Conclusions and recommendations
1. Transport
has an especially important role to play in responding to the
challenge of averting dangerous climate change. The Prime Minister
was right to emphasise this in the letter of appointment he sent
to the new Secretary of State for Transport in May, where he wrote:
"in particular transport will be critical to our long-term
goal of reducing carbon emissions". (Paragraph 2)
2. Progress to date
indicates both that reducing carbon emissions from transport is
particularly challenging, and that the Department for Transport
(DfT) needs urgently to accelerate its efforts: transport is the
only sector of the UK economy in which carbon emissions were higher
in 2004 than the baseline year of 1990, and the only sector in
which emissions are projected to be higher in 2020 than in 1990.
(Paragraph 3)
3. Government projections
for future years emissions should be treated with a certain degree
of caution. There is some reason to expect that, unless new measures
are added, these projections will have to be revised upwards in
time. Government projections have often overestimated the future
impacts of carbon reduction measures and underestimated total
future emissions. There are important discrepancies between the
emissions projections made by DfT and those made by the DTI. The
Government should review the different methods used by these departments,
and look at establishing a more concerted and accurate approach
for greater certainty and clarity. (Paragraph 15)
4. If the Government's
estimate of a 1.7MtC saving from the two new measures in CCP 2006
were correct, emissions from domestic transport would be projected
to stand at around 43.1MtC in 2010, roughly the same as they were
in 2004. This would represent the first time in years in which
the growth in carbon emissions from domestic transport had flattened
out, certainly a significant achievement. (Paragraph 20)
5. Given that overall
projections of carbon savings in the 2000 Climate Change Programme
have had to be revised downwards in the 2006 version, we should
treat these projections with some caution. And even if they are
accurate, their value is reduced because they do not take into
account emissions from the fastest growing source, aviation. In
fact, none of the existing measures in the Climate Change Programme
has any impact on this sector. (Paragraph 20)
6. Even with the addition
of the two new measures in CCP 2006, transport's net annual carbon
savings in 2010 are now estimated to be some 0.5MtC below the
lower end of the Government's original projections made in 2000.
This betrays a dismal failure of purpose from the Department for
Transport. (Paragraph 21)
7. We find it disappointing
that, following the abolition of the fuel duty escalator, and
with other policies not coming into effect for several years,
the Government currently has only one policy instrument—the
"Voluntary Agreement package"—fully in operation
and delivering significant savings in carbon emissions from transport.
(Paragraph 22)
8. In defending his
Department's record on this issue, the Secretary of State was
keen to point out that nearly a quarter of all the carbon reductions
in the Climate Change Programme 2006 come from transport. However,
the existing measures which are the responsibility of the Department
for Transport itself amount to only around 3.6% of the CCP's 2010
savings. Considering that this department has policy responsibility
for the worst-performing sector of the economy in terms of carbon
emissions, this is not nearly good enough. (Paragraph 23)
9. In view of the
imperative to take bold actions in order to help avert dangerous
climate change, the Department should actively encourage modal
shift towards lower carbon modes of transport, and discourage
marginal car and plane journeys. As part of this, the Government
should take much more decisive action to shift the balance of
affordability more in favour of trains, buses, and lower carbon
cars and lorries. (Paragraph 26)
10. While we recognise
the difficulties in decoupling economic growth from increases
in carbon emissions in the transport sector, we are concerned
that the Department seems to have a fatalistic attitude which
sees carbon-intensive activities and economic growth as going
hand in hand. The Department must be much bolder in intervening
to break the upward spiral of economic growth leading to higher
emissions.
11. Because it is
a global problem, whose worst effects we have not yet felt and
are concerned to avert, climate change is a case in which it makes
less sense to hand over decisions on infrastructure priorities
to local and regional control, where more local and short term
priorities will naturally predominate. At the very least, local
and regional authorities need to be given very strong leadership
and guidance on reducing carbon emissions by central Government.
This is certainly not the case in guidance on the Transport Innovation
Fund. The Government must ensure that TIF-funded projects give
greater prominence to averting climate change. (Paragraph 30)
12. DfT's PSA on climate
change is failing as a mechanism that might shine a light on the
Department's efforts and hold it to account. DfT reports progress
against all its PSA targets in an appendix of its Annual Reports.
At no point does the Department quantify the carbon emissions
resulting from transport as a sector, much less report that transport
is the only sector in which emissions have been rising consistently
since 1990 and are projected to carry on rising. In this way,
the Department is able to claim credit for being on course to
meet the UK's Kyoto target, even while it is presiding over the
worst performing sector of the economy in terms of trends in emissions.
(Paragraph 32)
13. Whether a formal
PSA target or not, the Government should establish a sector-specific
target for carbon emissions from transport. DfT should be given
ownership of this target, and should clearly and in detail report
progress against it in its Annual Reports. (Paragraph 33)
14. The VIBAT study
should be an enormously useful resource in that it has quantified
different policy instruments and examined the timelines in which
they could be introduced and take effect. We were therefore dismayed
by the Secretary of State's defensive distancing of the Department
from this study. We urge the Department to closely examine the
VIBAT study in order to construct an ambitious and well-thought
out target, specifically for reducing carbon emissions from transport.
(Paragraph 34)
15. Average emissions
of new cars in the UK have certainly been declining in recent
years, reaching 169.4 grammes CO2 per kilometre in 2005, a reduction
of 20g/km, or 10.7%, since 1997. All the same, at this rate of
progress, the average will only be reduced to around 164g/km by
2008, meaning that the UK would not achieve the EU target of 140g/km
until around 2022. In addition, the UK is lagging behind other
European countries: for 2004, the UK ranked ninth out of the 13
EU states for which data are currently available, with new car
emissions standing some 7g/km above, and the rate of progress
since 1998-9 behind, the EU average The Department for Transport
should lead the Government in taking decisive action to improve
this record. (Paragraph 44)
16. Given that increasing
the proportion of new cars that run on diesel is a very major
factor in the Voluntary Agreement package—transport's biggest
contribution to the UK Climate Change Programme—it is surprising
that the Government does not provide any direct financial incentives
for diesel over petrol. While there may be concerns about the
air quality implications of increased diesel use, and about availability
and price of diesel in the European market, the Government should
at least set out explicitly why it is not providing such incentives,
and what impact their absence is having on the UK's progress towards
the Voluntary Agreement target for reducing the average carbon
emissions of new cars. (Paragraph 47)
17. The Government
deserves praise for being the first in Europe to introduce vehicle
taxes specifically based on CO2 emissions. In particular, its
boldness in reforming Company Car Tax from 2002 has been rewarded
by the visible progress made in that market. (Paragraph 51)
18. Reforms to Vehicle
Excise Duty, however, have been much less impressive, even allowing
for the changes announced in Budget 2006. Tax differentials between
higher and lower carbon cars must be made much wider if they are
to drive market transformation. We note that in its submission
to the Climate Change Programme Review, the Sustainable Development
Commission stated it had "modelled the carbon savings that
could be achieved through new VED rates. Our proposal is that
[…] that there is a £300 gap between each band. So the
top band of VED would rise dramatically to £1800/yr […]
and below this the bands would be at £1500, £1200, £900,
£600, £300, and £0". The Department should
publish its calculations of resulting carbon savings from adopting
such £300 differentials between Bands. (Paragraph 52)
19. In particular,
the new Band G is ineffective—and needs to be substantially
raised in cost. As things stand, the VED paid by the highest emitting
4x4s and luxury saloons in Band G represents a lower percentage
of their sales price, and works out at half the cost per gramme
CO2 emitted, than lower emitting hatchbacks in Band C. (Paragraph
53)
20. Progress against
the central target in the Powering Future Vehicles Strategy—that
by 2012, 10% of all new cars would emit under 100g/km—has
so far been microscopic. Given that around 2.5 million new cars
are sold each year in the UK, the Government's target would require
sales of some quarter of a million low carbon cars in 2012. In
2004, the number of such sales reached a grand total of 481. In
2005, this figure declined to 467; and as of July 2006 there was
only one such model available for sale at all, with sales for
the first half of the year of 188. (Paragraph 54)
21. In order to help
increase sales of the lowest carbon cars, the Department should
work with the Energy Saving Trust to ensure that its transport
fuel infrastructure grants significantly increase the availability
of fuelling stations and electrobays for electric cars. (Paragraph
54)
22. The Department's
argument for scrapping its low carbon car grants is that these
would only cover 30-40% of the additional purchase costs of such
vehicles, and that this is not enough to achieve market transformation.
This would seem to apply equally to the existing VED structure,
and support the case for much higher differentials. (Paragraph
56)
23. At the same time,
we welcome the announcement that these grant monies will be reallocated
to a new communications campaign to promote consumer information
on the most carbon-efficient cars. However, the Energy Saving
Trust also told us that they had previously proposed setting up
just such a package, but that DfT had turned them down. The result
is that for 18 months there was neither the grants programme nor
the communications campaign. This suggests a lack of focus and
leadership from within the Department. In order to play a truly
effective role in nurturing new technologies and achieving market
transformation, it is essential that the Government is both clear
in its own mind as to how to achieve its goals, and shows long
term commitment to them. (Paragraph 57)
24. There is great
scope for progress using currently available technology, simply
by influencing consumers to choose the lowest emitting cars in
each class. But in order for this to be realised, car manufacturers
and traders need to be given a greater incentive to sell more
lower carbon cars, and this means a much stronger regime of sticks
and carrots. We welcome the hints made by the new Secretary of
State that he would consider pressing for the successor to the
current EU Voluntary Agreement to be made mandatory —and
we urge him to do so. In addition, and in advance of a new Europe-wide
Agreement, the Government should implement a feebate or certificate
trading scheme, in order to give the industry a genuine incentive
to develop and promote more low carbon vehicles. (Paragraph 60)
25. In the meantime,
given the urgent need for a step change in the take up of low
carbon emission vehicles we strongly recommend that the existing
differentials in VED between different categories of cars are
widened substantially. These changes could be introduced at once
on a revenue neutral basis and would reward consumers for making
greener choices as well as encouraging manufacturers to produce
more greener cars. We also urge the Government to examine whether
differential rates of VAT can be charged on new cars to benefit
the lower emission models. (Paragraph 61)
26. Even if the Voluntary
Agreement very substantially increases the carbon-efficiency of
car travel, it is less certain when—or if—it will
start reducing carbon emissions from road transport in absolute
terms. If cars with inferior g/km are not scrapped but remain
on the road, then the reduction in emissions of new cars will
only have a limited effect; and will in addition be offset by
the simple increase in car journeys resulting from an increase
in the number of cars owned. Equally, it is important that the
sustainable production of new cars and disposal of old cars is
central to whatever succeeds the current Voluntary Agreement.
Finally, we are also concerned that technology is not moving fast
enough. All this strongly suggests that the VA approach is not
enough; it must also be complemented by measures to curb the amount
that people drive. (Paragraph 63)
27. We welcome the
announcement in CCP 2006 that "Obligated companies will be
required from day one to report on the level of carbon savings
achieved and on the sustainability of their biofuel supplies."
However, it is not clear whether the proposed assurance scheme
is intended, not just to assure the sustainability of biofuels
imported into the UK, but to have an effect on global biofuels
production. The Government should emulate the leadership it has
shown on sustainable timber, and work to establish a rigorous
international standard on sustainable biofuels production and
procurement. (Paragraph 68)
28. The fuel duty
escalator has played an important role in helping to reduce the
increase in CO2 emissions from road transport. Given the transport
sector continues to present seemingly intractable problems of
emissions growth, the Government should seriously reconsider the
case for annual increases in fuel duty, with appropriate exemptions
for lower carbon fuels, and accompanying investments in public
transport to provide revenue neutrality. Given the huge sensitivities
of this issue, particularly at a time of high oil prices, there
can be few more urgent issues on which those who have argued for
an all-party consensus on climate change policy should now focus
their attention. (Paragraph 71)
29. We strongly support
the introduction of a national road user charging scheme as soon
as technically possible—and would support the revival and
early introduction of the formerly proposed Lorry Road User Charge.
However, it is absolutely vital that such a scheme is designed
to reduce carbon emissions, not just congestion. The Secretary
of State must clarify his position on this, and make an unequivocal
commitment to using road charging markedly to reduce CO2 emissions.
Failure to do so would undermine any claims DfT has to take climate
change seriously. (Paragraph 75, 77)
30. Given that the
range of Smarter Choices measures do not require large material
infrastructure projects, they can deliver significant carbon (and
congestion) reductions rapidly and cost-effectively. We welcome
the Department's announcement of forthcoming campaigns to promote
eco-driving, its expansion of the Travelling to School Initiative,
and its increase of funding of Cycling England. But it must broaden
and accelerate implementation of such measures, and set itself
an ambitious target of CO2 savings to be achieved as a result.
In conducting promotional campaigns, the Department should also
learn from Transport for London's experience in using advertising
to promote individual choice of low carbon modes of transport.
Eco-driving should be incorporated into the driving test, and
eco-driving simulators should be used in schools (Paragraph 79)
31. We understand
the Government's reluctance to lower the motorway speed limit,
or rigorously enforce the current 70mph limit, given the likely
public controversy such a policy would provoke. However, compared
to the potential danger which this could help to avert, proper
enforcement of the legal speed limit would be a trivial incursion
on personal liberty. The Government cannot forever duck the hard
decisions in its duties to face up to "the greatest long-term
challenge facing the human race", in the words of the Prime
Minister. In matters of such grave importance, the Government
does a disservice to future generations by running scared of critical
tabloid headlines. Beyond its direct impact, a new policy on speed
limits would help to raise awareness of the reality of climate
change, and of the need for everyone to take action on it. Finally,
in considering a design for a national road charging scheme, the
Government should choose one that could cost-effectively aid enforcement
of the motorway speed limit. (Paragraph 82)
32. One of the most
effective means the Government has of constraining emissions from
road transport is to reduce reliance on car use through planning
regulations which can shape the areas in which people live. The
Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and
Local Government must work more closely together to ensure that
new developments, especially in the housing growth areas, are
designed to minimise car use. Planning policy, in particular,
should include specific measures for reducing road journeys.
(Paragraph 83)
33. We warmly welcome
the announcement of increased funding for Cycling England. But
the Department should accelerate progress by implementing lessons
from the Dutch commitment to continuous improvement of cycling
infrastructure. (Paragraph 85)
34. We were unimpressed
by the Secretary of State's defence of the Government's record
on road building. Estimates of CO2 emissions arising from road
proposals should be subject to independent audit. Furthermore,
given that, by its own admission, more road space leads to more
traffic and emissions, the Department should deliberately apply
more stringent criteria to appraisals of proposals for the construction
of new roads relative to lower carbon alternatives, such as the
combination of public transport improvements and demand management
measures. (Paragraph 88, 89)
35. Allowing regions
the freedom to nominate projects for funding seems mainly to have
resulted in a very high proportion of bids for road projects,
although there have also been some major public transport proposals
such as the Manchester Metrolink extensions. The Government should
ensure that infrastructure proposals from both national agencies
and local authorities are governed by a more integrated planning
and appraisal process, and that rail proposals are assessed alongside
competing road proposals. In putting forward and assessing the
merits of different proposals, such a process should take into
account the transport needs of each region as a whole, while assessing
the combined national impact of such proposals on the UK's overall
carbon reduction targets. (Paragraph 90)
36. Buses can make
a significant contribution to carbon reductions, if they can
attract passengers out of their cars. But CCP 2006 makes no
mention of seeking to achieve modal shift from cars to buses.
The Department should explicitly adopt modal shift from cars to
buses as an environmental objective, and set itself a target of
emissions savings to be gained as a result. (Paragraph 91)
37. Given that the
Climate Change Programme 2006 contains a mere 79 words on the
role which buses can play in reducing carbon emissions, we are
somewhat surprised that 31 of these words are devoted to the Department's
policy on Quality Contracts. Not only has there never been a single
Quality Contract established, the previous Secretary of State
seemed to admit it was a failed policy. Something much more effective
in enabling authorities throughout England to apply the kind of
powers currently enjoyed only by Transport for London should be
introduced as an urgent priority. The current deregulated system
has been heavily criticised by both the Transport Committee and
the Public Accounts Committee. The fact that the arrangements
outside London are also undermining climate change policy should
be the final straw for the deregulated system in its current form.
(Paragraph 94)
38. We warmly welcome
the recent statement by Ms Merron to the Transport Committee,
as to the Department's examination both of the evidence behind
the differing success of different bus services, and of the legislative
and funding options which could be employed in shaping the future
of bus policy. This hopefully indicates a very positive move on
the part of DfT, and we look forward to developments under the
leadership of the new Secretary of State. (Paragraph 95)
39. We are surprised
that the Department does not intend to reinstate the Low Carbon
Bus Grant programme. We are left asking: just how is the Department
going to incentivise bus operators to introduce low carbon vehicles
on a large scale? This must be explicitly addressed as part of
the review of the Powering Future Vehicles Strategy. (Paragraph
98)
40. The example of
Sweden's local bus fleets demonstrates the progress that can be
made today in using sustainably produced biofuels to meet a significant
element of society's transport needs. By acting early, Sweden
appears also to be handing its bus manufacturing industry a potential
competitive advantage. The Department must accelerate progress
in the use of biofuels and biogas buses in England, beginning
by identifying and tackling the current barriers to take up. (Paragraph
99)
41. With a new sense
of stability, and with the Department's announcement of work on
a long term strategy, the time is right for the rail industry
to incorporate climate change policy into its major priorities.
In particular, the advantages of rail over road and air travel
in terms of carbon emissions must be fully taken into account
in, and add weight towards, any consideration of investment to
expand capacity the network. This must apply equally to consideration
of whether to cut or retain existing local services. (Paragraph
100)
42. We would support
proposals for the construction of new high speed rail links, both
for the role they would play in directly achieving modal shift
from air to rail, and for leading to a freeing up of capacity
on the existing network. At the same time, it is important that
in taking forward any proposals for new high speed services, the
Department looks to choose a design which is as energy efficient
as possible. (Paragraph 102)
43. Local rail services
are vital for creating sustainable communities. They help to boost
long term economic prosperity while managing demand for car journeys,
and hence carbon emissions. We cannot see the logic, at a time
when we need to be accelerating the UK's carbon reduction efforts,
in proposals to reduce local train services. All decisions on
the future of individual local services must be subject to thorough
and transparent assessment, which views them extremely negatively
if they are estimated to lead to an individual rise in carbon
emissions. (Paragraph 104)
44. We second the
Transport Committee's conclusion that the current ticketing structure
of train operating companies is "not fit for purpose".
In order to assist modal shift, the Department should take responsibility
for ensuring rail fares and booking are simplified and made more
transparent, and should also encourage the creation of user-friendly
means of booking rail tickets to European destinations. (Paragraph
107)
45. Given that the
railways are such important customers of power companies, the
industry could make a significant contribution to expanding renewable
energy generation in the UK. The Department should act to enable
it to do so. At the same time, now that service levels of the
network have regained stability, the Department should look to
addressing barriers to improved energy efficiency. (Paragraph
108)
46. There are clear
advantages in terms of carbon emissions of shifting freight from
road to water, and the Department for Transport needs to do more
to actively encourage this shift. (Paragraph 110)
47. We urge the Government
to lead the international community in drawing attention to carbon
emissions from international shipping, and to make sure they are
brought under an effective reduction regime in the post-Kyoto
phase. The Government should work to achieve earlier progress
by pressing for an effective EU strategy on reducing emissions
from shipping at European ports, and for bilateral agreements
on taxation of shipping fuel with other Member States. As a first
step, the Government should press the European Commission to give
greater prominence to publishing annual figures on emissions from
international shipping, both aggregated for the EU as a whole
and by individual countries. (Paragraph 111)
48. Sadly, little
has changed for the better since EAC's last report on aviation.
Progress on introducing financial mechanisms to reduce the growth
in emissions from flying is slow, and both the Government and
the industry are as intransigent as ever. We urge the Department
to widen the terms of its current progress review of the 2003
Future of Aviation White Paper into a fundamental rethink of its
airport expansion policy. (Paragraph 113)
49. The Government
is right when it acknowledges that flying is a big contributor
of carbon emissions and therefore to climate change, in addition
to its negative contribution to air quality and noise pollution.
But what this means is that while the aviation industry can be
allowed to thrive and even to grow, this can only take place within
strict limits. We note the proposal of the Aviation Environment
Federation, that demand for flights be managed to ensure that
emissions from UK aviation remain constant in absolute terms,
by limiting growth in passenger numbers to no more than the rate
at which the industry improves its fuel (hence carbon) efficiency,
currently some 1-2% a year. We would support such a proposal if
it could be guaranteed to prevent an absolute rise in emissions.
The Department should implement demand management measures straightaway;
but to develop its use of such policies, it should commission
and publish research on demand management policies which would
generate predictable levels of passenger numbers and emissions
outcomes. (Paragraph 114)
50. Even under the
Government's own and most optimistic projections, every other
sector of the economy would have to cut its share of UK emissions,
while that of aviation would be assisted to almost quintuple.
Given that these are both "best case" figures and do
not take into account radiative forcing, this is likely to be
a very substantial understatement of the actual figure to which
the Government's current expansion policies are leading. Power
companies, manufacturers, retailers, households, motorists and
hauliers are already going to have to make significant efforts
to decarbonise their lives and livelihoods. If the Government
continues in its policy of allowing just this one industry to
grow, it will either cause severe pain to all other sectors or
provoke so much opposition as to fatally undermine its 2050 target.
If their joint PSA target is to mean anything, the Department
for Transport must work with the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs to construct a new approach to aviation which
constrains its future growth. (Paragraph 116)
51. While we acknowledge
the significant potential benefits of including aviation within
the EU ETS, there remain very considerable uncertainties to be
resolved before we can have confidence that such benefits would
actually be realised. This underlines the need for the Government
to step up still further its negotiations with European partners—and
to take much bolder action unilaterally in the meantime. (Paragraph
122)
52. On the timing
of inclusion of aviation in the ETS, we noted that the Secretary
of State would not give an opinion on when he thought it would
happen, but merely confirmed that it was still the Government's
"ambition […] to try and secure that entry from 2008
or as soon as possible thereafter." Indeed, the Secretary
of State himself drew attention to ongoing opposition to the inclusion
of aviation in the ETS from European airlines and governments.
We also learned that the Government has not even begun to talk
to the UK aviation industry about what level of carbon allocations
it should receive within the ETS. While we commend the very significant
leadership which the Government has shown in raising this issue
up the European agenda, the evidence we have received suggests
that inclusion of aviation within the ETS is still several years
away. (Paragraph 123, 124)
53. This highlights
the need for the Government to start actively preparing a "Plan
B" for dealing with CO2 from UK aviation. However, when we
pressed the Secretary of State on what this alternative plan was,
he claimed that even to hint at what and when it might be would
undermine the Government's efforts to persuade other EU governments
to agree on inclusion of aviation in the ETS. We fundamentally
reject this argument. Indeed, we would argue that to publish proposals
and a timetable for UK action (to be taken if the ETS route were
taking too long) would actually increase the pressure on all parties
to agree to an early inclusion of aviation in the ETS. The Department
should publish such a timetable and set of proposals as soon as
possible. (Paragraph 125)
54. It is scandalous
that governments around the world have failed to grasp the nettle
of taxing aviation fuel. It is equally scandalous that no Member
State within the EU charges VAT on international air tickets.
While this would require co-ordination across the EU, individual
States are free to impose VAT on domestic tickets. Beyond this,
in 2001, the Government made reforms to Air Passenger Duty (APD)
which had the effect of cutting the tax on most short-haul flights
from £10 to £5. Budget 2006 froze APD for the fifth
year running with its only reform being to cut the tax on economy
flights to Croatia by £15. (Paragraph 126)
55. The Government
has no excuses for not raising Air Passenger Duty. When we have
recommended this in the past, the response has been that APD is
a "blunt instrument" that does not differentiate between
the relative carbon-efficiency of different flights. Our response
to this is that APD could be levied per flight, rather than per
passenger. Above all, however, whether reformed or not, APD should
be raised so as to slow the growth of aviation and stabilise its
absolute level of emissions. (Paragraph 130)
56. At the same time,
we welcome the Secretary of State's acknowledgement of the potential
role that differential landing fees could play, and urge him to
introduce them. They could be used to complement a reformed and
increased APD, in that they could specifically target the fuel
efficiency of different models of aircraft. (Paragraph 131)
57. The Government
has the power to increase taxes on domestic flights: it should
do so, and as soon as possible. It should further work to conclude
bilateral agreements with European partners to levy additional
taxes on flights between them. Revenue generated as a result could
be put towards investment in improving rail services, including
high speed rail links, and to accelerating the development and
introduction of more energy efficient aircraft designs. (Paragraph
132)
58. We heard from
BAA that airport vehicles are allowed to run on "red diesel"—taxed
at 6.44p a litre—because they do not run on public roads,
even though airports are major sources of both carbon emissions
and air pollution. This anomaly should be ended forthwith. (Paragraph
133)
59. The Government
should study how best to raise public awareness of the climate
change impacts of flying, and of the undesirability - and ultimately
impossibility - of ongoing increases in flights within a declining
carbon budget. As part of this, the Department should force airlines
which operate services from and within the UK prominently to display
(eg, on all their adverts, tickets, and webpages) a fuel efficiency
label, similar to that for new cars, based on the average fuel
efficiency of their entire fleet which flies out of UK airports.
Additionally, wherever airlines advertise the routes which they
operate from the UK, they should be compelled to state the relevant
carbon emissions per passenger—according to a nationally-set
methodology for calculating them - alongside the fare. (Paragraph
135)
60. We welcome the
Government's new commitment to offset all its air travel through
the new Government Carbon Offsetting Fund. Equally, we share its
enthusiasm for voluntary offsetting schemes. Given that offsetting
payments are relatively cheap, help to tackle climate change,
and can be used to improve the lives of deprived communities in
the developing world, the Government should make them a compulsory
charge on all airline tickets. It is important, however, that
this is accompanied by rigorous auditing of the projects funded
as a result. Moreover, the public should not be encouraged to
think that offsetting implied that growth in aviation emissions
was environmentally tenable. (Paragraph 137)
61. We welcome the
Government's commitment to keep its assessment of the radiative
forcing (RF) of aviation under review, as further scientific evidence
becomes available. This is particularly welcome, given that the
paper it relies upon states that, depending on the results of
further study into the effects of cirrus clouds, "It is possible
that the total aviation RF could be twice as large as the total
RF given here." In its current progress review of the Future
of Aviation White Paper, the Department should clearly state how
it proposes to alter its aviation policies, should further research
indicate that the effects of cirrus clouds are indeed so large.
(Paragraph 140)
62. We note that while
CCP 2006 cites several examples of international co-operation
with developing economies, designed to help them make carbon reductions—it
does not mention any projects designed to help other countries
reduce their emissions from transport. The Government must
work with international partners to develop such projects on a
wide scale. (Paragraph 141)
63. There are conflicting
views in the "peak oil" debate. We would observe, however,
that even if the Government's projections of conventional reserves
extending to 2030 are correct, this is still quite a short time,
given transport's current 99% reliance on oil, and the lifetime
of major infrastructure projects. While the Government also projects
that improved technology and unconventional reserves could extend
this period by another 30 years, we are concerned that the recovery
and refining of such reserves could itself lead to higher "well-to-wheels"
emissions. All this speaks of an extra imperative for the Department
to make a step-change in funding and policies to wean the UK off
the use of fossil fuel oil. The Government should commission its
own equivalent to the US Hirsch Report, and study the example
of the Swedish policy to reduce oil use by 2020. (Paragraph 149)
64. Growing political
pressures over the need to reduce carbon emissions, the possibility
of a sharp and prolonged fuel shock following peak oil, the complications
caused by the development and rolling out of new fuels and technologies,
and the potential divergent economic outcomes that follow rapid
change to transport and communications, are projected to put transport
at the very heart of public policy. The Department should closely
examine the findings of the Intelligent Infrastructure Systems
programme, in terms of both measures that could be taken to reduce
carbon emissions, and ways of winning public support for them.
(Paragraph 150)
65. As this report
sets out, transport is both the most technically difficult sector
in which to reduce carbon emissions and also the most politically
difficult. Indeed, the latter is a result of the former. Significant
cuts in emissions from transport also require widespread behavioural
change. Such change challenges one of the very keystones of modern
society - the deeply cherished and ever-expanding sense of personal
freedom and mobility that has followed the increasing affordability
of both driving and flying but which involves profligate consumption
of energy. (Paragraph 151)
66. Governments at
home and abroad must urgently inform the public about the reality
and dangers of climate change, and the measures we can all take
to avert it. We do not underestimate the problem which this poses
for any elected politicians. This underlines the need, as this
Committee has consistently argued, for a cross-party approach
to the important and difficult measures necessary to tackle climate
change. In taking forward the recent Energy Review and switching
the focus of transport policy, we urge the Government to show
courage in challenging popular preconceptions in order to serve
the people's long term interests. (Paragraph 152)
| 
