Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-67)
PROFESSOR JOHN
BEDDINGTON AND
PROFESSOR ROBERT
WATSON
26 NOVEMBER 2008
Q60 Joan Walley: On this point and
on the Foresight report you mentioned, I think it would be helpful
for the Committee to know how the scientific advice squares with
Government policy in respect of the long-term planning which has
taken place, particularly with PFI products and projects which
are, if you like, sewn up into the medium and long-term and already
underway where actually you cannot reverse the non-zero carbon
trajectory they are already on. I think we would be interested
in your comments on that.
Professor Beddington: In terms
of the Foresight report, the way it works is that this is completely
independent of Government. We have a stakeholder group, which
is usually chaired by a minister, and the CLG took the chair.
With the creation of DECC they were obviously the appropriate
stakeholders. The report therefore comes in. I direct the Foresight
programme but I have no editorial control, so this is a truly
independent report, and Government has an opportunity to respond
to it. As you are aware, I have only been in the job since January,
but the way in which Government has responded to a previous report
on obesity seemed to me to be a good example of the way this Foresight
process has worked. The Government responded rather quickly. It
indicated a series of actions which needed to be done. The Department
of Health has given us the main minister responsible and they
have addressed the obesity issue. It is outside the terms of reference
of this Committee, but that is a good example. What I have done
within the Foresight Group is I have part of that team charged
with follow-up, to actually make certain that this is not a report
which just sits on somebody's shelf and is ignored. They are going
in and talking to the key stakeholders, both in Government and
outside Government, trying to take that forward and part of that
challenge works. It is actually working. A couple of years ago
the Foresight team reported on the flooding and you know that
there was a very good report, excellent, brought about by Government
reaction, but it actually has had ramifications subsequently.
I was in Washington in September and the Foresight team, who were
involved with the report on flooding, were working with the American
Army Corps of Engineers, who have the main responsibility in the
USA for dealing with flooding issues. So I take very seriously
that this is just not going to sit on a shelf, it has got to be
followed up.
Q61 Joan Walley: My point is that
when we are dealing with the Treasury and when we are dealing
with private finance initiatives there are decisions which are
being made now and will be made in the next 18 months which will
put us on that trajectory and how will use of the Foresight programme
reverse the policymaking towards a carbon neutral trajectory?
Do you think it should?
Professor Beddington: Yes. Let
me say that one of the issues we are raising in this report—and
it will not just be the report, I chose to highlight that but
one has concern about the trajectories of all significant building
projects, whether that responsibility lies with the Treasury or
with CLG or with the department concerned, and one would have
to look at it. But it is a serious point you made and Bob will
refer to our Foresight team to see whether they look at it.
Joan Walley: Thank you.
Q62 Mr Chaytor: Professor Beddington,
your predecessor described CCS as "the only hope for mankind"!
Do you share that view completely and what is your best estimate
of the earliest date at which CCS could be routinely fitted to
new coal-fired power stations?
Professor Beddington: On "the
only hope for mankind" I am not so sure I would agree exactly
with that, but I think in the context that that statement was
made I think it is important. It is clearly enormously important
to address coal as an issue. There is no doubt about it. The large
reserves of coal which are available in the world and the energy
security of particular countries which are dependent upon that
are going to mean that it is going to be used and it is going
to be used substantially. I find it hard to imagine that it will
not be used and therefore carbon capture and storage has got to
be one of the ways we deal with it. So it is enormously important.
Whether it is "the only hope for mankind," I would possibly
be agnostic about that. There is always prayer and things like
that. To go to your specific question, the sort of information
which I am getting is that there is a hope that perhaps we would
have something really working and really working successfully
by 2015, but in the sense that there are obviously uncertainties
I would qualify around that. This is getting enormous attention
at an international level. You are perhaps aware that the Australian
Government is setting up an international institute to deal entirely
with carbon capture and storage. They have put an initial ceiling
into it of 100 million Australian dollars. I do not know what
that is at the moment, I am afraid, but it is, in sterling, quite
a lot.
Q63 Mr Chaytor: It is less than it
was!
Professor Beddington: That is
going to be an international effort and the Australian Government
is very keen to lead on that. Obviously Australia has very substantial
coal reserves. The ETI which I referred to earlier is looking
at CCS as an issue, but there are some complicated issues associated
with it. The first one is infrastructure. How do you move liquefied
carbon out into a storage and how will it work? That will be very,
very site-specific, but I think it is not impossible that we can
see that. So 2015 is my best guess.
Q64 Mr Chaytor: Would your advice
be that Kingsnorth should be approved without CCS being fitted?
Professor Beddington: The role
I see of scientific adviser is to say, "If you do that, these
are going to be the extra emissions. If you do that, this will
be the saving." I do not know if that is appropriate, whether
I am talking about whether you cull badgers or whether you say
whether or not a coal-fired plant is really the role of another
adviser, that I should say what the implications are one way or
the other.
Professor Watson: I think the
way I would phrase it is that without CCS we cannot achieve any
of the lower targets for CO2 in the atmosphere. There would be
no hope of 450. I doubt there would be a hope of 550. I have not
done the calculations. All the calculations I have seen are that
even by 2050 most projections would suggest that 50% or more of
all the electricity produced will still be produced using coal.
If that is true—and that is to say that nuclear and renewables
will only penetrate the marketplace up to 50% of the global electricity
production—carbon capture and storage becomes an absolute
essential technique along with other techniques to go to low carbon
production. So, I would call it a silver bullet. What we clearly
need—and the EU has talked about 12 pilots—I think
it is absolutely critical that the EU puts those 12 pilots in
place as soon as possible. I think we need to look at both pre-combustion
and post-combustion, because the question is, can you retro-fit
existing power plants. Hopefully we can go post-combustion predominantly
with IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle). We have to
look at a range of storage approaches from depleted oil wells,
gas wells, and saline aquifers, so I would say an absolutely critical
high priority would be to try and do these pilots as soon as possible
in a variety of ways.
Q65 Mr Chaytor: I just have one more
question on this. Professor Hansen gave some very interesting
evidence, that in a sense focusing on targets and trajectories
was unhelpful in one way, if you look at the total amount of carbon
which is just buried in the ground and whether or not you should
allow that into the atmosphere, it refocuses you just on looking
at the sources rather than targets which might actually enable
you to do the wrong thing in the short-term. If clearly that pool
of carbon should not be allowed into the atmosphere, does it not
lead to a much clearer conclusion that actually building unabated
coal-fired power stations is insane and we should stop it?
Professor Beddington: Well, I
think societies will take their own views through the political
process and a number of societies feel it is important for their
economic development, the alleviation of poverty, to develop coal-fired
power stations. It is not for me to say whether that is right
or wrong. I can say, as Bob has indicated, that CCS technology
is absolutely essential if we are going to meet some of the key
targets to avoid irreversible climate change, but I do not think
it is appropriate to be saying that in some sort of absolute moral
sense it is incorrect to be using coal-fired power stations. I
do not think that is a scientific issue.
Q66 Mr Chaytor: No, unabated coal-fired
power stations, that is the point.
Professor Beddington: Yes, I understand.
Q67 Joan Walley: On that note, it
has been a marathon two-pronged session for us. Can I thank you
both very much indeed for coming along. You said at the outset
that you would perhaps be judged by whether or not there was any
applause, but can I just say that I think from the way in which
we have had the scientific evidence before the Committee today
it might well be that we might ask you to come back within the
twelve months for a return performance. Thank you very much indeed.
Professor Beddington: Thank you,
Ms Walley, and we will live without applause. I think that is
our role. Thank you for your time.
| 
