Examination of witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
WEDNESDAY 5 JULY 2000
PROFESSOR SIR
TOM BLUNDELL,
DR SUSAN
OWENS and PROFESSOR
BRIAN HOSKINS
Chairman
1. Good morning to you, Sir Tom. I wonder whether
I could ask you to introduce yourself and your colleagues for
the record.
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) I am Tom Blundell, Chairman
of The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. With me I
have Professor Brian Hoskins, who is an atmospheric physicist
from the University of Reading and also Dr Susan Owens who is
an environmental geographer from Cambridge.
2. The Committee are very grateful to you for
coming this morning; it is a very important subject. We are looking
forward to hearing from you. Did you want to make some opening
remarks?
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) Yes, I should like to
say a few words and begin by thanking you very much for giving
us the opportunity to come to discuss our recently published report
and also just to add at the beginning that of course The Royal
Commission is an independent body. We have academics here, but
we do also have two industrialists, two economists and a lawyer.
3. And a theologian we are pleased to note.
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) Yes, we have a theologian.
I should like to mention that just before we sent our final text
to the printers we had the benefit of reading your own excellent
report on the Government's climate change programme. We found
a great deal in common between your thinking and ours. We were
particularly struck by your firm view for a long-term strategy
beyond 2010 for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Human
induced global warming is a challenge which is quite unlike any
other. It is a challenge which is about centuries in terms of
timescales rather than electoral cycles of a few years. It is
about future generations and not ourselves. It is about huge changes
in the way we use and produce energy. It is something which is
going to have to involve every person on the planet. It is a challenge
quite unlike any other. What the Commission has done is try to
identify the measures which ought to be taken to reduce the risk,
which inevitably will occur. The current newspaper campaigns for
a cut in duty on petrol and diesel highlights the difficulties
this challenge can pose at the political level and we are very
much aware of this. The present press coverage rarely makes any
connection between Government policy on climate change and the
high level of taxation on road fuels; indeed I am afraid the Government
also does not seem to make that connection very often either.
It is a fact of course that road transport's contribution to UK
emissions is large and it is growing. We particularly regret that
successive governments have not devoted more of the revenues of
the fuel duty escalator to improving alternatives to car use,
but we are looking forward to significant changes in our public
transport investment in the near future. I gather they are going
to be announced. There are other issues ahead for any government
wanting to take a lead on global warming which will court unpopularity.
I am sure you will want to discuss this. We clearly need to do
a much better job in communicating with the individual, with the
public because we need public involvement and we need public support.
The other issue of course is the long-term nature and the requirement
for a political consensus between consecutive governments. That
is a very important point to make. Thank you very much for giving
us this opportunity to come along and we are here to answer your
questions and we shall do our best.
4. We shall follow up various points you have
made but the Committee would be interested to know why you said
that the threat posed by climate change is the most important
issue?
(Professor Hoskins) The production of energy and its
use have various impacts and those are local in terms of pollution
and visual and particulates in the atmosphere and that is important.
Then there are regional issues like acid rain associated with
the use of energy. Then there is the global issue of increasing
greenhouse gases. If one looks at all these and what has been
developed to tackle them, then the local issues are possible to
deal with and are being dealt with but the global issue is the
one which seems to have the longest term importance and also the
greatest importance when one takes a wider perspective. That is
why we concentrated on that.
5. Because you felt this became clear as you
started the study. Is this what happened? You set off with one
set of criteria and you discovered that this was one of the most
important things.
(Professor Hoskins) We started with a reasonably open
mind, although it was pretty clear from other studies that we
were liable to go down that direction.
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) Formally, for the first
year of scoping, we were broadly looking at the questions Professor
Hoskins mentioned and we really only decided to focus on it when
we received the first set of evidence and views.
Mr O'Brien
6. I find the report interesting. There is one
area which does generate serious interest and that is the question
of the reductions in fossil fuels. What are the prospects for
dealing with climate change in ways which do not require reductions
in the use of fossil fuels?
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) The main aspects of that
will be in terms of removing carbon dioxide from the fossil fuels.
(Professor Hoskins) There are natural ways in the
system, perhaps by planting more trees, so one could hope to encourage
the natural system to take up more carbon dioxide. We looked at
that and there certainly is some scope. Then there are techniques
perhaps from removing the carbon from the flue gases of power
stations and then taking that carbon dioxide and burying it deep
underground. There are possibilities like that. We encouraged
all these to be looked at but in the end we did not think they
are sufficient to tackle the problem.
7. In the report it says that further research
into the study of this technology is required. How far has that
advanced or is research taking place?
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) In terms of carbon dioxide
removal from central power stations and also from the gas fields,
there is quite a lot ongoing and indeed the Norwegian companies
are already removing carbon dioxide from gas and putting it in
submarine saline aquifers. Of the various possibilities that is
an area where we should like to see more effort and research.
We are much more sceptical about some of the ongoing research
into just dumping the carbon dioxide into the ocean because we
felt that would lead to acidification and quite severe environmental
consequences. Of course carbon dioxide is poisonous so we cannot
live in an atmosphere of carbon dioxide and one needs to be absolutely
sure that any storage is not going to lead to any release which
would lead to danger for the population. That is why on the whole
one would want to put it under the sea rather than under the places
where we live. Clearly a lot more research needs to be done on
that. In our scenarios we do imagine that fossil fuels could be
used instead of nuclear if we can solve that problem. It is a
very important area for research.
8. Have you studied the research which is taking
place now on burning fossil fuels smokelessly, the fluid bed system
of burning fuel to generate electricity? Has there been any contact
with the people studying that?
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) You cannot burn carbon
dioxide: carbon dioxide is the product. We have looked at a lot
of the different methods for removing carbon dioxide either by
absorption or adsorption in various concentrated centres like
factories, like coal fired electricity production. That is not
going to be possible if you burn the fossil fuel in the car. You
can do it where you are in centralised areas of energy production.
9. In your report you referred to large users
of fossil fuels. Obviously I was concentrating on that particular
matter. Do I take it that there is some relationship between your
research and the research which is taking place in burning solid
fuel for generating electricity without serious emissions? Is
there some contact between your research and their research?
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) Yes, we have been in
touch with those who are doing that work.
Christine Butler
10. What good would it do even if UK strove
to meet the 60 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide which you
suggest in this report, in view of the fact that no other country
in the world is anywhere near the target which we have already
espoused?
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) There is obviously a
need for global action and there will clearly be a need to have
nations moving together in the longer term. There are many immediate
advantages which the United Kingdom could have from taking measures
both on the efficiency side and the technology side. Basically
we are wasting a huge amount of the energy we produce in power
stations, in our homes, in our vehicles and any avoidance of that
wastage must be leading to an efficiency for us and making us
more competitive. It is not all downside. Also of course whatever
happens the new technologies for energy production are going to
be required and we are already seeing ourselves importing turbines
from Denmark and Germany. If we can move in the technologies earlier
on we shall also have a competitive advantage on that side. I
agree with your premise that eventually we need to have global
action, but I should say in return that there are distinct advantages
to the UK, both in the short and longer term, from going down
that line.
11. America and large expanding and emerging
economies, particularly China, do not take that view, do they?
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) If the lead is going
to be taken, it is going to be taken in the UK and Europe. I was
in Shanghai a week and a half ago and was rather impressed by
some of the actions they are taking. They are aware of the problem,
but you are absolutely right that the major challenge is in the
USA and in China if we are going to follow any kind of contraction
and convergence.
12. The point is that it may be an advantage,
given a certain scenario in terms of competition for new technologies,
but whilst America does not share that view and it continues with
its gas guzzling attitudes to transportation and the private use
of the motorcar, how on earth would a 60 per cent reduction in
UK production of CO2 be effective in the great scheme of things
against all that?
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) By definition you must
be right that if it were just in the UK it would be a marginal
consequence. It does need leadership and I think we have to be
quite clear that we have to move according to our own conscience.
In the future it will affect our grandchildren and future generations.
Mr Gray
13. I was in Shanghai recently too and it is
by far the most polluted city I have ever been in. You cannot
walk down the street without your eyes watering.
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) It is not as bad as Beijing
actually.
14. I think Shanghai is a lot worse than Beijing.
At least Beijing has wide open streets. The question is: say you
are encouraged by what they are proposing, maybe you are, but
they are starting from a very, very low base point compared to
the rest of the world.
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) Absolutely.
15. Credit where credit is due perhaps.
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) There is no doubt that
there is a huge challenge ahead in getting global action and that
is why we in this country should show leadership in this.
Miss McIntosh
16. I have the distinction or otherwise that
in the Vale of York we have the highest petrol pump prices as
of this week: 96.9p for unleaded petrol at one small village of
Sutton-under-Whitestonecliffe. Do you think you are setting yourself
on a collision course with the Government if you are suggesting
that the profit, the income, the revenue which the Government
earns off petrol prices should be used on alternative sources
of fuel when the Prime Minister is on the record as saying that
if they reduce the revenue and the costs at the petrol pump, then
we shall have difficulty funding the Health Service?
(Dr Owens) As the Chairman said in his introductory
remarks, we do recognise that this is a major political challenge
and we have understood that throughout undertaking the study.
I should say to start, The Royal Commission is very disappointed
in the amount of progress which has been made on transport policy,
particularly on implementing an integrated transport policy since
the Royal Commission's eighteenth report in 1994. That is an important
point because the extent to which transport policy is genuinely
integrated is an important factor in making some increases in
the fuel duty acceptable. The fact remains that transport is probably
our biggest challenge in the context of climate change. The contribution
of carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector is large;
it currently amounts to about 24 per cent of all carbon dioxide
emissions, so we are talking about one quarter of our carbon dioxide
emissions. Furthermore that contribution is growing and growing
very rapidly. We have that basic fact that we somehow have to
deal with in spite of the political difficulties involved. We
were disappointed that the fuel duty escalator, whilst it lasted,
was not part of a wider package of integrated transport policies
which we felt would have made it more acceptable as I have indicated.
We also felt that just towards the end of its time it was probably
beginning to bite and it was probably beginning to work and indeed
that was partly why it became so controversial at the end, alongside
the underlying increases in global oil prices. Our biggest regret
as the Chairman has indicated, is that the revenues from the fuel
duty escalator were not recycled into improving alternatives to
the use of cars and lorries, particularly public transport, but
also we should never forget the other modes of transport, walking
and cycling. Some very interesting statistics have been published
by the DETR. Between 1974 and 1998 the real price of petrol increased
by only three per cent and the overall costs of motoring were
effectively level, unchanged over that long period. Public transport
costs increased in the same period 65 per cent for bus travel
and 50 per cent for rail travel. So one wonders whether the current
campaign is directed at precisely the right target.
Chairman: It is quite possible you are right.
Miss McIntosh
17. Which recommendation in the report covers
this point so we can identify it?
(Dr Owens) We have made a number of recommendations
on transport. Given that the fuel duty escalator has now been
rather firmly abolished, we consider it crucial that the vehicle
manufacturers are strongly encouraged to meet the targets to improve
the fuel efficiency of vehicles. There is currently a voluntary
agreement in place between the European Commission and the European/Japanese
and Korean manufacturers. We should like to see that target backed
up by the possibility of mandatory requirements if sufficient
progress is not being made.
18. Have you costed the schemes which are set
out in your recommendations? Has anybody actually costed what
the cost of delivering these recommendations would be to industry?
Have you established any benchmarks against which their success
can be measured? I noticed in the press release that you are quoted
as saying that you would wish to see a tax on fuels which give
rise to carbon dioxide emissions, preferably on a Europeanwide
basis, in preference to the Government's planned energy tax on
industry and business?
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) I should make it clear
that what we are proposing at the moment is moving from what is
basically an energy tax, the climate change levy, to a carbon
based tax. What we have done in terms of costing it is to see
what the implications of that would be, to replace the energy
tax as proposed to come in in April next year by a carbon based
tax. The effect of that initially would be rather small, say 1.33
per cent increase in domestic electricity bills; quite small.
The major impact would be on industrial fuel prices.
Chairman
19. You did also say that you would look for
the money to be used for helping fuel poverty as well, did you
not?
(Professor Sir Tom Blundell) Yes.
| 
