Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240
- 259)
WEDNESDAY 11 FEBRUARY 2004
DR ANDREW
SENTANCE
Q240 Chairman: But you did not even
add the multiplier of 2.5 which is the basis used by the Treasury.
Dr Sentance: In our note, if you
look at what we have written, we have been quite clear. We believe
that you need to discuss and deal with the upper atmosphere effects
separately from carbon dioxide. The mechanisms are very different.
The carbon dioxide effect will continue because the carbon dioxide
has been left in the atmosphere indefinitely. Upper atmosphere
effects would cease if aircraft stopped flying. Not that that
is a desirable thing necessarily to happen.
Chairman: Not from your point of view!
Q241 Mr Thomas: And not immediately
either!
Dr Sentance: Well, we are not
quite clear about that but certainly there are very different
timescales. For carbon dioxide there are instruments available—
Q242 Mr Thomas: Those effects would
not be in the upper atmosphere unless there were emissions. They
are completely and utterly related to the CO2 emissions,
are they not?
Dr Sentance: They are not related
to the CO2 emissions, no, and that is why this multiplier—
Q243 Mr Thomas: Well, they are. They
are related to the fuel burn then, shall we put it that way?
Dr Sentance: They are related
to particles that come out of aircraft engines that may stimulate
contrail and cloud formation and that is the basis of the hypothesis.
Q244 Mr Thomas: Yes, but we are clear
they are related to the aircrafts' presence in the upper atmosphere.
Dr Sentance: If you generate more
carbon dioxide you do not necessarily generate those effects.
It depends on where the aircraft is flying, what the weather conditions
are and all sorts of other variables. That is why I come down
to the need to understand those effects much better before we
move to policy instruments.
Q245 Gregory Barker: Is there any
science that is arguing in favour of zero, as you are doing?
Dr Sentance: I am not arguing
in favour of zero, I am just saying that people are advocating
very blunt instruments, effectively, as you have heard from Jeff
Gazzard, slowing the growth of the industry, in other words just
stopping an activity which is economically and socially valuable
on the basis of science that has not explored the issue far enough
and what can be done about it.
Q246 Mr Challen: Could I just ask
if BA's approach to this is fairly singular or is it the approach
of the entire aviation industry?
Dr Sentance: This view is generally
shared across the aviation industry and the aviation industry
is also very happy to co-operate. We are happy to cooperate with
the scientific community.
Q247 Mr Challen: So there is no other
airline that is prepared to put a figure on radiative forcing?
Dr Sentance: I think airlines
will acknowledge that there is a wide range of figures. I think
what airlines will not acknowledge is that a multiplier effect
should be used, particularly in an emissions trading scheme or
as a basis for taxation and charges based on the current science
as it exists. So it is the relationship between the scientific
certainty and the policy instruments that are being suggested
that we are questioning.
Q248 Mr Thomas: Turning to the emissions
trading scheme now, as you said earlier you are not advocating
a zero but you are uncertain about the exact science about radiative
forcing. How would you say an emissions trading scheme should
take account of radiative forcing?
Dr Sentance: I think for the EU
scheme I do not think the timescales allow it to be taken into
account. Emissions trading schemes are not designed to take into
account radiative forcing effects, whether for aviation or for
any other industries. There are other activities that have additional
radiative forcing effects and those are not taken into account
in general in emissions trading scheme. If there is a proposal
to take into account radiative forcing effects in emissions trading
schemes in general then we would obviously have to look at it
in aviation but the EU scheme that we are talking about does not
have that element and we would want to enter it on the same basis
as other industries.
Q249 Mr Thomas: In which case, if
we are not going to have it taken into account in an emissions
trading scheme and we as policy makers and the Government want
emissions trading to deal with global climate change, which is
what the idea is, then how do you take account of it? What other
policy measures can we use? Once we have decided what the science,
is what do you recommend as a policy measure?
Dr Sentance: We do not know enough
about the science to be clear—
Q250 Mr Thomas: No, but at some stage
we will be clear about the science, will we not, and know exactly
what it is?
Dr Sentance: I am exactly saying
that we are not in that position. There is obviously going to
be a range of technical or economic instruments that we could
use. We are not in the position yet to decide what is the best
approach.
Q251 Mr Thomas: So that is the best
we can do, to do nothing then and just wait and see that the whole
thing happens?
Dr Sentance: I think we need to
press on with the science and get to a position where we have
a much better understanding.
Q252 Mr Thomas: If we were to get
to that position would you then accept something to deal with
radiative forcing? If, for example, the science said the aviation
industry has twice the effect of ground-based industries you would
accept that within any emissions trading scheme and any other
scheme that might come about?
Dr Sentance: I think you would
have to recognise that there would have to be an assessment about
the costs of the instrument that you are imposing against the
environmental benefits and the principles of sustainability are
such that you look at the economic and social benefits alongside
the environmental costs. The point that I am making, I guess,
is that an approach that says we add very large multipliers on
top of estimated carbon costs and impose taxes or charges or other
instruments such as APD on that basis is imposing very large economic
costs on a very uncertain scientific base. I would be very surprised
if when we get to the bottom of this issue we will find that just
sort of stopping aircraft flying effectively, which is what we
are saying, is the only thing that we can do. I think we should
be looking for smart technological solutions as we have done with
other issues like nitrogen oxides and, as Jeff Gazzard described,
some of that is now being fed into the debates in ICAO and in
the industry.
Q253 Mr Thomas: Well, we need to
move on anyway. It just appears to me that in making those arguments
you are advocating special treatment for the aviation industry
compared to other industries, but let us move on to those other
industries. You have said in answer to my earlier question that
you wanted to be part of the National Allocation Plan, you wanted
to be taken into account in that. How do you foresee, with the
rate of growth that is now proposed for the aviation industry,
your industry's impact on such a national plan if we are going
to try and achieve that 60% cut target which the Government says
is its aspiration?
Dr Sentance: Well, I think we
are talking about the EU scheme and the EU scheme is not looking
over the time horizon that you are talking about—
Q254 Mr Thomas: No, but I am asking
you to look over that time horizon and tell us what contribution
you would make.
Dr Sentance: Well, I would rather
answer that in terms of the EU scheme, which is the first practical
step we are taking. We would look for there to be a National Allocation
Plan which reflects the strength of the existing players in the
industry, in other words it would reflect some form of grandfathering
basis and also took into account the economic benefits that aviation
delivers.[13]
Q255 Mr Thomas: You are asking for
an emissions trading scheme to take into account the economic
benefits of the aviation industry, is that right?
Dr Sentance: Certainly to reflect
that, yes.
Q256 Mr Thomas: So which parts of
other industries would you expect, therefore, to be making the
cuts that would allow you to do the emissions expansion?
Dr Sentance: I am not suggesting
any particular mechanism that is taken into account, I am just
saying that that is an important issue.
Q257 Mr Thomas: But it does seem
once again you are expecting others to pick up the tab to allow
your growth. Is that not the case?
Dr Sentance: Let me make clear
what I am saying. We would not be expecting that there would be
targets for aviation that would be different on average from the
ones that other industries are expecting to make in terms of reductions.
Q258 Joan Walley: Can I pick up on
the grandfather rights that you were just talking about and ask
what discussions you have had with the other airline companies
and whether or not Virgin or Ryan Air or any of the others would
have exactly the same response that you have just had?
Dr Sentance: I think the industry
in general would favour a grandfather rights approach. The alternative
that tends to be suggested is auctioning, where the money goes
to the auctioneer and then that tends to be used as a general
money-raising scheme by Government. The advantage of a grandfather
rights scheme—which is the basis of the allocations that
are being made, as I understand it, under the first round of the
EU schemes—is that it creates an incentive for those who
make reductions and that incentive is actually quite powerful
in terms of getting some of the benefits from the scheme.
Q259 Chairman: Have you had discussions
with the CBI? Are they content at the growing slice of the action
which you appear to be angling for?
Dr Sentance: The CBI in the run
up to the aviation policy White Paper was very supportive of the
line that British Airways and other airlines were putting. So
they were not raising that as an issue.
13 Please also see supplementary memorandum on Ev.
75. Back
| 
