Examination of Witness (Questions 80-99)
PROFESSOR SIR
DAVID KING
12 JUNE 2007
Q80 Mark Pritchard: Coming back to
your fridge experience, do you welcome this morning's announcement
that Dixons will be ceasing to sell products that have a standby
mode? Secondly, do you agree with me that perhaps the best thing
British consumers can do when buying white goods to save on white
good miles is actually to buy British, which would help to see
a renaissance in British manufacturing and indeed in other products
for that matter?
Professor Sir David King: It is
a yes basically to your question. What I am very encouraged by
is a whole range of the businesses in the consumer area. Tesco's,
for example, is moving rapidly to a situation of labeling where
the "cradle to grave" carbon cost of the item would
be on display. I think that meets the point you are raising. I
would like to see an extension of white goods labelling to all
of the consumer products so that we could see whether something
made in Britain was of lower carbon cost to the planet than something
that was transported around the world. I think it is also a matter
of packaging. In my view packaging has become a major consumer
tragedy almost. The amount of throwaway product that we have and
the carbon release that that is causing to the planet is very
substantial.
Q81 Dr Turner: What is your view
on the possibility of setting sectoral targets as well as a global
target, to break things down into bite sized chunks per sector,
possibly making it more achievable and easy to identify physical
measures that need to be taken but which would also throw into
starker relief sectors that show little or no sign of contributing
to carbon reduction, notably transport?
Professor Sir David King: Your
point is a very good one. My own feeling is that we need simple
fiscal processes to drive this process through. The cap and trade,
the carbon dioxide price, the market in carbon dioxide is the
first and most important and the second would be good regulatory
behaviour. If you go too far down the sectoral route the danger
is that you are going to do this at significantly greater cost.
Having said that, I agree with you about the transport sector
because that is the sector that is probably going to have the
greatest difficulty in getting a behavioural change. We need better
drivers of proper technologies coming through. The technologies
I am referring to are not only the use of fuel but certainly,
as we move forward, what will be needed to facilitate the hydrogen
fuel economy. We need to look at that because car manufacturers
are going to come through with commercial vehicles in around 2012
to 2015 and we need to make sure that we enable that process with
the proper infrastructure. We need to do what we can to encourage
fuel efficiency on the road. There is another side to this which
in a way is the answer to Mark Pritchard's point and that is the
"cradle to grave" carbon cycle of car production. We
are all used to driving around in these steel vehicles where the
temperatures of production are very high. What about new lighter
and durable materials that would decay when buried into matter
that could be used in other ways? We need to look at the whole
life cycle of the moving vehicle. I see massive opportunity for
science and technology playing through to a very different sort
of road transport environment. What are the actions needed by
Government to pull that through? Quite honestly, this is one reason
why I think a Climate Change Committee is a good idea. We need
a committee that focuses on achieving these reductions.
Q82 Dr Turner: If we do not set them
specific targets do you think anything would happen?
Professor Sir David King: If we
do not set them sector by sector?
Q83 Dr Turner: Yes.
Professor Sir David King: The
transport sector will have to be dealt with through good regulation
and not just on carbon dioxide pricing. That is my own feeling
at the moment.
Q84 Tim Farron: Technological change
is very important and so is lifestyle choice and taxation and
subsidy and so on have a big part in that. One of the reasons
why we have failed on transport for the last 20 years is because
people live further and further away from where they work and
technology in particular—I am talking about broadband here—has
changed certainly in places like mine in the Lake District where
you can now live and work there. I wonder what things you would
advise Government to do to incentivise people to use that technology
so we go back to a situation where people live much closer to
where they work and perhaps even work at home.
Professor Sir David King: We have
conducted a Foresight Programme looking at integrated transport
systems. Integrated transport systems comes right into the built
environment where people work and this question of using modern
technologies to enable people to work close to their place of
living. We are back to pointing out that climate change involves
almost every aspect of Government. When it comes to the way we
set about urban design, it is absolutely vital that we do our
urban design in the future not only in terms of creating a zero
carbon built environment but also in terms of minimising transport
and maximising leisure. We have to look at all of these things
in an integrated way. By the way, modern computer technology enables
us to do this. We can now use modern computers to tackle these
highly complex systems, but we need to move more rapidly into
making good use of them.
Q85 Joan Walley: I want to press
you a little bit on that because I think the inter-relatedness
issue is on all our agendas. Everyone seems to be very focussed
on the Comprehensive Spending Review. In terms of what you have
just said about urban design and changes in respect of investment
and sustainable communities, is that something that you are particularly
focused on with the Treasury at the moment that you could perhaps
elaborate on?
Professor Sir David King: Certainly
the work with the Treasury is always ongoing. The issue of support
for all of these measures depends critically on having a clear
view of what needs to be done. This strongly integrated view is
quite a difficult one to get through in a government system which
is traditionally divided into departments with massive silo walls
around them. The question that Tim Farron asked really goes into
transport, DCLG, energy, the Department for Work and Pensions,
it goes into all parts of Government, but parts of Government
originally were set PSA targets that were different. The encouragement
to talk to each other has not been terribly effective.
Q86 Joan Walley: Would you say it
needs to be given a lot more attention by the incoming Prime Minister?
Professor Sir David King: Yes.
The Treasury has been the one point of contact through those government
departments. It would be good for the incoming Prime Minister
to take that knowledge into Number 10.
Joan Walley: I absolutely agree.
Q87 Mr Caton: Let us move on to the
role of the world's carbon sinks now. What is your current assessment
of the risk to worldwide forestry, the peat bogs and other carbon
stores? What is the nature and scale of the threat posed to those
sinks at this time?
Professor Sir David King: One
of the most difficult areas in terms of managing the mitigations
is avoided deforestation. If you look at Malaysia, Indonesia and
Brazil in particular but all of those equatorial countries with
massive forests, deforestation continues apace. After having discussions
with the governments there, it becomes very clear that we will
have to look at avoided deforestation in terms of the marginal
abatement cost. In other words, quite simply and crudely, what
would it cost to pay off a logger to leave off logging? If you
look at it in that way then avoided deforestation is up there
at around €40 to €50 per tonne of carbon dioxide. It
is not out of the question at a value of €50 per tonne of
carbon dioxide, the number I mentioned earlier, that we would
be able to generate the sort of funds that those governments would
need in order to keep the loggers at bay. That is only one part
of the equation because paying them off is not a realistic way
to proceed. What needs to be done is adding value to the forests.
Two months ago I took a team of five leading British scientists
out to Brazil and I initiated a UK-Brazil year of science. This
really was stimulated by a meeting I had with President Lula here
in London. His challenge to me was that he had the world's greatest
biodiverse system in his forests and we have some of the world's
leading pharmaceutical scientists and biotechnologists so why
do we not get our act together and see if we can add value from
the biodiverse systems from the forests and that is what we are
projecting forward to do based in Manaus in Brazil. This is quite
a long process and it will require an enormous amount of work,
setting up towers through the tropical forest, observational towers
so that loggers can be spotted as they move in, observational
towers that would also monitor carbon dioxide levels, levels of
organic materials around the forests, crucial numbers for our
modellers of climate change, but at the base of the towers they
would also be monitoring the biodiverse system and seeing what
value can be drawn from that. So we are working on it, but I am
glad you raised the point because the deforestation issue is absolutely
critical.
Q88 Mr Caton: What is the latest
scientific understanding of natural positive feedbacks and "tipping
points", such as the thawing of the Siberian permafrost,
and the drying out and burning of the Amazon?
Professor Sir David King: Professor
Schellnhuber, who is at Potsdam and who is the science adviser
to the German Chancellor on climate change, has recently published
an analysis of all of these tipping points and he has asked the
experts by the end of this century what is the probability that
we will have passed the tipping point for, for example, the tropical
forests actually simply dying because of changes in rainfall patterns
or changes in temperature. Looking at about six of these, each
of them was rated no higher than 20%. However, each of them was
rated at about 20%. So if you take six of them at a probability
of 0.2 that means there is a likelihood that perhaps one of them
is going to hit the tipping point. My concern and focus really
has been on the melting of ice from Greenland. The latest data
indicates that we are losing about 200 cubic kilometres of summer
ice from Greenland per annum. 200 cubic kilometres is a big chunk
of ice. If Greenland begins to irreversibly melt then we have
will real difficulties in sustaining our coastline cities.
Q89 Mr Caton: You mentioned the importance
of stopping deforestation and there seems to be wide international
consensus on that, but what are your views about the benefits
of afforestation or reforestation?
Professor Sir David King: The
benefits of reforestation in the tropical areas, the areas around
the equator, are undoubtedly positive, there is absolutely no
question about that. I think much more effort should go into reforestation.
For example, the Atlantic Rain Forest in Brazil has been very
substantially deforested. A large area there is not used for anything,
it is not being farmed, and I think reforestation processes would
be a substantial step forward. Reforestation outside the tropical
areas is probably of fairly marginal positive benefit. Outside
the tropical areas the change in albedo, the change in sunlight
reflectivity due to the growth, can outweigh the benefits from
the carbon dioxide taken out by the forests, so it is more marginal
away from the tropical forest area.
Q90 Colin Challen: Just following
on from that discussion about forests. There has been a loss of
confidence lately in forestry offset schemes and a lot of doubt
about their value in terms of really making a difference in reducing
carbon emissions. Are there any ways in which you think science
could address this issue and is it worth addressing or should
we just abandon that particular kind of offsetting?
Professor Sir David King: I am
not a fan of offset, that is a personal view, precisely for the
reason you are alluding to, that it is actually very difficult
to calculate a long-term benefit of particular offset processes,
and we must be looking at the long-term, by which I mean several
hundred years. I would question many of the offset processes that
are currently being used but, as I said before, I very much welcome
the introduction of a regulatory process and it will be interesting
to see in that process just how many offset schemes make it through
that.
Q91 Colin Challen: Could the same
criticisms really be levelled at some of the CDM schemes that
we have seen as well? There have been a number of criticisms of
some of their values regardless of whether they are related to
forestry or not.
Professor Sir David King: Absolutely.
Some of the criticisms are correct. There are two types of criticism.
One is that it is not truly clean development and the other criticism
is that it is something that would have taken place anyway, which
is not meant to be funded under the CDM. We all realise that the
CDM system itself needs to be better regulated.
Q92 Colin Challen: Are you confident
that the reform of the CDM, which is being looked at at present,
is actually going to deliver the goods in future or do you feel
that the reform is not going to go far enough?
Professor Sir David King: I can
answer your question by saying that I think despite what we have
been saying about the problems with CDM there have been considerable
benefits played through from the CDM. Anyone who has visited a
country which has made good use of CDM will be made very much
aware of it. For example, if you visit Rwanda and you see the
reforestation that has taken place in that devastated country,
it is not only good for the environment but it has become a very
attractive country to visit. I think the CDM process is a good
one and I very much hope, therefore, that we are going to see
a good regulatory system coming through.
Q93 Mark Lazarowicz: Notwithstanding
the good examples of the CDM process, which I accept, we have
just had the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser telling us
personally speaking he was not too keen on offsetting, about the
CDM process and there are lots of problems with it, and we have
heard NGOs in earlier meetings saying that as well. Are you really
confident that we do have a sense of urgency both domestically
and internationally addressing these questions about offsetting
and the CDM?
Professor Sir David King: Am I
really confident? I think I would like to see a better focus on
this issue.
Q94 Mark Lazarowicz: I will not pursue
that particular line but I think that is quite a telling statement.
Can I just go back to the discussion about deforestation in the
sense of the way it highlights another area where we need to look
at the whole lifecycle consequences of certain policy choices,
such as biofuels. The Government has got the five% target and
has indicated it wants to go to a higher target if the right circumstances
allow, but you will also be aware that there is considerable controversy,
particularly from the NGOs, about the effects of the growth of
biofuels on deforestation. What is your perspective on that conflict?
Professor Sir David King: The
first thing is I think we would all recognise that sugar cane
is not grown on deforested areas. Sugar is grown on the savannah
areas, for example, in Brazil it is further south that sugar is
grown. However, sugar growth can displace soya growth into deforested
areas, so it is a second order effect but it is there. It is obviously
an issue that we need to watch. At the same time, I have been
responsible, working with the Brazilian Government and governments
in southern Africa, for generating a tripartite UK-Brazil-southern
Africa agreement to transfer the Brazilian bioethanol capability
in southern African countries. I am clearly stating my position
as a fan of the sugar cane to ethanol process. It has got two
advantages to it. One is that its cycle of growth makes it almost
carbon free. Sugar cane to alcohol is an extremely efficient process.
If you want to see that in operation go to Brazil and watch how
it happens in real time creating rivers of alcohol. At the same
time it is an economic advantage for developing countries because
they can cut back on oil imports. It is a very important potential
method of developing the economies of southern African countries
to turn land that is not currently being used for crop growth
into sugar cane growth. We worked in southern Africa to work out
where sugar cane could be grown without causing displacement of
other agricultural products. While we are on the subject of bioethanol,
let me say that sugar cane to alcohol is the only bioethanol process
at the moment that is practically zero carbon in its lifecycle
production. Other methods of producing bioethanol are not nearly
as efficient. Maize, for example, is not a good way to go. In
the longer term I think that the most promising source of bioethanol
is going to be converting cellulose material into ethanol and
that is a technology that has not yet been developed through.
There is a Shell process that is being developed in Canada that
looks as if it may come to the market fairly soon and that would
be a massive step forward because you are then taking a food crop
waste product and converting that into ethanol. I think that is
potentially a very strong solution.
Q95 Mark Lazarowicz: On the specific
question of the link between biofuel production and deforestation,
you mentioned that you did accept there were possible indirect
effects by the displacement of soya production. Are you reasonably
confident that both national mechanisms in other countries and
international arrangements are in place to control those knock-on
effects?
Professor Sir David King: I know
that the Brazilian Government is having some success. For example,
year-on-year over the last five years the amount of deforestation
has been reduced. Although there is still deforestation, the amount
year-on-year is being reduced and this is Brazilian Government
surveillance. We know this using satellite observation, we can
confirm the figures from the Brazilian Government, but it is a
vastly complex process to control deforestation and it quite clearly
does require funding through the Clean Development Mechanism or
other to come through to see that it becomes much more effective.
Q96 Mark Lazarowicz: If I can turn
to another energy related issue and perhaps take you back to your
earlier discussion at the beginning of the session about carbon
capture and storage. I picked up a considerable degree of caution
from you as to the degree at this stage that we should rely upon
the development of carbon capture and storage technology and perhaps
contrast some of the enthusiasm which we have seen displayed in
some circles as to the potential of that technology. What is your
own assessment of the potential based upon the scientific knowledge
and research that we have at present?
Professor Sir David King: Let
me preface my reply by just reminding you that the International
Energy Agency is saying that by 2050 the carbon capture and storage
reduction of carbon dioxide emissions globally could contribute
about 28%, so enormously important in achieving carbon dioxide
reductions that we get carbon capture and storage up and running.
In terms of depleted oil wells, the technology is effectively
proved, it has been used by the oil companies to squeeze out the
last drops of oil from these oil wells. They have already proven
the technology. In terms of saline aquifers we have still to see
that proved. There are just three countries proposing demonstration
projects: the United States with their FutureGen project which
will be up and running in 2017; Norway with their Morganstad project
which will be up and running in 2014; and the UK, I would imagine
the UK project will be up and running in 2011-12. Those projects
are therefore critically important. I am not meaning to imply
that they will not work but they are crucial demonstration projects
based on saline aquifers.
Q97 Mark Lazarowicz: Until we know
the outcomes of those projects we will not know whether a 28%
reduction by 2050 is a feasible one, or contribution, would that
be fair to say?
Professor Sir David King: I think
it is fair to say but it is a little bit more complicated than
that, if I may say. When you set up a demonstration project you
are almost invariably faced with problems that you had not foreseen
so it is tackling those problems that are going to be critical.
I believe it will be successful, the question is just how soon
will all the technical problems be solved in the use of saline
aquifers. Saline aquifers are vital for that 28% figure of the
IEA because we do not have areas other than saline aquifers with
sufficient volume to meet the demand.
Q98 Mark Lazarowicz: In those circumstances
is it not regrettable to say the least, and I think you said it
was scandalous, that the UK's demonstration project procedure
has been delayed so that we will not see the results until 2011
or 2012?
Professor Sir David King: I think
that is a political statement that I will back off from commenting
on.
Q99 Mark Lazarowicz: If I cannot
pursue that, can I ask one other question. Is there a danger that
because of the enthusiasm, correct enthusiasm, for carbon capture
and storage that there will be a renewed interest in coal-fired
power stations in the expectation that the technology will be
there to deal with emissions which we cannot at this stage be
sufficiently confident will have the impact we hope it will?
Professor Sir David King: It is
an interesting point and obviously a good one. My own view is
that the cap and trade process should be a stronger disincentive
than the incentive that might read into the future success of
carbon capture and storage. I do think that the utilities are
likely to get in good technical advice on the timescale over which
they might expect carbon capture and storage to play through as
a useful technology for them. At the same time, I think it is
worth commenting that the EU proposal that all new coal-fired
power stations should be carbon capture and storage ready is a
good one, in other words we should proceed in the hope and in
the expectation that carbon capture and storage technologies will
come on- stream. I fear that my earlier comments may have sounded
a little too sceptical. I am simply saying the technology is not
a certainty at the moment.
| 
