Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 83)
WEDNESDAY 8 MARCH 2006
MR STEPHEN
JOSEPH AND
MR JASON
TORRANCE
Q80 Mr Chaytor: Less freight containing
the components as part of the manufacturing process, even though
there must be equal or greater freight moving the finished products?
Mr Joseph: Where we are seeing
a large growth in freight because of globalisation is in things
like food. We have done a detailed piece of work, which informs
some of these freight recommendations about, for example, regional
sourcing of food, which was about carbon dioxide emissions from
food. The story there is not necessarily straightforward because
in some cases it is, for example, more efficient from a CO2
point of view to grow tomatoes in Spain where they do not need
glasshouses and transport them here rather than expend the energy
growing them here. But in many cases the equation does work in
the other direction and it is in general better to do this. That
project which we ran has turned into a food and climate research
network and there is some detailed work on this, if the Committee
wants to pick it up and see it, which is about the trade-offs
on food transport. What is unambiguous is that air-freighted food
is really not good at all from the carbon dioxide emissions point
of view and the growth in it is not good. One of the things which
we have suggested in relation to fiscal measures and aviation
is that air passenger duty should be extended to air freight on
the basis of, say, 100 passengers per plan to try and put some
kind of fiscal brake on that growth in food and particularly to
give priority to some kinds of domestic agriculture. That is not
to say that all international food is a bad idea. Actually, the
work suggests that taking apples by ship is not actually a bad
idea, even with the refrigeration, because of the bulks involved,
and so on, but that with air freight fruit comes out really not
very well.
Q81 Mr Chaytor: So South African
apples are good, but Gambian mange tout is bad, is that right?
Mr Joseph: That is the kind of
thing, yes.
Q82 Chairman: Just wrapping up, on
the Government's request to the European Commission to explore
including surface transport within the Emissions Trading Scheme,
what is your view about that?
Mr Torrance: I think there are
very similar problems associated with bringing surface transport
into the ETS as there is with looking at bringing air transport
into the ETS. It is not a panacea by any means and it is way off
really. The answer, as we have said and Professor Banister stated
a number of times, is that what is really necessary is a number
of small measures rather than one kind of catch-all measure. As
far as we are concerned, bringing road or air transport into an
ETS is far from certain in terms of it actually happening and
in actually producing the kinds of results we want.
Q83 Chairman: Given that is the case,
it seems to me a perfectly reasonable analysis. Do you suspect
this may be a ploy to try and deflect pressure to do something
more unpopular and radical?
Mr Torrance: My suspicions are
heightened on the air transport front, as you may well guess.
I am certainly aware of the road transport discussions around
entering the ETS being a much newer discussion, but certainly
in my belief it is a deflective move of the aviation industry
for more meaningful reductions in carbon to be explored really.
Mr Joseph: I think there are some
key questions. It depends what the cap is, the overall cap for
the ETS, and the level and the assumptions made at which either
air or surface transport enter the ETS. Secondly, as my colleague
has said, it very much depends what else is done and what happens
between now and then. Thirdly, there are some things which could
be done as well which might be more effective. I have mentioned
already the idea of a car trading scheme where manufacturers of
high emission vehicles buy permits from other low emission vehicles
and we think that that has in some ways more promise because it
is simple and effective in terms of giving manufacturers some
serious incentives to build and market lower emission vehicles.
Chairman: Thank you very much, both of
you, for coming in. It has been another interesting session and
we are grateful for your support and look forward to carrying
on the dialogue.
| 
