The Rt Hon John Prescott MP Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions Department of the Environment Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU 7 May 1997

Congratulations on your new role. I am writing to you concerning the proposed development of the Atlantic north and west of Britain - the "Atlantic Frontier" - as a major new oil field.

Greenpeace believes, as is set out in the enclosed Report "Putting A Lid on Fossil Fuels: Why The Atlantic Should Remain A Frontier Against Oil Development", that such a development is incompatible with both the commitments and obligations arising from the Rio Earth Summit, and the Objective and commitments of the Climate Convention (Framework Convention on Climate Change).

As the Report details, your predecessor Mr Gummer was trenchant in his denouncement of the fossil fuel lobby in impeding progress at the climate talks. Yet while he denounced fossil fuels, the UK was both subsidising (through tax breaks for oil development and the DTi budget) and actively expanding fossil fuel resources, most notably the Atlantic Frontier development.

As we have noted in the enclosed letter to your colleague the Prime Minister, we believe that the Atlantic Frontier development is both out of date, stemming as it does from the oil-shortage perceptions of the 1970s under the last Labour Government and conceived prior to the "discovery" and confirmation of climate change, and a wholly unsustainable development.

This will, we believe, be an issue in the context of the forthcoming UN General Assembly Special Session on the Environment which reviews the Rio commitments, and at the forthcoming Kyoto "climate summit".

While we welcome the Labour Government's declared policy of achieving a 20% cut on 1990 CO2 levels by 2010, we believe that to be genuinely effective this must be brought forward to 2005, and that in addition, climate protection will not be delivered without far more substantial reductions which in themselves will require a phase out of fossil fuels. We have written in this connection to some of your other colleagues, particularly concerning the job creation potential of renewable energies such as solar power.

On the subject of the CO2 targets, we also welcome the fact that Mr Michael Meacher has agreed in principle to the need for a 2005 target but feel that this is only useful if it is a real (i.e. increased) reduction. For example the European Environment Agency says that a 30-55% minimum cut is needed by 2010 in order to stay within a safe emissions 'corridor' - so significant cuts are needed by 2005 to make this a reality. Similarly, with a significant cut by 2005 there is a much greater need for prompt action to stimulate renewable energies.

I am now writing to ask you how you feel Britain’s pursuit of the Objective of the Climate Convention can be reconciled with the Government’s expansion of fossil fuel reserves, if indeed you believe this to be the case.

As I expect you are aware, the Climate Convention's objective is: "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [human made] interference with the climate system" and it adds "Such a level should be achieved within a timeframe sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner".

Based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emission scenarios and the temperature and carbon dioxide levels that they predict, we calculate that a carbon budget to meet ecological limits would require most fossil fuels to stay in the ground (95% of the total resource). Most significantly, most of those earmarked as "reserves" can never be used (75%). This is detailed in the Report.

The ecological levels we utilise are those set by the UNEP Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases (1990), at 1.0C above pre industrial levels and 0.1.C per decade. The European Union has adopted a target twice this level - a total 2.0.C rise above pre industrial levels, but even that implies that only half the currently known fossil fuel reserves can ever be burned and therefore a phase out is required.

In such circumstances I think you will agree that to explore for more reserves is illogical and wrong. In the words of Dennis Healey, "when in a hole, first stop digging".

What is required, we believe, is an orderly global phase out of fossil fuels. In order to achieve enact the Objective of the Climate Convention it is appropriate to set a carbon budget - do you agree?

We calculate such a budget should be around 225GtC or billion tonnes of carbon, which if present rates of use were held constant, would be exhausted in 40 years (30 at present rates of increase in use).

Actual rates of temperature increase are predicted to be 0.2 - 0.3.C per decade in the coming decades, suggesting considerable ecosystem damage and associated dislocation of human systems. Given the need to minimise and avoid such damage and given the long timescales of energy infrastructure development, we believe that you and colleagues should plan now for a major redirection of energy policy in line with environment policy on climate, to give priority to renewables over fossil fuels.

The Convention also commits industrial countries to "take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimise the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects". I enclose the Greenpeace "Solar Challenge" document which we hope to discuss further with you and your DTi colleagues in this respect. As you may know, while Japan plans 70,000 solar electric homes by 2005, Britain has only two grid connected solar pv homes and no Government Department including your own, has solar pv. (We did put some on Eland House but your predecessor took it off again).

I look forward to hearing from you and hope to meet you to discuss such matters in the not too distant future. On behalf of Greenpeace I wish you the best of luck with your work.

Yours sincerely

Chris Rose
Deputy Executive & Programme Director
Greenpeace UK