Memorandum submitted by the Biosciences
Federation (U28)
The following organisations from within the
Biosciences Federation have contributed specific (or specialist)
advice in the course of this response:
British Ecological Society
British Society of Soil Science
Institute of Biology
INTRODUCTION
1. The Biosciences Federation was founded
in 2002 in order to create a single authority within the life
sciences that decision-makers are able to consult for opinion
and information to assist the formulation of public policy. It
brings together the strengths of 33 member organisations, including
the Institute of Biology, which represents 45 additional affiliated
societies (see Appendix [not printed]). The organisations that
have already joined the Biosciences Federation represent a cumulative
membership of some 60,000 bioscientists and cover the whole spectrum
from physiology and neuroscience, biochemistry and microbiology
to ecology and agriculture. The Biosciences Federation is a registered
charity (No 1103894).
SUMMARY OF
RESPONSE
2. This response's principal points include:
(i) The single biggest achievement that the
UK Government could achieve as Chair of G8 and President of the
European Council in 2005 is to facilitate an agreement for tackling
climate change between all the major industrial nations (paragraph
4).
(ii) UK policies have yet to make a significant
impact on UK carbon emissions. The forthcoming review of the Climate
Change Programme should assess current policies and ensure co-ordination
between different policy areas, including activities in the devolved
administrations (paragraphs 5-7).
(iii) The Programme should also consider
more deeply UK policies for coping and adapting to impending changes
in climate, particularly with regards to impacts on biodiversity
and ecosystems (paragraphs 8-10).
(iv) Effective communication and dialogue
with the public on climate change is the only way the Government
will obtain `buy in' from the nation to help tackle the issue.
The Government should raise awareness of ways in which everyone
can increase energy efficiency and provide incentives to do so
(paragraph 11, 19).
(v) A more holistic programme to increase
the use of renewable energy sources is required in the UK, including
more co-ordinated R&D and greater financial support from the
Government (paragraphs 12-16).
(vi) The potential for biological sources,
such as ethanol and biodiesel, to help meet the demand for transport
fuels is currently a glaring omission from the Programme (paragraph
17).
(vii) The issues surrounding nuclear power
need to be tackled head-on and we would strongly advocate a review
of the nuclear option as part of the autumn review of the Programme
(paragraph 18).
(viii) Policies relating to emissions and
carbon sequestration in agriculture and land use should be updated
in the light of new research and evidence. The potential of soil
as a carbon sink is currently undervalued and needs further research
(paragraphs 20-23).
(ix) Increasing recycling rates should be
considered as a priority in the Programme (paragraph 24).
GENERAL
3. The Biosciences Federation welcomes the
Committee's inquiry into the policies of the UK Government to
address the challenge of climate change. We agree with the Prime
Minister that climate change is "the world's greatest environmental
challenge". The UK Climate Change Programme, published in
2001, is a firm public commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and adapting to future changes in climate, and sets an example
within the international community. The Government's review of
the Programme this autumn will be a timely and important assessment
of the success of the Programme so far.
G8 AND THE
EUROPEAN COUNCIL
4. The single biggest achievement that the
UK Government could achieve as Chair of G8 and President of the
European Council in 2005 is to facilitate an agreement for tackling
climate change between all the major industrial nations, including
relevant developing countries and the USA. The USA, which is responsible
for over a third of the world's CO2 emissions, pulled
out of the Kyoto Protocol in March 2001 on the grounds that it
does not take into account emissions from developing countries
that it states will soon match their own emissions. But, the Programme
itself admits that developing countries will not take on legally
binding targets until developed countries (ie the USA) have demonstrated
that they are taking serious action to cut their emissions. All
efforts to cope with problems associated with global warming,
including the UK Climate Change Programme, are undermined by a
lack of international consensus.
CLIMATE CHANGE
PROGRAMME REVIEW
Impact
5. The forthcoming review of the UK Climate
Change Programme should firstly evaluate whether current policies
are having a significant impact on UK carbon emissions. The Commons
Environmental Audit Committee recently reported: "The policy
instruments the Government has put in place have yet to make a
significant impact on the UK carbon emissions trajectory. The
Government's latest forecasts indicate that carbon emissions will
fall only to around 140 MtC by 2010—some 8 MtC more than
the target. This carbon gap could be much greater if the policy
instruments in place and planned fail to deliver the reductions
envisaged."[8]
6. The Programme review should consider
the mechanisms required to ensure co-ordination between policies.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in one sector by increasing
them in another (or elsewhere in the world) is not a net gain.
7. In the UK, many activities producing
greenhouse gas emissions are the responsibility of the devolved
administrations. The Scottish Climate Change Programme was published
alongside the UK one and will also be reviewed this autumn. The
devolved administrations should work in partnership with the UK
Government to tackle climate change since they retain responsibility
for policy levers such as taxation. The comments in this response
therefore also apply to the climate change strategies of the devolved
administrations.
Adaptation
8. On a world scale, emissions are likely
to be dominated by activities in other countries over which the
UK has little control. The Programme should consider more deeply
UK policies for coping and adapting to the changes in climate
that will inevitably happen in the coming decades as a consequence.
We note, however, the extreme difficulties in predicting climate
change. Trends of hotter summers, wetter winters, increasingly
frequent extreme weather conditions and climate-induced rises
in sea level have been forecasted. Alternatively, research is
indicating that changes to the ocean currents could cause Europe
to freeze. Such changes will have significant impacts on water
use demands, flooding frequency, agriculture, forestry, wildlife,
health, buildings and the economy. The effect of population increases
should also be considered: the more people there are in the UK,
Europe, or on the planet, the more energy will be needed. The
Programme states: "The Government and the devolved administrations
have already started to respond to the threat of climate change,
building adaptation into many of their policies." In reviewing
the Programme, Section 3 "Adapting to the Impacts of Climate
Change in the UK" should be updated with progress in this
area and expanded with further measures to predict, cope with
and prepare for the consequences of climate change.
9. Of particular concern, there is likely
to be a substantial impact on biodiversity with large changes
in the structure of natural biological communities. Large numbers
of animals and plants (eg coral reefs, polar bears, invertebrates
and migratory birds, eg the Scottish crossbill and mountain ringlet)
will be unable to cope with the speed of climate change. There
is a need to monitor biodiversity and to attempt some remediation,
for example, by creating new areas of marsh to help control flooding.
The biodiversity research agenda needs to be holistic, considering
the entire ecosystem, its biodiversity, processes and services.
Research should involve biologists, meteorologists, physical geographers,
quaternary geologists and remote sensing and computer modelling
experts in order to attempt to understand the affects of climate
change on biodiversity, and should also consider the dual effects
of other global change phenomena, such as nitrogen deposition
and land use change. We should conserve biodiversity because:
it is integral to the efficient functioning of Earth's ecosystem
and regulates natural processes that protect our planet; it provides
the raw material of food, clothing and medicines; it enhances
our quality of life by adding variety to our surroundings; it
helps shape our culture and inspires our poets, painters, writers
and composers; and it is a heritage we should not deny to the
next generation.[9]
10. The proposed Integrated Agency for real
land management, which will bring together English Nature, the
Rural Development Service and some responsibilities of the Countryside
Agency, should have responsibility for assessing and managing
adaptation to climatic change. It is unlikely that the current
system of site-based conservation will be sufficient to meet national,
EU and international conservation targets under known climate
scenarios. It is, therefore, important that the new Integrated
Agency takes landscape-scale action for biodiversity conservation.
Furthermore, the Integrated Agency needs to have a strong science
base to understand changes to terrestrial, freshwater and marine
environments due to climate change.
Communication
11. The Programme aims to "help people
to understand why we need to tackle climate change". This
is vital for the success of the Programme and more effort in this
area is required. Awareness of the consequences of climate change
needs to be raised in order to motivate people to take action
in their daily lives. This is a challenge, however, due to the
complexity of climatic effects and the uncertainties surrounding
the extent and cause of the phenomenon. The Government should
accept that the "deficit" approach of "helping
people understand" the science in the hope that it will gain
their support is outdated, and the Programme needs to be amended
accordingly. Science policy issues should be debated in a transparent
and open forum, with information publicly available and vested
interests declared. Listening to people's concerns about this
issue, and understanding the reasons for their behaviour, is the
only way in which Government policy can realistically hope to
get `buy in' from the nation to help tackle climate change.
Low Carbon Energy—Electricity
12. The Programme has excellent aspirations
to move towards a low carbon economy but we are not convinced
the Government has made much headway in this direction. The 2003
Energy White Paper recommended that 20% of the UK's electricity
needs to be generated by renewable energy by 2020 in order to
reduce CO2 emissions.[10]
But earlier this year the Sustainable Energy Policy Network (set
up to implement the White Paper) reported that Britain's CO2
emissions have risen by 1.4% while the proportion of electricity
generated from renewable sources has fallen from 3% to 2.9%.
13. A more holistic programme to support
renewable energy is required in the UK. There is a need for more
co-ordinated R&D and greater financial support from the Government.
The Treasury cannot expect industry to provide investment in renewable
energy unless it has a long-term strategy itself.
14. Biofuels potentially have an important
role to play in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Development
of the sector would bring a new source of income to rural areas
and, depending on the impacts of CAP reform, land is available
for this purpose. However, biofuel crops have failed to become
a commercial success in the UK because of insufficient start up
support and a lack of financial incentive for the customer (eg
tax breaks). The May 2004 report of the Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution (RCEP) "Biomass as a Renewable Energy Source"
is highly critical of the Government's confused policies on biofuels
and biomass.[11]
The report says that current policies fail to provide the leadership
and incentives necessary to start a large-scale bioenergy sector
in the UK. A workshop on biofuels was held by the Institute of
Biology and the British Crop Protection Council in 2002 to consider
the technologies available, research priorities and barriers to
commercialisation. The resulting report was also critical of the
Government's biofuels strategy.[12]
15. Wind power is poised to make a significant
contribution to the UK electricity supply, but several issues
remain that need to be tackled. There is concern that environmentally
sensitive areas will be disrupted to develop wind farms and that
the carbon loss resulting from excavation will not be accounted
for. At present, the siting of wind farms is based on a model
that predicts where there is likely to be most wind. This does
not take into account the option of developing wind farms on sites
that are already spoiled by industrial development.
16. Solar and tidal/wave energy has received
less Government attention. Yet Britain has the greatest tidal
range in the world. The so-called Severn barrage could potentially
supply up to a quarter of present UK electricity requirements.
Solar energy has great potential with the development of modern
photovoltaic tiles for roofing. Unfortunately, the Government
has failed to support such developments and companies have gone
to Germany and Holland to develop their products. Householders
should be encouraged, through Government grants, to look at the
solar option when considering re-roofing.
Low Carbon Energy—Transport
17. The growth of CO2 emissions
from transport is a serious issue and the use of renewable fuels
should be explored. The potential for biological sources to help
meet the demand for transport fuels is currently a glaring omission
from the Programme. Ethanol, which can be derived from a number
of plant sources and can be blended with petrol, and biodiesel,
from oilseed rape, can be used in vehicles engines without any
need for modification. The Programme should place more emphasis
on developing and promoting these options. We welcome the Government's
proposals (currently in consultation) to implement the EU Biofuels
Directive by introducing some form of regulatory mandate or obligation
to use biofuels and increasing fuel duty incentives[13]
(petrol is still at least 10% cheaper than four years ago in real
terms). Generating hydrogen from plant sources and using it to
run vehicles is another low carbon option, but this is currently
far from economically feasible and requires further research.
Problems such as compressing enough hydrogen into fuel tanks and
making fuel cells affordable may take many years to solve.
The Nuclear Option
18. The issues surrounding nuclear power
need to be tackled head-on and we would strongly advocate a review
of the nuclear option as part of the autumn review of the Programme.
The Programme refers to nuclear power numerous times, but generally
only in relation to the impact of decommissioning power plants
on emission figures. The Programme suggests that nuclear power
is still an option even if there is likely to be a possible 30-year
gap in rolling out a fusion option.
Energy efficiency
19. More than half of the emissions reductions
in the Programme are expected to come from increased energy efficiency.
The Energy White Paper estimated an increase in energy efficiency
in the home could reduce CO2 emissions by 5 million
tonnes. Therefore, policies to increase energy efficiency should
be considered as a highly important part of the Programme and
should be given particular attention in the autumn review. It
should be recognised that communication and understanding the
reasons for individual and organisational behaviour are vital
for increasing energy efficiency. For example, encouraging people
to use their cars less frequently, share rides or use public transport
could be just as effective as developing low-carbon fuels. Unfortunately,
the current low confidence in public transport (particularly train
services) and high value given to personal independence and mobility
makes this an extremely difficult challenge. The development of
an effective public transport system should be a priority. Other
potential initiatives include promoting local farm produce to
cut "transport miles", subsidising the insulation of
all homes and providing more effective heating boilers. The Government
should raise awareness of ways in which everyone can reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and provide incentives to do so (see Communication).
Saving £24 per year on energy bills is not an incentive (Chapter
6, para 9).
Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use
20. Policies in the Programme relating to
emissions and carbon sequestration in agriculture and other land
uses should be updated in light of new research and evidence.
For example, Defra is funding a project (led by CEH Edinburgh)
to quantify the UK stocks of carbon in soils and vegetation and
to assess possible changes due to land use change. This project
is assembling the best available sets of data on soil types, land
use and climate and combining them with the best-validated models
currently available. It is also identifying gaps in knowledge
where further research is needed, especially in relation to the
influence of other nutrients, such as nitrogen, on carbon sequestration.
An increasing body of evidence indicates that carbon storage in
soil is strongly influenced by nitrogen availability, and this
influence can be both positive and negative depending on context.[14]
Numerous individual research projects are presently underway in
the UK and overseas that cast light on some of the factors that
control carbon sequestration in both agricultural and natural
soils.[15]
21. The Programme acknowledges that soil
can remove carbon but it undervalues its potential as a carbon
sink. Soil is the basis of farm (and forest) production and its
condition (and stored carbon) has deteriorated hugely over the
last thirty or so years. There is a small but significant potential
for biological sequestration of carbon in UK soils as a contribution
to greenhouse gas mitigation, although this should not be regarded
as an alternative to cutting emissions. A recent meeting of the
British Society of Soil Science reported that soils with low carbon
content, such as those used for arable purposes for many years,
have the greatest potential for sequestration. Strategies include
establishing forests on former arable sites or expanding field
margins. It is crucial that soils with high carbon content, such
as soils of forests and peatlands, should have minimum disturbance
to maintain the carbon stock.[16]
22. It is desirable to increase forest cover
as this will cause sequestration of carbon in trees and soil organic
matter, as well as providing additional environmental benefits
such as provision of wildlife habitats. However, it is necessary
to consider the full lifecycle of forests and forest products
and the context-dependent ways that forestry can influence soil
carbon cycling; for example, there is accumulating evidence that
establishing forests on certain soils can cause considerable release
of CO2 due to priming of soil microbes, leading to
enhanced decomposition of old organic carbon, and through changes
in drainage conditions and disturbance. In some cases this could
be larger than the amount of carbon sequestered in trees. Also,
for sequestration to be effective the carbon must be locked up
for a long period of time (ie decades). This requirement will
be met if timber from a forest is used for construction purposes
but not if it is pulped for making paper.
23. The Programme aims to reduce fertiliser
use, but there are other important factors influencing nitrous
oxide (N2O) emissions that should be considered, for
example, land use (arable crops vs. grassland), management factors
(timing of fertiliser or manure application) and the conditions
of the soil (application to wet or compacted soil is likely to
increase emissions). The overall costs and benefits of land use
practices also should be weighed up; for example, some practices
may favour carbon sequestration but increase N2O emissions,
outweighing the carbon benefit. It is also important to consider
associated impacts on the net emission of other potent greenhouse
gasses, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).
This is especially the case for no-tillage agriculture; whilst
promoting soil carbon storage, this practice also potentially
increases emissions of N2O to the atmosphere, due to
increased denitrification in compacted, low porosity soils.[17]
Waste
24. Increasing recycling rates, especially
of plastics, should be considered as a priority in the Programme.
Reducing waste production and recycling reduces the amount of
waste sent to landfill, reduces the need for extraction and processing
of raw materials, and displaces the use of fossil fuels when energy
is produced from waste. As the UK only recycles 14.5% of its waste,
we very much welcome the recently launched £10 million awareness
raising initiative supported by Defra. Some EU countries recycle
over half of their municipal waste, including Austria (58%), Germany
(53%) and the Netherlands (59%).[18]
In Norway, every household divides its waste into glass, paper,
plastic, metal and compostable material for collection at the
doorstep; a similar scheme is being introduced in France. Ensuring
that kerbside collection is cost-effective is a challenge for
local authorities.[19]
1 October 2004
8 The Environmental Audit Committee Tenth Report of
Session 2003-04. Budget 2004 and Energy. August 2004. Available
at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmenvaud/490/49002.htm Back
9
NI Environment and Heritage Service. See: http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/natural/biodiversity/whybio.shtml Back
10
Energy White Paper "Our Energy Future-Creating a Low Carbon
Economy". February 2003. Available at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/index.shtml Back
11
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Biomass as a renewable
energy source. May 2004. Available at: http://www.rcep.org.uk/energycrops.htm Back
12
Fuelling the Future 3: Biofuels. A report on the February 2002
workshop and questionnaire. Institute of Biology and British Crop
Protection Council. Available at www.iob.org Back
13
Department for Transport. Towards a UK Strategy for Biofuels-Public
Consultation. April 2004. Available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_028393.hcsp Back
14
Mack MC et al. Ecosystem carbon storage in arctic tundra
reduced by long-term nutrient fertilization. Nature 2004;
431: 440-443; Neff JC et al. Soil carbon turnover in alpine
meadows accelerated by nitrogen additions. Nature 2002;
419: 915-917. Back
15
Freeman et al. Export of dissolved organic carbon from
peatlands under elevated carbon dioxide levels. Nature 2004;
430: 195-198; Beedlow PA et al. (2004) Rising atmospheric
CO2 and carbon sequestration in forests. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment 2004; 2: 3-5-322. Back
16
Soil Use and Management 2004: 20 (Supplement: Soils as Carbon
Sinks); 210-270. See also: The Royal Society. The role of land
carbon sinks in mitigating global climate change. Policy Document
10/01, July 2001. Back
17
Smith KA & Conen F. Impacts of land management on fluxes of
trace greenhouse gases. Soil Use and Management 2004; 20:
255-263. Back
18
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Municipal
Waste Management in the EU 2001. February 2003. Available at:
www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/waste/kf/wrkf08.htm Back
19
See: Meeting Statutory Recycling Targets through Cost Effective
Kerbside Expansion. A step-by-step guide for local authorities.
June 2004. Available at: http://technology.open.ac.uk/iws/costeffectivekerbsidereport.pdf Back
| 
