Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-159)
30 MARCH 2004
PROFESSOR SIR
DAVID KING
AND MS
CLAIRE DURKIN
Q140 Mrs Clark: How counterproductive
do you think that is?
Professor Sir David King: I think
the scientists, in response to those consultants, in the United
States have been making their voice heard much more clearly. Also,
Chairman, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced
a Synthesis Report in 2001[1]which
is the best current statement on the state of play of the science
of climate change, and that really does represent 1,000 scientists.
I think the world community of scientists has converged totally.
The international inter-academies (that is the Royal Society in
our case, the American academies and so on), which is the representative
body of all the academies around the world, came out with a very
clear statement about climate change to try and overcome those
few lone voices who are saying it is not a problem.
Q141 Chairman: Just coming back to your
own role, if I may, you appear to duck—for reasons of workload,
which may be perfectly understandable—taking personal responsibility
for selling the message to the public, although it is one of the
responsibilities of the Office of Science and Technology to improve
engagement between science and the rest of society. It is one
of your core duties, in fact. If you are not going to do it, who
is? I hesitate to make the suggestion but do we need a climate
change tsar?
Professor Sir David King: Thank
you for your question because I have clearly misled you by my
previous answer. I do take the responsibility myself, and the
Office of Science and Technology has now formed a Science in Society
Directorate. This is a new directorate and part of the function
of the directorate is to get this message across but, also, messages
on the importance of science and technology to modern society
generally. We have a problem in relation to younger people coming
through our school system into university degrees, particularly
in the physical sciences and engineering, where the need is greatest,
and we have problems where not only the Daily Mail questions
how important science is for our future development. So the Science
in Society Directorate is critically important, we feel. We also
have reformed the Prime Minister's Council for Science and Technology,
which I now chair with a co-chairman. That council is going to
play a very important role along the same direction.
Q142 Mr Challen: Are there any national
science academies that are not fully on board, in respect of what
you said to the previous question?
Professor Sir David King: The
only academies that did not sign up to the original inter-academy
statement were the American academies, but they subsequently came
up with their own statement which fully backed the Synthesis Report
of the IPCC. So the answer is no, at this time there are none.
Q143 Sue Doughty: As a Committee we have
spent quite a lot of time looking at the aviation industry and
the environmental impact of the aviation industry. When we have
been looking at that, radiative forcing has been one of the key
issues we have had to look at. Now the industry is saying that
the science underpinning this is complex, and it is insufficiently
understood and we should not base policies on it. We have got
this problem here between the precautionary principles and the
Government's insistence on evidence-based policies. How do we
resolve this conflict? You were talking before about not doing
unnecessary experiments, yet we have got this problem writ large
in our skies.
Professor Sir David King: The
issue of aviation, I think, is a very important one. Of course
it is complicated but I think you are right; I do not think because
an issue is complicated we should avoid the consequences. Aviation
around the world is a continually growing industry. Aviation depends
critically on fossil fuel burning, so without going into the details
we can see that there is a net negative effect in terms of global
warming. There are complex factors arising from water vapour production
at different levels. If we just look at carbon dioxide emission,
that in itself is a major contributory factor to our net emissions
problem. When we look at the Synthesis Report of the IPCC (since
I have mentioned that) that does refer to the importance of the
aviation industry in the global picture of emissions. Once again,
I think, Chairman, we are talking about a complex issue because
no single country can resolve this problem. For example, if an
aviation fuel tax were introduced in one country 'planes would
simply fly off to another to fill up. So it is another complex
international issue. I am afraid as soon as I see a complex international
issue we are against buffers and longer timescales.
Ms Durkin: If I might just add—though
I do not want to pretend that anything I say will remotely be
a panacea for everything that Sir David has said—we are
attempting to explore the technologies in aviation as well as
in all other transports in the DTI by brigading our aerospace
research with our other environmental research, so that there
is a concentration on cleaner aviation technologies. We are hoping,
in that way, to solve some of the problems suggested in terms
of businesses and how businesses react by trying to exploit the
innovation opportunities nationally and internationally. So I
hope we can make small pieces of progress.
Sue Doughty: I am rather worried about
the whole direction of this. We have got this problem that we
have had a lot of opposition from the aviation industry in accepting
the size of the problem, and all our discussions previously in
this Committee today have been about: do we believe there is a
problem, and if we do believe it should we not be taking more
radical steps? I understand what you are saying about technological
solutions and, also, the problems about imposing a solution that
covers boundaries, where we have got a problem, but in some ways
I am still worried that the Government may be placing over-reliance
on technological solutions when, in fact, the aviation industry
seems not to want to accept the gravity of the risk which it,
in itself, is posing.
Q144 Chairman: That sounds like a "yes".
Professor Sir David King: I think
that was a nod in agreement. It is, perhaps, not unusual that
the industry itself would like to continue in a relatively unregulated
fashion.
Q145 Sue Doughty: It would, but is not
the growth of aviation simply unsustainable, in what is happening
in climate change terms?
Professor Sir David King: I think
it is an issue of enormous concern, in terms of climate change,
yes.
Q146 Chairman: Before you move on, this
reliance on technological innovation seems to be a bit threadbare
as well. We have had evidence to suggest that there is not much
technological innovation going on, at the moment, which is actually
going to have a meaningful impact on reducing the impact of aviation
on the environment. Is it not a bit of a red herring?
Professor Sir David King: I think
you are quite right to raise this. The issue of, for example,
surface transport—cars—is already a very live technological
issue with the potential of hydrogen fuel cells taking over from
petrol-driven engines. I think it is a very real potential and
I think we can say that in 10 or 15 years' time we will see massive
penetration in the market. When it comes to aviation, you have
a much more difficult problem. Quite simply, the power thrust
required is considerably greater. Chairman, we are talking rocket
science here, and rockets are often driven by non-fossil fuel
engines. So there are alternatives available but they are technologically
more challenging. This is not to say that it is not a science
and technology agenda—it is.
Q147 Chairman: I just worry that politicians
talk around the precautionary principle, and it sounds very comforting.
We hear a lot from the Department for Transport about how they
have built balance into the way they are approaching aviation
when, quite plainly, they have not. I was wondering if you could
think of a single example of the use of the precautionary principle
which has not been based on evidence—that is genuinely based
on taking a precautionary view about something which may happen?
Professor Sir David King: I suppose
my one example may lead me into a collision with this Committee
and that would be the approach the Government has taken on GM
maize.
Q148 Chairman: I am tempted to say "Let's
not go there"! This is far too stimulating already.
Professor Sir David King: I believe
that that is a very good example of the precautionary approach
in practice, and follows very, very precisely the detailed evidence
that the Science Review Panel took, which I chaired with 26 scientists
on board, and I chaired it over a period of approximately 50 hours.
It is the most detailed review of the science addressing all of
the questions raised by the public on that issue. Our advice was
followed to the letter on that issue.
Chairman: If we go much further down
this route we will part company very rapidly.
Q149 Sue Doughty: You were talking a
moment ago about the increasing use of hydrogen-based technologies,
and this is very exciting. However, there was an article last
year in The New Scientist which suggested that hydrogen
itself posed a threat in terms of global warming. How seriously
do you take this risk?
Professor Sir David King: What
is, I think, referred to here is that the hydrogen economy may
rely on fossil fuels for the derivation of hydrogen. It seems
to me that that is to miss the whole point of the hydrogen fuel
economy. What we need and what we are promoting is research into
hydrogen production with no fossil fuel involved. Hydrogen storage
and hydrogen transport are the key factors in addition to research
into the development of the fuel cell, with lower platinum loading
so as to reduce its cost. If it is referring to the use of hydrogen
fuel cells in aviation, it is referring to the fact that water
vapour itself is a greenhouse gas, and if we eject a lot of water
vapour we may raise the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.
I believe that is incorrect; the amount of water vapour in the
atmosphere is determined by average sea temperatures. It is an
equation called the Clauisius-Clapeyron equation that determines
water vapour pressure, and I do not believe that this would have
much penetration. We need to look at the hydro-generation processes
that avoid the use of fossil fuels to make that economy work.
Q150 Sue Doughty: Going on to the water
vapour issue (just because I am not a scientist I would like to
have it clear in my mind), we have been looking at your Zuckerman
lecture and you referred to the environmental benefits of hydrogen
fuel, but you added this caveat: "Provided that atmospheric
water vapour pressure is unaffected". So, with that caveat,
were there particular concerns when you actually made that statement?
Professor Sir David King: I have
just dealt with that question.
Q151 Sue Doughty: Moving on, you have
also touched on carbon sequestration as an area which needs research.
Would you like to expand on what the possibilities are for carbon
sequestration, and are there any associated risks?
Professor Sir David King: There
is a massive drive for producing good sequestration technologies
precisely because this is the way in which we can keep coal burning
going as a source of energy and, at the same time, deal with the
environmental problems. However, at this point in time the technology
has not been developed and I certainly would not put my eggs in
that basket alone. In other words, I think it is worth investing
in sequestration technologies but I would not wish to raise hopes
that this is going to produce results; it is an open-ended investigation.
We can economically use carbon dioxide sequestration in oil wells
that have become depleted—so there is a nice irony here
that to improve the production of oil we can pump carbon dioxide
into those wells. The value of the oil offsets the cost of the
sequestration process. Whether we can seal the carbon dioxide
into those wells is something that has yet to be tested, and that
is one of the issues that I am referring to. A much more satisfactory
sequestration process would be a cheap way of converting the carbon
dioxide into solid materials such as calcium carbonate. These
are technologies that have still to be developed.
Ms Durkin: It is, nevertheless,
very important as we predict energy progressing up to 2050, particularly
looking at China, and some of the other very big coal-producers.
China is actively engaged jointly with us and other European communities
in looking at carbon sequestration to see if that is one effective
way of then multiplying the use of coal but effectively reducing
CO2. They were talking yesterday at the seminar of 2015, 2020,
2025 in terms of the time scale, certainly in DTI we are progressing
as modestly as we are allowed but actively because of the impact
it has globally.
Q152 Sue Doughty: That was very interesting.
One of the reasons I am saying that is I think several of the
answers we have had are all happier tomorrows but we have this
problem here today. You went on about nuclear fusion at some length
in the Zuckerman lecture and made some very interesting points,
which I will not read out at length, the whole issue about nuclear
fusion is going to take some time, and although it is going to
have an attractive number of points it is going to take some time
while you are looking at replacing some of the nuclear efficient
plants with more modern technology. Do you think that is going
to help with the Energy White Paper certificate-only solution
we have within the context of energy products in the shorter term
rather than the longer term, given that we are still waiting for
some of the technology, for example tide technology and nuclear
fusion?
Professor Sir David King: I think
our agenda is the right answer. If I can give a very general answer
to your question and then Claire may come in as well. I chair
a high level R&D Energy Committee, by high level I mean I
bring together all of the publicly funded bodies involved in that
area. I think it is a very important aspect of our work that we
are working on future technologies which can be put into the market
place. We are not saying we know which of these technologies will
come through and deliver but we have to deliver a broad based
menu so that we can approach the problem and perhaps one or two
of these technologies, or more or them, will begin to deliver
at different periods of time, over the next five, ten to 35 years,
for example going on to fusion. My own belief is that it is quite
right we develop this very broad based approach. Trying to second-guess
which technologies are going to be the winners in the market place
of the future is a very difficult game to play and probably wrong.
I apologise for defocusing your question but I do think there
is a very strong defence of investment in research and development
across the broad base of potential technologies, fusion is one
of them, and given we are talking about a long-term issue of carbon
dioxide emissions 35 years on that time scale is not hopeless
but we need to start now.
Q153 Sue Doughty: Thank you. This is
a thing which is not unwelcome to our Committee to hear because
it is a criticism we have regularly made of Government about backing
winners. If you are saying, "let us identify more about possibilities"
that is very good news. The good news about fusion is the opportunities
are there but it is going to take a while and we have a consortium
there. Is there any way we can bring that forward by throwing
more resources at the problem, would it then bring that information
forward for us or is it all going to take time for other reasons?
Professor Sir David King: There
are ways of shortening that time scale. The best way to shorten
it is to put more money into the programme. The European Union
asked me to chair a committee a couple of years ago looking at
the future of the fusion programme and my report is often called
"fast-track to power stations", because that is what
we really focused on, how do we bring the time scale down now
between where we are now in fusion research and the fusion power
station. That fast-track report has been accepted in the European
Union and gathered momentum in other countries, which is why we
now have six partners in the international programme, including
China, Korea and the United States coming in to join the original
partners of the European Union, Japan and Russia. How we can shorten
it is to investigate not only the fusioning process—the
Joint European Torus (JET) is the world leader in that process—we
also need to develop the materials which will sustain the power
station over a 20 year lifetime. I am proposing that we need to
put the money in now to begin developing and testing those materials
that will be used when the final power stations are developed.
If we do these things in series it will take considerably longer
but if we can do them in parallel it would be better. This is
currently under discussion in the international programme.
Q154 Sue Doughty: How optimistic are
you about making that case so that they get on and start to do
parallel research?
Professor Sir David King: My ambition
is that this programme to produce fusion power should be seen
rather like the programme of landing a man on the moon was seen
in the United States. I would like it to capture the international
imagination as a key way forward to dealing with our energy requirements
and at the same time in a sustainable environment. If we could
achieve that then I think we could get on with this programme
considerably more quickly. Are we likely to? I do feel optimistic
but for pessimistic reasons. I think the effects of climate change
are going to come through to populations round the world and are
already in some areas. As that impact grows I think the need for
change will come. In 1953 in London we had a terrible smog, scientists
understood the cause of the smog before that happened but it took
roughly 10,000 premature fatalities in London in that smog period
for government action to be taken to stop coal fires, it was incomplete
combustion of carbon that was leading to that. We stopped but
it took a massive disaster to do that. I am rather hoping we do
not have to go through that process to invest in fusion power.
Q155 Sue Doughty: You were talking about
lots of exciting technologies to start addressing this issue of
climate change or slowing it down, as I was saying sometimes technology
can work out unexpectedly as well, and we are still learning about
the environmental impact. Would it be a precautionary principle
that we should start looking at our behaviour as well as putting
our hope in these technologies?
Professor Sir David King: Your
question is a very important one, we have been focusing on hard
science, physical sciences in particular in this discussion today
but extending out to our understanding of social and economic
science is critically important in actually bringing these things
through. What I have been very keen on in my time as Chief Scientific
Adviser is not to draw too close a circle round what we mean by
science. We have to extend out and understand society. When I
came here I came from our latest foresight programme on brain
science drugs and addiction and we are bringing together in that
programme the scientists who understand at a molecular level how
drugs currently work in the brain with social scientists and economists
to see if we can bring forward advice for governmental action.
I think it is absolutely important that we take that on board.
Sue Doughty: Thank you very much for
that.
Q156 Chairman: Can I come back to something
you said which was the reference to the 1953 smog, you seem to
be implying it will take a disaster for much of what we have been
talking about today to be considered seriously by politicians
and by those who fund government programmes. It is very familiar
to all of us because we know that you cannot get a road safety
measure in until there is a body count, it is no good saying,
"it is a dangerous road let us put in a barrier up"
in the absence of any evidence of it causing fatalities. It goes
back to the point I was trying to get to earlier about whether
we ever really act on the precautionary principle or wait for
the disaster to happen and then try to make good later on. You
seem to be implying we are going to approach the whole issue of
climate change in the latter way.
Professor Sir David King: The
first person to understand what is currently happening to our
climate was Arrhenius, he was picking up on the French mathematician
Fourier—Fourier was the person who understood the greenhouse
effect first, 1827—and Arrhenius, the Swedish theoretical
chemist in 1896 said, "if our carbon dioxide levels were
to grow because of our propensity to burn fossil fuel the temperature
would rise", and he calculated doubling the carbon dioxide
level which would lead to a five degree centigrade temperature
rise round the globe. It was a brilliant piece of work. We have
understood this process for a very long time and getting the message
through, past all the resistance we have referred, for example
from oil companies, is tough going. I am afraid, Chairman, that
we are being realistic when we say, yes, it does seem to require
disasters for it to be brought to people's attention. Am I going
too far?
Ms Durkin: I wonder if I might
offer an example of where at least it is a question of stepping
in to opportunities: our change in energy portfolio is fairly
dramatic and we cannot ignore that and therefore because we cannot
ignore it and because we are moving from the happy position of
net exporter to the fairly uncomfortable position of net importer
we have to do something. It was in those circumstances the Government
produced the first ever White Paper on Energy, so rather than
facing disaster at least it was exploiting opportunities.
Q157 Chairman: It is very interesting
that you should raise the question of the Energy White Paper in
this context. It would appear, Sir David, that you have issued
implied criticisms of some recommendations in the Zuckerman lecture.
You said, "it is very difficult to see how we can continue
to reduce fossil fuel consumption if we do not replace our ageing
nuclear power stations, we are talking about efficient plants
with more modern plants now available". That is not a recommendation
in the White Paper.
Professor Sir David King: Let
me say at once, I contributed quite considerably to that White
Paper, you might even find some of material reflects the Zuckerman
lecture that you are quoting from. I take some pride in the contribution
I made to the White Paper. At the same time, to deal with your
very specific point, I think it is quite right that we should
be focusing at this point in time on energy efficiency gains which
are a win, win and on renewable development. At the same time
in the White Paper I believe there is a critically important statement
which refers to keeping the nuclear option open. I think we must
actively keep the nuclear option open so that when we evaluate
how we are proceeding in achieving our 60% reduction by 2050 target
at any point in time that is still an option that will be available
to us.
Q158 Chairman: You do understand that
actively keeping options open—whatever that may mean—is
a deterrent to the investment in the alternative type of technologies
we are seeking to encourage. Nuclear is always lurking, and it
is a factor in the decisions that are being taken about investment
and it is going to be an impediment towards investing in new technologies.
Professor Sir David King: I think
you are appearing to criticise what I think was the wisdom of
the White Paper words and I would defend them. I think faced with
the size of the environmental problem I have described to you
it would be wholly wrong to simply say, "we are going to
cast aside a potential means of providing energy without adding
carbon dioxide, even though we understand the problems associated
with radio-active waste production from that source". I simply
think it would have been irresponsible. May I just refer to one
fact, something like 70% of our energy resource goes into the
built environment. The way in which we construct new buildings
is a massive means of reducing energy usage. That must be a more
important programme at the moment than many of the others we might
think of.
Q159 Chairman: I think the Committee
would agree strongly with you on that. Just so that we are absolutely
clear, you were not saying in the Zuckerman lecture that you do
not see any alternative to investing in a new generation of nuclear
power stations?
Professor Sir David King: If we
move forward in time, at the moment we have something like 27%
of our energy on the grid from nuclear power; 24% from our own
power stations and 3% we import from France. As we move ahead
if we close down nuclear power stations as they go out of commission
we will reach a point round 2020 where this figure has dropped
to 7%. That is a big gap and it makes the renewable and energy
efficiency targets very, very tough to meet. It was that gap I
was referring to in that article.
1 Details of IPCC Publications available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ Back
| 
