http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7061938.ece

Energy bills will rise but thousands of jobs could be created in green industries under a European plan to impose the world’s most stringent restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.

The Government will today support a proposal tabled in Brussels for a new, much more onerous EU target for cutting carbon dioxide even though other nations with higher emissions have failed to commit to reciprocal action.
Ministers have abandoned their previous condition that the world must agree a legally binding treaty on emissions before the EU commits to a tougher target.
The EU has already gone farther than the rest of the world by making a legally binding commitment to cut emissions by 20 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020. It is now preparing to raise the target to 30 per cent despite the failure of December’s climate change summit in Copenhagen.
By contrast, the US is debating whether to cut emissions by 4 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020 but is unlikely to make a decision this year.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has calculated the cost to Britain of its contribution to the 30 per cent target but is refusing to publish the research.
A European Commission policy document, being debated today by EU environment ministers, says the EU should adopt the 30 per cent target “if the conditions are right”.
The EU had previously said it would only adopt the higher target “if an international agreement on emissions reductions is secured”.
The shift in policy is confirmed in an e-mail sent from the office of Connie Hedegaard, the new European Commissioner for Climate Action. The e-mail, seen by The Times, says an international agreement is no longer a pre-condition.
The Commission is also carrying out a study of the policies, such as higher taxes on fuel and flights, that would be needed to achieve the 30 per cent cut.
The document says this study will be ready in time for the EU to make a decision on the higher target in June, six months ahead of the next climate summit in Cancun.
The Commission admits the summit is unlikely to deliver a legally binding deal but says the EU still needs to commit to “concrete and determined action to become the most climate friendly region in the world”.
It adds that “this is in the EU’s self-interest” because cutting missions more quickly anywhere else would help create low-carbon industries which could sell their technologies to other parts of the world.
Ms Hedegaard has even claimed, in response to questions in the European Parliament from Chris Davies, the Liberal Democrat MEP for the North West of England, that Europe could lose jobs to China unless it adopts the 30 per cent target.
She said: “Say that China will not accept an international agreement, would we then stand still for ever on 20 per cent? How would that benefit our economy, our innovation, our growth? Would we not risk losing the markets to China and other regions that are moving on this agenda as well, no matter whether and when we get an international deal? We should be careful of not being ambitious enough.”
Mr Davies told The Times that adopting the higher target would cause gas and electricity bills to rise to pay for more expensive renewable energy.
But he added: “That’s a price worth paying because it drives forward low-carbon investment and creates jobs in a green economy. The 30 per cent target has become much more achievable anyway because emissions have fallen in the recession.”
A DECC spokeswoman said: “It is the UK’s view that, given the right conditions, the EU should move to 30 per cent.”
She said the Government was willing to adopt the higher target even if some other developed countries failed to make comparable commitments.
She said that the DECC had rejected a request under the Freedom of Information Act for details of the cost of moving to the 30 per cent target “because we feel it would weaken the UK negotiating position in climate negotiations”.
Matthew Sinclair, research director at the Taxpayers’ Alliance, said: “There is no way for a proper democratic debate to take place if DECC isn’t open about the costs it expects the country to have to bear to meet the proposed target.
“It might be that DECC’s projection of the cost is high and, with many people struggling in the recession and expecting big bills, the public will reject the new target. That would hardly be unreasonable given that major emitters, like the US and China, clearly aren’t coming close to following Europe’s lead in adopting expensive climate change policies.”
The Taxpayers’ Alliance claims that meeting the 30 per cent target would force the economy to shrink, cutting Britain’s GDP by 30 per cent, or £500 billion from expected levels by 2020.
By contrast, the Climate Group, an environmental business lobby group, claims that the higher target would stimulate so much investment in green technology it could slightly increase GDP and create 1.1 million jobs across the EU.