Select Committee on Environmental Audit Minutes of Evidence


Memorandum submitted by Sustrans

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    —    This is a response by the sustainable transport charity Sustrans.

    —    It is based on our paper "Driven to Extinction?", as supplied to the Committee.

    —    We believe all key policy areas, not just Transport, should now relate to Climate Change and Energy Depletion.

    —    We strongly commend the DfT's VIBAT study, which examine ways of cutting carbon emissions from transport 60% by 2030.

    —    Sustrans believes that radical changes in vehicle fuels and technology are needed but must be backed up by major changes in travel behaviour and modal shift if we are to meet the necessary carbon reduction targets.

    —    We are working on a large range of practical projects to reduce car dependency and also thereby reduce carbon emissions from transport.

INTRODUCTION

  This is the response by Sustrans to the above inquiry. Sustrans is the charity behind practical and innovative solutions to some of the UKs biggest transport challenges. Our vision is a world in which people choose to travel in ways that benefit their health and the environment. Among our work is the award-winning National Cycle Network, Safe Routes to School, Bike It, TravelSmart and Active Travel.

  Sustrans has recently been co-opted as experts onto the European Climate Change Programme, where we have succeeded in getting walking and cycling (hitherto ignored) taken into account. We are partnering WHO and others in an EU funding bid for integrated tools to calculate and value both of the climate change and the public health benefits arising from a modal shift from motorised traffic to walking and cycling.

  We are a member of Stop Climate Chaos, a new coalition with millions of members in the UK. SCC is calling for the setting of a national carbon budget. It also wishes to see:

    (a)  International emissions starting to decline by 2015.

    (b)  Overseas aid to be linked to a system that will be "climate-proofed".

    (c)  UK emissions to start declining by 3% annually.

  We are all working within the current context of Transport emissions being around one quarter of carbon emissions, and of that percentage rising. The long term aspiration of the DfT is only for a pathway to a 60% cut by 2050. Sustrans believes that recent climate findings, especially to do with the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets suggest that climate change is close to being irreversible, and that really radical action is needed now.

  That is why we have had to re-consider our own work in relation to Climate Change. We believe that it needs to take place within the framework of a 60% cut in carbon emissions by 2030, with further cuts thereafter. Sustrans feels that Contraction and Convergence—a proposal by the Global Commons Institute (Meyer 2003)—offers the only potentially widely acceptable methodology for a global solution to this global problem. As is well known, it proposes setting a maximum limit of (say) 450 parts per million for global atmospheric CO2 (current levels are 380 ppm) and then calculating a timescale for cutting emissions.

  For the purposes of equity, national allowances are calculated on a per capita basis. This means that high carbon-emitting countries, such as ourselves, are going to have to make deep cuts, probably in the range of 80-90% of current emissions. Once the framework and the overall capping limit is accepted the task is for each nation to divide up the roles of the most effective interventions. We list three highly relevant UK documents below.

FORESIGHT

  Produced by the Office of Science and Technology this January this study has looked 50 years ahead. "Intelligent Infrastructure Futures" is interesting because of the range of scenarios it examined. It also emphasises that 80% of the UK lives in urban centres, so the country is relatively compact. As such we could do much more on Continental-style measures of high-density living, high quality urban design, and minimising movement. These would be particularly valuable if the "Urban Colonies" scenario comes into being—which also has close links with sustainable energy and waste policies.

  It is worth mentioning the "Tribal Trading" possibility envisaged by Foresight. In this the world has gone through a savage energy shock in which the world economy is severely damaged. Most travel is local, typically by cycle or horse. Local food production and services have become highly important.

VIBAT

  We have supplied the Committee with a copy of the Banister and Hickman "Vision and Backcasting in Transport" study, recently completed for the Research Department of the DfT as part of their Horizons project. This is of particular interest as it attempts to secure cuts of 60% in CO2 emissions from the Transport sector by 2030, a date many believe to be more in tune with the necessary timescale than the DfT's 2050 date.

  This study is robust and wide-ranging, and looks at two possible future scenarios it calls "New Market Economy" and "Smart Social". The former is mostly technology based, and it is noteworthy it only delivers two-thirds of the required carbon savings. Smart Social offers a very broad range of measures, which are not a menu but a total list of all possible and proven policies that require urgent implementation now.

  The VIBAT study urges (page 18) that "It is in travel behaviour that the real change must take place." Under the "Smart Social" scenario bus distance would increase 15%, rail 50%, walking trips would double, and cycle use increase five-fold. Car occupancy would need to increase, and there would be a national programme of Smarter Choices. There would also have to be major improvements in vehicle fuels and technology, with car makers planning for these now.

  Sustrans believes it is absolutely vital that the VIBAT study findings are injected into the broader domain of decision-making about Climate Change and Carbon Emissions. They should inform, amongst others:

    —    The Climate Change Review.

    —    The Energy Policy Review.

    —    The Eddington Study.

    —    The Comprehensive Spending Review.

  VIBAT illustrates clearly that reducing emissions from Transport is not just a matter for the DfT.

DRIVEN TO EXTINCTION?

  This is the title of the background paper for Sustrans' conference on Transport, Health and Climate Change held in Cambridge in September 2005. We have supplied a copy of this to the Committee. It summarises the current adverse trends in Transport policy, notably:

    —    The constant increase in average journey lengths.

    —    The growth of sprawl and unsustainable retail, business and housing developments.

    —    The alarming rise in obesity and other health problems as a result of less walking and cycling. Physical inactivity in England costs the NHS over £8 billion annually (Source: Chief Medical Officer, 2004).

  When discussing car travel the report notes the findings of Sustrans' TravelSmart work, in partnership with Socialdata, where car traffic is reduced by an average of 9-14%. Many people, it is clear, are locked into high levels of car dependency because they do not have adequate information on alternatives. Providing such information is by far quicker, cheaper, more effective and less controversial than most other transport options (we have successfully proved this yet again in the results of our travel behaviour surveys of the three English Sustainable Travel Demonstration Towns, the results of which we commend to the Committee, particularly with regard to the potential for traffic reduction).

  Brog of Socialdata has often noted (as in 2003, Nottingham) that across the UK and Europe opinion-formers have seriously incorrect ideas of what the public feel about sustainable transport. This leads to timid and ineffective action by Government. It may well be that the situation is worse in the UK because of misrepresentation in the national media. For example the Daily Mail and The Sun tend to give large amounts of coverage to views held by the Association of British Drivers. This is despite the minute size of this body, and notwithstanding the fact that it actually denies that climate change is taking place. We urge the Committee to examine whether DfT and Government timidity over carbon emissions is based on a misplaced fear of adverse press comment.

  In addition we would suggest that they see change in awareness of the crucial need for urgent action is taking place, and that there is opening up an opportunity to take radical action without the kind of criticism which might previously have been expected.

THE ROLE OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS

  We wish strongly to emphasise that reducing carbon emissions from Transport is not solely the role of the DfT. Inaction or, indeed, wrong policies, by other Departments are actively making matters worse. We discuss this and make recommendations for action in our "Driven to Extinction?" report. In brief these are:

The Treasury

    —    Should set a national carbon budget.

    —    Then reassess all Departmental budgets from a carbon-reduction aspect.

    —    Discuss with DfT its planned Transport spend in light of the need to cut CO2 emissions.

DEFRA

    —    Ensure key decisions about reducing carbon are included in the Climate Change Review.

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    —    Bring radical reductions in transport emissions into its Energy Review.

Department of Health

    —    Ensure all NHS sites are exemplars for travel planning.

    —    Award contracts for goods and services which favour local sourcing.

    —    Implement recommendations of the Warless report, to secure a population "fully engaged" with its own health.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

    —    Issue a Planning Policy Statement on Carbon reduction.

    —    Revise existing PPSs to include carbon reduction.

    —    Ensure CO2 reduction is factored into Regional Plans and Strategies.

    —    Revise all Public Sector Agreements to include carbon reduction.

    —    Reassess its Sustainable Communities programme, with transport and carbon reduction in mind.

    —    Put carbon reduction at the heart of its Neighbourhood and Regeneration work.

  In general there seems an almost total lack of official awareness about the overall impact of transport-related decisions. At the time of writing there was the possibility of hundreds of Post Offices being closed, due to impending loss of Government support. This will reduce greatly non-motorised access and increase car travel. Elsewhere decisions about the closure of libraries, increasing choice in schools, and centralising health facilities will all generate extra motorised travel and, as a consequence, increase carbon emissions.

FOUR CRITICAL POLICY AREAS

Transport trends

  The DfT has recently published "Transport Trends 2005", covering the last 25 years. These statistics confirm a generally adverse picture, which needs tackling as a matter of urgency. Among them are:

    —    Car traffic by distance has increased 75% since 1980;

    —    Whilst motoring costs have held steady, average public transport fares for the last 25 years rose 37%;

    —    While rail journeys have increased significantly, bus journeys outside London have declined sharply, and by 48% in metropolitan areas; and

    —    The annual distance travelled on foot has fallen 18% and by cycle 23% during this period.

  Clearly if carbon emissions from transport are to fall these adverse trends are going to have to be reversed.

Energy depletion

  In 2004 the UK became a net importer of natural gas. In 2005 it became a net importer of oil, for the first time since 1979. Oil imports were £670 million over exports: four years ago the export credit balance was £5 billion a year. (Source: Office for National Statistics, 10 February 2006)

  These figures underline how dangerous and wrong it is to burn fossil fuel for longer journeys by road and more trips by air. Unnecessary travel will rapidly become unsustainable financially, as well as environmentally.

Carbon rationing

  Sustrans believes that the Climate Change and Energy Depletion issues will of themselves impose some kind of rationing over carbon emissions. These will be at national, regional, local, business, household and individual levels.

  We ask the Committee to examine the concept of Personal Carbon Credits. These are explained in the Hillman and Fawcett publication for Penguin (2004) "How We Can Save The Planet". The main features are:

    —    Equal, tradeable but mandatory rations for all.

    —    A year-on-year reduction of the annual ration, in line with Contraction and Convergence targets.

  Much of this could be done by smart card technology. People who under-spend their ration would be able to sell their surplus.

An oil-free future: or "how others do it"

  We wish to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that Sweden has recently declared its aim of being the world's first oil-free economy (Guardian, 8 February 2006). Not only that, but it is planned to do this within the next 15 years, and without new nuclear power stations. For more details see http://www.energybulletin.net/12852.html.

  It is particularly worth noting the positive way their Government is embracing this idea. An official is quoted as saying "We want to be both mentally and technically prepared for a world without oil." The Minister for Sustainable Development states "A Sweden free of fossil fuels would give us enormous advantages, not least by reducing the impact from fluctuations in oil prices." The contrast in attitudes with the UK is embarrassing.

QUESTIONS

What progress is the DfT making against key carbon reduction targets or forecasts included in the 10 Year Plan, the Climate Change Strategy, the 2004 Transport White Paper, the 2004 PSA, Powering Future Vehicles and other documents?

2004 Transport White Paper

  It is doubtful that the promises made in 10.17 about a broader debate on "the value we attach to the movement of people and goods" has really taken place. The White Paper was written in the days before Climate Change and Peak oil had moved far up the political agenda. The assertion in the Executive Summary (4) that "Our transport strategy has to recognise that demand for travel will increase in the future" is deeply worrying. So, too, is the excessive reliance on long-term solutions such as Hydrogen, which is unlikely to come into play before the Paper's lifespan (till 2030) expires.

  Finally, of course, there is the much-publicised fundamental flaw in the Paper of working (on DTI figures) on the assumption that by 2010 oil will cost $23 a barrel.

  This to our mind reinforces the need for the DfT to develop a range of transport and emissions scenarios, based on different energy prices in the year to 2030.

Is the DfT's carbon reduction target underpinned by a coherent strategy stretching across the Department's entire range of activities?

  Far from it. The most obvious example is aviation, where the White Paper predicts a 300% increase in air travel by 2030. This means that this sector's emissions will be 30% of emissions by 2030.

  There appears to be little evidence that the adverse impacts of aviation and of carbon emissions generally is systematically integrated across the Department's draft Evidence and Research Strategy, and more work needs doing here (Sustrans response to consultation, February 2006).

  It is also not clear just how much "buy in" there is likely to be from other divisions of the Department into the recent VIBAT study (see elsewhere). We urge the Committee to press the DfT on this matter.

  Elsewhere, carbon emissions from transport are poorly considered in work on Regional Transport Strategies and prioritisation within these. Research produced this February shows that overall 72% of bids for capital funding are on roads, 24% for public transport. In fast-growing areas such as the South-East and the East Midlands the road proportion was 95%. This is clearly out of sync with any attempt to control carbon emissions (Surveyor magazine, 16 February 2006).

  A further problem is that the Department has issued no guidance to the regions on setting optimism bias, or indeed on the methodology for the whole prioritisation process. Again carbon control is clearly not thought to be an issue here.

  Meanwhile there appears little inclination to halt the continuously escalating cost of road schemes. The Highways Agency spend on "targeted improvements" is £1,000 million over budget, and local authorities' major road scheme costs have escalated 47% (Road Block, January 2006). The net effect of this lack of overall control is likely to be yet further rises in traffic levels and carbon emissions.

Is the current balance of expenditure between the DfT's objectives adequately reflecting the environmental challenges it faces?

  No. There is no clear environmental element—in particular CO2 emissions—factored into DfT spending. Sustrans would like to see all Departmental spending reassessed within the basic framework of cutting carbon emissions 60% by 2030.

  It is highly likely that such a reassessment would:

    —    Eliminate nearly all proposed major road schemes.

    —    Direct rail spending into improving reliability and expanding local services (and not invest in a new generation of High Speed Rail).

    —    Greatly increase spending on Local Transport.

    —    Give much greater support and stability to bus services outside London.

    —    Significantly boost spending on Smarter Choices/cycling/walking.

  Finally, there is the issue of the Eddington Review of Transport and the Economy. The background brief, produced jointly by the DfT and HM Treasury, made a number of out-dated basic assumptions about the connection between the economy and the movement of people and goods. It virtually ignored electronic communications and the knowledge economy, and had little meaningful to say about transport in a carbon-constrained future. Despite the welcome willingness of its author to discuss such matters, it is to be feared that his final report will be used by both Departments to fund further large infrastructure projects.

What realistically can the DfT achieve by 2010 and 2020 in terms of reducing transport-related carbon emissions, and what role should demand management play in so doing?

2010

    —    To accept the principle of Contraction and Convergence, and persuade other Departments to follow suit.

    —    Establish a high-level cross-Departmental working group to ensure other Departments' activities and strategies support those of the DfT.

    —    Work out agreements on amounts of carbon reduction per level of transport intervention.

    —    Develop packages of policy measures to reduce traffic and emissions.

    —    Impose stringent new standards of vehicle and fuel efficiency.

    —    Introduce incremental modal shift targets on highway authorities, with links to funding consequences.

    —    Roll out nationwide environmentally focused Road User Charging scheme.

2020

    —    Total car fleet to have Intelligent Speed Adaptation.

    —    Major reductions in highway capacity achieved.

    —    Carbon rationing working successfully.

    —    Carbon emissions from transport falling.

What specific steps can the Department take now to reduce road transport carbon emissions and congestion over the next decade?

  For specific steps now, Sustrans suggests:

    —    Adopt a target of cutting transport emissions 60% by 2030.

    —    Adopt and implement the VIBAT report.

    —    Bring in a moratorium on airport expansion.

    —    Halt the major road schemes programme.

    —    Issue guidance on reducing carbon emissions within the Transport Infrastructure Fund Guidance.

    —    Issue a Supplement on reducing carbon emissions within Local Transport Plan Guidance.

    —    Strengthen links with Health policy.

    —    Set targets for traffic reduction.

    —    Re-introduce national targets to increase cycling.

    —    Transfer more staff to work on cycling and walking matters.

    —    Have a partnership arrangement with Sustrans to develop the National Cycle Network, Safe Routes to School, and TravelSmart in a structured manner nationwide.

    —    Ensure its draft Manual for Streets adequately gives priority to non-car modes.

    —    Re-establish the concept of a road-user hierarchy.

    —    Ensure all Local Transport Plans are based on firm data and robust evidence.

    —    Reform the Accessibility Planning Guidance to include traffic and carbon reduction and a priority for non-motorised modes.

    —    Introduce a 60 mph motorway speed limit (calculated by the Slower Speeds Initiative to save around 1 million tonnes of carbon annually).

    —    Decrease capital spending, increase revenue spending.

POWERING FUTURE VEHICLES PROGRAMME

  Sustrans have not been involved in this and we have no detailed comments here. However, we wish to issue some words of caution:

    (a)  Biofuels. Very few of these produce a net gain in carbon savings across the total system. Additionally it is not wise to think of converting large areas of UK countryside to fuel production at precisely the same time we will need a major growth in local food production.

    (b)  Hydrogen. Best estimates of this are that it is at least 30 years from being viable as a whole-system fuel. Further, the establishment of a hydrogen infrastructure will be massively energy-intensive—which in the context of increasing energy insecurity and shortage is, in our view, an extremely important obstacle.

    (c)  Speed. The climate change issue is the ideal time to introduce lower-powered, speed-limited vehicles.

    (d)  Locking in the benefits. Great care needs to be taken to ensure that "green fuels, green cars" do not—as in the past—allow drivers to think that all is well and travel demand can remain unrestricted. The benefits of more fuel-efficient, carbon-constrained vehicles must be "locked in" to the transport system to ensure a real reduction in emissions is made. Measures to do this include fiscal policy, major redistribution of highway space away from the car, and high quality public transport, walking and cycling as local journey replacements.

CONCLUSION

  Restraining carbon emissions from transport will need a wide range of fiscal, technical, policy and funding measures across the DfT and all Government departments. It will need a fundamental re-think of how and why we move people and goods. This re-think has barely started and Sustrans welcomes this Inquiry as a means of injecting some real urgency into the debate.

February 2006





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 7 August 2006