Examination of Witnesses (Questions 44
- 59)
MONDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2008
RT HON
LORD DRAYSON,
JOAN RUDDOCK
AND PROFESSOR
BOB WATSON
Chairman: Welcome to our second panel
for the afternoon in the IUSS Sub-Committee's work on geo-engineering.
Welcome very much indeed, Joan Ruddock MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State at the new Department of DECC, Professor Bob Watson,
the Chief Scientific Adviser at Defra, and Lord Drayson, the Minister
of State for Science and Innovation. Welcome to all of you and
thank you very much indeed for joining us today. I am going to
immediately start by asking Ian Gibson to begin the session.
Q44 Dr Gibson: The Tyndall Centre,
which I am sure you have heard often, has suggested that the Government
has been in a state of, in their words, "blissful ignorance"
when it comes to geo-engineering. Do you agree with that?
Professor Watson: No!
Q45 Dr Gibson: Why not?
Professor Watson: The issues of
geo-engineering have been around for a long while. As the previous
panel said, iron fertilization has been discussed on and off for
at least 20 years. The volcanoes give us a natural experiment
in putting aerosols into the stratosphere, so we know effectively
what the implications of stratospheric aerosols can be. So I think
on the issue of geo-engineering, certainly when I chaired IPCC
for the 2001 report we were talking about it from 1997 through
to 2001, so I am not at all convinced we are in a state of blissful
ignorance.
Q46 Dr Gibson: Right, but what are
you doing to fathom the geo-engineering research which comes along?
How are you keeping in touch with it in your busy life?
Professor Watson: I think it is
a question of whether that is the highest priority at the moment,
given scarce resources versus actually putting investment into
current technologies and pre-commercial technologies such as carbon
capture and storage, IGCC, future generation biofuels. So I would
argue at the moment that one of the key issues, which we are doing,
is looking to see what the implications through theoretical modelling
would be of adding tropospherical aerosols, stratospherical aerosols,
particles in outer space, et cetera. So at the moment Defra is
clearly not putting any funding into any of the engineering aspects
but we have clearly been, as the paper we submitted to you shows,
looking to see what the current thinking is of the academic community,
what the potential implications are, positive and negative, of
different approaches.
Q47 Dr Gibson: Have we got a hope
in hell with geo-engineering, do you think, giving us something
interesting? Do you believe that at this stage?
Professor Watson: I think it is
still worth doing some exploratory theoretical thinking. I think
the issue of the artificial trees has positive elements. I do
not see that that has negative implications, although you still
have to store the carbon dioxide afterwards, so there are some
issues of storage. If we go to some of the other areas, on paper
there are potential offsets, whether it is tropospheric or stratospheric
aerosols, but I would argue the number one priority at the moment
is to actually implement a low carbon economy in both the production
and use of energy and that would be the number one priority. For
example, carbon capture and storage is a crucial technology on
which at the moment the rhetoric is way ahead in the world at
large of actual implementation. While there is no single bullet
technology to move to a low carbon economy, without carbon capture
and storage we will never achieve a low carbon economy if the
US, India and China continue to use their fossil fuels, given
they are so cheap, to produce electricity.
Q48 Chairman: So why are we procrastinating?
Why did we fail to deliver on the Peterhead project? This is probably
to Lord Drayson rather than yourself, but you must have a view?
Professor Watson: The European
Union is talking seriously about trying to do a dozen or so carbon
capture and storage pilot studies, which I believe is what we
need. I would argue we need somewhere between 10 and 20 pilot
studies, both pre and post-combustion, in different types of storage
facilities. So I think now is the time to move aggressively forward.
It needs international cooperation. I would argue it goes even
beyond the EU, it should bring in the US and Japan, but clearly
this is something which I think has to be moved quickly. I would
call it an Apollo-type programme where you do not do one, learn
from it, do a second, learn from it and do a third. We need to
go in parallel and try multiple approaches simultaneously.
Lord Drayson: I think that is
a very fair comparison and I think it nicely puts into context
the real difference in the risk and benefit balance of something
such as carbon captured storage against projects which we would
consider under geo-engineering. I would say in the case of carbon
capture and storage you have got an absolutely pressing need you
have got a certain amount of time for that technology to be delivered.
In concert with the changes which need to take place in terms
of the switch at coal-fired power stations you have also got really
quite a significant commercial opportunity. If the UK could convert
successful research into this area into a commercially successful
sector, it would have global export potential, particularly within
China because of the number of coal and oil-fired power stations.
If you compare that with geo-engineering, where some of the projects
which are being postulated provide real questions of the downside
risk, for example upsetting the radiation balance of the planet,
incredible estimates of costs, for example, in terms of the reflective
shields, as the Professor says, therefore the right thing to be
doing is to be spending small to moderate amounts of money in
the geo-engineering field, concentrating on the use of computer
models, looking in a focused way at projects which have a sort
of greater sense of feasibility, for example the artificial trees
project, but at the same time really looking harder at how we
can accelerate projects which have a real need now in addressing
the challenge of climate change, and I think the example of carbon
capture and storage is absolutely fair.
Q49 Dr Gibson: What is the role of
DIUS in this then?
Lord Drayson: DIUS's role is to
make sure that there is a clear link-up between the decisions
which are taken under the Haldane Principle by the research councils
identifying which projects are supported within research within
a strategic focus set by the Government in terms of addressing
key challenges which our society faces, an example of that being
climate change, clearly, and to make sure that the link-up between
the strategic objective at the top and the research input which
is being taken at the very early stage gets pulled through into
the creation, where we can, through the use of government procurement,
through the use of the support for innovative new hi-tech industry,
such that as we do the research to find solutions to these problems
it does lead, we would hope, to the development of a strong sector
around that. I think we really need to be, as we are, putting
a lot of effort through the Technology Strategy Board to make
sure there is think linkage between government policy, research
input and the creation of next generation industry.
Joan Ruddock: Chairman, could
I just add something to what has been said? First of all, in relation
to Dr Gibson's first question about whether we were completely
unaware—which is not his own criticism, I know, he was reporting
a criticism, but of course there was an internal paper produced
by what was then Defra, which was the result of a lot of discussions
which had taken place between the chief scientist and UK experts
on the very issue of geo-engineering and it was looking at options
for mitigating climate change, so very obviously we have, as a
department (Defra and now DECC), taken an interest in this subject
and indeed Professor Watson has been a leading light in that.
There is a difference between taking an interest in a subject
and then concluding that this interest leads you into direct action
within the Department. The interest is there, the understanding
is there and we are not in any sense unaware, but we have concluded
things which do not lead us to a great deal of direct activity,
and you may want to come on to that.
Q50 Chairman: We just wanted to ask
you that very specific question because we are a little confused
now as to where your responsibilities and the new Department for
Energy and Climate Change start and where Lord Drayson's responsibilities
in DIUS finish, because he has quite rightly claimed in terms
of climate change that there is a major responsibility for DIUS.
What is it within this particular field of geo-engineering that
you are going to deliver? Where do you see your responsibilities?
Joan Ruddock: The question is,
are we going to deliver anything? We would have to be convinced
that geo-engineering offered us a major lever to tackle and to
mitigate greenhouse gases.
Q51 Chairman: Can I just start with
the question which Professor Watson left us with, this vision
of carbon sequestration? He made a very, very powerful case, I
think, about European cooperation. He included Japan and the United
States in that and I think we, as a Committee, particularly those
of us who did an inquiry into this for a number of years, would
totally agree with him. Do you regard carbon sequestration as
geo-engineering, in which case why are you not fully supporting
that?
Joan Ruddock: Let us make it absolutely
clear that we believe carbon capture and storage is going to be
a major way forward in terms of mitigating CO2 emissions, so that
is very, very clear. That has been the position of Defra and BERR,
DECC now, for a very considerable period of time.
Q52 Chairman: Is that geo-engineering?
Professor Watson: I would argue
no.
Q53 Chairman: I want to know what
the Minister feels within her Department. You are not the Chief
Scientific Adviser for DECC yet, are you? Or are you?
Joan Ruddock: But he will do!
Q54 Chairman: He will do? I see.
This is moonlighting!
Joan Ruddock: I think whether
somebody such as Professor Watson would advise us to consider
it geo-engineering or not is not a central issue. I think we are
already committed to this concept. We believe that it is the way
forward. We understand that China and India in particular, but
many other countries as well, will continue burning fossil fuels
for decades to come and if they are to do that we have to find
some way of capturing those emissions and sequestrating those
emissions. So that is absolutely clear, that we believe this is
a way forward and we have cooperated in a project with China,
we are cooperating with one of the leading lights within the EU
and keeping it as part of the 2020 package, and we also of course
have our own competition which we are still pursuing.
Q55 Chairman: Can we just put to
one side carbon capture and storage? The rest of it you are actually
disregarding? You say that that is not of any significance to
your Department?
Joan Ruddock: No, I am not saying
it is of no significance to the Department. I said it was not
leading to immediate action.
Q56 Chairman: And you are not going
to do anything about it?
Joan Ruddock: We will have, at
the very least, a watching brief. Also, there is work which is
going on with the Hadley Centre. There is work which is worth
doing, we believe, which is at the level of desk studies, at the
level of modelling, and we are more than happy to contribute to
that and indeed if there were other partners who seek to go forward
then we will be more than prepared to consider whether we should
partner with them, but as for the Department, let us make it absolutely
clear there are no plans for us to fund research in this field.
Chairman: That is absolutely clear.
Q57 Dr Gibson: Bob Watson, can I
ask you, how would you get your advice, what is crap and what
is good in this field and what is going somewhere and what is
not? How does that come to you?
Professor Watson: Basically the
same way as when I chaired the IPCC, and that is bringing together
a broad range of experts to assess both theoretically what is
possible and the experiments which have already been performed—and
there has been a significant number of experiments on iron fertilization.
As I have already said, nature itself almost does the experiment,
in some respects, partially for us on stratospheric aerosols,
so I would bring experts together, some of whom are very positive
on some of these approaches, some who are sceptical, and actually
access the evidence, just like we did at IPCC. What we did on
our short desk study paper was that a couple of consultants put
it together, but then we sent it probably to about 40 or 50 people
to peer review it. As we know, the Royal Society is looking at
this particular issue and it would not be surprising to me if
the National Academy of Sciences in the US also looked at it,
but what would be, in my opinion, quite worthwhile would indeed
be a more in depth analysis by the IPCC or a combination of all
the major academies of the world, the US with, I would say, the
UK, also with China, India and Brazil. So it would indeed be an
assessment which had a process which had buy-in from the international
science community and the international policy community.
Q58 Dr Gibson: I would like to ask
all of you a question about the initiatives which are going on
in this field. Have you seen new initiatives that are necessary
to drive it faster or get new ideas in there by combining people
together, international cooperation, things like that, new ideas
coming through, or are you just going to let it tick over?
Lord Drayson: I think the worldwide
recognition of the accelerating effects of climate change are
leading to a really quite significant development in the whole
area of interest of development of the science in this field.
I think it is important for us, therefore, in the role of DIUS,
with responsibility for the prioritisation of research, to make
sure that we continue to invest, although in a modest way, in
blue skies research even for the most challenging areas of climate
change. Some of the projects which are being postulated under
geo-engineering do strike one as in the realms of science fiction
with enormous budgets associated with them, the idea of massive
shields to reflect the sun's light. However, with the development
of computer models, modelling such projects, looking at the possible
effects of aerosols, these are things which it is right for us
to fund small amounts of money because groups, as you say, Dr
Gibson, are developing an interest in this area and it may be
that something comes out of this which may be of use. Also, scientists
are postulating that there may be some really quite significantly
nasty effects which come out of the effects of climate change
which can create positive feedback, accelerating the rate of climate
change, for example the release of methane from the melting ice,
which would suggest that the value of an emergency-type solution
in extremis and our views about the relative risk/benefit of such
a technology may change in the future. Therefore, I think the
balance we are striking at the moment is the right balance. We
need to be moderate, keeping a careful eye on this area. It is
an area which is developing and something may come out of this,
but we must not allow the priority which needs to be taken on
the urgent implementation of energy saving or action against climate
change, apart from geo-engineering, to be detracted from.
Q59 Dr Gibson: International development.
Bob Watson has mentioned the United States academies, and so on.
Are there joint papers in this field from different countries?
Is the work jointly funded, or is this very much a British effort?
Lord Drayson: This, in common
with most areas of science, is an area of international collaboration.
|
