Climate scientist Professor Kevin Anderson has said that the much-vaunted Climate Change Committee has “systematically undermined the 2008 Climate Change Act – an Act that, in my view, was far ahead of its time.”
Interviewed before making a presentation at a January 30th public meeting in Glossop, England, Anderson was continued his point by saying that the Committee was independent in name only.
“It is not an independent committee. It was set up by government to give advice to government, and it is paid by government. Nothing in that implies independence. Through private discussion with a very senior CCC member, I was left in no doubt that the CCC chooses to push government as hard as they think government is prepared to be pushed – and that any harder, and their advice will be ignored and the Committee sidelined.”
The interview covered a range of topics, and is being released in installments. Part one, on the physical impacts we can expect is here. Part two, on “Team Mann vs Team Hansen” and the speed of recent warming is here. Part three on Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ support for a third runway at Heathrow, aviation in general and the quality of advice being offered is here. The interview was conducted by Dr Marc Hudson, who has interviewed Professor Anderson on several occasions over the past 15 years. Dr Hudson runs All Our Yesterdays, an “on this day” website about climate politics, technology, protest that covered events from 1661 to the present day.
The transcript of the relevant portion of the interview can be found below.
You are free (and of course encouraged) to use this material for commercial or non-commercial purposes. Please cite both the source (i.e. that the interview was conducted by Marc Hudson, and the URL of this page
For more of Kevin’s work see Climate Uncensored,
I think it’s a very alternate universe when you get the gig [as Ed Miliband’s SPAD] over Chris Stark. So what will Chris Stark say, or has he said, and he should be saying what you’ve just said. So, what’s going on there? How come the politicians are not even getting the sort of scientific advice that they should? And this leads into your and my concern about the cognitive, intellectual corruption of academia, which, with a few honorable exceptions, has “not covered itself in glory.” To throw in as many cliches as I could.
Kevin Anderson 20:15
Well, obviously, Chris Stark was previously the CEO of the Government’s Climate Change, Committee. But he’s now gone on to become Ed Miliband’s advisor on climate change issues, particularly on decarbonising power.
My problem with the Climate Change Committee is that it has systematically undermined the 2008 Climate Change Act – an Act that, in my view, was far ahead of its time. This would have been much less an issue if the academic and expert community had not run scared of countering the CCC’s preference for what they deemed to be politically acceptable rather than what is scientifically necessary to deliver on our climate commitments.
The CCC is not an independent committee. It was set up by government to give advice to government, and it is paid by government. Nothing in that implies independence. Through private discussion with a very senior CCC member, I was left in no doubt that the CCC chooses to push government as hard as they think government is prepared to be pushed – and that any harder, and their advice will be ignored and the Committee sidelined.
I see that as a perfectly reasonable position to take if you then don’t claim to be an independent committee. But it also then requires the academic community to hold the CCC to account – based on the science, our analysis and the climate commitments our governments repeatedly sign up to. But that hasn’t happened – quite the opposite.
Set against a weak academia and a similarly weak funding agency, the UKRI – or as it was called previously the research councils, – the CCC have effectively dictated the research agenda. When the CCC has said jump we’ve asked how high – rather than why!.
First our research had to fit with a 60% reduction in emissions by 2050, then it was 80% by 2050, then carbon budgets were introduced, but quickly shifted to a Net Zero 2050 framework. In effect, the boundaries of analysis have been dictated by the CCC, as if the committee is some form of Oracle. This was bad enough. But with Chris Stark becoming the CEO, he was such a highly effective leader of a government committee, a real smooth operator, that a weak academia was left even more in thrall of the CCC. So, whilst we might endeavour to do objective research on cutting emissions, it is inevitably set within the CCC’s deeply political boundary – one that is far removed anything aligned with our Paris temperature and equity commitments
I realise very few if any academics will agree with me here, at least in public, though it’s a different story in private, but I see the CCC as having fundamentally misinformed and let down, not just the UK policy makers and the public, but of course, the people who already are and will be impacted by climate change. But this failure has been actively facilitated by the supine academic community that has not stood up for academic integrity, simply bending to will of the CCC; just look at the ubiquitous ‘net zero 2050’ framing of our research, language and publications; barely a whimper of dissent. It’s the old cliché, bad things happen whilst good people stay quiet. Sadly, and very specifically on mitigation (so not on climate science), I see cowardice rather than academic integrity as the collective hallmark of our contribution thus far.