Lords Deben and Krebs say end of subsidies is political step by government, which must explain cost and what will be done instead to meet targets

The government must explain how its withdrawal of support from onshore windfarms will affect the cost of meeting greenhouse gas emissions targets, and urgently set out plans for alternative electricity generation, its statutory advisors on climate change have said.



One of the first policy announcements from the incoming Conservative government was that support for onshore windfarms would be withdrawn from 2016, and planning procedures put in place that will make it much harder for any new windfarms to be brought forward.



This is likely to severely restrict the development of any new onshore wind farms in England, despite the fact that they are the cheapest form of renewable electricity generation. This in turn will push up the cost of reducing emissions, and meeting renewable energy targets set for 2020.

UK and France 'may miss EU renewable energy target' Read more

Lord Deben, the chairman of the committee on climate change, said that the job of the committee stopped short of advocating particular measures, but that it could advise ministers on the likely overall effect of their climate policies. He said: “This [end of subsidies to onshore wind] is a political step by the government, and it is perfectly reasonable for them to do – as long as they are prepared to allow people to know what the cost is going to be, and what they are going to do instead [to meet climate targets].”

Under the Climate Change Act, ministers must respond to the committeeby mid-October. This means the government will be forced for the first time to put a price on its controversial quasi-ban on new onshore wind farms, and set out how the resulting shortfall in renewable energy generation will be made up.

The committee on climate change, set up under the Climate Change Act to advise ministers on how to meet long-term greenhouse gas targets, produced its first mandatory report on Tuesday, setting out its assessment of previous policy and its projections of whether the UK would meet its future carbon targets.

The report found that although there had been progress in meeting targets up to now, there is doubt over policies beyond 2020. Unless there is clarity on longer term policies, investment in vital infrastructure – such as renewable energy, greater efficiency and lower-carbon transport – is likely to be deterred.

Deben added that so-called subsidies to renewable energy were not true subsidies. “Fossil fuels are subsidised, as fossil fuel [companies] do not bear the cost to the community. Support for renewable energy is a way of levelling the playing field so they can compete.”

He said that onshore wind was now on a par, in cost terms, with fossil fuels, if the real cost of carbon emissions was factored in, and that taxpayer support for renewable technologies was rapidly bringing down their cost.

Matthew Bell, chief executive of the committee, said: “Investors have no idea what the framework will be [beyond 2020] to allow them to analyse and make their investments.” He said policies needed to be brought forward as a matter of urgency in the new parliament.



The Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “We are committed to meeting our climate change target of an 80% emissions reduction by 2050. We have already made great strides to that goal, with emissions down 30% since 1990. There’s still much work to do and we will continue to power our move to a low-carbon economy at best value to consumers.”

Green campaigners urged ministers to act. Simon Bullock, the senior climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “This report turns up the political heat on the government, with crucial decisions due imminently on new runways and coal that could lock us into decades of pollution. Ministers must listen to the alternatives recommended by its official advisor: more support for clean energy, better insulated homes, and a huge energy efficiency drive.”

The report is likely to be more controversial among Conservative backbenchers, some of whom are hostile to the Climate Change Act, which sets out emissions limits more than a decade ahead for the UK, in the form of “carbon budgets”. Ministers must show how their policies will meet these budgets.

The report also included sharp criticism of the UK’s readiness for tackling the effects of climate change, saying that the government’s current national adaptation plan “does not amount to a coherent programme” and urging action on flood defences, water supply, reducing heat stress and soil fertility.

Hospitals merit particular attention, according to Lord Krebs, chairman of the sub-committee on adaptation, because nine out of 10 wards currently are liable to over-heat in the hotter temperatures that are likely to become the norm.

Nick Baveystock, director general of the Institution of Civil Engineers, said ministers must act: “There is a growing need for a more comprehensive approach to UK resilience, one that better reflects interdependencies, or the domino effect where the failure of one system, such as a flood defence, affects the operation of the other networks [such as water and sewage, transport, power and telecommunications].”

Six recommendations from the committee on climate change