Memorandum submitted by the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) and the Institution of Civil
Engineers (ICE)
INTRODUCTION
The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE)
is a professional body representing over 75,000 professional engineers
in the UK and overseas. The institution's membership is involved
in all aspects of energy conversion, supply and use. They operate
in the automotive, rail and aerospace industries, in construction
and building services, in renewable energy, fossil-fuel derived
power generation and nuclear power, and in the over-arching field
of sustainable development. As a Learned Society, IMechE's role
is to be a source of considered, balanced, impartial information
and advice.
The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) is
a professional body that exists to promote and progress civil
engineering. ICE is a qualifying body, a centre for the exchange
of specialist knowledge, and a provider of resources to encourage
innovation and excellence in the profession, worldwide.
RESPONSES TO
QUESTIONS
1. The Prime Minister continues to identify
climate change as "probably the greatest long-term challenge
facing the human race". Does the 2006 Climate Change Programme
represent a realistic strategy to prepare the UK to meet this
challenge?
No. The Climate Change Programme (CCP) is focused
almost exclusively on the Kyoto target for 2008-12 and the domestic
CO2 target for 2010. It seems, in our view, to pay
little substantive regard to the years and decades after 2012
and does not, therefore, represent a realistic strategy for achieving
the longer-term challenges of climate change, domestically or
internationally. A realistic long-term strategy would need to
address the major issues of how we dramatically reduce our dependence
on oil for transport, and our dependence on gas for space and
water heating. It would set out a bold but achievable programme
to achieve real reductions in energy demand, and it would clearly
define how the international community, particularly the EU, the
US, China, Russia, Brazil and India will work together to meet
the climate change challenge.
2. Does the Government need to do more, and
if so what, to try to ensure that it meets the 20% reduction in
carbon dioxide emissions by 2010?
Yes. By its own acknowledgement, even with the
new measures described in the CCP, the Government does not expect
to meet the 20% CO2 target for 2010. The target is
still achievable, if the Government is prepared to take the necessary
steps with utmost and immediate vigour.
Energy conservation should be the first priority,
achieved largely through a sustained programme of public engagement
to encourage positive lifestyle and cultural changes. Second in
the hierarchy of energy priorities is energy efficiency, and here
again there is real potential for low cost, rapid improvements.
While these demand-side measures are likely to be the quickest
and most effective, supply-side issues need also to be addressed
to move steadily and progressively towards a truly sustainable
portfolio of supply options.
Demand-side measures should include:
— A public engagement, communication
and education campaign, including the provision of better quality
information (on consumption and emissions) to consumers, eg through
smart metering.
— Reduce car dependency and control
traffic growth, eg road pricing schemes.
— Invest in bus, rail, tram and information
networks.
— Better co-ordination between land
use and transport planning, especially regionally.
— Road vehicle-based energy efficiency
measures, eg speed limiters, much greater fiscal incentives to
use more efficient vehicles (the VED measures announced by the
Chancellor in the 2006 Budget are inadequate in this regard).
— Adoption and enforcement of better
building regulations, including training in sustainable energy
technologies for Building Control Officers, more support for micro-generation
technologies and greater emphasis on upgrading the existing building
stock, eg through council tax rebates for efficiency improvements
for houses, legislation to compel homeowners to upgrade prior
to selling their property (eg A-rated boilers, cavity wall and
loft insulation, double glazing, energy efficient light bulbs).
— Closer integration of climate change
policy objectives into other areas of government, eg planning
systems, sustainable communities, public estates.
— Fiscal incentives to more strongly
encourage consumers and small businesses to adopt energy efficiency
measures and technologies.
Supply-side measures should include:
— Investment/greater support ("a
big push" to use the PM's recent words) for renewable power,
fuel, transport and/or heat technologies, including marine renewables
(wave, tidal, marine current), bio-fuels and Energy from Waste.
— Investment/greater support for low
carbon, non-renewable power, fuel, transport and/or heat technologies,
including nuclear, fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage,
enhanced oil recovery, low carbon vehicle fuels.
— A balanced approach to the development
of new power generation. We recommend the use of renewable, clean
fossil (ie with carbon capture and storage) and nuclear sources
to a point where the country is not overly reliant on any one
option. Such a "portfolio" approach will minimise technical,
fuel, environmental and financial risks, while retaining competitive
electricity prices.
The Government needs to do radically better
at engaging the public, specifically:
— to avoid wasting heat energy (eg
through heating systems being left on when buildings are empty,
thermostats being set too high);
— to avoid wasting electrical energy
(eg lights being left on, TVs left on standby);
— to use heat energy more efficiently
(eg through better home insulation);
— to use electrical energy more efficiently
(eg through low energy appliances); and
— to source an increasing proportion
of their own energy needs (eg through micro-generation and/or
micro-heat devices).
3. To what extent, if at all, will the outcome
of the Energy Review affect the implementation of the Climate
Change Programme?
The Energy Review is absolutely fundamental
to the Climate Change Programme. Climate Change is caused by the
burning of fossil fuels and the only reason we burn fossil fuels
is to extract energy from them.
We find it somewhat odd that the Government
publishes a Climate Change Programme, setting out its policies
and priorities for tackling the issue, while at the same time
publishing an Energy Review that aims to be far-reaching and fundamental.
Energy and Climate Change are so closely linked that the CCP would
be rendered utterly redundant and impotent if inappropriate decisions
emerge from the Energy Review. Such a situation can only be avoided
if the Government puts the tackling of climate change, through
rapid, deep and sustainable cuts in greenhouse gas emissions,
firmly at the heart of its energy policy goals. In this context
we question the logic and appropriateness of dividing responsibilities
between Defra (for the CCP), DTI (for energy policy), DfT (for
transport policy and vehicle standards) and FCO (for international
relationships). These divisions are potentially counter-productive
and we suggest that the CCP-relevant parts of these disparate
functions be brought under single authority and control, within
a Department dedicated to finding and implementing the policies
necessary to meet the climate change challenge. To do so, it must
not be distracted by endless arguments over electricity generation,
for which many low carbon options exist (and all of which have
a role to play), but instead focus on the major issues described
in our answer to Question 1, and take the immediate steps described
in our response to Question 2.
May 2006
|
