Carry on Polluting

When it comes to climate change, Britain has commitments alright. It has more targets than an archery range. By 2010, ministers must cut carbon emissions by 20%; 2012 is the deadline for that Kyoto pledge to lower greenhouse gases by 12.5% and come 2020, there must be "real progress" on the 2050 goal of a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions. And that lot are just the highlights.

The easy response to this blizzard of announcements is cynicism. Politicians say one thing, and promptly do another, don't they? Except, as we report today, it is rather worse than that: voters have an inadequate means of seeing how far the government is from hitting its plethora of targets. An investigation by the National Audit Office has revealed that ministers use two sets of accounts when reporting greenhouse gas emissions; only one includes emissions from international flights and shipping. Using the more stringent accounting standard, the investigation finds "there have been no reductions in UK carbon dioxide emissions" from the 1990 level. That message differs from the one put out by the government.

Ministers have not been lying; they have simply been using a more generous accounting method. Doubtless, many overstretched companies and consumers wish they could do the same. But the government knows that being too clever in the counting leads to daft numbers. When labor first proposed a 20% cut in carbon emissions by 2010, it was clear: there would be no shortcuts in using emissions trading. After all, that would allow one to carry on polluting by paying for the privilege. Come 2000 and there was an about-face: now ministers "proposed to include" emissions trading.

This is feeble. As with other spheres of government activity, ministers could do with losing their mania for target-setting and concentrating on execution. That involves being up front with the public about progress. A fixed and objective accounting standard is obviously better than one defined by fuzziness. A very useful task for Adair Turner, and his new Climate Change Committee, would be to devise an adequate means of accounting for greenhouse gases, which could then be debated in parliament and public. It would obviously be better if carbon credits were treated as a bonus to any reductions in pollution rather than a vital means of reaching prescribed targets.

Rigorous accounting matters as a way of holding the government to account, and keeping the public engaged in a vital, if difficult, issue (the last goal is surely not helped by that confetti of pledges). Ministers cannot keep claiming to take climate change seriously - and then trivialize the measurement of progress.