Mr.
Woolas: The honest answer to that question is by December
2009. There is pressure for an agreement—remember that all
countries are facing the issue, but what is important is that it is
part of the UNFCCC. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s
point—the bottle-half-full approach may be seen to guarantee
that we are not dependent on international agreements, but I will come
to my arguments against that in a
moment.
Miss
McIntosh: Before the Minister leaves that point, I have a
concern with that approach. If the emissions attach to the airlines,
then the airlines would be penalised by passing through a European
Union airport. International flights could simply bypass the European
Union, which could penalise our competitiveness. That has been put to
us by the
CBI.
Mr.
Woolas: The hon. Lady is right. That is the issue with an
international agreement. That is the ultimate interdependency. Just as
I have argued that a global agreement is the best option, the next best
option is a European Union agreement and after that national
definitions, which I believe would cause all sorts of
problems. 4.30
pm I
point out that today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government has outlined the agreements by local
authorities on their performance indicators. Many of those local
authorities—across the political spectrum, I am delighted to
say—have adopted the CO 2 emissions target within
their area. How are we to allocate them? Are we to say to Hillingdon,
because it is the host to Heathrow airport, that all the emissions
resulting from the economic of the airport should be assigned to
Hillingdon borough
council? I
shall choose a better example relating to my hon. Friend the Member for
Southampton, Test. Will all the shipping in and out of Southampton be
ascribed to Southampton city council? I can see arguments in favour of
that, but it would be unfair to the people of Southampton. It is not a
trite point; it is an important one. We all want an international
agreement, but it is a question of how one defines where the emissions
should be allocated. The Government are not trying to duck that. The
essence of our policy is that all emissions should be based on science,
and I cannot argue for carbon markets or for a cap-and-trade system
unless I argue for science. It is a matter of how we
allocate. There
is no guarantee that it is possible to calculate what is a UK emission,
or the emissions of any other individual countries. Surely what matters
is what action is taken to tackle the contribution that the aviation
and shipping sectors make to climate change. It does not matter to me
whether that action is taken at national, European or international
level. Of course, we have a leadership role, which the
Government’s proposals recognise, but working towards that
agreement should be our priority. We must recognise that what we agree
internationally could be completely incompatible with national
emissions targets, so we should not prejudge that issue
now. I
conclude my remarks by saying that, as was recognised in the other
place, these issues are very complex, but more importantly, they are
very significant. We have already said that with respect to
international aviation emissions, we expect to take a decision on
whether to include those emissions in our targets well before 2013. We
have already asked the Committee on Climate Change to look at that as
part of its first task.
There are
significant practical questions. That is why, for instance, the
Committee’s work plan, which is available publicly on the
Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website,
states: “One
possible answer is that it may be much easier if attempted at EU rather
than national
level.” For
instance, what is the UK share of emissions? How would that work
alongside aviation’s current inclusion in the EU ETS? Would one
have two systems running alongside each other, and if so, how would
that
work? Shipping
is an even more complex question. Neither I nor the Government are
trying to duck the issues. Ships can go for many months without
refuelling, and they can also take on fuel from tankers in
international waters. Based on fuel sold within the UK, shipping
emissions have declined over the past 10 years. By any other measure,
however, shipping in and out of the UK has increased over that period,
so how does one account for
that? Finally,
especially if we are acting alone, what of the risk of perverse
impacts, which hon. Members often point out when they scrutinise Bills?
What of the problems such as planes and ships filling up elsewhere and
arriving with a heavier fuel load, or of air traffic simply diverting
from Heathrow to Amsterdam or Paris, or of ships
docking at Rotterdam and their cargo being driven
here by truck? All those scenarios could increase emissions rather than
reduce
them. I
look forward to the debate on these points, but I ask the Committee to
accept the good intent and practical implementation policies behind the
Government amendments.
Mr.
John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal) (Con): I want to share with
the Minister something that, as a representative of Felixstowe, which
is now Britain’s largest port, I am worried about. I am
concerned not only about the emissions per tonne of diesel, but the
quality of the diesel that is used. We, in the European Union, have
been slow in saying that ships that use filthy diesel are not allowed
to dock. I am not talking about whether they take that on board, but
just that they should not be allowed to dock. We need to reduce the
direct air pollution effect of ships, which is very strong—as
anyone with a coastal constituency in this country knows. I am not
criticising the Minister, but it is interesting that he should have
given all the different examples, but did not refer to that. Such
action would have a dual effect. It is something that we could do, and
it is a matter that the Government could lead on in the European Union.
Proportionately, Britain is more affected by the filth from dirty ships
than any other country in Europe. Can we not take that on
board?
Mr.
Woolas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. With
your indulgence, Mr. Cook, I wish to make another point. We
are also a world leader in engine design and manufacture. The most
efficient ship engines in the world are our military ship engines. For
reasons not primarily to do with emissions, but with refuelling Type 55
frigates, I highlight Rolls-Royce. I mention that because part of the
supply chain is in Oldham, East and Saddleworth. I shall stop there,
hoping that the Oldham Evening Chronicle correspondent has noted
that important
remark. The
right hon. Gentleman is correct. I am trying to ensure that we have a
verifiable emissions capping regime and recognise its global nature,
that we give UK plc competitive advantage, when we can, and that we do
not unduly punish the UK. I think that I am right that 30 per cent. by
volume in his example of trade between the UK and the European Union
comes through Felixstowe dock, which is significant. I used the
Heathrow and Southampton examples but, given that my hon. Friend the
Member for Southampton, Test is about to intervene, I suspect that
Southampton is bigger than Felixstowe in volume
trade. Dr.
Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): I regret to say
that Southampton is not bigger in volume trade than Felixstowe, but
obviously the quality of trade is
better. The
right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal has cited the example of dirty
diesel. There are also other factors relating to what shipping carries,
how efficiently it carries it, and over what distance. Given that 95
per cent. of what we consume comes into this country via ports, notably
Southampton and Felixstowe, we are concerned about what is coming in
and going out on ships, too. What is the value per mile travelled, for
example? Do
the ships, when in port, give back the electricity that they are
consuming when they lie idle? Can they be plugged into the port when
they are in dock? If that
were part of the package, Southampton would make an interesting net
contribution, as would Felixstowe, from the power source of ships lying
in port. Will my hon. Friend be considering those matters when
examining the contribution made by shipping in respect of
CO 2
measures? Mr.
Woolas: My hon. Friend’s intervention illustrates
the complexity of the matter. The Government are not trying to dump the
issue. We have argued—above all countries in the European
Union—that, of course, aviation and shipping emissions should be
included in a scheme. Given the importance that we place on the
cap-and-trade system and carbon trading, it would be nonsense for us
not to do so. That does not disguise the fact that there are the
complexities to which my hon. Friend has referred.
Let me
mention some further items to consider. Should we look at emissions
from the transportation of goods to the UK at all stages of the
journey? Ships that dock in Southampton may well be carrying goods,
including passengers, from one country to another—they may be
dropping off at Southampton, taking on new cargo and moving on
elsewhere. I
suspect that the whole Committee is trying to include aviation and
shipping in a pragmatic way, so let me point a way forward. There are
already international rules on how to calculate the emissions from, for
example, journeys through the channel tunnel. If the electricity is
generated on the French side, the emissions belong to France; if the
electricity is generated on the UK side, they are our emissions. I am
trying not to score a point, but to show the difficulties. The
alternative approach, which we will discuss later, risks double
counting. We also have the problem of the administrative burden. How do
we ascribe goods where part of the journey was by sea? Would we need to
examine every single journey of every single ship and aircraft? Huge
uncertainties and data problems need to be
considered. The
Government’s approach meets the objective of those who are
rightly campaigning for the inclusion of aviation and shipping
emissions in the Bill and the international agreement. Let us move
forward on the best
basis. Miss
Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): I am more confused now
that the Minister has moved the amendment than I was before. In his
amendment, is he saying that the Government could introduce regulations
that apply to aviation and shipping and remove the other aspects of
international transport? He referred briefly to trucks, which surely
provides an opportunity for us to charge, for example, the Dutch and
German hauliers who come in with full tanks of more polluting diesel
that is cheaper than in the rest of Europe. Currently, they can
undercut domestic hauliers, who cannot compete with their prices, on
cabotage. I am slightly concerned that by including aviation and
shipping, but putting it out to the long grass—longer than five
years—he is also excluding railway and road transport. Is that
the purpose of his
amendment?
Mr.
Woolas: Certainly not. I accept the hon. Lady’s
point, but the framework that we have put forward is the best one from
the UK plc point of view, and that it also achieves our objectives.
Government amendments Nos. 6 and 7 work within the spirit of the
changes to the
Bill made in the other place. As I hope the hon.
Lady recognises, we have considered that matter, which is backed up by
statements from my noble Friend Lord Rooker. Those changes set a
deadline of five years from Royal Assent to either include those
emissions or to report to Parliament on why it has not been done. I am
trying to say, “Okay. You’ve got a point. We need to
include them and give surety to industry and the public that they are
included, but can we have five years to reach an international
agreement?” If we do not do that, we will have to explain why
that is the case to Parliament and decide where to go from there. That
is my proposition and I hope that the Committee will accept amendments
Nos. 6 and
7.
The
Chairman: Order. I need to clarify something. I am anxious
to preserve the tolerant, friendly, brotherly, and almost comradely
exchanges that are taking place, which I do not want to impinge on
adversely, but I must draw a distinction between interventions and
speeches. Some interventions have been very long, and speeches have
then taken up and made the same points that were made during the
interventions. Will hon. Members try to analyse their interventions and
speeches. 4.45
pm
Gregory
Barker: I hear what you say, Mr. Cook, and will
do my best to
comply. It
is vital that aviation and shipping in the broadest sense are included
in this Bill. Despite the surfeit of amendments, and amendments to
amendments, it is important to note—I am grateful for what the
Minister has said—that a great deal more unites the parties in
Committee than divides us, although there are differences of opinion
nevertheless. We all agree on the necessity of including carbon
pollution caused by aviation and shipping in our national carbon
budgets. We all agree that that is, unfortunately, a process far easier
said than done, which is why we have reluctantly agreed on the
necessity of a four to five-year delay before including aviation and
shipping properly in the carbon
budget. We
have also come to the conclusion that it is right to agree with the
Government that they should be able to define exactly what constitutes
emissions from aviation and shipping and to say under what
circumstances those emissions should be counted as arising from the
UK—the Minister explained that point very well in his speech.
However, due to the seriousness of the issue, which goes to the heart
of the Bill, I want to reiterate for the record the scope of the
problem.
Aviation is
the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United
Kingdom and many advanced economies throughout the world. In the
unlikely event that the UK’s 2050 target remains at just 60 per
cent., current forecasts project that emissions from aviation will be
equivalent to 26 per cent. of the total UK carbon allowance. That is
why people are right to be alarmed at the role of aviation, not because
of what it is emitting now, but because of its potential to dominate
the carbon economy landscape by 2050. If we end up going for an 80 per
cent. reduction target under current growth rates, aviation could
account for more than 50 per cent. of the UK’s total annual
carbon budget by 2050. To say that that would put extreme pressure on
other sectors of our economy to meet our budget
targets would be a massive understatement, even
before we begin to consider the additional impact of the multiplier
effect of releasing heat-trapping gases at high
altitudes. In
its 1999 report, “Aviation and the Global Atmosphere”,
the intergovernmental panel on climate change put the multiplier effect
at two to four times the actual emission because of the effect of being
emitted at high altitude. If that is taken into account, aviation
emissions account for well over the total of the UK’s allowance
by 2050, assuming a reduction target of 80 per cent. That paints a
dramatic and horrifying picture, but it shows the key role that solving
the problem would have in achieving a reduction in our national carbon
emissions. I believe that we can ultimately solve the
problem. As
the Minister has said, emissions from shipping are trickier for two
main reasons. First, shipping emissions are far more difficult to
calculate, primarily because aeroplanes, by and large, carry fuel for
only one trip at a time to keep their weight to a minimum, but ships
are not constrained in that way and often refuel every few weeks.
Furthermore, ships can refuel in many parts of the world, few of which
have a proper carbon accounting mechanism. The second reason why
shipping is more problematic to calculate is that while it is still a
significant polluter, it is by far the most carbon-efficient method of
international freight transport. The comparative figures that I have
seen show that sea freight emits between 30 to 90 g of
CO2 per tonne of freight per kilometre. Road freight, on the
other hand, emits between 130 to 190 g per tonne per
kilometre.
While
shipping must internalise its carbon pollution costs, we must ensure
that we do not, through well meaning but poorly designed legislation
with unintended consequences, offer a perverse incentive to more
carbon-intensive modes of transport, such as road freight, over the
more efficient movement of goods by sea. For example, if shipping
becomes heavily regulated inappropriately, there might be an incentive
to have ships dock at Rotterdam or, worse, Istanbul, and then drive
across the continent and into this country via the channel tunnel. That
was the reasoning behind the Conservative amendments in the other place
that changed aviation and shipping to the broader term,
“international trade and transport”. We want further to
enhance the existing clause through the addition of amendment No. 82,
which would require the assessment of emissions to take into account
all stages of the goods’ journey to the UK from their point of
origin. By
maintaining trade and transport as it is, and by adding amendment No.
82, we wish to prevent the system of measurement being skewed in favour
of more carbon-intensive methods of transport, which could happen if
shipping and aviation were included without reference to other modes of
transportation. Let me give some practical examples. If oranges
exported from Spain to the UK were sent over on lorries, only the short
leg of the journey by ferry would be included in the UK’s carbon
allowance. If they were sent by sea, the whole journey would be
counted, making the carbon cost much more expensive. We would therefore
create a significant incentive for the use of road freight over sea
freight, despite its being many times more carbon intensive. If
national emissions trading schemes exist in the transit states, then
the disincentive to use road freight should be strong
enough.
| 
