Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280
- 292)
TUESDAY 8 MAY 2007
DR KEVIN
ANDERSON AND
DR ALICE
BOWS
Q280 Mark Pritchard: Yes, quite.
Dr Anderson: There is a whole
array of policy instruments out there.
Q281 Mark Pritchard: You mentioned,
I think, at 10.57am that the Climate Change Bill is already out
of date, and that is quite a dramatic statement and, being agent
provocateur for a moment unusually, I just wondered what does
that message send out of what the British Government are trying
to do and what the cross-party consensus is trying to do. You
say you will do your best and that is better than nothing or what?
Is there another message, given that the Climate Change Bill is
already out of date, or are you saying, as you were saying earlier,
that we need to go back to perhaps the invisible benchmark from
which all this began?
Dr Anderson: Yes, I think so.
Of course it is a draft Climate Change Bill, so the comment saying
that it is out of date relates to you having an opportunity to
put it into date. If the Bill was already there, we might, though
I cannot imagine we would change our language, yes, we would still
say it is out of date. But certainly with the draft Climate Change
Bill, we made this contribution as quickly as we reasonably could
because we felt it was important to flag up what we felt were
the inadequacies of the Bill so that in this draft process we
could at least make our small contribution to the real Bill being
something worthwhile and valuable that the UK can be rightly proud
of, and I think it has that opportunity still.
Q282 Mark Pritchard: On a specific
last point, we recently heard from BA about a research paper by
Forster et al which cast some doubt on the practice of multiplying
CO2 emissions of aviation by a number such as 2.7,
which you apparently agreed with—which must have been a
surprise to British Airways as much as anybody else. I just wondered
whether you might want to comment on that.
Dr Bows: The problem with these
multipliers is that you are trying to compare things that are
not like for like, comparing a contrail that lasts for some few
minutes over one part of France with global CO2 emissions
is not something that we think you could ever mathematically put
together and come up with an answer that is going to help policy.
The problem is that when you put in a multiplier your policy implication
might be to fly lower to get rid of the contrail, because that
seems to have more of an impact, but then you are increasing the
CO2 and then you have a problem that is with you for
another 100 years. The paper was good in that it points out that
it is not necessarily appropriate, it is particularly not appropriate
for taking it out into the future because it is a measure of historical
impact, and then to say that you can predict and multiply everything
by 2.7 up to 50 years into the future, those different emissions
are going to have different impacts as time goes on and that is
what that paper points out, that the CO2 becomes more
and more important because it lasts for a long time. It just draws
attention to the fact that for policy purposes they are trying
to produce a multiplier that is helpful and actually it is not
helpful at all, but it is necessary to look at these other emissions
because they do have an impact but you cannot just bundle them
altogether.
Dr Anderson: It is important to
bear in mind that science cannot always be reduced to convenient
management tools, and this is a very good example where we are
being forced in a sense to say what does this mean, how do you
compare them? You cannot compare them. How do people compare things
in their own lives? There are lots of things that you cannot bring
together; you cannot make easy comparisons between your feelings
for your wife and your feelings for your children, you cannot
relate them in some nice scale. The same thing here, these are
simply incomparable issues. British Airways might like us to say
that but we have to say what we think as scientists, regardless
of whether Friends of the Earth like it or British Airways like
it. Whilst we do not agree with the multiplier you cannot ignore
these other issues; they are absolutely essential and need to
be thought about right throughout the process, so you may have
to have a whole host of additional flanking instruments that might
help you try to deal with these other sets of issues. The idea
of trying to combine the two in a way that will help you come
up with convenient policy perspectives is extremely dangerous,
we have to recognise that there are very different issues.
Q283 Mark Pritchard: Finally, there
is one or two of us in the House who have tabled questions on
scramjet technology, which might have higher emissions but you
get to your destination far quicker. Do you think we should be
looking at far more innovative technologies rather than stopping
people flying?
Dr Anderson: It is difficult one.
That is a typical example—hey, you can get to Australia
even quicker so now you can go Christmas shopping in Sidney rather
than just in Barcelona. What the environment sees is the total
emissions, it does not see the emissions of one particular flight
so if you change the amount that people fly then no, but those
things have to be thought about in advance.
Dr Bows: The other important point
is that it is not stopping people flying, it is stopping the growth
and it is the growth that is the problem. Obviously there are
some people who are flying an awful lot more than others and perhaps
there are some inequities there as well, but it is slowing down
the rate of growth, not stopping people going on holiday next
year.
Dr Anderson: If the growth rates
in the industry roughly matched their efficiency improvements
there would be no net increase in CO2 emissions from
aviation. From our analysis at the moment, that would be very
good, we would be really pleased if we could see that, and that
lets the industry expand. Hey, if they can come up with 4% improvement
year on year they can have 4% expansion—they will not be
able to do that, but you let the industry decide that. So efficiency
and expansion should be the same.
Mr Chaytor: In our last few minutes I
want us to focus on some of the practical policy issues with one
or two quick questions. Nick, first of all on the Committee on
Climate Change.
Q284 Mr Hurd: The Committee on Climate
Change: if you were in charge of this committee what powers would
you give it and who would you have sitting on it?
Dr Anderson: It would have to
establish a really clear correlation between what it wanted to
see or what it was given as its remit—a bit like with the
banking where you have a certain percentage inflation rate to
aim for—so it would have perhaps 2oC and the apportionment
rules it was expected to apply and then it would just use a complete
scientific approach using accumulative emissions and everything
else. It should have that really clearly laid out and then I personally
think—and I do not know if Alice agrees with this—it
should not be just an advisory committee, it should have powers
to change things in the same way that we can do in terms of monetary
policy, so it can change tax rates or whatever sets of instruments
that the Government says are appropriate for dealing with the
issue, the adjustment of those sets of instruments is taken out
of the political realm and is left with this committee. I do not
think therefore that it should be an advisory committee, it should
be a committee with actual powers to adjust things in accordance
with very clear policy goals, this correlation trail that goes
right the way up to whatever it is, 2oC or 3oC or whatever we
seem to be aiming for, with probabilities and uncertainties in
there, and it should of course have to readjust and revisit the
science as that changes, as it inevitably will do. Who should
be on it? It has to be people who will be as independent and honest
and direct as is possible, people who are not trying to slide
up any particular pole, who are just there to be deciding on what
it is that is necessary and prepared to be unpopular—unpopular
with the Government and probably unpopular with the population
and industry as well, so you are not going to be very much liked
if you are on this committee.
Dr Bows: People who have an understanding
of each of the sectors that are emitting would be useful on the
committee so that there is somebody there who actually has some
insights into what the aviation sector is doing, what the shipping
sector is doing, is it on track? If you have five year cumulative
budgets in year 3, can that person tell you something about the
fact that that particular sector is not doing very well or is
doing better or whatever it is, so people who know about the sector
is quite important.
Dr Anderson: But not political
people. The political framework should be set for the committee,
it should not have to try to incorporate politics into how it
comes up with its solutions or its responses, those responses
should be ones that should be set up: the committee is allowed
to do this and that is what its powers are. It is really important
that we remove it from politics, which is to some extent what
we have done with the Bank of England, so there is a precedent
there.
Q285 Colin Challen: This committee
should be appointed then to that particular new function, but
we are all benign dictators. Your report Living within a Carbon
Budget said that the Government's reporting of carbon emissions
is both partial and not sufficiently up to date. How do you account
for these deficiencies, where do they lie and how exactly should
the Government improve its monitoring of carbon emissions.
Dr Bows: Being partial is due
to the fact that they have not got aviation and shipping in there.
The shipping emission issue is actually quite a big problem, but
nobody seems to have reliable data so the UK Government should
show some leadership. What we need is freight tonne kilometre
data and then the fuel consumption per freight tonne kilometre
for different types of ship. That sort of data does not exist
at the moment, you cannot find out how far the ships are going,
you just can find out the amount of tonnage that is imported and
exported, so that is the comment from the aviation and shipping
point of view. I understand that the aviation methodology that
they choose, that NETCEN and AEA Technology produce for the Government,
is updated quite regularly and has been updated quite recently.
There is a new paper that we have just reviewed that has a look
at this measurement and actually it is quite a good methodology
for the aviation emissions so that is quite satisfactory.
Q286 Colin Challen: Are we moving
to a situation where we will not have repeats of the European-wide
problem of incorrect allocations under the NAPs where more generous
allocations were made than were actually necessary. Are we moving
away from that situation and, if we are, how quickly can we expect
future NAPs to be spot-on accurate accounts of where we are or
where we should be?
Dr Anderson: We should expect
it as, again, a matter of urgency. If the EU claims it is aiming
at 2oC as it repeatedly claims, then there is no practical reason
why the NAPs cannot be appropriate, although the NAPs should have
been more reasonable from the beginning as far as I can see. There
is no practical reason why the NAPs cannot be appropriate, and
they have not been, and countries have been deliberately playing
a game of poker it seems to me in trying to get their allocations
through.
Q287 Colin Challen: On this point
it sometimes occurs to me as a lay person that industry, particularly
smaller companies, will come along and say this is a very difficult
and complex process assessing our carbon emissions. Practically,
how difficult is it to assess carbon emission content in products
and services?
Dr Anderson: It is fairly straightforward
for their energy use, so if they happen to be a manufacturing
company making something there might be some process emissions
and they are generally well understood, but if it is a company
that is respraying motorbikes or something then we just look at
its electricity bill and its gas bill and that will give you its
principal emissions.
Dr Bows: The biggest uncertainty
or confusion comes over where you draw the boundary, so if you
are using some sort of freight transport, for example, should
it be the freight company that accounts for the emissions or should
it be you? Our understanding is that those sorts of things can
be negotiated and they are not a problem of accounting, they are
more just a problem of who is responsible for what kind of things.
The actual calculations are perfectly reasonable to do.
Dr Anderson: Lots of companies
out there can help now, there are lots of consultancy organisations
out there, so if the company does not want to get involved it
can use the consultancy, and also on top of that of course there
is lots of Government advice on these things. The Carbon Trust
should perhaps be helping SMEs and so forth in collating that
sort of data and giving some guidance on how to do it and possibly
some free assistance in actually doing it.
Q288 Mr Chaytor: Finally, can I come
back to the question of specific policy prescriptions for the
future? In the next few weeks we will have the publication of
the new Energy White Paper; does your analysis lead to an endorsement
of the idea that a resurgence of nuclear is the only way of reaching
the savage reduction in emissions that you are calling for?
Dr Anderson: I wrote a piece which
is still available on the BBC website which lays out my personal
view on this. If you go into Google and type "Anderson and
fruit"—because I called it "low-hanging fruit"—it
will come up with the piece. Broadly, that lays out the point
that roughly 3.6% of our final energy consumption comes from nuclear,
3.6%. That 3.6% is broadly going to be decommissioned by 2020
with the exception of Sizewell, which is about 1.3 gigawatts,
so pretty much all of that is going to disappear by 2020, but
that is only 3.6%. We can easily replace that with energy efficiency
and so forth, if we felt that was appropriate, we could improve
efficiency elsewhere on appliance standards and so forth. Nuclear
is simply not, in my view, a prerequisite of a low carbon future,
but that does not mean to say that nuclear is not a viable option
to help us move in the right direction so I am fairly ambivalent
about nuclear. If you have a few pounds to spend you do not spend
it on nuclear, you do not spend it on wind turbines, you do not
spend it on gas turbines, you spend it on energy efficiency, so
I am not particularly opposed to nuclear or opposed to offshore
wind turbines or whatever it happens to be, but if you have only
got a few pounds to spend you do not spend it on supply, you spend
it on demand. If you are then looking towards a medium to long
term future—and some of our scenarios have actually shown
this as one of the options—if you are looking to try and
move away from a transport system that is dominated by carbon-based
fuels you might be able to look at things like nuclear that can
help us produce hydrogen. It is a low carbon producer of hydrogen;
it is a very expensive capital cost to actually build these things
but because you want to run them on base load, you want to run
them continually at the same load, you do not want to be fluctuating
their loads, so when people do not require electricity at night
you could use the nuclear stations running at full load to generate
hydrogen. That is not a short to medium term it is more a medium
to long term policy, and that is an option. We are not saying
it is one you should go down or not, the simple message is that
it is not a prerequisite of a low carbon society but it could
be something that could help in the medium to long term. The Government
issue in terms of replacement rates has almost nothing to do with
CO2, it is a red herring; they might have other reasons
for going for nuclear.
Q289 Mr Chaytor: In the short term
where the real pressure is to make deep reductions and in terms
of demand management, what are the three most effective policies
that would achieve big reductions in domestic energy efficiency
and industrial/commercial energy efficiency? What would you argue
for to be in the Energy White Paper in those respects?
Dr Anderson: We may have different
views on this but my first one would be a moratorium on airport
expansion, and I think that would dwarf most other things you
could actually do. After that I would like to see very stringent
minimum efficiency standards applied across the board, so no more
A, B, C, D and E, none of that nonsense—why are we selling
Es and Ds, everything should be A.
Q290 Mr Chaytor: We are talking about
white goods and appliances.
Dr Anderson: White goods and appliances
but I would take it to cars as well. You can have a four-wheel
drive car, you can have a six-wheel drive car, I do not care as
long as it does 50 miles per gallon and every year we will improve
that by three miles per gallon, so you have a minimum efficiency
standard, not 130 grammes of carbon per kilometre, nothing like
that because that is only an average for the fleet they are selling,
they still can sell four-wheels drives and sports cars. You can
sell four-wheel drives and sports cars but they have to meet 50
miles per gallon and that standard will be improved at, say, 3%
year on year, a very clear marker for the manufacturers. They
can do that already. Very clear transport standards, therefore:
a moratorium on airport expansion and I would say efficiency standards
for white goods. You may have different ones.
Q291 Mr Chaytor: You can have three
each.
Dr Anderson: Obviously the built
environment as well, but it is easy to exaggerate what you can
do in the built environment because it is very slow in changing,
new houses and so forth, they are a very small proportion of the
total.
Q292 Mr Chaytor: Thank you very much
indeed, that was extremely interesting. Thank you for your presentation
and your submission. Our report is due to be published early in
June we hope, but we would also like to hear from you about your
future programme of work as well, so please do send us future
submissions, regardless of whether we are doing a specific inquiry
into climate change.
Dr Anderson: Thank you very much.
| 
