Examination of Witnesses (Questions 43
- 59)
WEDNESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2004
MS SARAH
WYNNE, DR
ALICE BOWS
AND DR
KEVIN ANDERSON
Q43 Chairman: Can I welcome representatives
from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Ms Sarah
Wynne, you come from the University of East Anglia?
Ms Wynne: Yes.
Q44 Chairman: Do you have an official
title or just a person from the University of East Anglia?
Ms Wynne: I am actually not a
doctor. I have not found a way to finalise my PhD yet, so I am
just a research associate.
Q45 Chairman: Excellent. You are
very welcome. I hope, Dr Alice Bows, you are alright to be called
Doctor?
Dr Bows: Yes.
Chairman: You are from the Tyndall Centre
North in the University of Manchester, and you are joined by your
colleague, Dr Kevin Anderson, who is also from the Tyndall Centre
North in the University of Manchester. You are all very welcome.
I would like to invite Austin Mitchell to start our questioning.
Q46 Mr Mitchell: I was interested
in the argument about the enhanced effects of aviation because
of radiative forcing. What is the science behind the contribution
of aviation to climate change, or your assessment of it?
Dr Bows: Basically aviation, because
of its nature, it gives out its emissions at altitude; so as well
as omitting carbon dioxide, which has an effect on the climate,
it emits water vapour, soot and nitrous oxides, sulphur oxides
and all sorts of things up in the atmosphere. The atmosphere has
certain conditions. Sometimes you see contrails forming behind
planes—the white lines you see behind the planes—and
they are caused by soot or water vapour, and these are actually
very high up in the atmosphere and they cause a warming. The evidence
also shows that these can lead to the formation of cirrus clouds,
which also cause warming. Different types of cloud cause different
types of warming or cooling, and clouds that are very high up
cause warming. The issue is that as well as what is called radiative
forcing from carbon dioxide you get additional radiative forcing
from cirrus clouds and contrails up in the atmosphere, and overall
that means that aviation has a contribution that is between two
and four times that of carbon dioxide alone.
Q47 Mr Mitchell: The effect of carbon
emissions is heightened in aviation?
Dr Bows: Yes, that is right. It
is not the effect of the carbon emissions that is heightened;
it is the additional effects that are much more significant for
aviation than for any other industry because of where they are
emitted, basically.
Q48 Mr Mitchell: Given that and the
projection that aviation from the UK is going double the carbon
dioxide emissions from UK flights by 2030, are our climate change
goals attainable?
Dr Bows: They do not appear to
be particularly attainable with that sort of level of growth.
You would have to curb growth in some way. Some work that we are
doing at the moment indicates that we might need, as David King
was saying, a higher target for emissions cuts by 2050. If you
continue with aviation growth at current levels, it might be that
aviation will have used up pretty much the whole limit of carbon
emissions by that sort of time.
Q49 Mr Mitchell: What is the potential
for saving on both sets of effects? Is it possible to get more
fuel-efficient planes or planes that do not produce the contrail
effect, or will there be a decline in aviation because the fuel
price goes up and all the EasyJets go out of business because
nobody can afford to fly any more?
Dr Bows: There are two issues:
looking at the carbon dioxide and then looking at the contrails.
Contrails could be avoided, for example, by flying planes at different
altitudes. Also, on some days you will not get contrails at all—it
does not matter what altitude the plane is flying at—just
because of the atmospheric conditions. It would require a new
air-traffic management system, I imagine, to direct planes either
in different altitudes or away from different parts of the atmosphere,
but that is something that is feasible. Also the thing about contrails
is that they only last for hours, and cirrus clouds might only
last for a day or so, if that (so these are things that could
be taken away pretty quickly), but the issue of carbon dioxide
is much more serious in the sense that it last for 100 years.
At the moment the current efficiency gains that you might get
from technology (improving engines, etcetera) and also from the
management of aircraft (for example, stopping them circling so
much and making more direct routes and that kind of thing) the
IPCC estimate could reduce carbon emission about 1% per year,
but if you are increasing at 3% or 4%, which is what it seems
to be—all the indications show that is what the current
growth levels are going to be increasing it by—then you
are still increasing the carbon emissions by a large amount every
year. The third thing that you could do is fill the planes up
more (the load factor, the amount of people on the aircraft).
If the planes are full and there are less flights than before
because there are more people on the planes, obviously that will
have an effect on the carbon emissions.
Q50 Chairman: Have you tested any
of this out in reality? Have you actually done any analysis to
find out the number of spare places flying about? Have you reviewed
any of your operational hypotheses with, for example, the Civil
Aviation Authority to see if they are realistic or—turn
it round the other way—what are the barriers to progress?
You have put some very interesting suggestions to the Committee,
but I notice in your written evidence there is no discussion,
and I appreciate that you are constrained by what you can write,
but as to what is, if you like, the difference between the feasible
and the theoretical. The other thing I notice is that your centre
brings together, amongst other people, scientists and economists
but in your evidence to date, and, indeed, in paragraph 1.1, there
is no economic analysis to discuss the elasticities involved in
the fiscal measures of which the Chief Scientist spoke earlier;
in other words, what kinds of things are going to turn people
off flying?
Q51 Mr Mitchell: Besides all the
spare seats are filled by airline staff on cheapies!
Dr Bows: One thing is involving
aviation in the Emissions Trading Scheme, because at the moment
they are pushing heavily for international aviation to be included.
That is likely to have some sort of effect on price, I imagine.
Q52 Chairman: How is it? I am sorry
to interrupt you. We are trying to get at the facts. You said
that ought to have some kind of effect. Part of the work of a
centre like this is to find out what that effect would be. Have
you actually done any economic modelling? If we make a recommendation
in our report about this area, it is nice to draw on some information
that is available. Have you actually got any?
Dr Anderson: No, we have not any
modelling. You would have to use one of the Cambridge or the Oxford
economic models to give that sort of analysis.
Q53 Chairman: Does that kind of information
exist?
Dr Anderson: I think there has
been some provisional work in aviation in looking at elasticities
of demand, but one of the problems recently, of course, has been
the rocketing of low-cost airlines. We have not a lot of historical
data as to the implications or the repercussions of modifying
that price threshold for that type of aviation and aviation which,
of course, is far more susceptible to fuel prices than the traditional
scheduled airlines because they pare down all those costs. That
is an analysis that needs to be done, but I think also we have
to bear in mind that trying to forecast economics for the medium
to long term is going to be a difficult thing indeed, and you
do it as a sort of ceteris paribus, or are you aware that
the rest of the industry is changing as well? The economics will
be changing across the board in relation to carbon. We could try
to do these heroic economic models, but I think we would be pulling
the wool over our own eyes to believe that is what is necessarily
going to happen.
Chairman: In policy terms you have got
to have some analysis to inform you about what is, if you like,
the model that is most likely to have the best effect; otherwise
you can pluck ideas out of the sky but it may not be realistic.
Anyway, Paddy Tipping.
Q54 Paddy Tipping: You are pretty
pessimistic about renewables in your written evidence. You said
they are "fundamentally inadequate to realise the very large
investments required in new, low carbon energy technologies and
energy efficiency programmes that are necessary to meet the 60%
reduction target", and then you say, "but there are
technologies that would enable us to meet these targets."
Can you tell us a bit about the technologies?
Ms Wynne: Sure. I think the point
to stress is that there are a large number of technologies that
are available, they are viable from an engineering point of view,
they are there and they work. However, if we are talking about
electricity generation, I think photo-voltaic, biomass, tidal
and wave energy and also wind are probably the four most interesting
ones. The sorts of barriers that they are up against are twofold.
There are institutional constraints, things like wind and people
not wanting a wind turbine in their back yard, and land use problems.
There is also, of course, the problem of cost, and some of these
technologies are simply more expensive than their traditional
fossil-fuel alternatives. The problem that we are up against now
is how to make these technologies compatible, because they are
there and they are ready for use, but as they are now they are
at the bottom of the S curve, and they have a few niche applications—
Q55 Chairman: You used a term there,
the bottom of the S curve. S is like that. Tell me about the S
curve?
Ms Wynne: If you had a letter
S and you stretched it out, and if you think about the development
of a technology: if on your horizontal axis there was time in
years and on the vertical axis there is—we will keep it
easy—say, the percentage of demand that is met by a particular
technology as time progresses. The development of a technology
is not a linear occurrence, it is not sort of, "If I invest
X dollars or X pounds in technology I will have X return."
Initially you may not get much happening; you will be quite low
as far as the percentage of demand that is being met by the technology.
However, if you invest a significant amount of money, eventually
you will get a big return and it will be bumped to the top of
this S curve, it will be fully developed and there will be many
market applications and things like that. So the problem is getting
a technology from the early development stages to a wider market
application. What usually needs to happen there is for some sort
of policy or innovation incentive to bump that technology forward,
as it were.
Q56 Paddy Tipping: Would you explain
this a bit more for me? We have got wind technology at the moment—that
is the renewable that is most in use. There are constraints, because
people do not like them, but it is also very expensive; but there
are other technologies that are coming on board that if we put
the money into could give us some pay-back, get us to the top
of the S curve. Which ones are they? Where should we be focused?
Ms Wynne: Which technologies?
Q57 Paddy Tipping: Yes?
Ms Wynne: As far as the UK is
concerned there is great potential for wave and tidal technologies.
I am coming at this from a mathematical background; I am not an
engineer. If you want much more detailed information about the
technologies I can find out for you. I think wave and tidal has
enormous potential, but the problem is it is in the very early
development stages right now, barely out of lab conditions, so
that is a good one for potential. Off-shore wind, there is also
a good deal of technical potential for the UK. Biomass has applications
in both transport and electricity generation. I think those are
the ones to initially focus on, but I want to make the point again
that we do not necessarily want to invest money in one or two
winning technologies, but to keep the market open for this potential,
for innovation and let the market choose what the best path is
to take, because sometimes we get in trouble if we pick, say,
"This is the one", and put all our money there.
Q58 Paddy Tipping: Again in your
evidence you made a point which David King made which was that
50% of emissions are coming from the built environment. Clearly
from these statements, I suspect you think this is a scenario
where we ought to make some progress. How do we make that progress?
Ms Wynne: I will pass that to
my colleagues, because they are doing some interesting work with
the 40% options.
Dr Anderson: Technically there
are many options. I do not think we have to be looking for considerable
innovation there. We have been aware of these technological options
for many years. It is how we implement those options. I do not
mean to make what might be seen as a trite comment, but we are
here in a very modern building, sat beneath halogen bulbs, which
are very inefficient. I notice in the toilet here there were no
movement sensors. So that is costing the tax-payer £100 a
year just to keep the eight 40 watt light bulbs in your toilets
behind here. This is a modern building. We are here discussing
energy efficiency and the technologies which are really very poor,
and that leads us straightaway to point towards: how to do we
bring these things about? Clearly it is not being brought about
by voluntary agreements, and, for all the good will in the world,
we are not moving towards the 60% target let alone the 75% target
that perhaps we may need.
Q59 Chairman: You have just got yourself
a job. We will send you off round the building.
Dr Anderson: You can try the older
part in the House of Commons. There is a lot more to do there.
Clearly there are many things that need to be done. We require
policies with teeth. I noticed earlier Austin Mitchell used the
word "hurt". "When will these policies hurt?"
The hurt is a matter of choice: we hurt one way or we hurt another.
I do not think it is a matter that we chose policies that hurt.
| 
