lead the intellectual debate on climate change at Gleneagles and then take this forward with the Gleneagles dialogue which will then produce recommendations which the Japanese will be able to take forward when they take over the G8 Presidency in 2008. It was also not muddle headed to face up to the reality that if we have a growing world economy, that gave us the resources to invest in the research and development (R&D) which will produce more effective and efficient energy uses than if we don’t have that investment to put into the necessary R & D.

Asked if the Prime Minister thought it was his responsibility to take the tough decisions on climate change, the PMOS said that as he had said this morning, the Prime Minister’s approach to the whole energy/climate change debate had been that we took whatever domestic measures we could to improve energy efficiency and we were doing that by supporting bio-fuels, doubling our Kyoto target on emissions, or on the international level, by supporting the inclusion of aircraft emissions in the EU trading schemes. The question should be put into the overall context of: was it more likely people would give the economic support for R & D into new technology to allow the climate change issue to be addressed and produce new technology that would do so in a world economy that was growing or one that was declining? The Prime Minister’s answer had always been that investment was much more likely in a world economy that was growing.

If the world economy was not growing, then you would be harming developing nations and stopping them growing, and that would mean they would end up paying the price for problems they were not the cause of. Therefore, there was an overall philosophical issue about the approach to the climate change issue which underlined everything the Prime Minister did.

Asked by the Daily Telegraph’s political editor if the Prime Minister did not believe that he individually should "set a good example" to people, for example, by not buying a large car or by taking long-haul flights, the PMOS said that what the journalist was presenting was a series of false choices. Should people make their home more energy efficient? Answer: yes. Should people be encouraged to use biofuels? Answer: yes. Should aircraft emissions be included as part of the EU trading scheme? Answer: yes. Should time and commitment be spent on pushing for an international consensus on climate change? Answer: yes. All those were personal, private decisions, and there was no false choice. For example, Downing Street was as energy efficient as possible. Should people offset their travel? The Prime Minister had asked for his recent trip to Miami to be offset. Overall, those choices were put in context of what was the best way to get the investment in new technology that was necessary if people were seriously going to address worldwide the effects of climate change. That was in a growing world economy that could invest in the R&D that was necessary.

Put that the official flights were offset, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had now asked for his personal flights to be offset as well.

Asked who the Prime Minister had asked, the PMOS replied there were people in No10 who were responsible for that.

Asked who paid for the offsetting, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister would personally be responsible.

Asked further about the manner of offsetting, the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister was now ready to offset all his personal flights from now on. This included the Miami flight. The PMOS explained to the lobby that offsetting meant that in terms of the carbon emissions from travel, it was then invested in green projects, for example, planting trees etc. The Government’s aim was to be carbon neutral by 2012.

Asked why the Prime Minister had only started to offset his travel on his most recent holiday, the PMOS replied that these were all things that had become at an individual level more possible as they went on.

Asked if it was normal for all bookings and arrangements of the Prime Minister’s holidays to be carried out by officials, the PMOS said that he did not get into the processology.

Put that the PMOS had got into the processology by mentioning the offsetting of the Prime Minister’s flight, and he had already dipped "one toe" into the processology, the PMOS said that little tiny toe was all he was going to do!

Asked how much the offsetting would cost for 5 people, the PMOS said again that he was not going to get into processology.

Asked if the Prime Minister was encouraging his Cabinet colleagues to do the same with regards to offsetting their travel, the PMOS replied that it was a matter for them.

Asked to clarify whether the Prime Minister was offsetting his own travel, or that of the whole family, the PMOS said that it was his personal travel, but the PMOS was not going to get involved further.

Asked that on the cost of the offsetting, would it not be a great incentive to other holiday makers in Florida if they knew how much they could save the environment in terms of cost, the PMOS replied that the question was a very inventive way of trying to get round the PMOS’ ban, but much as he admired the invention, the answer remained the same.

Asked by BBC24 if the Prime Minister was aware that offsetting was now quite a controversial issue, because by growing trees in southern climes, ice was replaced, and the ice reflected heat back, therefore, contributing to global warming, and was the Prime Minister aware of this, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister was aware that this was a subject on which it was difficult to make any move without there being somebody who said you were wrong. Equally, the Prime Minister was aware that offsetting was an internationally accepted mechanism.

Asked when had the Prime Minister asked for his flights to be offset, the PMOS said earlier this week.

Asked if this meant that the Prime Minister was actively encouraging people to fly to encourage economic growth, the PMOS replied that what the Prime Minister was saying was the we had to look at this issue in the round. The PMOS said that if there was a situation where worldwide tourism stopped, what would be the impact on developing countries? It would be to reduce the global economy. If the global economy was reduced, was it more or less likely that money would be spent on R&D into new technology? The answer was obvious.

Asked why had the Prime Minister decided to offset his travel, the PMOS said that it was the logical extension of the decision to include all official Ministerial travel which we had announced some time ago.

Asked if all Government offsetting was paid for by the Government, the PMOS said that it was.

Asked if the Prime Minister could determine how his flight was being offset, ie, was there a "Blair wood" in Scotland being grown from his offsetting, the PMOS replied that he was not going to give the journalist an obvious byline story for the Scottish media!

Asked by the Evening Standard if No10’s meat came from non-flatulent sources, the PMOS said that there was a reply that went something along the lines of that this was nothing to do with the lobby!

Put by the Daily Telegraph’s political editor was this not something of an empty gesture, as was the Prime Minister likely to take another holiday between now and when he left in the summer, so he would only be offsetting one holiday, the PMOS replied that if ever the phrase "wanting one’s cake and eating it" came into play, now would be the time. The PMOS said that in one moment, the journalist had accused the Prime Minister of doing nothing personal for climate change, and whenever the PMOS told people that he was doing something personal, it was then classed as an empty gesture.

Asked if the Prime Minister would continue to offset his personal air travel after he left Downing Street, the PMOS replied that he was the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman and he was not the spokesman for whenever/if Mr. Blair stepped down as Prime Minister.

Asked if the Prime Minister had cleared his offsetting with the Chancellor, the PMOS said that it was a personal decision.

6 Comments »

Whatever…. They are all talk no action at the moment.
Comment by sophie wilcock — 29 Jan 2007 on 9:58 am | Link
Whatever…. They are all talk no action at the moment.
Comment by sophie wilcock — 29 Jan 2007 on 9:58 am | Link
Whatever…. They are all talk no action at the moment.
Comment by sophie wilcock — 29 Jan 2007 on 9:59 am | Link
"at the moment."?!?! I don’t think the qualifier is necessary or accurate…!
Comment by SmokeNMirrors — 29 Jan 2007 on 3:08 pm | Link
well mr smokenmirrors, i think the "qualifier" is indeed neccessary, because if not now, at the moment, then when?? when will they make change?
Comment by sophie wilcock — 20 Mar 2007 on 9:21 am | Link
well mr smokenmirrors, i think the "qualifier" is indeed neccessary, because if not now, at the moment, then when?? when will they make change?
Comment by sophie wilcock — 20 Mar 2007 on 9:21 am | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Carbon emissions/offsetting

6 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries