Their short report, Too Good To Be True, which is available in pdf on Dieter Helm’s website, sets out the claims made by Britain in its introduction:

At first glance Britain has one of the best records in Europe on climate change; greenhouse gas emissions fell in the 1990s and it has already surpassed its 2012 Kyoto target. The energy ratio has improved, reflecting a decoupling of economic growth from energy demand. This record has been trumpeted by politicians as part of a British claim to European and global leadership on climate change.

Their argument – although they acknowledge that more detailed research is needed – is that this apparent decoupling is a mirage, based on the so-called ‘dash for gas’ at the expense of coal, and de-industrialisation of the domestic manufacturing base, and substitution of manufacturing imports.

This is because the UN methododology, the UNFCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, invented to implement the Kyoto agreement, effectively records the production of emissions by a territory, rather than emissions related to its consumption.

What’s missing from a production account?

• consumption in a non-UK territory, for example during business trips and foreign holidays;
• consumption between countries, for example through international aviation and shipping;
• consumption of greenhouse gases embedded in imported goods;
• the full global warming impact (for example, in aviation).

(Some UK-based activities which produce emissions are by UK-resident citizens, and these need to be deducted from the overall reckoning).

The policy conclusions are as follows:

First, the UK should check its progress using accounts based on greenhouse gas consumption. Second, with a substantial portion of its greenhouse gas footprint overseas in China and among other trade partners, the UK is itself partially responsible for the rapid emissions growth in developing countries, and this responsibility has implications for the allocation of future international greenhouse gas targets. Third, if the UK wishes to back its leadership claim in the global climate change debate, it would imply more aggressive policy geared to reducing greenhouse gas consumption.

There is good coverage of different carbon ccounting and measurement methods, as well as some good data charts (for example on the growth in tourism and imports related to UK emissions). The researchers also point out that the emissions gains from the ‘dash for gas’ were a one-off substitution effect, and didn’t reflect an underlying shift in the carbon use patterns in the economy.

All of which leads the low carbon kid to blog that,

The depressing report only serves to underline the need to consume less, and to consume locally – either we downsize in a planned and managed way, as the Transition Towns movement is trying to do for example, or we will be forced to do so later in a much more unpleasant fashion.

Related posts: Humans versus the biosphere, China overtakes US as biggest CO2 emitter, and Visualising consumption.

Some interesting observations on the ocean liner and its changing shape and purpose embedded in a fine article by Ian Jack in the Guardian on Saturday. The article was prompted by the news that the QE2 is to be retired next year to become a shopping centre in Dubai. The liners built since it was launched in 1967 have become squarer and squatter.

The reasons are largely economic, but also have something to do with the changing nature of the liner business. In 1967 the QE2 was built to take passengers across the Atlantic, even though the last year in which more people crossed the Atlantic by ship than plane had been almost a decade earlier, in 1958. The reason for the curves is that curved ships, apparently, are more comfortable to be in at 30 knots in a rough north Atlantic sea.

But since the arrival of the container ship, ships have been about capacity, and a square hull can carry more than a round one. The economics of the cruise business are similar; more capacity means more passengers, who also spend more while on board. Jack writes that 16 million people took a cruise on around 280 ships in 2005, and the largest operator, Carnival, is sufficiently optimistic about the growth of the market to order 10 more cruise liners from an Italian yard at around £25o million apiece. They carry 3,500 passengers a time and another 1,300 crew. (Obviously, in a market like this, an affluent older population helps).

But where will they go? As he says, the Americas destinations around the Caribbean and Bahamas are already full, and the Mediterranean going that way. Some lines have built their own destination islands from nothing, and Ian Jack speculates that they might build their own destination ports with the full luxury consumer experience on tap (“like a sunny version of Heathrow”). As a holiday experience this seems a little circular – in an age where travellers are demanding greater authenticity – to be completely rewarding, but maybe there’s enough of a niche to fill the boats. Looking at the set of trends which influence the cruise business, it has the feel of a business which is near its peak. But no doubt Carnival would disagree.

Different explanations have been canvassed, from increasing criticism of the low-cost flight industry by environmentalists to the impact of the modest increase (from £5 to £10) on airport passenger duty. No-one’s mentioned the physical experience of going through security at UK airports these days.

I’ve flown a few times in the past six months, and my impression is that although the UK security measured have been in place for a while, the airports aren’r getting better at managing them. The experience is both slow and stressful, as you process the various notices: disposing of liquids in large containers, putting small-containered liquids into see-through bags, jackets are taken off, electricals are unpacked from luggage and put through separately, remebering to take your shows off at the screen, and so on. (“Why do we have to take our shoes off?” asked a passenger near me. “It’s to make sure that we don’t hang ourselves before we get to the plane”, came the reply.)

The point is that the data (from memory) suggests that low cost flying is an add-on for people who already  tend to fly quite a lot. The security experience doesn’t really tally with the experience people are looking for when they travel. Added to a twinge of green guilt, and a small increase in cost, it could esily cause the small falls we’ve seen in passenger loads.

Travel generally is on the increase: more people are travelling to the UK. According to the International Passenger Survey, visitor numbers have climbed by about 16% between 2004 and 2006; visitor spend has increased by about the same. Most coutries show trend patterns broadly in line with this.

But the number of Polish visitors has more than doubled in that time – and Poland is now the eighth largest source of UK visitors (behind the USA, France, Germany, Irish Republic, Netherlands, Spain and Italy). Expect it to overtake Italy soon. Expenditure by Poles has also doubled.

The other significant increase is among Indian tourists. Numbers are up by 30% between 2004 and 2006, to 339,000, expenditure up by a little less, but on both counts they have now overtaken the Jaoanese as the principal UK market in Asia.

And maybe the Chinese tourism boom is just starting to happen. In 2006, 128,000 mainland Chinese tourists spent £139m – more per head than either Indian or Japanese visitors.

The summary London data can be found in London Visitor Forecasts 2007. There is a news story here.