Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 85)
TUESDAY 20 FEBRUARY 2007
MR LARRY
LOHMANN AND
MS JUTTA
KILL
Q80 Mr Chaytor: This is a PR issue;
it is not a substantial issue.
Mr Lohmann: No, it is a property
rights issue.
Mr Chaytor: The net amount of pollution
remains the same.
Q81 Chairman: In terms of trying
to control the amount of carbon concentration in the atmosphere
it is better if the trees are there than if they are not there,
regardless of who paid for them, is that not the case?
Ms Kill: It is not the case because
you take away the incentive from either the government regulating
that industry in the north of England or the company itself to
look into other carbon projects.
Q82 Chairman: Leave the company out
of it. Do you want the trees or do you not want the trees?
Ms Kill: I do want the trees,
or an intact forest.
Q83 Chairman: Is the benefit of the
trees somehow reduced if someone outside has paid for them?
Mr Lohmann: Yes.
Q84 Chairman: It is. It does not
absorb any carbon? The tree works out in its mind, "Gosh,
someone wrote a cheque in Birmingham for these, and so I am not
going to absorb any carbon", is that what you are saying?
Mr Lohmann: Let us look at this
in a practical way.
Q85 Chairman: I am asking the question.
Mr Lohmann: It is not the same;
it is providing a licence to pollute to someone who is polluting
elsewhere. The climate effect is therefore different; the climate
effect of planting the trees is different. This is very practical;
you are giving away a property right which has all sorts of practical
and long-term effects, to allow them to continue polluting in
an industrial area. This has long-term climate effects, it has
effects on the compliance with emissions reductions legislation
because it changes the way a company will respond to that; it
changes the way that investors will look at investment opportunities
and the necessity of investment in industrial change. It has a
long-term and very different climate effect—carbon effect—depending
on whether it is connected with an offset scheme.
Colin Challen: Your point is that if
you simply did the offset then the benefit of planting the trees,
which is a positive in itself is neutralised because then you
claim the right elsewhere.
Chairman: The word "offset"
seems to be a bit of a fireball here. Thank you very much for
coming in.
| 
