The government’s climate advisor has issued a report concluding neither competitiveness concerns nor differences in international ambition justify relaxing the UK’s climate ambitions. We round up the media’s very different takes on the news.

The report is the second half of the committee’s review of whether there is any basis for changing the fourth carbon budget. While the first part focused on the scientific basis for the budgets, the coming publication will address concerns over whether the UK is harming its competitiveness by cutting emissions faster than other countries.

Carbon budgets are limits on the total amount of greenhouse gases the UK should emit over a five year period in accordance with the Climate Change Act. The fourth carbon budget’s target is to halve UK emissions by 2027, relative to 1990 levels. The chancellor, George Osborne, is widely expected to use a coming review of the budget to argue the target should be weakened.

So what did the papers lead with?

No turning back…

The Guardian reports the committee’s conclusion that the government must stand by its commitments. Contrary to the chancellor’s fears, the committee’s chair, Lord Deben, told reporters at the committee’s press briefing that the UK is not “out in front” compared to other countries’ climate policies.

The Telegraph also headlined with the committee’s plea to stay the course. It points out Osborne has previously said the UK should resist a “very prescriptive path for green energy” and  says the chancellor has “backed the construction of a new wave of gas-fired power plants that would require watering down” the carbon budget. But the committee has concluded there has been no change in circumstances that would require the budget to be watered down, it reports.

Meanwhile, blog RTCC picks up on the committee’s observation that, far from watering commitments down, the evidence suggests a tighter budget would be more appropriate.

… but targets could be ‘jettisoned’

Conversely, the Times leads with  a comment in which Deben appears to contradict the committee’s findings. The committee’s report says it will revisit the budget if circumstances change.

The paper takes this to mean Britain “may have to abandon its climate change targets if other countries failed to cut emissions”. It quotes Deben saying:

“There is no point in you doing your bit for climate change if no one else is doing it.”

The Times quotes manufacturing companies accusing the committee of “trying to keep Britain on a ‘unilateral trajectory'”.

But the committee disagrees the UK is acting alone. The Times reports that the committe notes the UK is alone in Europe in having legally-binding carbon targets, but other EU member states have made comparable commitments.

The Telegraph also highlights that if gas prices were to drop and other countries relaxed targets, the committee says there could be “significant costs” in acting sooner.

That would cost a lot, though

The Independent pointed out that ditching the budget if things stay the same would be very expensive, however. It writes that the The average British household could eventually end up paying what it works out as an extra £8,000 for its gas and electricity if George Osborne succeeds in delaying emissions cuts until the next budget comes into force in 2030.

Delaying action by 10 years would add £100 billion to bills – or £4,00 per household, and if fossil fuel prices soar, that could double, the Independent reports. It quotes Deben saying:

“This report shows the clear economic benefits of acting to cut emissions through the 2020s. This provides insurance against the increased costs and risks of climate-related damage and rising energy bills that would result from an alternative approach to reduce and delay action.”

All of the papers focus on consumer costs in some way. As both the Guardian and Telegraph point out, the committee says households will pay a little less than £200 per year to subsidise green measures up until 2020 – that’s £100 more than consumers currently pay – rising to around £220 by 2030. But the committee says that under this scenario – and provided gas prices stay high, while other countries stick to commitments, the UK should save £100 billion.

Meanwhile, green industry journal, The ENDS Report leads on news that the committee has found it would be more cost-effective for the UK to cut its emissions faster than it currently plans during the budget. The committee is now calling for the UK to cut its emissions by 56 per cent by 2025 and 63 per cent by 2030. In 2010, it had recommended 50 per cent and 60 per cent cuts, respectively.

Despite the fact that the committee has downgraded some expectations such as the number of houses that will have low-carbon heat pumps installed, lower than expected emissions have allowed it to increase the cuts it recommends.

No time to read the whole report? BusinessGreen has a handy summary.

And… shale gas

More of Deben’s comments caused a stir in the press – though they weren’t really about the report. Deben told the Times that hydraulic fracturing for natural gas wasn’t the enemy some have made it out to be:

“It just isn’t true that fracking is going to destroy the environment and the world is going to come to an end if you frack. And yet to listen to some people on the green end, that’s what they say.”

It adds that Deben doesn’t expect fracking to lead to lower bills, however, and the committee chair notes pointedly:

“God has managed to put it in the places where it’s going to be most difficult for people to get planning permission to do this.”

The Telegraph and BBC also covered the story.

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, only appears to be listening to half of what Deben says. In an interview with Spectator, he says: “I would describe shale gas as a green energy source that can cut energy costs”.