Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
MR TONY
JUNIPER, MR
SIMON BULLOCK
AND MR
CRAIG BENNETT
1 FEBRUARY 2006
Q1 Chairman: Such is our eagerness to
talk to you that we have brought you in ahead of time! Welcome.
I know you have been before this Committee many times before,
but it is the first time since I have been in the Chair, so I
am particularly delighted to see you. We look forward to an interesting
discussion. I wonder whether, just to kick things off, you would
like to give a sort of general reaction to the Pre-Budget Report
this year, just to get the discussion started?
Mr Juniper: Thank you, Chairman.
Should I just say who my colleagues are as well? I am Tony Juniper.
I am the Director of Friends of the Earth and the Vice-Chairman
of Friends of the Earth International, so we are working not only
nationally but also globally on some of these issues. Craig Bennett
is our Senior Corporate Campaigner and works both in this country
and also with our international network on the activities of companies
in relation to sustainable development, and Simon Bullock is our
Sustainable Development Policy Advisor, who helps to underpin
the work which we are doing in the campaigns with proper research
and thinking to establish what the broader pictures are. We are
delighted to be here, obviously, and just to maybe emphasise the
importance of these discussions in environmental questions and
how we are going to resolve those in the future, because there
is very often a compartmentalising of issues in ways which do
not lead us to deal with some of the underlying questions in terms
of, for example, what is the economy doing, how are companies
operating inside that sustainable development framework. This
is one of the areas where we do have to make progress in the years
ahead if we are to stop dangerous climate change, and indeed to
conserve life on Earth. In relation to your questions, probably
Simon is the best person to kick off in terms of what we saw in
the PBR and what we thought of it.
Mr Bullock: Our opinion of the
Pre-Budget Report is that it was not a great Pre-Budget Report.
There was very little actual movement on the environmental issues,
particularly on climate change in the context of emissions not
having gone down at all since 1997. The one positive piece of
news which did come out of it was the Stern Review, which we warmly
welcome, and the report yesterday seems to be an excellent start.
It acknowledges the real urgency of the issue and that major economic
change and action will be needed. So that is a very positive step
and we will be reacting to that, but in terms of progress, there
is very little and again, as I am sure many on the Committee will
agree, it is very disappointing that so little progress is being
made through the Treasury.
Q2 Chairman: Yes. Looking back over the
last eight and a half years now, the Treasury issued a Statement
of Intent on Environmental Taxation in 1997, in which it said
it aimed to shift the burden of tax from "goods" to
"bads". Over that period, how would you rate the performance
and progress towards that goal?
Mr Juniper: Obviously, one of
the things which we have been pushing for for many years is to
begin the process of internalising environmental prices into the
cost of what consumers pay and the signals being sent across the
economy being reflected in terms of environmental capacities.
We did warmly welcome the emphasis on the tax system being used
as a tool to hasten good environmental outcomes and this was obviously
being used in waste aggregates and in the energy sector, but there
appears to have been a very dramatic backing-off of advancing
policy in this area from about 2000 onwards and it seemed to be
precipitated by the public protest against the proposed increase
in fuel duties. Since then there has been really very little political
engagement with the whole question of ecological taxation, and
indeed the level of environmental taxes now is declining to the
level, I think I am right in saying, below that which was the
case in 1997. So there are less environmental taxes now than there
were then. We do not think that is very good and we would like
to see a re-engagement with the ecological tax agenda as a matter
of some urgency, especially given the increase in the rise of
greenhouse gases in this country and the failure of other instruments
to deal with that so far.
Mr Bullock: Just to add to that,
I am aware from the previous responses to this Committee that
the Treasury has tried to wriggle out of this commitment to shifting
the burden. Its main argument seems to be that the relevant rates
of different taxes is not the critical issue and that what is
really important is the environmental policy objective and the
ways of meeting those targets. To a degree it has got a point,
that is true. But then if you analyse its progress against that
target, it is failing also. I do think the shift in the burden
of taxation is an important issue. Generally the principle is
right, to tax externalities, to tax pollution and to decrease
taxes on labour. I would have thought that in the current context,
as well as politically, when the Government is trying to create
incentives for people to work later in life with an ageing population
reducing taxes on labour would be seen to be more of a good thing
than in previous years. One other thing is that the Treasury seems
to have an objection to shifting the burden of taxes onto environmental
taxes because it believes that if you have progress on environmental
issues then the revenues will go down to zero, which is an issue
the Committee has raised before. I do not really think there is
very much evidence of that. We are going to use fossil fuels for
many decades to come. If the Treasury was to set a carbon budget,
for example, it would know exactly how much tax revenue it was
going to get and be able to predict for it. It is not going to
fall to zero, so I think it is a poor argument for why the environmental
tax percentage should not be used as a policy aim.
Q3 Chairman: We will come on to some
specific transport taxes in a moment, but just on this general
point, if the objective is to obviously achieve an environmental
aim through the taxation policy and therefore to get there you
are going to be able to change their behaviour, do you also share
the view I have that environmental taxes are also a way of raising
people's awareness about the need to achieve the goals? It is
not just about the revenue which is raised, it is also about actually
getting you to understand what we have to do.
Mr Juniper: Yes, and alongside
raising awareness and raising money the other element of this
policy area is about changing behaviour. Obviously this links
to the question about the revenues. If people start doing things
differently, obviously there will be an impact on the revenue
stream. But this needs to be looked at at these levels simultaneously
and it does appear at the moment that there is a reluctance in
the Treasury to look at the behaviour-changing and awareness-raising
aspects of these policies, with the emphasis being on the money
which will be raised rather than the wider political impacts which
might be made, which of course are essential if we are going to
solve problems like global warming.
Mr Bennett: I think there is actually
another important point here as well, which is about setting the
framework for business, because what we have found time and again
in our discussions with corporations is that they say what they
really need to see are some certainties. They need to see some
strategic direction from Government on some of these matters,
and of course actually setting frameworks and setting tax policies
will emphasise to business which way to go. One of the biggest
problems for companies which want to do the right thing is not
necessarily where the taxes will lie or how significant they will
be, it is lack of certainty, because that means it is very difficult
for companies to put investment in the areas necessary to really
progress forward environmental technologies, for example.
Mr Bullock: If I could follow
on, on that specific point what we would like to see is the Treasury
to set an environmental strategy on climate change based on a
legal duty to reduce carbon emissions, which would give that certainty
to businesses and individuals that this is a long-term agenda
which they can innovate and adapt for.
Chairman: Ed, did you want to come in
on this one?
Mr Vaizey: I only wanted to ask about
a specific environmental tax.
Chairman: We will come to that later
on.
Q4 Dr Turner: To follow on immediately
to what you have just been saying, how environmentally conscious
do you think the Treasury is? Do you feel that the Treasury appreciates
its potential strategic role in directing environmental and climate
change policy through fiscal instruments?
Mr Juniper: We have not strongly
had that impression, certainly not for some time. There was a
strong indication to begin with, in 1997, that there was an understanding
in the Treasury of the linkages between fiscal policy, for example,
and environmental outcomes, but one might be forgiven for thinking
that was more a way of justifying certain ways of raising revenue
rather than being genuinely about the environment. As time has
gone by that impression has been reinforced with the fuel taxes,
for example, in 2000 triggering those protests and then the environment
was dropped like a hot potato and it has not really been seen
as a central plank of Treasury policy since. I suppose we would
make the point that it is all very well having an Environment
Department with lots of targets, but until the levers are pulled
to meet the targets we are not going to get very far. So it is
absolutely essential that on some of these big questions about
resources use, biodiversity, conservation, climate change and
energy, the levers which the Treasury has are pulled in the same
direction as the targets which are allocated to Defra should be
going. At the moment, it does not seem to be the case, and indeed
if you look at the Treasury-led push for development of the south-east
of England in terms of opening up the planning system to enable
more building, the pressure for new airports which is being pushed
forward by Treasury, it is quite obvious that they are taking
policy in the opposite direction to where the targets should be,
which is, for example, a 60% plus reduction in CO2 emissions by
mid century. Treasury policy is taking us in the opposite direction.
Mr Bullock: To follow on to that,
I remember a few years ago the Treasury said for the first time
that the quality of economic growth matters, not just the quantity.
We saw that at the time as a very positive statement because it
is the idea that the environment and the economy are not necessarily
in conflict, and indeed a strong environment is good for a strong
economy. We have not seen a lot of follow-through on that. I think
there is still a belief that the economic growth should be pursued
irrespective of the environmental consequences in the main. That
is the approach, it seems to me. The Aviation White Paper is a
very strong example of that, but hopefully the Stern Review will
dispel some of these myths; and they are myths. I think action
on climate change is good for innovation, the balance of payments,
competitiveness, and the like, if designed properly.
Q5 Dr Turner: How much contact have you
had with the Treasury over the past year? Could you tell us a
little about it and do you feel that they are secretive or do
they discuss possible future policies openly with you?
Mr Juniper: In terms of contact
we have had with them, we were there about twenty minutes ago,
so we have just come here from there, discussing some of these
big issues. But I think for environmentalists across our sector
in the voluntary organisations, increasingly we have seen the
Treasury as a place where we need to be bringing our arguments
and finding ways of raising sustainable development and environmental
questions in policy decisions, and I think we have been pretty
successful in having contact and discussion but less successful
in making the case to the point where we are seeing big changes
in the direction of policy. At the moment I think the Treasury
(as are other government departments) is obsessed with the notion
of competitiveness, which is being reinforced by certain business
lobbies like the CBI, who are telling us that the overall direction
of policy has to be to reduce the burden on business, to minimise
the costs of business in this country in order that we can grow
our economy in the most competitive way. If you have that as your
main frame for policy-making then the environment gets pushed
either to the margins or to the bottom, and that appears to be
what is going on right now, with competitiveness being the thing
which is at the heart of the Treasury's agenda. As Simon said
a second ago, we think this is quite wrong thinking to see sustainable
development, the environment and competitiveness as separate things.
It is a question of what you are trying to be competitive in.
We would make the point that at the moment we seem to be trying
to remain competitive in a twentieth century set of businesses
when in fact sustainable development tells us that we should be
looking over the horizon and looking to favour those kinds of
businesses which are going to be part of the solutions to these
big challenges. At the moment they are being kept down, the solutions
are being excluded, because we continue to favour old-style business
which has the ear of Government more than some of those people
who would be bringing forward solutions.
Q6 Dr Turner: So do you feel that such
response as you get from the Treasury so far as environmental
considerations are concerned is somewhat ad hoc and does
not have any clear vision or strategy behind it?
Mr Juniper: I would struggle to
see a sustainable development or environmental vision coming from
the Treasury. Now and again reference is made to these issues,
but there is no coherent policy follow-through. We have mentioned
some of the contradictions around planning and aviation; there
are others.
Mr Bullock: I think the Treasury
has, to give it credit, implemented some good environmental measures
over the last 10 years. I think the problem with it is that they
are individual policies, they do not sum up to a coherent collective
whole, and other policy within the Treasury acts in the opposite
direction, and indeed other policy across Government acts in the
opposite direction. The protect the environment chapter of the
Treasury's report every year does talk up the successes it has
on things like the Climate Change Levy but it is very poor on
an objective assessment of where we are really going on, for example,
climate change.
Q7 Dr Turner: It is quite clear that
the Treasury itself sees barriers to increasing environmental
taxes to the point where they might actually be effective in modifying
environmental destructive behaviour. The fuel tax was a perfect
example of that. What do you feel are the main barriers to the
level of environmental taxes which are actually effective?
Mr Bullock: One point on that
is that I think what the Treasury needs to put in place is not
an environmental tax strategy but an environmental strategy full
stop. One of the big problems with the fuel tax escalator was
that it was not put in place with complementary measures to make,
for example, public transport a decent alternative or to make
walking or cycling decent. So it was all stick and no carrot and
I think to properly engage with people to persuade them to use
their cars less they have to have decent alternatives. You need
packages of policies, not just taxes, but information, regulation,
the lot. I think that is a big issue for effective policy on climate
change, not just to see it as being about tax.
Q8 Dr Turner: So you feel that probably
to increase the point at which they are effective is politically
suicidal unless you have some sweeteners going with them?
Mr Bullock: I think that is broadly
right, yes. I do not think that coercion is going to do the trick
and probably that was the main lesson to learn from the fuel tax
protests, that just relying on that one measure did not have political
success.
Q9 Mark Pritchard: You mentioned, Mr
Juniper, that the Treasury is taking us in the wrong direction.
So that I am absolutely clear, in your view is that because of
the Treasury's inaction or as a result of their actions, or a
combination of both, which would lead into your point about confusion
and a lack of overall strategy?
Mr Juniper: I think it is both.
It is the commitment to the very traditional style of economic
growth which we have become accustomed to in western countries,
which is not the same as sustainable development, and also the
pursuit of certain styles or certain sectoral developments, for
example aviation, which will in that case dramatically increase
carbon dioxide emissions, particularly damaging emissions, from
high altitude aircraft at a time when not only the Treasury but
the rest of the Government is saying that climate change is an
overriding priority for us. It is seen as a way of generating
economic growth, and that in turn being good for the country and
making us more competitive, the competitiveness being part of
the aviation justification. But what it is doing is the opposite
to what we need to do in terms of bringing down emissions of carbon
dioxide. That is being deliberately pushed forward by the Treasury.
Q10 Mark Pritchard: Just a quick supplementary.
Clearly the Treasury is looking out for UK plc and you would call
upon them to have an environmental strategy. How would you respond
to perhaps what you may or may not view as the old chestnut of
business saying, "Well, environmentalists should have a business
strategy and if the Treasury isn't allowing business to be done
here, it is being done elsewhere in China and India and actually
environmental policies can cause quite a severe competitive disadvantage
to UK business"?
Mr Juniper: That is the perspective
which is put very firmly by the CBI, for example, but Craig in
a second will say some other things about that. I would just draw
your attention to the wider context for all of this if we are
talking about the competitiveness and the China question background
to these issues about the environment and UK business, because
the other thing which is being deliberately pushed forward by
the Treasury as well as other parts of government, the DTI in
particular, is the further opening of global trading relationships
and a very aggressive push coming from the British Government
right now inside the World Trade Organisation to liberalise so-called
non-agricultural markets. This includes the trade in manufactured
goods, vehicles, timber, fish and minerals. One of the processes
in train there is the so-called elimination of non-tariff barriers.
This includes countries explicitly targeting each other's environmental
regulations as a means of opening trade. So the Treasury is also
pushing forward an international globalisation agenda which will
make it even more difficult in the future for this country to
be protecting either the global or national environment because
environmental rules would be even more deemed to be barriers to
trade. So this is actually a parallel policy which is making this
situation worse in terms of competitiveness, globalisation and
the China question in the context of environmental policy-making
in the future. Craig will say some things on trade and other things.
Mr Bennett: I think what you have
done is you have touched on a crucial issue there on the relationships
of the Treasury, in particular its relationship with the CBI.
I will preface this by saying last year we published a report
looking at the CBI, which many members of the Committee will be
familiar with, in which we concluded after a year's worth of research
that the CBI routinely exaggerates the cost of regulation, it
ignores the benefits of good regulation and presents its anti-regulatory
position as if it has the support of business as a whole. In one
sense none of that would matter because the CBI can do whatever
it wants. The problem is that the Treasury seems to take that
CBI line unquestioningly and does not seem to challenge the CBI
at all on some of the things it is putting forward there, and
indeed fails to properly listen to other stakeholders in society
and other more progressive powers in the business community. For
example, we know from our discussions with the Environmental Industries
Commission, representing around 280 environmental industries,
that it finds it extremely hard to get its message through to
the Treasury and talk about the kinds of measures which are needed
to enable that sector to grow and to be promoted. What we see
is that the Treasury seems to have adopted the CBI's cause for
deregulation as its own. We have seen this with some of the Chancellor's
statements over the last year and other ministerial statements
as well. What we would much rather have is better regulation.
We certainly have got no reason for regulation which does not
do the job it is supposed to do or is over-onerous on the companies
which are trying to be progressive. Unfortunately, although the
terminology "better regulation" is used in Government,
it does seem that the Treasury's agenda is one of deregulation,
which means it is extremely timid on some of the areas where we
really need to see leadership from the Government on changing
the way some companies behave.
Mark Pritchard: Thank you.
Q11 Mr Hurd: Your view in the memorandum
is that the wrong department is in charge of climate change policy
and you make the case for the Treasury to take charge. Given what
you and Craig have said about the mindset in the Treasury, would
that actually make any difference?
Mr Juniper: One of the things
about climate change which is not yet reflected in how we are
managing the issue at the UK level is that it is something which
goes across the entire economy and at the moment we are managing
not to deal with all of these different sectors which have to
be managed as a whole and we are using piecemeal policy to try
and control separately a lot of different sources of emissions,
and it is not really adding up. For example, you have got DTI
responsible more or less for the power sector, Defra for the agricultural
side, the Treasury pushing on the aviation side of it, the Department
for Transport looking at another set of sources of emissions.
One of the things we strongly believe we now need to do if we
are to set out a credible trajectory towards meeting that 2050
target of a 60% reduction is to be taking an economy-wide approach
and setting carbon budgets which annually can be used to set out
policies which can reduce emissions bit by bit between now and
2050, the middle of the century. If we do not do that, instead
of bringing down emissions gently in a way which can be planned
to give business certainty and can be hopefully brought forward
with some public consent, the alternative is to have a strategy
which goes like that and then down rapidly, assuming that we are
going to invent some technology in 2020-30. We may or may not
do, but even if we did a huge amount of emissions are going to
be put into the atmosphere which if we take action now we can
avoid. But if we are to take action now and bring down emissions
over a long period gently then we need some central control of
that process across government and it struck us that the Treasury
is the place where that could most effectively be done.
Mr Bullock: To add to that, you
are absolutely right that there is no guarantee the Treasury would
do it. The reason we suggest the Treasury as opposed to any other
department is that it has control of the main policy levers which
affect climate change, but to ensure that it happens not just
in this Parliament but in future Parliaments we believe there
should be a legal duty on whichever government is in power to
commit to an annual reduction in carbon emissions. That would
give the certainty which is needed for businesses and make it
an expected and embedded part of every government's programme
for action, so that there is a legal duty for it to happen but
it would be the Treasury which would be the department responsible
for delivering that.
Mr Juniper: It does need to be
orchestrated because the situation we have right now is one of
rising emissions, and not because we do not have good policies,
we do, but some of the things which are increasing emissions are
wiping out the benefits of the things which are more positive.
For example, we are putting in some wind turbine capacity now
and most of that we welcome, but the benefit is being wiped out
by the increase in aviation. Our campaign is encouraging people,
for example, to be more energy efficient in their homes and there
is some movement there and positive backing in terms of Government
policy, but the benefit of that has been wiped out by the market
switch away from gas towards coal. So we do need some centralised
overview of all of these sources so that there can be a managed
decline in the sources of emissions being done most cost-effectively
and in a planned way. At the moment, we are all over the place
and there is no control. Emissions are going up, despite a manifesto
commitment repeated three times to reduce by 20% by 2010. On the
present trends we are not going to meet it, not because nobody
wants to but because there is no control.
Chairman: I think we need to move on
to the Stern Review.
Q12 Colin Challen: The Stern Review does
appear to have a very challenging remit which only just stops
short of unlocking the secrets of alchemy, I think! What do you
think it will achieve?
Mr Bullock: I think the Stern
Review is enormously positive. You are right that the remit and
the agenda they have got is huge, but already it is becoming clear
that the tone they are taking is that, probably for the first
time for the Treasury, it is absolutely essential that we get
the economic frameworks right. There was initial focus on the
international agenda, and that is of course right, but the report
which came out yesterday had an extra focus on the UK and I think
that is very welcome. So hopefully we feel the Stern Review will
catalyse action within the Treasury. It will marshal the economic
evidence for why action is a good thing, but also provide them
with the main market failures and barriers to action which we
need to act on. So we are very encouraged by it at the moment.
Q13 Colin Challen: The Review has been
asked to examine not only the long-term economic impacts but also
to "draw implications for the timescales for action, and
choice of policies and institutions". What do you make of
that, if anything? Is it going to lead to practical things or
is it going to be really quite a lot of theory?
Mr Bullock: I hope that it will
be practical things. I hope that what it will be doing is, for
example, following the approach we are advocating, if you have
a carbon budget then what are the prime policies which you need
to implement to get us to that trajectory while dealing with genuine
competitiveness concerns and social concerns. You are right, the
Stern Review is enormous in its scope, but I hope it would have
those practical things within it. It is difficult to say at the
moment whether it will, but it appears that it does.
Q14 Colin Challen: If it concludes that
tackling climate change would lead to policies which are very
stringent, do you think politicians will have the courage to implement
them? Do you detect any eagerness in the Treasury to see the outcomes
of this Review?
Mr Juniper: I think one of the
things which has slowed policy-making to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions in this country has been the adverse public reaction
to some choices, for example the fuel duty escalator, wind turbines
in certain parts of the country, the perceived increase in the
cost of air travel tickets. All of these things have helped to
slow things down, but I think we have moved into a very new place
in the last twelve months or so because the public awareness of
climate change has dramatically risen. This is as a result of
the activities of most of this country's main green groups, which
have been campaigning on climate change now as their main priority
for the last twelve months. The media has begun to report the
issue differently. There has been a very different take on the
science; it is becoming much less equivocal. There is lots of
confidence now that we do face a very serious problem and more
reports were in the media yesterday. Then we have senior politicians
in this country from the Prime Minister down making very powerful
speeches. So there has been a transformation of the public mood.
I think the lack of space which was there even a few months ago
to bring forward what would have been quite controversial policies
does seem to be changing very quickly and we are encouraging ministers
very actively to exploit that space and not to be so timid, because
we do think people now are starting to get the message. Indeed,
opinion polls which come forward on a regular basis, for example
recently in relation to nuclear power, show that people do understand
that we do need to dramatically shift our energy production, if
not our energy consumption patterns, to deal with the problem.
So I think there is every reason to be encouraged about the public
reaction to policy change and I think what we need to see now
is some leadership and some taking of the space which has emerged
by Government to begin to bring down emissions. Some of those
choices will be difficult, but they have to be taken and we cannot
really delay any longer. That is what the science now tells us.
Q15 Colin Challen: I think the opinion
polls show that the public would only accept nuclear power as
a very last resort and if that means that we have to do it because
we do not want to take the very hard choices, that is what will
be done. Perhaps this is borne out by what Tony Blair said at
Davos, where he said, "My view is that if we put forward,
as a solution to climate change, something which involves drastic
cuts in growth or standards of living, it matters not how justified
it is, it simply won't be agreed to." That is the bottom
line really, is it not?
Mr Juniper: Study after study
shows us that even large cuts in the carbon dioxide emissions,
50% plus, will not make really major difference to GDP growth
over a period of five decades. It is delaying the level of growth
we would have had by six months, for example, one study which
was conducted and published a few years ago tells us. So this
impact on economic growth which some people claim automatically
follows action to reduce emissions is a myth and it has been deliberately
talked up by people who would much rather defend the interests
they have now rather than looking at opportunities for new industries.
This has been particularly effective in the United States, but
the rumour has spread here as well. What we see—and maybe
Simon will want to say more on this—is that the opportunity
actually is one to increase comfort, growth, competitiveness through
bringing down emissions by bringing on-stream new technologies
which can help to create new markets. That is the reality of where
we are, but people resist that because they want to defend existing
financial interests in particular. Certain oil companies have
been very vocal in particular on this subject. On the nuclear
question, yes, you are right, that survey did show that people
now treat nuclear as acceptable if it is the last resort, but
I think what that shows is not that people now are happy with
nuclear but that they are very worried about climate change, which
is the point at which we started this conversation a second ago.
The public mood has altered and people are now willing to look
at things which we can do differently. What we very much welcome
about the nuclear debate right now in the context of the energy
review is that, fortunately, nuclear is not the only thing that
we can do and there are much better, cheaper, cleaner, quicker
things which we can achieve to bring down emissions and which
would do it in a way which would be more publicly acceptable.
Q16 Colin Challen: Well, we do do things.
We had evidence a week or two ago from the housebuilders on a
different inquiry that new houses are usually installed these
days with energy-saving light bulbs but when people buy the house
they change all the light bulbs back to the old style because
they do not like them. I do not know if that is one of the solutions,
but I think we need to take tougher action. Finally, we are having
all these reviews at the moment and I wonder whether you think
they are contradictory, or perhaps in the wrong order? Perhaps
the Stern Review should come first and report first, because that
seems to be the logical heart of what we are talking about, economic
growth (or not), and that all these others should follow afterwards?
Does it show joined-up government, do you think?
Mr Juniper: I think the Government
is struggling to find a common thread running between all of these
reviews at the moment and certainly had we started in a different
place or started three or four years ago in planning all this,
we might have been doing these things in a different order. The
sense of urgency which has crept up on us very quickly on climate
change maybe does explain why there is now this crowded line of
reviews coming forward all at once. There are lots of other things
going on as well. The second round of the Emissions Trading Scheme
is coming in the middle of all this lot, too. The other thing
we have not mentioned, of course, is the Climate Change Programme
Review, which is about the emissions strategies between now and
2010 to meet the manifesto target. So you are right, there is
a lot going on, and I think had we started in a different place
a few years ago we might have done it in a different order—
Q17 Collin Challen: Is it conceivable
that Friends of the Earth, after the Stern Review is published,
would want the Government to come back and re-do the previous
surveys, consultations, and so on, in the light of that?
Mr Bullock: To be honest, I think
by the end of these reviews we will be heartily sick of all reviews
and never want to see them in our lives! I think the point is
at the end of the Stern Review, the Energy Review and the Climate
Change Programme Review it is time for the end of reviews, frankly,
and the Government must take action. The signs are just overwhelming
that they need to do it and not have another round of reviews.
Q18 Chairman: Could I just take you back,
because you mentioned the rise in emissions from aviation as one
of the things offsetting progress in other areas. Then I think
you implied that nuclear might be a sort of last resort choice
if we had not faced up to some other hard choices. You are therefore,
presumably, prepared to say that the present era of cheap flights
is an unsustainable one which needs to come to an end sooner rather
than later?
Mr Juniper: The thing we are concerned
about is the scale of growth in the aviation sector. It is simply
not compatible with any credible path to align this country's
emissions with climate change limits; it is off the scale. We
do not think that we need to end flying or ban aeroplanes, but
what we do have to do is to bring down the growth and to stabilise
the level of flying at a point it was a few years ago, so a bit
less than today. In terms of how much that means tickets have
to go up by, we did some modelling using Department for Transport
protocols and showed that by putting in the price of fuel at the
same level we pay for in our cars you can bring the growth down
very quickly and you can start to establish a different future
for aviation by putting what is seen as a perfectly legitimate
tax on road fuel into the aviation sector. Obviously this is something
which remains controversial. The Government is still committed
to, it seems, pushing forward the Emissions Trading Scheme and
including aviation there. We do not think that is going to make
a huge impact. I have seen some figures suggesting that you get
a few euros on a 500 kilometre flight as a result of including
aviation at the level of the scheme at the moment. There are also
other issues linked to putting aviation into the ETS, not least
the major impact it would have on other sectors. There are concerns
being expressed, for example, by cement, steel and aluminium companies
at the European Union level because they fear that the purchase
of credits by the aviation sector could mean that they would have
to go to China in order to remain in business and that the aviation
companies, easyJet, et cetera, can pass on the cost very quickly
to their customers. If you want to fly from Stansted, you can
only fly from Stansted. If you want to buy cement, you can buy
it from England but you can also buy it from China. So they see
this as being potentially quite a negative impact on those other
sectors which are included in the ETS, which means probably we
need to be looking back at things like fuel prices as something
which is more specific to the aviation sector, sending a clearer
signal to the industry and ultimately to passengers.
Q19 Chairman: Though, of course, if you
are flying from Stansted to Edinburgh you could actually go by
train, or even by car?
Mr Juniper: You could go by train,
or by car, or by bus, or by bicycle!
|
