Examination of Witnesses (Questions 660-679)
MR JOHN
RILEY, DR
LAURENCE MATTHEWS,
MR BILL
BUTCHER AND
MR DOUG
HOFFMAN
31 JANUARY 2007
Q660 Chairman: Not only have we heard
it here first, but also an Oscar bid! I am very impressed. Thank
you very much indeed for your contribution. We now move to Laurence
Matthews, who has a background in management, science and forecasting
and has worked in universities and the transport industry. He
is now a writer.
Dr Matthews: I would like to make
two points, and I am speaking as an ordinary householder. I live
in a normal house and I am not a campaigner. As you have heard,
my background is in industry. My wife and I are trying to do our
bit. However, sometimes I do think, "Why do I bother?"
This is not because I do not care; I am fully aware of the seriousness
and urgency of tackling climate change. It is more a sense of
frustration and helplessness. If I use my car less but all around
I see car travel and air travel rising, then my efforts will be
futile. We have already seen some excellent examples of reducing
carbon here today, but if overall carbon emissions are still going
up then these will not be of any use. The psychology of all of
this reminds me a lot of watching management trying to implement
change in industry. Changes in organisations work best when the
people involved are inspired by a clear goal; when they understand
their part in the plan; and, crucially, when everybody sees that
everyone else is also doing their bit—and that is not just
the workers but also the management. Similarly with carbon reduction,
I feel that there is a sort of social contract here. We are being
exhorted to do our bit, but the Government need to play their
part too if this is to happen. For my money, the Government's
part of the bargain has to be to bring in a serious, mandatory
emissions cap. It is as simple as that. You are probably worried
that we will resist and protest. No doubt some of us will. But
others are far ahead of you and we want you to stop dragging your
feet. The majority of us, I guess, are in the middle. Most of
the time, we want to get on with the rest of our lives. However,
we do want to stop climate change and we cannot do it on our own.
Give us credit. We know that a cap, just like income tax, has
to be mandatory if it is to work. Without one, all your efforts
to encourage energy efficiency, energy saving, and so on, will
be at best ineffective and at worst a distraction from effective
action. My second point is that we also need to tackle emissions
fast. If it is to be done fast, it has to be simple. I have been
looking round and the simplest approach I have come across that
will work in the UK is one called `Cap and Share'; but I have
noticed that this is not amongst the options in various reports
prepared for Defra. Perhaps people do not realise just how simple
it could be. If I may, I will describe Cap and Share in two sentences.
Determine a national cap, as per Contraction and Convergence—as
with any cap and trade system—but simply share it out equally
amongst all the adults in the country. That is all of it, not
just 40%. As an individual, you get this as, say, monthly share
certificates which you can sell through banks or post offices
to the primary fossil fuel suppliers. That is it. No need for
carbon debit cards; no need for tracking individual transactions;
no need for policing emissions trading with tens of thousands
of companies. For me as a consumer, I just pay more for carbon-intensive
goods, and that is just like a carbon tax, but I get the money
from selling my certificates. If I use less carbon than my share,
then I come out ahead. That system is transparent; it is fair;
it is achingly simple; but also it is empowering. My certificate
is exactly my share of the carbon budget. It is my tangible connection
with the country's national effort to reduce carbon. If you will
allow me a soundbite, it is an upstream system but it has a downstream
psychology to it. I am not wedded to that particular scheme: any
scheme will do. We just need to reduce our emissions, and this
is one way of doing it quickly, simply, cheaply and fairly. There
may be other ways too, but this is one to beat. This is a mark
in the sand. There is no excuse for doing less than this or for
doing it less quickly. This could be done next year. Whatever
method is chosen, my plea to the Government would be this. Please
bring in a cap; please keep it simple; please do it fast. People
like me would be so relieved and so inspired that we would carry
out our part of the agenda quite happily.
Q661 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed. I should make it clear that we are not the Government.
Sometimes we may want to be, but we are here to listen and to
put ideas to the Government, so thank you for making that so very
clear. Now Mr Butcher, who established the Big SWitch programme
in Somerset, to encourage people to switch to low-carbon living.
He is active in reducing his own household's carbon dioxide emissions.
Mr Butcher, share your experiences with the Committee.
Mr Butcher: I have three children
and I am alarmed at the forecasts of environmental and economic
breakdown in their lifetime, as a consequence of climate change.
In response, I heat my home with biofuels; light it with low-energy
light bulbs powered by a green electricity tariff; buy local food
at farmers' markets; recycle everything that is recyclable; cycle
20 miles to work in the summer on an almost zero-carbon electric
bike; and, in winter, get wet at bus stops, waiting for infrequent
and unreliable buses. Overall, I have reduced my personal CO2
emissions to around one tonne a year, while enjoying a full and
active lifestyle in a rural area. I believe that most people could
do this, but we definitely need government to work with us. In
2005 I established a Somerset campaign called the Big SWitch.
This encouraged individuals to switch lifestyles to low-carbon
living. In 2006 this was adopted by Wildlife Trusts across south-west
England and the campaign attracted over 1,000 pledges and a saving
of hundreds of tonnes of carbon. Through my personal experiences
and those of the Big SWitch campaign, I am convinced that a policy
of personal carbon allowances would be the most effective and
fairest way of reducing individual emissions. Although campaigns
such as CRed and the Big SWitch can inspire thousands of people
and show that it is possible for people to change lifestyles without
losing quality of life, they will never reach the majority. It
is our experience that the biggest disincentive for people to
change their lifestyles is seeing that the majority will carry
on with carbon-intensive living. Personal carbon allowances would
be mandatory for everyone and ensure that targets for reducing
emissions were met. It is therefore certainty of outcome that
has to be one of the main attractions of this potential policy.
It would use the market mechanism efficiently and preserve choice
for the individual. That is absolutely critical from the individual
point of view, I believe. Regulation and taxation do have their
place in the overall policy mix, but people do not like being
told by government precisely what to do. They want choice, but
they also need to be told the constraints, the limits on the effects
of their behaviour. Personal carbon allowances reward carbon thrift
and penalise carbon profligacy. Those who wish to carry on emitting
at higher rates can do so, provided they buy extra allowances
from those who have some to spare. Provided the policy is combined
with effective measures to address fuel poverty, the poor would
benefit. Personal carbon allowances, if combined with other policies,
would deliver many climate change objectives, by gradually suppressing
demand for damaging activities, such as driving and flying, while
stimulating demand for energy-efficient products and services.
For example, public transport—which is dear to my heart—would
be stimulated by many people switching away from cars to avoid
paying for extra carbon units. Rural buses need to be five times
as frequent and efficient as they are now, to make them a viable
alternative. Restoring regulation of bus services and investing
in better services using revenues generated by the policy—for
example, from auctioning off allowances to business—would
generate a win-win situation that I believe would be widely welcomed.
Personal carbon allowances should also allow for a fair distribution
of emissions reduction effort between government, businesses,
and the individual. The policy could even generate the most efficient
economy in the world and put us way ahead of our competitors.
Finally, government has an absolute duty to protect its citizens
from damaging climate change: a duty that so far it has failed
to discharge. I urge the Select Committee to recommend that all
necessary research and preparatory work is undertaken without
delay for the potential introduction of personal carbon allowances.
Q662 Chairman: Thank you for putting
that so very clearly. The final member of our second panel is
Mr Doug Hoffmann, who has the shortest introduction of all, because
he is a retired energy efficiency officer for a local authority.
Which authority was it, Mr Hoffman?
Mr Hoffman: Waveney District Council—just
down the road.
Q663 Chairman: So you are truly local.
The floor is yours.
Mr Hoffman: I am not truly local.
For 15 years I was not terribly energy-efficient, I must admit,
because I commuted back to Gloucestershire every other weekend.
Mr Drew: God's own county!
Q664 Daniel Kawczynski: Stroud, no
doubt!
Mr Hoffman: The Forest of Dean,
actually. However, I will be uncharacteristically brief. My pet
beef at the moment is the amount of energy wasted with unnecessary
lighting, mainly during daylight hours. I returned to Lowestoft
recently for family reasons, and I could not help but notice multi-storey
car parks, of which Lowestoft has two, brightly lit all night,
despite the fact that the upper levels on one are locked off after
midnight and the entire one at the Britten Centre is locked, barred
and bolted from 9 pm onwards. One of the things I did before I
left was to get the security man at the Britten Centre car park
to switch lights off when they locked up, despite howls of protest
from the politically correct brigade who said, "We must leave
some lights on, in case somebody breaks in and they might hurt
themselves"—to which I said, "Good"! However,
I did establish that procedure. At the other one, the lights were
switched off by time switch for the upper levels. When I came
back, I found that everything is ablaze with light. Being suitably
incensed, I reported back and I was told, "Oh, no. They go
off. They are on time switches". Patently they were not going
off. I tried reporting higher up the tree and it was, "Oh,
we'll look into it". Nothing happened, so I went to the Lowestoft
Journal, who published an article. A council spokesman said,
"They do go out at night". That was 23 November. Fast-forward
to 12 January when, after lots of prodding from the Lowestoft
Journal, the same council spokesman—who is now communications
consultant—says, "We can't switch them off at Battery
Green car park because they are wired in with the ticket machines
and the ticket machines have to be kept warm". I am not sure
that is completely true. However, that is the sort of response
you get from a local authority. What I am trying to get round
to is this. How can local authority be made accountable to central
government? I approached the Carbon Trust, because we have lost
the regional energy efficiency officer we used to have—a
chap called Joe Heffer, who took early retirement. Before he retired,
his job description was altered. The lady who has taken over from
him, who has no contact at all with local authority, suggested
that I tried the Carbon Trust. They said, "No, we are business
and commerce. Try the Energy Saving Trust". The Energy Saving
Trust said, "No, we deal with domestic energy matters. Try
the Carbon Trust". I have in front of me a letter from Ian
Pearson, Minister of State for Climate Change and the Environment.
Q665 Chairman: What does he say he
is in charge of?
Mr Hoffman: This, funnily enough,
is through my local MP back in the Forest of Dean, where I brought
up the topic of what a good idea it would be to have energy wardens
with the same powers as patrolling traffic wardens. If the Government
have money to throw away on these proposed inspectors for DIY
improvements in households, so that they can jack up your council
tax, would it not be better spent doing something more positive
to reduce energy consumption? He took up the cause and this letter
is a result of his making enquiries. According to Ian Pearson,
both the Carbon Trust and the Energy Saving Trust do provide support
for the public sector. Local authorities are part of the public
sector, I always thought. Yet when I contacted those organisations,
both denied having any contact whatsoever. So now I am stuck.
All I can do is go to the press. However, I do take heart from
the previous speakers on the Ashton Hayes project and I note that
they are intending to expand to more populated areas—the
city of Chester, anyway. That was one of the things I was going
to say. How can we apply this sort of thinking to a fair-sized
town? It has to be through the local authority; but how can the
local authority do it? In particular, a cash-strapped one, which
has always been the problem with Waveney where, despite lots of
green posturing, any energy efficiency projects had to be cash-driven.
A lot of very worthwhile projects were knocked on the head because
we could not make a two-year-or-less payback on paper.
Q666 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed. You are not planning to move to Ashton Hayes, are you?
Mr Hoffman: I would not mind.
I have a grandson who lives in Warrington.
Chairman: Thank you all very much indeed
for your contributions.
Q667 Daniel Kawczynski: First of
all, Mr Hoffman, you have a very good MP in the Forest of Dean,
Mark Harper.
Mr Hoffman: Yes, indeed.
Q668 Daniel Kawczynski: I would suggest
that, given what you have said to us, you should definitely go
to the press. If a minister is giving you inaccurate advice, you
should certainly take that up with the press. My question is to
Mr Butcher. You have a connection with Somerset council, I believe.
You are employed by Somerset council, are you?
Mr Butcher: No, I am not. I am
employed by the Somerset Wildlife Trust.
Q669 Daniel Kawczynski: What connection
do you have with Somerset council, if any?
Mr Butcher: No formal connection.
The trust is working with the council on one or two partnership
projects.
Q670 Daniel Kawczynski: In my area
in Shropshire, we have been so impressed with the work of Somerset
council—you will know the sort of work that they are doing
in terms of biodiversity schemes—that we have had representation
from Somerset council to tell us how we could emulate that. It
is very encouraging work that they are doing down there in Somerset.
On your point that people should be monitored, somehow have carbon
targets for themselves, and that this should somehow be managed
by the state, you have made that decision consciously yourself
to reduce your CO2 to one tonne, but it would be an extremely
bureaucratic and costly process for the state to make sure that
was implemented by every single citizen. Is it not better to ensure
that people do it on a voluntary basis, particularly as there
is growing interest amongst the young to do this anyway?
Mr Butcher: That is a very key
point. I personally do not believe that a voluntary basis will
work. You are probably seeing an unrepresentative sample of citizens
here in your session today. We are all the keen ones, the committed
ones, the early entrants, if you like, into reducing carbon emissions.
There are some fantastic things going on. However, this sort of
voluntary activity, if it ever reaches 100% of the population,
will take 50 years—two generations—and that is far
too slow to address the urgent climate change crisis. The Government
are about to introduce a statutory target for reducing emissions
by 60% by 2050 in the Climate Change Bill, as I understand it.
The next big question is how you will ensure getting there. Your
choices are regulation, taxation, or some form of cap and trade
system. It seems to me that, of those options, a cap and trade
system, personal carbon allowances, is the least state-controlled
option out there, because it does preserve choice. Okay, the "state"
may be an independent, monetary policy-type committee; it may
be that the Carbon Committee which will be set up under the Climate
Change Bill should run it, rather than government. There is an
element of bureaucracy, but the Centre for Sustainable Energy
produced a report for Defra in December which showed that there
is potential for linking it with the banking system, for example,
with minimal additional administration. So I believe that it will
work; it can be done with acceptable administration cost; and
it will be seen to be extremely fair by individuals.
Lynne Jones: I have a comment for Mr
Riley, a very quick question for Mr Butcher, and perhaps a more
complicated question for Dr Matthews. First of all, you have done
a lot to improve the image of estate agents this morning! As regards
your DVDs, however, I have to tell you that MPs get loads of DVDs
and we very rarely—or perhaps I should only speak for myself—get
the time to watch them. I would advise you to send your DVDs to
our constituents, perhaps to inspire them to nag us about doing
more on climate change. I think that would be more effective and
have more of an impact on MPs than sending this material direct
to us. Secondly, Mr Butcher, you cycle to work in the summer but
not in the winter. I do not cycle as far as you do but I do it
all year round. Why do you not cycle in the winter? To Dr Matthews,
I think that what you have advocated is the Feasta Cap and Share
scheme. Would that not require the setting of a price for carbon?
I am not exactly familiar with the scheme, but are you not basically
saying that everything we consume should have a carbon price added
to its cost, and then we get these allowances which offset the
extra cost we are having to meet as consumers? Is that how it
works? How would you set the price of carbon? Those are my three
comments.
Q671 Chairman: Mr Butcher, do you
want to take us out of our misery and tell us why you are not
pedalling in the winter months?
Mr Butcher: Maybe I am just too
soft! It is a perception of personal safety. Cycling on busy roads
in the dark is just a bit beyond my acceptance level of personal
risk.
Q672 Chairman: Before we have a debate
on cycling, Dr Matthews, deal with the difficult issue.
Dr Matthews: The price is set
by supply and demand, just as it would be with auctioning upstream.
I do not want to take up the Committee's time with anything technical.
If the Committee would find it useful, I will send in a couple
of pages of notes about that.
Q673 Chairman: That would be very
helpful, thank you.
Dr Matthews: The main point I
was trying to make is that it can be done without any bureaucracy,
very simply, in a fair way, and it would tackle a lot of the problems
of complication in introducing something like personal carbon
allowances. It could be done next year, and as a transitional
method to dovetail seamlessly from existing schemes like the Emissions
Trading System, which are already partially there, through to
personal carbon trading—
Q674 Lynne Jones: Every item that
you consume, every journey, would have to have an extra tax on
it, would it not?
Dr Matthews: It would be fed in
right at the top end and would feed its way through invisibly,
just like a carbon tax. What you would find is that carbon-intensive
products and services, such as buying your petrol or gas for your
home heating, would become more expensive; renewable sources or
less carbon-intensive goods and services would not be going up.
There would therefore just be the normal price incentives. I very
strongly agree with somebody on Panel 1 who spoke earlier, saying
that is the most effective way of changing behaviour in the majority
of the British public, who are not in the forefront of enthusiasm
for carbon reduction schemes. We are caught in a serious psychological
bind here of stress. We know how urgent the problem is. It is
not sufficient to think about what scheme might be introduced
in 2020; we need to tackle the problem now, or else we shall have
to face our children and tell them why we did not. This is something
that could be done very quickly.
Q675 Chairman: Can I follow up on
a practicality? As MPs, we have to deal with what I call the hard
luck cases. I will give you just two examples. Both of you who
talked about carbon allowances talked about an equality of allocation
between individuals. How do we deal with the difficult case? For
example, the elderly person or disabled person who needs to consume
an above-average use of energy because of their personal condition,
or a situation where somebody lives in a house of multiple occupation,
where they have a bad landlord, a complete inability to influence
the thermal property of where they are living, and therefore cannot
take action to maximise their carbon budget.
Mr Butcher: The link with fuel
poverty is a very key question. For personal carbon trading to
be fair and effective, it has to be combined with a much-increased
government programme to address fuel poverty issues. So that,
while overall the policy would be progressive, ie it would produce
a net benefit to the poor and disbenefit to the more affluent,
there are exceptions, particularly in the area of fuel poverty,
which need to be addressed separately. The question of landlord
versus tenant I do not have a ready answer to, but I feel sure
that those clever civil servants the Government employ could work
that one out, if they put their minds to it.
Chairman: That is an interesting observation.
David Drew?
Q676 Mr Drew: What the three of you
have talked about—and indeed even maybe Mr Hoffman—is
the balance of tolerance that may actually be challenged by this
threat that we are faced with. We have to stand for election.
That is one of the sad things in politics. The problem at the
moment is that, when people talk about some of the direct controls
that you have advocated—which I personally have advocated—the
view in the gossiping rooms of Westminster is that the public
will just not wear this. They may wear a market solution, gradually,
but if you start telling people, "You are not going to use
your car. You are not going to light your house. You are not going
to be able to use this particular . . . "—I know the
argument is, "Well, there's choice", but choice becomes
very limited if you really want to deal with this issue. How would
you advise us, as politicians, to go out and sell this idea?
Mr Butcher: It is probably the
central issue overall. If government tries to tell individuals
precisely what to do, how many light bulbs they can have on at
a time, or whatever—or even how many flights they can take—they
will be extremely unpopular and will suffer at the next election.
However, if government says to the public very clearly, "Okay,
we have a major problem here. We are all in this together—government,
industry, individuals—we have to solve this, and it is urgent.
We have maybe five or 10 years to act. Government are going to
do their bit in the public sector. They are also going to incentivise
industry to do its bit, through emissions trading and other mechanisms.
Now we need the public, individuals, to do their bit. We are not
going to tell you precisely what to do, but these are the limits
within which you can act, through a cap and trade system"—Contraction
and Convergence, as we have heard—then, overall, the majority
of people will see that as reasonable and fair. There will be
howls of protest from some parts of the press, as there always
are, but I think that the majority will go with it. In particular,
if it can be taken out of the political arena as far as possible
and a consensus is developed, so that it is not a party political
matter, and if targets are seen to come from the science approach
rather than politicians, then you will be able to get it through.
Dr Matthews: I would like to suggest
that occasionally our elected representatives are too timid in
giving us the benefit of the doubt of being able to see this sort
of thing. We are hard-pressed motorists but then we get home and
we are parents. We are able to understand the difference between
two questions: "Would you pay more to save the planet?"
and "Would you vote for a plan that made everybody, including
you, pay more to save the planet?". A lot of these do not
actually reduce to paying more. They will be portrayed that way
by vested interests, but what they require people to do is to
change behaviour. Not go and live in a mud hut or anything; not
necessarily change their behaviour drastically; but definitely
to change their behaviour. If people do not realise that they
have to change their behaviour, we have a serious problem here.
I believe that people do realise that.
Mr Riley: I would draw the analogy
with 1939. When we went to war, we knew we had to limit our consumption
of food. We did not mess about, trying to persuade people to eat
a bit less or change the taxation on certain foods; we just brought
in rationing, because we knew it had to be done. We are in a similar
situation today. We have to do it.
Q677 Chairman: Do you not think,
Mr Riley, that the essential difference is that it was very evident
to everybody in 1939 what the common enemy was?
Mr Riley: Yes.
Q678 Chairman: Part of the problem,
which has come out both from this panel and the previous one,
is getting through to people that action is needed now and it
is not an action that can be postponed.
Mr Riley: Make the film An
Inconvenient Truth free for everybody to see—seriously.
Q679 Chairman: Plus your own £2
million blockbuster!
Mr Riley: Absolutely.
Chairman: The last question is from David
Lepper.
|
