The CCC did not make an ethical choice
between those methods. Instead it argued prag-
matically that it is difficult to imagine a global
deal that would not ask developed countries
to reduce their per capita emissions to global
average levels. Allowing some large emitters to
remain above the global average would require
other emitters to remain below it, and agreement
on such an outcome is unlikely.
This argumentation, first put forward by Stern
(2008), implies a roughly 80 per cent reduction in
UK emissions from currently just over 10 tCO
2
e
per capita to around 2–2.5 tCO
2
epercapita.In
absolute terms, the UK would have to reduce emis-
sions from 695 MtCO
2
e in 2006 to 159 MtCO
2
ein
2050 (see Figure 1). The 80 per cent target is in line
with a growing international consensus on, and
commitment to, long-term emission cuts by devel-
oped countries. The target is formulated as a
minimum requirement, leaving open the option
of further cuts if required (for example in the light
of new scientific evidence).
Despite framing climate change as a risk issue,

mediate milestones action toward the mid-century
target would be delayed and they allow for the
objective and transparent monitoring of perform-
ance. The budgets also increase policy certainty
and send a strong signal to industry, encouraging
business to undertake the large-scale investments
needed to create a low-carbon economy.
Each carbon budget constitutes a distinct five-
year target. However, the CCC used the year
2020, the mid-point of the third budget period,
to take a ‘sighting shot’ at appropriate budgets
for periods one to three. The CCC recommended
a two-track approach with two state-contingent
targets (see Figure 2):
B
An interim target of –34 per cent, relative to
1990, to which the UK should commit unilat-
erally; and
FIGURE 1 Current UK emissions and the 2050 target
Source: CCC (2008).
Note: UK emissions in 2006 (including transport) were 16% lower
than in 1990. Hence an 80% emissions cut relative to 1990
translates into a (120.20/0.84) ¼ 77% reduction from today.
204 Fankhauser, Kennedy and Skea
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
B
An intended target of –42 per cent, relative to
1990, which the UK should adopt if a mean-
ingful successor to the Kyoto Protocol can be
agreed.

way to approach the international negotiations
for a post-2012 agreement. The targets proposed
for the UK are roughly consistent with the obli-
gations that the EU-internal burden sharing
methodology imposes on the UK.
Similarly, the budgets set the UK on course
to reach its 2050 target. Meeting the intended
budget target would require a decrease in UK
greenhouse gas emissions of 2.8 per cent per
annum between 2007 and 2020. This would have
to increase to 3.5 per cent per annum between
2020 and 2050. Although the initial reduction
rate is lower than the long-term average, the
CCC felt it was adequate. In an environment of
high uncertainty, the proposed targets also
provide the flexibility required to make cost-
effective mid-term corrections should new infor-
mation become available (Watkiss et al., 2008).
Although consistency with EU policies and the
long-term target is crucial, by far the most effort
went into the third consideration – ascertaining
that the proposed targets are technically and
economically feasible. The CCC systematically
assessed the emission reduction potential in the
main sectors – electric power, transport, build-
ings and industry, and the non-CO
2
sectors.
Detailed marginal abatement cost curves were
derived for all relevant sectors to identify

B
The current ambition scenario includes
measures which cost less than the £40 per
tonne cut-off, or which are covered by
existing policies, but is cautious about their
realistically achievable potential. The scen-
ario includes significant progress towards
low-carbon electricity generation, and some
progress on improving fuel efficiency in
new cars.
B
The extended ambition scenario includes ‘more
ambitious but still reasonable assumptions’
about the realistic reduction potential of
existing policies, plus a number of measures
which would cost more than £40 per tonne,
but which are ‘important stepping stones on
the path to 2050’. The scenario is ‘broadly in
line’ with policies to which the government
or the EU are committed in principle, but
which have yet to be implemented.
B
The stretchambitionscenarioadds further abate-
ment options for which there is no policy com-
mitment at the moment, for example ‘more
radical new technology deployment and
more significant lifestyle adjustments’.
The conclusion of this analysis is that the
‘extended ambition’ scenario would be sufficient
for the UK to meet the interim budget target.

edged the interim target will have to be revised
once there is a new international agreement.
The CCC will be asked for an updated rec-
ommendation once the details of the new agree-
ment are known.
With advice on the fourth budget not due
until 2010, the focus of the CCC is shifting to
monitoring. Checking adherence to the carbon
budgets is an important part of the remit of
the CCC, which will assess progress in this
respect in its annual reports to government.
The immediate challenge for the 2009 annual
report, due in October, will be to devise a frame-
work of indicators that reveal, with sufficient
lead time, whether the UK is on track in
meeting its carbon budget obligations. Such
lead indicators are likely to cover policy develop-
ments (e.g. changes to the renewable energy fra-
mework), implementation issues (e.g. uptake of
new incentive schemes), investment (e.g. clean
generation capacity under development), inno-
vation (e.g. progress on CCS pilots) and techno-
logical change (e.g. the carbon efficiency of new
cars). Particularly salient in the current
206 Fankhauser, Kennedy and Skea
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
economic environment will be the need to dis-
tinguish between structural, policy-induced
change and temporary effects due, for example,
to fluctuations in the business cycle.

in the 2008–2022 budgets.
2. See www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc.
References
AEA, 2008. MARKAL-MED Model Runs for Long-term
Carbon Reduction Targets in the UK, Phase I and II.
Final Report to the Committee on Climate Change.
www.theccc.org.uk/reports/building-a-low-carbon-
economy/supporting-research.
Barker, T., Bashmakov, I., Alharthi, A., Amann, M.,
Cifuentes, L., Drexhage, J., Duan, M., Edenhofer,
O., Flannery, B., Grubb, M., Hoogwijk, M., Ibitoye,
F. I., Jepma, C. J., Pizer, W. A. and Yamaji, K., 2007.
Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective.
Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPPC). Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
CCC (Committee on Climate Change), 2008. Building a
Low Carbon Economy: The UK’s Contribution to Tack-
ling Climate Change. The First Report of the Commit-
tee on Climate Change, December. TSO, London.
www.theccc.org.uk/reports/building-a-low-carbon-
economy.
Dietz, S., 2008. A Long-Run Target for Climate Policy: The
Stern Review and its Critics. Background Report for the
Committee on Climate Change. Grantham Research
Institute, London School of Economics, London.
www.theccc.org.uk/reports/building-a-low-carbon-
economy/supporting-research.

Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis,
M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M. and Miller, H. L. (eds),
2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Building a low-carbon economy 207
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge, UK.
Stern, N., 2008. Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate
Change. Grantham Research Institute, London School
of Economics, London. www.lse.ac.uk/grantham.
Sura, K. and Golborne, N., 2008. Integrated assessment
modelling. Technical appendix for Chapter 2.
Building a Low Carbon Economy: The UK’s Contribution
to Tackling Climate Change: The First Report of
the Committee on Climate Change, December.
TSO, London. www.theccc.org.uk/reports/building-
a-low-carbon-economy/supporting-research.
Watkiss, P., Blyth, W., Dietz, S., Downing, T., Hunt, A.
and Fletcher, K., 2008. Review of the Methodological
Approaches Available to Set UK Carbon Budgets.
Report to the Shadow Committee on Climate
Change, April. www.theccc.org.uk/reports/building-
a-low-carbon-economy/supporting-research.
208 Fankhauser, Kennedy and Skea
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS