Developing regional and local scenarios for climate change mitigation and adaptation Part 1: A framing of the East

of England
John Turnpenny, Sebastian Carney, Alex Haxeltine and Tim O'Riordan� June 2004

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

Working Paper 54

Developing regional and local scenarios for climate change mitigation and adaptation Part 1: A framing of the East of England

John Turnpenny, Sebastian Carney*, Alex Haxeltine, Tim O’Riordan
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ * Tyndall North, UMIST, Manchester Contact email:

Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 54 June 2004


Summary – Greenhouse gas emissions and their drivers This is the first major part of the Tyndall Centre case study creating a set of scenarios of how the East of England Region may look in 2050 under large greenhouse gas emission reductions and with adaptation to residual climate changes. We set out an assessment (a ‘framing narrative’) of the region from the perspective of climate change. This involves describing and analysing the current state of the East of England’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, its vulnerability to climate change and how these are influenced by factors outside the Region. There are two main purposes to this exercise: 1) To identify the most important drivers of climate change 2) Establish a base from which to build our scenarios All activities emit GHGs, some more than others. We have used a spreadsheet emissions inventory model (GRIP) developed by the Tyndall Centre, regional strategy documents and reports, academic literature and local knowledge to build our framing and assess where the key areas are. The principal findings are (with approximate GHG proportions for 2000): DOMESTIC. 25% The main drivers of domestic emissions are poor energy efficiency of housing and an overall trend to increasing energy use. INDUSTRY AND ECONOMY. Commercial sector 7%; Other industries 16% Emissions per unit of GVA are not high in the Region, since the commercial sector, a relatively low emitter, is a major contributor to GVA. The trends are towards more development of the 'cleaner' businesses such as finance and ICT. The two main issues for GHGs are the danger of appearing cleaner by exporting major industrial emissions sources to developing countries, and the location of development, with its links to the need to travel. TRANSPORT. 29% The large rural areas and reliance on commuting make the East the largest transport emitter per head of all Regions. There is rising pressure nationally on increased road transport, and major links to the location of development and the need to travel. PUBLIC SECTOR. 5% The total is not high, but the value of 'leading by example' in reducing emissions from council activities, schools, hospitals etc. is high. CULTURE. This includes tourism and leisure, and it is difficult to quantify exactly how much GHG is emitted directly from these activities. These are important sectors for the Region, and rely on efficient transport. Under climate change the sector is likely to expand, with implications for GHG emissions. AGRICULTURE. 10% Agriculture, more than any other sector, indicates the links between climate change impacts and mitigation. Agriculture is a relatively large emitter of GHG (mainly from soils) for its GVA, and is very vulnerable to climate change. WASTE. 3% The Region is nearly at capacity for landfill waste, and has a major strategy to reduce waste. The future is likely to see lower emissions from waste from the region, but possibly at the expense of moving emissions to other locations. WATER


Emissions from energy used in providing clean waster and treating sewage are less than 1% of the total, but this sector is also vulnerable to the drier summers expected under climate change. LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT We believe that in addition to the recognised social and economic consequences, location of development is a major pressure for GHG emissions in the Region. The pattern of development can significantly influence the need and type of travel, linking transport, housing, industry, schools and retail.


List of acronyms used in the document LWCC RCS RES RENVS RHS RPG14 RSS RT36 SDF LAs “Living with Climate Change in the East of England” Summary Report “Regional Cultural Strategy” Living East “ East of England 2010. The Regional Economic Strategy” “Our Environment, Our Future: the Regional Environment Strategy for the East of England.” July 2003 “East of England Regional Housing Strategy 2003-2006.” “Consultation on options leading to Regional Planning Guidance (RPG14) for the East of England 2021”. September 2002 Regional Social Strategy Consultation, September 2003 “Regional Trends No. 36 (2001 Edition). Office of National Statistics” “A sustainable development framework for the East of England” July 2001. “Climate change and local communities – how prepared are you?” UKCIP adaptation guidance for local authorities. July 2003


1 Introduction – the East of England: climate change cause, effect and action 1.1 Climate Change and the East of England Region Human-induced climate change, primarily caused by burning of fossil fuels, is likely to be one of the biggest challenges the world faces over the next century. It is becoming increasingly clear that, even in the most optimistic of futures, climate change will require both deep reductions in emissions (“mitigation”) of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and adaptation to the impacts of climate change. The UK government’s recent Energy White Paper (published in February 2003) contained an ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (from current levels) by 60% by 2050. From a scientific point of view, this is the minimum needed to stabilise GHG concentrations in the atmosphere below the level thought to cause “dangerous and destructive” climate change.1 Historically, there is a strong link between carbon emissions and the size of economy, as measured by GDP2. Since growth in the economy would tend to increase emissions over the period to 2050, 60% represents a reduction in emissions of great proportion compared to a future where no action was taken. Action will be taken over the next few decades by central government, and by international agreement, which will take us onto a lower carbon track. Much of the consequences of these steps will be felt at the regional and local scales. All aspects of regional and local decision-making will be affected by such steps. Spatial planning, transport, housing, industry, cultural life and public services will all be affected, not least because the link between prosperity and GHG emissions will have to be broken. This will involve major changes in the way society is run, and the assumptions on which action is based. Institutions and areas of responsibility are still in the process of formation at the regional and local level. In addition to ‘top down’ legislative pressure, community efforts towards a sustainable future (such as the carbon reduction project CRed) are likely to be an important driver of regional bodies’ priorities. However, even if the ambition is met, there will still be a residual degree of climate change which we will need to adapt to. There is an expanding body of research indicating the potential impacts of climate change and guidance on how organisations might deal with and adapt to these impacts. The scoping study “Living with climate change in the East of England”, in particular, provides scenarios of future changes in climate and set out the options for adaptation in the east of England – thus providing a key foundation for this study. How does the Region think about the future at the moment? There are several interlocking regional strategies on the economy, environment, social inclusion and planning which provide a snapshot of the Region as it is now, and set out the context and plans for the Region over the next 10 – 20 years. Part of these plans include addressing the impacts of climate change and a move towards the principles of sustainable development. However, they do not address the radical changes over the next fifty years which would accompany large scale reductions in GHG emissions.

1.2 What our study will show The study is built on the premise that emissions reductions of at least 60% are needed by 2050, and that we will have to adapt to residual climate changes. Through creating a set of scenarios of how the Region may look in 2050 under such changes, we believe we can highlight some of the key decisions on climate change over the next 20 – 50 years within the context of longer term goals for mitigation and adaptation. These will include an assessment of the sectors and activities which contribute most to climate change, and which will be the easiest to tackle.

RCEP (2000) Energy: the changing climate. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution Twenty-Second Report. 2 IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the IPCC TAR, p. 88



2 The purpose of this document This first major part of the case study sets out an assessment (a ‘framing narrative’) of the East of England region from the perspective of climate change. This involves describing and analysing the current state of the East of England’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, its vulnerability to climate change and how these are influenced by factors outside the Region. There are two main purposes to this exercise: 1) We can identify the most important drivers of climate change and hence focus the study on the most important areas 2) Through knowledge of the current state, we can build our future scenarios based on different combinations of changes to the present situation The first vital question for the framing is “what are the drivers of increasing GHGs in the region?”. The second is: “how is the region vulnerable to the twin pressures of climate change and the need to reduce GHG emissions?”. The framing draws on a range of existing work, including regional strategies, climate change impact assessments and emissions inventory methods. Much of the information contained within these studies and strategies is assumed to be familiar; we use them to draw conclusions about our key questions.

3 The Regional Strategies for the East of England Recent changes in the patterns of governance in the UK, including a move towards regional government, have required that the English Regions develop integrated plans for sustainable development of their areas3. The East of England is currently (December 2003) preparing such an integrated strategy, consisting of several parts:

Counsell D.; Haughton, G. (2002) Sustainable Development in Regional Planning Guidance: Regional Report No. 2 – East Anglia and the East of England. March 2002.




Planning Guidance


Waste Management






ABB Purpose

RPG14 Spatial location and type of development EELGC

RTS Transport planning


under RPG14

RWMS sustainable waste management, reduction in waste under RPG14

RES Economic development

RENVS natural and built environment

RSS Inequality, exclusion, renewal

RHS Location, type, number of housing Regional Housing Forum * *


EERA & EEEF * * * * *


RCS Culture (eg. historic, sporting), regional identity Regional Cultural Forum

Living With Climate Change LWCC impacts of and adaptation to climate change SDRT

Housing Transport Environment Culture Waste Economy Community safety Health Education Participation Agriculture /forestry Energy Water

* * * * * *


* * * * * *

* * * * * * * * *

* * *

* * * * *


* * * *

* * *

Table 1: Regional Strategies for the East of England and the areas they cover. SDRT = Sustainable Development Round Table; EERA = East of England Regional Assembly; EEEF = East of England Environment Forum; EEDA = East of England Development Agency; EELGC = East of England Local Government Conference


Table 1 outlines the different strategies, the responsibility for their production, and assesses which regional sectors and activities are covered by each. These sectors and activities are given broad generic names to cover their different expressions within the strategies. The overarching document for all these strategies is the region’s Sustainable Development Framework (SDF), produced by EERA and SDRT, a “guiding template to encourage adoption of sustainable development principles in all Regional Strategies and Action Plans”4. The national government’s devolution of power to the Regions has led to criticism of the UK-wide process of creating regional strategies. This especially relates to the Economic Strategies, and more particularly conventional economic growth, taking primacy over environmental and social issues5. In the East of England, this criticism is being addressed by an ongoing process of joint development and progressive revision of the strategies development is iterative. However, the definition of sustainable development is based on the UK Government’s four key principles6, which have drawn criticism for setting much more precise goals for the economic ‘plank’ while remaining vague about social and environmental targets. There has been extensive criticism of the assumed link between economic growth (as measured by GDP) and welfare (eg. Daly & Cobb7; SDC8 among many others). In this paper we are concerned with the relationship between climate change and policy, and we examine some of these tensions between economic development, and environmental and social issues. Discussion in this paper relates to the strategies as they stand at a particular time (December 2003), and in the ongoing process these are certain to change. However, we believe that a ‘snapshot’ assessment can be a useful input to the process.

3.1 Climate Change and the Regional Strategies The Region’s primary document on climate change is the ‘Living with climate change’ study, launched in March 2004. This study comprehensively addresses the potential future climates of the Region, their potential impacts on a wide range of regional sectors and activities, and appropriate measures to address these impacts within the regional planning framework. The UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) have also produced a document in conjunction with local government associations (“Climate Change and local communities – how prepared are you?”) aimed at informing local councils about impacts and adaptation to climate change. It is not the purpose of this paper to repeat previous work, but it is instructive to briefly review some of the effects climate change will have on the Region9,10. These include: Housing, as a significant immovable capital investment, is especially vulnerable to climate-related issues like subsidence and flooding. Currently, 125 000 properties in the East are at risk from sea/river flooding (5% of population)11. Under climate change, without further adaptation policy, flooding occurrence is likely to increase in winter, both on floodplains and at the coast. Economy: Proposed developments, especially the Thames Gateway and the coasts, are very much at risk from climate change through reduced water supply in the summer, winter flooding and sea level rise. CC impacts on biodiversity: species loss and reduction, especially coasts and wetlands through changing temperatures and flooding.
4 5

SDF, Introduction Counsell & Haughton, ibid. 6 DETR (1999) A Better Quality of Life: the UK Strategy for Sustainable Development 7 Daly, H.; Cobb, J.B. (1989) For the Common Good. Beacon Press 8 Sustainable Development Commission (2003) Redefining Prosperity: resource productivity, economic growth and sustainable development. 27 June 2003, SDC. 9 LWCC 10 LAs 11 RENVS, p. 29


Heavy reliance on transport infrastructure is also vulnerable to the impacts of climate change through flood disruption, melting roads, buckling rails, embankment slip through increased rainfall intensity and road subsidence in summer. Public services are principally vulnerable to climate-related impacts through their statutory responsibilities to provide effective societal support. For example, the health sector has to deal with the consequences of sunburn/skin cancer and incidences of heat and cold stress, food poisoning and air pollution. These disproportionately affect the most vulnerable such as the old and financially poor. 305,000 ha of Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land is at risk of fluvial flooding and 54,000 ha at risk from coastal flooding, equivalent to two thirds the entire area of Norfolk. Agriculture is a high water user in the region. There is therefore high vulnerability to environmental factors such as drought. Under climate change, there is likely to be increased growing season, but decreasing soil moisture; waterlogging in winter and species change will be significant. Awareness of climate change impacts is already being used to inform policy, for example, RENVS’ Strategic Aims 4 and 6: “Reduce vulnerability to climate change” and “Harness environmental benefits arising from climate change”. RPG14 is concerned with location of development in floodprone areas, and recommends “development should be avoided in areas at greatest risk of river and coastal flooding”. The regional strategies are also concerned with mitigation of GHGs: “we must significantly reduce the production of greenhouse gases”12. Unsurprisingly, the SDF takes a lead on the unsustainable activities and trends, including energy use and travel, location of development and large numbers of imports, setting reducing one of the GHGs, CO2, as a high level target. However, it sets no quantitative targets. Policies on mitigation are much harder to identify and implement, especially at the local level. There are so many links with larger spatial scales that it is not obvious exactly what emissions are at present (for example do we count the miles food has travelled to reach our plates?), and attributing these to particular localities is particularly vexing. For example, consider a scenario where the East of England builds large numbers of wind turbines, but sells the electricity to the grid. If most of the Region’s consumers then buy power from companies that mainly use fossil fuels, can the emission reductions legitimately be attributed to the Region? In order to achieve significant cuts in GHG emissions, it is important to understand how these may be achieved, and what the potential consequences are, in addition to understanding how this may happen in the context of climate change adaptation. In the rest of this document we concentrate on illuminating the debate on GHG mitigation, by setting out a framing of the current state of the East of England region.

4 A quantitative sector-based mapping of greenhouse gas emissions for the East of England The first steps in addressing the “key questions” involve an assessment of from which sectors, and how much, GHG is currently emitted. This is not an easy task, partly due to the complexity and range of the sources, but also due to availability of data. It becomes easy to get bogged down in data collection, refining the methods and developing ever-more precise numbers; so much so that the overall purpose of creating the inventory is lost. In addition, greater numerical precision does not always equal greater accuracy, and with so many assumptions in setting out an inventory there is necessarily a limit to accuracy. Our approach is to use the GRIP model, a top-down method developed at Tyndall North (UMIST) which uses a mixture of directly measured regional data and national statistics adjusted for the region. The assumptions and methods in GRIP, and a summary table of data are given in Appendix 1.


RPG14, p. 37


Although carbon dioxide is the most often quoted, and even used to mean “all GHGs together”, mainly because the quantities are much larger than other GHGs, these others can cause much more climate change per tonne of gas. Hence they can contribute significantly to climate change in spite of their small quantities, especially in sectors such as waste and agriculture where methane is emitted in the largest quantities. The factor which determines these gases’ contributions, the ‘Global Warming Potential’, is difficult to define since it depends on the timescale under consideration. We have used the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s values for a 100 year timescale13; each tonne of the following gases is equivalent to X tonnes of CO2, where X = Methane (CH4)…………………23 Nitrous oxide (N2O)……………296 SF6……………………………...22 200 We have examined several greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide [CO2] , methane [CH4], nitrous oxide [N2O] and others [halocarbons and SF6]) and combined all into a CO2 equivalent. In the discussion below, we quote the contribution of all gases together as a CO2 equivalent.

5 Sectoral analysis of emissions inventory On the basis of the sectoral classification above, we now explore in more detail the areas of concern for the major sectors of the East. For each sector, we examine some of the main statistics relevant to GHG emissions, and discuss the underlying drivers for the levels of emissions. We also discuss qualitatively the likely changes in these emissions under the general strategic directions proposed the Regional Strategies and other sources. A sectoral approach is necessarily limiting since there are links between all of the sectors; we have sketched some of these links in the text below.

5.1 Housing Key statistics The East of England has 5 388 200 people14 in 2.25 million households15, the population having grown by 6% since 199116. 40% of the population is aged over 45. The population of the East is projected to increase by 11.5% by 2021, with a corresponding increase in number of households by 18.5% by 202117. Growth will mainly occur through migration – principally from London (and hence internationally)18. Key issues for climate change There are two fundamental parts to how housing relates to climate change: first, the energy use in construction, demolition, restoration and running of the housing stock and second, the effects of the spatial location patterns of the housing. There is not a noticeably high domestic energy use in the East compared to other parts of the UK; energy spend per household is slightly below the national average19. However, in absolute terms, energy used is large compared with other EU countries. Even new-built homes in the UK use 3.5

13 14

IPCC: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the IPCC TAR, p. 388 2001 UK Census 15 1999 figure from RT36 16 RPG14 17 RHS 18 RPG14; “The Provision of Affordable Housing in the East of England 1996 – 2021”. Supplementary document to RPG14, June 2003 19 RT36, Table 8.11, p. 112


times as much energy as equivalent properties in Germany20. In the region, 25% of GHG emissions come from the domestic sector. This is from energy consumption in the home (gas, electricity, solid and non-transport liquid fuel). The high baseline coupled with pressure from population expansion, and increasing household numbers means that domestic energy use is a key driver of emissions in the East. Domestic energy consumption in the UK has increased by about 20% since 198021. Unless much more stringent energy efficiency design standards are implemented, along with reduction in energy use through more efficient appliances, the housing sector’s contribution to climate change will continue. These principles are endorsed in a general way by the RPG14 and the RENVS (Strategic Aim 3) but no quantitative targets are given. The location of housing is also of great importance, primarily from an emissions perspective because of its links with transport. This is dealt with in more detail in Section 5.10.

5.2 Industry and economy Key sectors and statistics The East of England’s GVA is £76 billion per year22. Within this, there are certain ‘key sectors’, identified in the Economic Strategy, which were chosen through criteria such as current size and growth prospects. Together they form half of the region’s GVA23: GVA in 2000, £ million 9166 4140 2954 2784 2547 937 923 902 551

Finance and business services ICT Agriculture and food processing Tourism, leisure and heritage Hi-tech manufacture Automotive Transport gateways Media & cultural industries Life sciences

Two important subregions identified within RPG14 are Cambridge – an area for economic expansion, through further development of the hi-tech and related industries - and the Thames Gateway – a priority for economic regeneration through increased employment, housing and transport links. Deprivation is greatest in the north of region and in the cities. There are economic benefits from proximity to Europe and London24. More than 10% of the wealth created by those in the East was in the London economy; this figure is 25% for Essex, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire25. Exports make up 20% of the region’s GDP, the highest for any region. The sectors and activities above are useful in identifying which are the main areas of overall interest in the region, but for the purpose of our study we need to identify how different activities contribute to GHG emissions and which are the biggest emitters. There are two main parts to industry’s emissions: 1) from the energy used (as in the domestic sector) and 2) the emissions from the industrial processes themselves. The industrial and commercial sectors together are responsible for about 23% of the total GHG emissions.


Energy Saving Trust “Towards an energy efficiency strategy for households to 2020” supplementary submission to PIU Energy review, October 2001 21 DTI (2003) Digest of UK Energy Statistics, 2003 22 RPG14 23 RES, p. 46 24 RPG14 25 RES, p. 5


Commercial sector This covers a wide range of activities including Retailing, Distribution, Hotels & Catering, Banking & Finance, Insurance, Professional services, Computing services and IT and scientific research. Together, these make up about 7% of the total GHG emissions in the Region, the largest single contributor. This sector covers five of the EEDA ‘key sectors’: Finance & business services, Tourism & leisure, Transport gateways, Media cultural industries, Life sciences and ICT, which together account for nearly a quarter of the Region’s GVA. These activities do not consume much energy per unit of GVA, unlike the heavier manufacturing industries. Oil and gas supply There are around 12 000 jobs in oil & gas supply in the East of England26. Extraction and distribution of these fuels incurs emissions in itself (as opposed to when the fuels are burnt). These so-called ‘fugitive losses’ appear separately in our inventory, and account for about 3 - 4% of the total. Minerals (Glass, ceramics, cement, bricks etc.) The Region has a significant minerals industry, consisting of sand and gravel manufacture, clay, quarrying, cement and aggregates production. This sector contributes about 2% of the total, about half of which comes from process emissions. Food Agriculture and food processing is more important in the East than many other Regions. The Food and Drink industry (mainly processing) accounts for about 2% of emissions. Emissions from agriculture is covered in its own section below. Electrical and mechanical engineering This sector includes manufacture of electrical and communication equipment, as well as machinery and metal products, ie. it includes the “Hi-tech manufacture” key sector. About 2% of the total emissions come from this sector. Vehicles & trailers The manufacture of vehicles, engines and parts is a key industry in the Region, and accounts for over 2% of emissions. Implications for the future The key goal for the region over the next 10 years is to be one of 20 wealthiest regions in Europe (measured by GDP/head) by 2010. This will need GDP growth of 3.2% per year, compared to the 2.3% derived from extrapolating current trends. The Economic Strategy sets out the principles of sustainable development for the Region, including economic growth in all communities and safeguarding the Region’s natural environment. These are broadly mirrored in the RPG14 document. There are critiques elsewhere of the impacts of these principles on the environment (eg. 27, 28) and we do not repeat them here. In this document, we are specifically concerned with pressure on increasing GHG emissions. The Economic Strategy acknowledges that emissions will rise by a factor related to economic growth, and “encourages conservation of fossil fuels”. In addition, there is an identified need to assess the economic impacts of climate change (p. 129) “and also minimise the impact of nonrenewable energy sources on climate change”. The key sectors identified for most growth currently contribute relatively little to GHG emissions. This is because many are in the relatively non-energy intensive service and commercial sectors. Improved energy efficiency in offices, and increased renewable supply could therefore make a difference to industry emissions in the future, unlike in heavy manufacturing industry, where large
26 27

RPG14, p. 102 Counsell & Haughton (2002), ibid. 28 “Sustainability appraisal of RPG14 Options consultation document”. Levett-Therivel and Land Use consultants, September 2002


amounts of energy are often necessary for the processes. Indeed, national trends show the energy use by industry (excluding the commercial sector) fell by nearly 30% between 1980 and 200029. However, there are two areas which will significantly increase emissions over the next ten years: 1) the aim for a clear identity and international profile, opportunities for business to tap into international markets and the need to promote international trade (p. 16). Apart from the increase in emissions from increasing international trade, environmentally damaging production can also be transferred to other countries, giving the appearance of much better progress on emissions reduction in the region at the expense of other sustainability indicators30. 2) Location of development. The major theme of “investing in success wherever it is found” (p. 12) has implications for the location of development within the Region, and hence implications for the level of transport and housing required, with their associated GHG emissions. The Economic Strategy emphasises the key challenge to promote brownfield development, sustainable building design and affordable housing.

5.3 Transport Key statistics Transport is treated as a sector in its own right rather than as part of other sectors such as industry, principally because it is such an important activity contributing to climate change. Nationally, since 1980, road travel has increased by 77%, shipping by 66%, rail travel by 30% and air travel by 300%31. Improvements in energy efficiency have countered some of these increases, but energy use from transport as a whole still increased by nearly 60% between 1980 and 2000.32 The Eastern Region contains 9.4% of the UK’s total road mileage33, and on average each person travels 7062 miles per year by private car34. This is 23% more than the national average. This is in spite of the fact that 20% of households in the region have no car35, although car ownership is still 10% above the national average.36 Rural population growth is high, with increasing reliance on the car37, and 33% of people live in settlements with populations less than 10 00038. However, rural areas of the north are some of the poorer parts of the region39, and 16% of rural households have no car40. Rail travel is higher than the national average but for the average person is still only about 10% of the distance travelled by car.41 There are two major UK airports in the Region: at Luton and Stansted (6.17 million and 11.86 million passengers in 2000 respectively)42. Norwich International airport also handles 0.4 million passengers per year43. In response to forecasts of future demand, the White Paper on the future of air transport has backed the construction of one new runway at Stansted and expansion of Luton up to maximum

29 30

DTI (2003) Digest of UK Energy Statistics, 2003. Table 1.1.5 SDF 31 Department for Transport (2002) “Transport Trends” DfT Statistics 32 DTI (2003) Digest of UK Energy Statistics, 2003 33 “East of England Regional Transport Strategy. Final Report”. April 2003 34 RT36 Table 10.6, p. 133 35 “East of England Regional Transport Strategy. Final Report”. April 2003 36 Vehicle Licensing Statistics 1992-9 (HMSO) 37 RENVS 38 RHS 39 DETR “The Indices of Deprivation” 2000
40 41 42

RSS p. 19

RT36 Table 10.6, p. 133 RT36 Table 10.19, p. 140 43 RPG14, p. 33; Norwich airport pers. comm.


use of its existing runway44. This could increase passenger numbers by 600%. It also implicitly supports expansion of Norwich airport. Felixstowe and Harwich together handle 35.6 million tonnes of freight per year45, and there is pressure to develop ports like Felixstowe and Great Yarmouth as key transport gateways. For example, the 2002 expansion of Felixstowe to increase cargo-handling by up to 20%46 In all, transport accounts for about 27% of the region’s GHG emissions, nearly all from road transport. Emissions from air travel are important for climate change but currently they are major difficulties in assigning responsibility for them. Should the emissions from the entire journeys of all planes leaving the region’s airports be attributed to the region? And to whom should they be attributed? The passengers, airlines or the economy generally? These questions are intended to provoke discussion; for now, we have simply included the emissions from aircraft takeoffs and landings in the Region rather than their whole journeys. Key issues for climate change The statistics paint a picture of a Region of two parts: 1) a mostly rural area with low population density (the north of the Region), where car use is important for mobility between scattered settlements, but where a large minority of the population has no car; 2) an area of significant commuting in the south. As indicated in the Economy section, commuting is very important, with many people living in Essex, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire and commuting daily to London. Traffic congestion is a problem in some of these areas. However, economic differences across region have led to long distance commuting from other parts of the region into London47. In addition, most towns and villages across the region are commuter bases for the larger regional towns such as Norwich48. The relatively high level of rail travel confirms this picture – the main railways in the Region radiate from London. Pressure for expansion of air travel, especially at Stansted, is also an issue for the region, with the associated transport increases required to reach the airport. There is also significant transport of goods across the region from the container ports, which brings economic benefits to the region49 but significantly adds to the contribution to GHG emissions. These factors combine to make relatively high levels of transport a key factor in the emissions from the region. Transport futures Within the Regional Strategies, there is a strong commitment to reducing the need to travel50, using more sustainable forms of transport, and, in the Environment Strategy, focussing on need not demand in catering for transport (p. 35). The Economic Strategy states that transport must be more sustainable, bringing cost and environmental benefits through cleaner fuels and higher efficiency, and encouragement of public transport use; this is repeated in a different way in the Sustainable Development Framework51. The European Commission has a voluntary agreement with car manufacturers to cut emissions from cars by 25% by 2008 through improved engine technology. RPG14 sets out quantitative targets (p. 90), which includes quadrupling the freight carried by rail by 2020; the national government target is to increase rail passengers by 50% by 2010. The possibility of
44 45

DfT “The Future of Air Transport”. White Paper, 16 December 2003 RT36, Table 10.20, p. 140 46 Port of Felixstowe Press Release, 12 December 2002 47 RPG14 48 RENVS 49 RPG14 50 RENVS (SA2); 51 SDF, Issue 3 (Transport)


road user charging is also discussed (p. 81), as is the need to manage transport demand. However, the pressure to improve the road network in the short term “major investment in road structure may be needed in the short term to prevent transport conditions worsening and harming the economy” (p. 30). Airport expansion will be supported52 – for example, with an extra runway, Stansted could be handling up to 80 million passengers per year by 203053. This is partly due to the importance of international trade for the region. However, the Sustainable Development Framework states the need to reduce the global impacts of our lifestyles, such as through cutting down the amount of miles food travels to reach us. The Framework also flags imports as a key unsustainable activity and trend for the Region. Transport is a large contributor to GHG emissions in the East, and this leaves the Region’s economy vulnerable to government legislation on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

5.4 Public services ‘Public services’ includes a wide range of activities, not all operations publicly owned, but which form a broad base of the region’s infrastructure including post and telecommunications, public administration & defence (eg. local and national government operations), education, health & social work, and waste treatment. Overall, the direct contribution to greenhouse gases is relatively small, amounting to just under 5% of the Region’s GHG emissions. In spite of the low contribution to the problem, the value of ‘leading by example’ is important, and many local and regional authorities, for example, are acting to reduce their own GHG emissions, in some cases through the Local Authorities’ Carbon Management Programme (formerly Councils for Climate Protection) or through participation in UKCIP regional climate change impact studies. There are indirect implications of, for example, increased choice of schools, leading to increased transport, and the trend to large centralised hospitals which require more car miles to reach; these examples both affect the emissions from transport. The Economic Strategy implicitly acknowledges this, by encouraging networked learning (p. 102), thus reducing the need to travel and boosting the ICT sector – one of the Region’s ‘key sectors’.

5.5 Culture Culture and tourism is economically vital for the region, especially the North. Cultural pursuits, including the arts, creative industries, holidays, museums and visitor attractions, account for £3.7 billion (1998) of the regional economy, and 12.3 million visitor trips54. The impacts of tourism on GHG emissions are mainly counted through other activities, such as increased transport from outside the region, water use and energy use in hotels and restaurants (see commercial and public services sections). Tourism in the Region is likely to increase under climate change, with warmer, drier summers and more outdoor living55. The green tourism sector is encouraged by the Economic and Environmental Strategies. Transport is a significant emissions source from tourism, and increased pressure on water resources are issues which must be addressed in the expansion of tourism.

5.6 Agriculture

52 53

RES, p. 104 RPG14, p. 33 54 RES, p. 124 55 LAs


As one of the ‘key sectors’ in the Region, agriculture forms an important part of the East of England’s landscape and economy, and the rural environment generally provides a home for 43% of the Region’s population. 72% of agricultural land is under cultivation (compared with 29% nationally)56. The East of England has 26% of England's cereal hectarage57; 40% of the Region’s crop land is covered with winter wheat58. Livestock farming is also important to the Region: 21% of the UK’s pig population and 17% of its poultry population live here59. Agriculture accounts for 10 – 11% of the Region’s GHG emissions. This is the most notable example of the potency of GHGs other than CO2. The relatively small amounts of other gases (27 000 tonnes of methane and 13 000 tonnes of nitrous oxide compared to 736 000 tonnes of CO2 from the sector) become highly significant when accounting for their effect on the climate. Since the Region has a small cattle and sheep population, only a quarter of the agricultural emissions comes from methane (from manure and enteric fermentation). The rest is N2O, mainly from direct emissions from soils and nitrogen fertiliser use. Links with other sectors 75% of journeys in rural areas are made by car – and it is difficult for many rural dwellers to survive without one: “no job, no car; no car, no job”60. This contributes to the relatively high transport emissions in the Region. However, these are a lesser consideration than the direct emissions. Issues for the future There is a priority in Economic and Environment Strategies for more sustainable and less intensive agriculture61. This will reduce emissions from nitrous oxide, but organic arable agriculture, for example, requires more manure, which may increase methane emissions. Water availability will reduce in the summer, which will affect the type of crops planted, and the need for fertiliser, and also the balance between livestock and arable farming. The emergence of biofuel planting could also have an impact.

5.7 Waste Waste from the region’s activities amounts to over 20 million tonnes per year, and a further 4 million tonnes is imported from London62. About 15% of the Region’s waste is household waste, and about 80% of this is landfilled. More than a quarter of the total is from agriculture. 2 - 3% of the Region’s emissions (by CO2 equivalent) come from waste. 90% of this comes from landfill methane, and most of the rest from nitrous oxide produced from sewage works. This may seem small, but it is equivalent to the contribution of half of the entire public sector. Key issues for the future The Region is committed to reducing waste, especially since there is only 6 – 10 years’ landfill capacity left63. The Regional Waste Management Strategy aims for “recovery” (ie. waste from which value is recovered, either by reduction of volume, recycling, re-use, composting, energy recovery) of

56 57

RENVS, p. 11 ACCELERATES East Anglia case study from 58 “REGIS: Regional Climate Change Impact Response Studies in East Anglia and North West England”. DEFRA. 59 DEFRA Agricultural statistics, 2000 60 RES, p. 87 61 eg. RENVS, SA9 pp. 46-48 62 RENVS; RPG14, p. 105 63 RES, p. 123 and 125


70% by 2015 (municipal) and 75% (commercial & industrial)64. This is a major challenge given that at current rates, waste amounts would double by 202065

5.8 Electricity Supply Electricity supply is often seen as a national issue rather than a regional one, and hence environmental issues at the local scale are usually focussed on biodiversity and water management66 rather than emissions from energy supply. In fact, since nearly all electricity is currently supplied through a national grid, in our framing we have assumed that emissions per GWh of electricity used are the same as the national values (see Appendix 1). However, changes in energy policy in the future will have to be implemented at the regional and local levels, and it is important to examine the potential for change in Regional supply sources. It is also not clear whether we will move towards a more decentralised energy supply system – this is a key aspect which will be examined in our future scenarios. Currently, 0.45% of the Region’s energy demand is met by renewables. A report for the East of England Sustainable Development Round Table67 identifies potential renewable energy targets for the Region; these have since been adopted by the Environment Strategy (p. 41), RPG14 (p. 93) and the Sustainable Development Framework (Issue 17, Energy). By 2010, 14% of the Region’s electricity should be produced from renewables by 2010, 70% of this from wind power. The recommended balance implies a 9% CO2 reduction, with 810 MW of wind turbines and 139 000 ha for energy crops. However, this implies a quarter of the area of Norfolk would be covered in energy biomass to provide only 2% of the region’s electricity needs. In addition to more renewables, a move to more efficient uses of energy, tackling fuel poverty and internalising the social and environmental cost of energy are encouraged.68

5.9 Water Supply Water is important as a resource highly dependent on the climate. It also requires energy to provide clean water; hence there are links between climate change impacts and efforts to mitigate emissions. Over 2 billion litres of water are abstracted daily in the Region69. The supply of groundwater is currently in balance. However, water is pumped around the region (eg. to maintain flow in rivers such as the Great Ouse during the summer).70 The energy used to provide a clean water supply and treat sewage is fairly small (less than 0.5% of the total emissions) – but this will rise with corresponding increases in population and tourism. Under climate change, water availability and quality will decrease in summer71. It is already recognised that demand management will be vital72, as will sustainable design73 in properties, appliances and industrial processes.
64 65

Regional Waste Management Strategy, Appendix 2 Cabinet Office Strategy Unit (2002) “Waste Not, Want Not: A strategy for teckling the waste problem in England” 66 Counsell D.; Haughton, G. (2002) Sustainable Development in Regional Planning Guidance: Regional Report No. 2 – East Anglia and the East of England. March 2002. 67 Hams, T.; Evans, N.; Taylor, D. (2001) Renewable energy and land-use planning study – a report to the East of England Sustainable Development Round Table., p. 14 68 SDF, Issue 17 (Energy) 69 RENVS, p. 24 70 RENVS, p. 24 71 LWCC 72 RPG14, p. 37 73 RENVS, SA3


5.10 Cross-cutting themes – Spatial and cultural considerations In this section we examine some of the issues which do not neatly fall into the above sectors. A vital driver of greenhouse gas emissions is the link between transport, housing and location of jobs. Generally, as density of housing rises the number of transport miles decreases – for example, Londoners travel about half the distance by car in a year that east of England residents do74. The number of houses built on previously used land is also a proxy for the number of car miles travelled. Within the East, between 1997 and 2000, 54% of new dwellings were built on previously-used land75. This compares to the ODPM target of 60%; however, the housing density for these was 22 per hectare.76,77 This is the lowest figure for any British region.78 In addition, the region mirrors the national trend to large centralised shopping and hospitals, increased travel to schools and more frequent and further international travel. The implication is that the relatively high transport miles in the East are partly due to the low density of development. Other national trends are reflected in the East. Changing patterns of work have also contributed to a rise in emissions. With greater flexibility in employment, workers change jobs much more frequently and often stay living in the same place and commute further. The loss of jobs in agriculture and in seaside towns79, while these areas remain wellpopulated implies increases in transport to allow people to reach work. However, 16% of rural households have no car80, which has serious implications for their ability to find employment. The south of the Region has relatively low unemployment, and high costs of living, resulting in shortages of essential workers. The phenomenon of transporting people from other parts of the Region to fill these vacancies has become common practice. Culturally, the East of England Region is a diverse place. The Region was created in its present form in April 2001 from the old East Anglia (Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire) and part of the South East (Essex, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire). The latter three counties have much more in common with other parts of the South East (eg. close employment and cultural links to London, more ethnic diversity, higher incomes) than with East Anglia. Residents generally identify with London or with East Anglia rather than the East of England – in fact a survey in 2001 showed only one in ten people know they live in the “East of England", while 35% identify with East Anglia and 23% the South East.81 The implications of this for the future are explored below. The future There are several strands to the issue of spatial location. The first is the major Economic Strategy theme of ‘invest in success wherever it is found, backing the future prosperity of [the Region’s] most successful areas’ (p. 11). This focuses principally on the economic success of Cambridge, driven by knowledge and hi-tech industries. In fact, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Essex are all above the regional average for GDP/head growth, implying on this definition a focus of development in these areas. However, the Strategy also acknowledges that “deprivation will tend to be reinforced by enhanced economic growth” and “It is vital we bring jobs, enterprise and opportunities to communities suffering exclusion” (p. 133). There is a clear statement of the need to spread growth to reduce social exclusion82 and to ‘counter tendency for business to locate in already advantaged areas’83. In addition, the Environment Strategy makes clear that “the fundamental objectives of Green
74 75

RT36, Table 10.6, p. 133 RPG14 76 RHS 77 RENVS, p. 21 78 RENVS, p. 28 79 RSS, p. 7 80 RSS, p. 19 81 RCS 82 SDF, Issue 2 (Location of Growth); RSS 83 SDF, Issue 6 (Poverty and Deprivation)


Belt policy should continue to be supported and pursued” (p. 50), and the landscape and townscape character should be strengthened and maintained.84 RPG14 deals extensively with the possibilities for location of future development. It outlines five spatial principles for location of development, summarised as: • • • • • • reduce the need to travel use brownfield development in higher densities ensure a balance of housing and employment development to discourage long-distance commuting develop first in urban areas, then urban extensions, then new settlements encourage living in cities rather than suburbs or rural towns promote sustainable transport

It also lays out four possible scenarios for spatial development85: Scenario 1 – continue existing policies Scenario 2 – building on the strengths of regional centres (essentially encouraging development spread across the Region) Scenario 3 – building on regional strengths (essentially focussing development in the south of the Region) Scenario 4 – create a new settlement The inherent tension within the Regional Strategies is expressed most clearly in the Sustainability Appraisal of the RPG14 draft. This identified a broad trade-off between scenarios: Scenario 2 will be more environmentally and socially sustainable, Scenario 3 will be more economically attractive. However, that economic attractiveness would be unevenly distributed across the region. The implications of these complicated issues for GHG emissions are that a scenario focussing development on the south of the region will enhance existing trends as described in the first part of this section, and hence increase emissions. The issue of adaptation to climate change is also an important factor in scenario choice. In spite of efforts to build a regional identity, its current absence may affect the choice of scenario. The cultural differences between the north and south of the region may mean that there is competition between them for development in their areas rather than a cooperative integrated Regional effort. The richer and more populous south would be likely to win such competition, with all the implications for social inclusion, development and environment, including increased GHG emissions. The latest plans (February 2004) for development of the M11 corridor, with an additional half million new homes by 2021, imply a move already towards Scenario 3.

6 Next steps The framing narrative has: • • • Discussed the treatment of climate change mitigation and adaptation in current regional plans Presented a sectoral greenhouse gas emissions inventory which indicates the relative contributions of different activities in the region Discussed what we believe are the key drivers of GHG emissions both now and under the Regional Strategies

84 85

RENVS, SA10 RPG14, Ch 6 (pp. 39 – 52)


Indicated qualitatively how links between activities and sectors affect GHG emissions

The next steps are to use this analysis as a basis for creating scenarios of 60% emissions reductions, coupled with impacts and adaptation to climate change. The scenarios will contain different permutations of changes in the sectors and activities above, and will include pathways and key decision points to reaching those 60% targets. Acknowledgements We would like to thank members of the East of England Sustainable Development Round Table and Norfolk County Council for their support in developing this document, Cambridge Econometrics and the Environment Agency for data advice, Alison McCartney (DEFRA), and NWDA and Enviros.


Appendix 1: Technical Methods The GRIP model was developed by Sebastian Carney of Tyndall North (UMIST) as part of a jointly funded project between the Tyndall Centre and The Environment Agency. The GRIP model and the ideas behind it have designed with consistency, accuracy, ease and compatibility in mind. As a result of this the model can be applied to all Government Office Regions and the three devolved administrations providing a clear and consistent picture of their contribution to the UK’s emissions totals. GRIP divides emissions between the following activities and sectors: Transport, Domestic, Industry (various sectors), Commercial services, Public services, Agriculture and Waste. In addition there are more detailed methods to account for fugitive emissions from oil and gas supplies and industrial process emissions. Included in estimates of energy use are electricity (attributed on an end user basis), gas, solid and liquid fuels.
Details Food, Drink Tobacco Textiles, Clothing & Leather Paper, Printing & publishing Pharmaceuticals, Chemicals, Rubber & Plastics Non-metallic mineral products Basic metals Electronics, Electrical engineering (Note these are SIC 30, 31, 32) Metal goods, Mechanical engineering, Instruments (note these are Mechanical engineering SIC 28, 29, 33) 34 Motor vehicles Vehicles, trailers, etc. 13,14,35,36,41,20 Other mining, Wood, Aerospace, Other transport equipment, Other industries. Manufacturing & Recycling, Water supply 45 Construction Construction 01, 02,05 Agriculture, Forestry agriculture 50, 51,52,55, 65-74 Retailing, Distribution, Hotels & Catering, Banking & Finance, commercial sector Insurance, Professional services, Computing services, Other business services 64, 75,80,85, 90-93 Communications, Public administration & defence, Education, public administration Health & Social Work, Waste Treatment, Miscellaneous Services GRIP sector names Food & Drink Textiles Paper & paper prods. Chemicals Mineral products Basic metals Electrical engineering GRIP SIC codes 15,16 17,18, 19 21,22 24,25 26 27 31,32 28-30,33

Table A1: Division of industry sectors in GRIP, and corresponding SIC codes

A1.1 Methodology and assumptions Emissions inventories can be compiled in two ways: bottom up, or top down. Bottom up inventories represent the most accurate kind, these are compiled on the basis of raw data pertaining to: Energy consumption, Animal population, Activity data of Part A regulated sites and Waste. Alternatively an emissions inventory can be compiled on the basis of Top Down data, where national level totals are utilised and disaggregated using representative data, this approach has the benefit of being timely in its production but has high levels of uncertainty associated with it. GRIP offers a formalised methodology for calculating Greenhouse Gas emissions on a regional scale this is the first methodology of this type for the express purpose of calculating GHG emissions. The GRIP methodology operates at three levels: Level 1: Entirely Bottom Up; Level 2: A combined Top Down and Bottom Up approach; Level 3: Entirely Top Down. The methods utilised are outlined below, together with the level of the methodology to which they apply. A more detailed explanation of the GRIP methodology can be gained from Sebastian Carney at Tyndall North, UMIST (


A1.2 Energy Use This covers use of Electricity, Gas, Solid Fuel and Non-transport Liquid Fuel. Data on energy consumption on a regional scale are either not currently available, deemed commercially confidential or too costly to extract. The GRIP methodology does however permit such data to be interjected at a later stage should it become available. As a result of this disaggregates have been used to calculate consumption. Emissions associated with electricity have been attributed to the End User; this approach has been chosen primarily with policy setting in mind. Consumption of Natural Gas is available on a post code basis from Transco. The following represent the simplified calculations for ENERGY consumption Domestic: (Level 2: GRIP) Er = (En*Fr*Hr) / (Fn*Hn) Industry/commercial/public sector/agriculture: (Level 2: GRIP) Er = (En*GVAr) / GVAn Railways: (Level 2: GRIP) Er = (En*Mr) / Mn Where: E = sectoral energy use (TJ) F = average weekly spend on fuel (£) GVA = Gross Value Added (£) H = no. of households M = miles of railway track Subscript n = national; Subscript r = regional All of these results are calculated for each fuel type for each sector. Data sources: DUKES; Regional Trends; ONS (other); NAEI; Transco (Gas only); IPPC

A1.3 Emissions from energy use The table gives the emissions in thousands of tonnes of each gas based on energy use. The conversion factors are based on CO2 0.43*GWhr Er*Various Er*Various Er*Various CH4 (1/5505)*[0.43*GWhr] Er*Various Er*Various Er*Various N2O 0.238*[0.43*GWhr] Er*Various Er*Various Er*Various

Electricity Gas Solid Fuel Non-transport liquid fuel

Er = sectoral energy use in region (TJ) GWh = sectoral energy use (GWh) Various – emissions factors


Emissions factors may vary depending on the calorific content and combustion efficiency. Emissions associated with electricity are calculated on the basis of national data sets in order to derive at a representative emissions factor for the year studied.

A1.4 Emissions from other activities Sector/activity Industry (level 1) Regional Emissions (EMSr) Industrial processes – individual industry reported (source: Environment Agency) Direct communications from companies where figures cannot be ascertained from PI, for example where CO2 emissions are coupled with energy emissions, to ensure no double counting takes place. Emissions include Non Energy CO2, N2O, CH4 together with HFC, PFC and SF6 emissions. Sum of = Total Process emissions (EMSn*MRr*Pr) / (MRn*Pn) (EMSn*Mr) / Mn (EMSn*MOr) / MOn MOr*EF NAr*EF (EMSn*MSWr)/MSWn*EF (EMSn*Pr)/Pn

Road transport (Level 3: GRIP) Railways (Level 3: GRIP) Marine transport (Level 3: GRIP) Aircraft (Level 1: GRIP) Agriculture (Level 1: GRIP) Waste – landfill methane (Level 2: GRIP) Waste – other (Level 3: GRIP) EMS = emissions MO = movement of vessels/aircraft MR = road miles per person per year MSW = waste to landfill (tonnes) NA = number of animals P = population EF = Emissions Factor

Sources of data Agriculture: NAEI (national emissions); DEFRA (regional animal numbers) Waste: NAEI (national emissions); RES (regional waste totals); ONS (office for national statistics); CAA (Civil Aviation Authority); Personal Communications; IPPC, Marine Transport Statistics.

A1.5 The REWARD Inventory The REWARD project ( has compiled baseline inventories for a range of pollutants including greenhouse gases for the East of England region. REWARD’s data are designed to fit with an economic model used to examine environmental consequences of economic policies, mainly for industry, in the short term (10 – 20 years). REWARD’s total emissions figure for the region is 49.8 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. This compares with 49.3 mt CO2 equiv. for GRIP. Within the necessarily broad nature of the assumptions of an inventory, these figures are very similar. It is difficult to make detailed comparison between the two models due to the different sector classifications and attribution of electricity emissions, but there appears to be order-of-magnitude similarity between the two models' figures for the various sectors such as transport, domestic and industry. GRIP was designed as a simple spreadsheet with the express purpose of making long-term scenario creation easy. It does not resolve as many sectors as REWARD, but when looking at 50 year timescales, the approximate figures are more important than details.


The trans-disciplinary Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research undertakes integrated research into the long-term consequences of climate change for society and into the development of sustainable responses that governments, business-leaders and decision-makers can evaluate and implement. Achieving these objectives brings together UK climate scientists, social scientists, engineers and economists in a unique collaborative research effort. Research at the Tyndall Centre is organised into four research themes that collectively contribute to all aspects of the climate change issue: Integrating Frameworks; Decarbonising Modern Societies; Adapting to Climate Change; and Sustaining the Coastal Zone. All thematic fields address a clear problem posed to society by climate change, and will generate results to guide the strategic development of climate change mitigation and adaptation policies at local, national and global scales. The Tyndall Centre is named after the 19th century UK scientist John Tyndall, who was the first to prove the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in atmospheric composition could bring about climate variations. In addition, he was committed to improving the quality of science education and knowledge. The Tyndall Centre is a partnership of the following institutions: University of East Anglia UMIST Southampton Oceanography Centre University of Southampton University of Cambridge Centre for Ecology and Hydrology SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research (University of Sussex) Institute for Transport Studies (University of Leeds) Complex Systems Management Centre (Cranfield University) Energy Research Unit (CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory) The Centre is core funded by the following organisations: Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) UK Government Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) For more information, visit the Tyndall Centre Web site ( or contact: External Communications Manager Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK Phone: +44 (0) 1603 59 3906; Fax: +44 (0) 1603 59 3901 Email:

Recent Working Papers Tyndall Working Papers are available online at Mitchell, T. and Hulme, M. (2000). A Country-byCountry Analysis of Past and Future Warming Rates, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 1. Hulme, M. (2001). Integrated Assessment Models, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 2. Berkhout, F, Hertin, J. and Jordan, A. J. (2001). Socio-economic futures in climate change impact assessment: using scenarios as 'learning machines', Tyndall Centre Working Paper 3. Barker, T. and Ekins, P. (2001). How High are the Costs of Kyoto for the US Economy?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 4. Barnett, J. (2001). The issue of 'Adverse Effects and the Impacts of Response Measures' in the UNFCCC, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 5. Goodess, C.M., Hulme, M. and Osborn, T. (2001). The identification and evaluation of suitable scenario development methods for the estimation of future probabilities of extreme weather events, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 6. Barnett, J. (2001). Security and Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 7. Adger, W. N. (2001). Social Capital and Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 8. Barnett, J. and Adger, W. N. (2001). Climate Dangers and Atoll Countries, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 9. Gough, C., Taylor, I. and Shackley, S. (2001). Burying Carbon under the Sea: An Initial Exploration of Public Opinions, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 10. Barker, T. (2001). Representing the Integrated Assessment of Climate Change, Adaptation and Mitigation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 11. Dessai, S., (2001). The climate regime from The Hague to Marrakech: Saving or sinking the Kyoto Protocol?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 12. Dewick, P., Green K., Miozzo, M., (2002). Technological Change, Industry Structure and the Environment, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 13. Shackley, S. and Gough, C., (2002). The Use of Integrated Assessment: An Institutional Analysis Perspective, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 14. Köhler, J.H., (2002). Long run technical change in an energy-environment-economy (E3) model for an IA system: A model of Kondratiev waves, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 15. Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, D. and Hulme, M. (2002). Adaptation to climate change: Setting the Agenda for Development Policy and Research, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 16. Dutton, G., (2002). Hydrogen Energy Technology, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 17. Watson, J. (2002). The development of large technical systems: implications for hydrogen, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 18. Pridmore, A. and Bristow, A., (2002). The role of hydrogen in powering road transport, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 19. Turnpenny, J. (2002). Reviewing organisational use of scenarios: Case study - evaluating UK energy policy options, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 20. Watson, W. J. (2002). Renewables and CHP Deployment in the UK to 2020, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 21. Watson, W.J., Hertin, J., Randall, T., Gough, C. (2002). Renewable Energy and Combined Heat and Power Resources in the UK, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 22. Paavola, J. and Adger, W.N. (2002). Justice and adaptation to climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 23. Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. (2002). Impact of Integrating Renewables and CHP into the UK Transmission Network, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 24 Xueguang Wu, Mutale, J., Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. (2003). An investigation of Network Splitting for Fault Level Reduction, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 25

Brooks, N. and Adger W.N. (2003). Country level risk measures of climate-related natural disasters and implications for adaptation to climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 26 Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2003). Building resilience to climate change through adaptive management of natural resources, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 27 Dessai, S., Adger, W.N., Hulme, M., Köhler, J.H., Turnpenny, J. and Warren, R. (2003). Defining and experiencing dangerous climate change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 28 Brown, K. and Corbera, E. (2003). A MultiCriteria Assessment Framework for CarbonMitigation Projects: Putting “development” in the centre of decision-making, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 29 Hulme, M. (2003). Abrupt climate change: can society cope?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 30 Turnpenny, J., Haxeltine A. and O’Riordan, T. (2003). A scoping study of UK user needs for managing climate futures. Part 1 of the pilotphase interactive integrated assessment process (Aurion Project), Tyndall Centre Working Paper 31 Xueguang Wu, Jenkins, N. and Strbac, G. (2003). Integrating Renewables and CHP into the UK Electricity System: Investigation of the impact of network faults on the stability of large offshore wind farms, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 32 Pridmore, A., Bristow, A.L., May, A. D. and Tight, M.R. (2003). Climate Change, Impacts, Future Scenarios and the Role of Transport, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 33 Dessai, S., Hulme, M (2003). Does climate policy need probabilities?, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 34 Tompkins, E. L. and Hurlston, L. (2003). Report to the Cayman Islands’ Government. Adaptation lessons learned from responding to tropical cyclones by the Cayman Islands’ Government, 1988 – 2002, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 35 Kröger, K. Fergusson, M. and Skinner, I. (2003). Critical Issues in Decarbonising Transport: The Role of Technologies, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 36 Ingham, A. and Ulph, A. (2003) Uncertainty, Irreversibility, Precaution and the Social Cost of Carbon, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 37

Brooks, N. (2003). Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: a conceptual framework, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 38 Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2003). Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 39 Klein, R.J.T., Lisa Schipper, E. and Dessai, S. (2003), Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 40 Watson, J. (2003), UK Electricity Scenarios for 2050, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 41 Kim, J. A. (2003), Sustainable Development and the CDM: A South African Case Study, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 42 Anderson, D. and Winne, S. (2003), Innovation and Threshold Effects in Technology Responses to Climate Change, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 43 Shackley, S., McLachlan, C. and Gough, C. (2004) The Public Perceptions of Carbon Capture and Storage, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 44 Purdy, R. and Macrory, R. (2004) Geological carbon sequestration: critical legal issues, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 45 Watson, J., Tetteh, A., Dutton, G., Bristow, A., Kelly, C., Page, M. and Pridmore, A., (2004) UK Hydrogen Futures to 2050, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 46 Berkhout, F., Hertin, J. and Gann, D. M., (2004) Learning to adapt: Organisational adaptation to climate change impacts, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 47 Pan, H. (2004) The evolution of economic structure under technological development, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 48 Awerbuch, S. (2004) Restructuring our electricity networks to promote decarbonisation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 49 Powell, J.C., Peters, M.D., Ruddell, A. & Halliday, J. (2004) Fuel Cells for a Sustainable Future? Tyndall Centre Working Paper 50

Agnolucci, P., Barker, T. & Ekins, P. (2004) Hysteresis and energy demand: the Announcement Effects and the effects of the UK Climate Change Levy Tyndall Centre Working Paper 51 Agnolucci, P. (2004) Ex post evaluations of CO2 –based taxes: a survey Tyndall Centre Working Paper 52 Agnolucci, P. & Ekins, P. (2004) The Announcement Effect and environmental taxation Tyndall Centre Working Paper 53 Turnpenny, J., Carney, S., Haxeltine, A., & O’Riordan, T. (2004) Developing regional and local scenarios for climate change mitigation and adaptation Part 1: A framing of the East of England Tyndall Centre Working Paper 54