Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
300-319)
JOAN RUDDOCK
MP, MR PHILLIP
ANDREWS, JIM
FITZPATRICK MP, MR
GODFREY SOUTER
AND MR
SIMON COCKBURN
25 NOVEMBER 2008
Q300 Joan Walley: The point that
the Tyndall Centre made to us was that taking the current methods
of measuring the UK's share of international aviation and shipping
into account UK CO2 emissions have gone up since 1990.
Joan Ruddock: I have not had notice
of that question and I cannot check the facts.[7]
My instinct is to say that they are probably right but I am not
in the position and I do not have the figures before me and so
I cannot say definitively, but I think just on a commonsense basis
if there had been, as we know there has been, an increase in emissions
from those sectors then obviously that means that there has been
an increase. I just think for the record, however, it would be
very important to stress that first of all we had no obligation
to include these and no obligation at all in terms of meeting
our Kyoto commitments and the Kyoto commitments on the basis of
the greenhouse gases basket has been exceeded by this country
and we will nearly have doubled our agreed Kyoto commitment reduction
in greenhouse gases. I think that is very important to say because
we are dealing here with something that has no international agreement
behind it, nor indeed does it have any domestic agreement; so
in a sense it is a debating point.
Q301 Chairman: It is a bit more than
a debating point. Of course we accept that there was no obligation
on Britain to achieve reductions which included aviation and shipping—of
course that is factually correct. But it is not a debating point
because the science does not recognise what is covered by Kyoto
and what is not, but the fact is that there are emissions from
aviation and shipping which are contributing to the increased
concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is
what is going to cause the risk that we will have a temperature
rise of more than 2o C. So it is not a debating point. I think
the important thing here is to accept—and it would be very
helpful if you could write and confirm the position because obviously
you did not know we were going to ask this question—that
actually although it is perfectly true in terms of the Kyoto targets
that Britain has achieved—and there has been a reduction,
excellent, that is good, better than most countries have done—but
in terms of the future problem, since we now accept that there
is going to have to be a global reduction of about 50% in 2050
that even Britain, one of the leaders in making progress, if you
include aviation and shipping, which in due course we will do,
it has not actually achieved a reduction. It is quite an important.
It helps people to understand the urgency of the challenge that
is in the future. This is not a point against the government at
all, it is simply recognising the science and trying to educate
the public that although it is good we are ahead of most countries
that even here actually, if you take all the emission sources
into account, we have probably had a rise. If you could just write
and confirm that that would be quite helpful.
Joan Ruddock: Because I clearly
do not have the figures before me what I am not in a position
to know for certain is whether overall the CO2 emissions have
gone up. It may be that they have not gone down by as much if
you include those figures, but whether overall they will have
gone up is a moot point and that is why, in a sense, I say that
it is a debating point because neither of us are in a position,
as I understand it, to know what the figures are and clearly we
can get figures to the Committee but they would only be based,
of course, on taking emissions from bunker fuels and we know that
that is an inadequate measure, so even then I would reiterate
that I think it might still be a debating point. Let me just say
this. We are only responsible for 2% of the world's emissions—only
2% and of that 2% even at the present time, notwithstanding that
they are growing fast, aviation and shipping account for a small
percentage of that 2% and that is why I think we need to focus
always on how to reach a global agreement. What we can do ourselves,
although it is incredibly important in terms of setting an example
at the end of the day it is not going to solve the world's problems
and not going to allow us to keep within 2o.
Q302 Chairman: I think it would be
helpful if you could address specifically the Tyndall Centre evidence
that we have received because they are making a very clear statement.
Joan Ruddock: I have indicated
that I will.
Chairman: I just think on the last part
of your answer, of course we are only responsible for a very small
fraction but nevertheless some of us on this Committee—I
certainly—feel very strongly that it is not just the moral
obligation to try and take a lead because we have a better understanding
of this issue than most people, but I also think that there is
a huge economic and commercial advantage if Britain is one of
the first countries to de-carbonise its infrastructure and that
includes its transport infrastructure.
Q303 Mr Caton: Continuing on the
Climate Change Act the government is already incorporating emissions
from UK domestic shipping in the carbon budget set up under the
Climate Change Act. From the reply, Minister, you gave to Mr Horwood,
presumably those are going to be measured on fuel sales from UK
bunkers. You acknowledged very frankly that that is flawed certainly
as far as international shipping is concerned. Are the problems
also with domestic shipping?
Joan Ruddock: Yes, we think there
is some evidence that there is a period—and I do not have
the dates in my head but I know there was a period in which measuring
from bunker fuels we seemed to be on a plateau but actually we
know that trade was growing. So there is an issue about the accuracy
of measuring solely from bunker fuels because obviously ships
can take their fuel elsewhere. But that is much less so of course
when you are dealing with domestic, so in terms of the domestic
accounting I imagine that is fairly accurate and that the issue
is much more serious and that is why we do not favour this method
if we try to go beyond our own coastline effectively.[8]
Q304 Dr Turner: Joan, you have already
alluded to an almost freestanding international sectoral answer
to emissions trading within the shipping sector, but of course
the EU is working on incorporating shipping into the ETS. Do you
see any compatibility there?
Joan Ruddock: Yes.
Q305 Dr Turner: And how is government
addressing that?
Joan Ruddock: Our goal, which
I have to keep stressing, is the global agreement and we are constantly
working towards that. So effectively we are only saying that we
would incorporate shipping into the EU ETS as a second order measure.
It would be much preferable if we could—
Q306 Dr Turner: You mean taking it
into account?
Joan Ruddock: No. If we cannot
get a global agreement—but only if we cannot get a global
agreement—should we actually adopt shipping as part of the
EU ETS, but if we do have to go down that road we want to go down
that road, we have a political will to go down that road because
we then see that we could use that as a building block to get
a global agreement and so that is the route that we would take.
But it is very obviously preferable to get a global agreement—there
cannot be any question about that because whatever methodology
we would use for the EU it is still limited to the EU.
Q307 Dr Turner: What is the Commission's
approach to this and how is the government interacting with the
Commission in trying to get a common approach?
Mr Andrews: This is probably one
for the officials. As you heard from your visit to Brussels they
are looking at a range of options, obviously for the sake of completeness.
We suspect from our conversation with them that they will end
up in a similar place to us, that it is hard to see how alternatives
to cap-and-trade really do deliver real reductions. It also makes
the sector have compatibility with other sectors, so you can have
abatement at lowest cost across the economy by the fact that the
two sectors can trade with each other. We are closely in contact
with the Commission all the time and in due course there will
be a consultation on this and will engage with that process again.
Q308 Dr Turner: A concern has been
raised that if we succeed in getting shipping into the ETS that
it could just have perverse consequences in terms of shippers
unloading cargos in distant ports and then trucking them, which
would clearly be entirely counterproductive in terms of emissions.
What could be done to prevent any such unfortunate consequences?
Jim Fitzpatrick: We do have our
eye on that, however it is not our expectation that the scheme
would be so expensive as to either create the perverse response
as to allow more trucks to be rolling into Europe or alternatively
to create feeder ports in North Africa to replace European ports.
There is concern and it is one which has been raised and it is
one of which everyone is aware, but given that which we have been
discussing, the lack of detail in respect of how the EU ETS would
work in respect of shipping, there is an expectation notwithstanding
the lack of that detail that the scheme would not be so expensive
as to create that perversity.
Q309 Mr Chaytor: I want to ask about
the low Carbon Transport Innovation Strategy. First of all, when
is it likely to be published?
Jim Fitzpatrick: Certainly we
completed the study in March 2007. The document—I was looking
for confirmation, which I have just had—has already been
published but I did not want to say that without being a position
of greater confidence than I was. The research produced an overview
report into the future technological options for low carbon commercial
shipping and its long-term economic viability. Following the publication
of Towards a Sustainable Transport System last year and the inclusion
of domestic shipping emissions into the UK's carbon budgets and
targets we are using that study and others to examine potential
policy options for carbon emissions and abatement in domestic
shipping, and we will supply the Committee with a copy of the
report if you have not already had one, Chairman.
Q310 Mr Chaytor: So what priority
is your department given to this, and accepting Joan's point about
the UK has a responsibility for 2% of emissions, aviation and
shipping are a miniscule proportion of that at the moment. But
what priority are you going to attach to intervening directly
to attempt to influence the reduction of emissions in UK shipping?
Jim Fitzpatrick: It is an ongoing
priority; we have regular meetings with shipping companies, owners,
manufacturers to discuss the technology and the initiatives and
the different elements which are available. So in terms of how
I could categorise its prioritisation within departmental arrangements
would be difficult in that it is a continuous dialogue which is
ongoing.
Q311 Mr Chaytor: Could you identify
a particular budget line that is attached to the objective of
reducing emissions in UK shipping?
Mr Souter: It is not so much being
taken forward domestically, although there is what the Minister
has said in terms of discussions with ship owners. But it is also
the impact on the international negotiations because one of the
areas where we are expecting short to medium term progress in
the IMO is in technical and operational measures. There is far
less opposition from the non-Annex-I countries to technical and
operational measures because they do not have the climate change
label attached to them. So there is a very real likelihood that
by autumn of 2009 we will have agreement in the IMO on a whole
range of technical and operational measures, including management
measures like slow steaming, but also including measures like
design of ships for better hydrodynamic or better aerodynamic
capabilities and design of engines to be more efficient. So that
is the area where the study is helping us.
Q312 Mr Chaytor: Does the department
see any opportunity for the United Kingdom as a whole in developing
the new technologies in the design of ships or the design of engines?
Is this an opportunity for British engineering, for example? Is
the department in discussion with DIUS about how our innovation
and science projects could be allocated to promote these new technologies?
Jim Fitzpatrick: Certainly it
is standard government policy to outline and to promote the opportunities
that climate change and climate change industries have for the
UK to encourage manufacturing, to encourage design engineering
and scientific advance. I could not tell you exactly how much
the scientific research budget is dedicated to marine engineering
and technology but I am sure that we could get those figures for
you if you wanted.[9]
Q313 Mr Chaytor: I think it would be
interesting to see again is there a budget line specifically for
low carbon marine technology, if not in your department then in
DIUS. Some witnesses have talked about the potential for improving
the efficiency of the operations in individual ports. Is this
again something that your Low Carbon Transport Innovation Strategy
encompasses and is this again something to which government would
give priority, given that the overwhelming majority of British
ports are privately owned? Do you have the levers at your disposal
to put this into practice at individual ports?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I think the levers
are not there in that we could not force ports into a situation,
but the generic term used, as I understand it, curiously called
"cold ironing", which had to be explained to me because
it does not suggest anything. Sometimes terms that you come across
you think "I know what that might mean" but cold ironing
did not make any sense to me at all. The provision of electricity
from land-side off on to ships is being looked at. However, the
assessment suggests that there is perhaps not really a huge saving
to be made. Secondly, one of the major obstacles is the different
electrical standards that different countries manufacturer to,
so to have compatibility with the electricity which is provided
from land-side to ships is not as straightforward as it is for
other sectors. There is nothing to prevent ports at the moment
offering electricity and providing that and, as I understand it,
a few do; but it is not regarded, even in the large cargo terminals
where ferries would spend longer than the smaller ports, as an
area where there is likely to be large savings to be made in respect
of omissions.
Q314 Mr Chaytor: Did you discover
why it is called cold ironing?
Jim Fitzpatrick: No!
Q315 Mr Chaytor: Maybe you could
send a note to the Committee explaining that as well![10]
Leaving aside the cold ironing, on the question of variable port
dues, for example, there is some discussion in aviation about
differential landing charges according to the emissions rating
of the aircraft; is this something that is worth exploring or
has there been some discussion about this? Again, what would the
legislative requirements be for government to impose a scheme
of variable port dues on individual ports?
Jim Fitzpatrick: Mr Chaytor, the
port dues is an area that we are examining. We are not at a conclusion
yet but as you have suggested there are many parallels between
aviation and shipping in terms of this whole area, and given that
there are varying differentials in terms of airport charges then
port charge variations is something which is also being examined.
Mr Andrews: Can I just add that
there of course we have very good data on Nox production from
aircraft engines from two or three manufacturers; we have lots
of science work. Every ship is different, there is not an index
yet which is one of the issues about developing a standard index
in the IMO and then you can apply measures to those. That is why
it is again a very different situation to aviation.
Q316 Chairman: Can I just refer to
the Department for Transport's Ports Policy Review Interim Report
in the light of the answer a couple of answers ago, which says:
"In particular, we would like to see ports work harder to
reduce emissions from ships while alongside by the provision,
where feasible, of shore-side fixed electrical power supplies
to replace ships' generators while in port (a practice known as
`cold ironing'). This can substantially reduce emissions. We are
actively supporting the development of an international standard
for shore connection ... " In the light of what you have
just said have you studied your own Ports Policy Review Interim
Report?
Jim Fitzpatrick: We have, but
as I said to a certain extent, maybe based on the examination,
this is saying that the jury is still out on the quantification
of savings that can be made through cold ironing, and the latest
information we have suggests that it would not be substantial
but obviously that does contradict the Ports Policy Review document
that we published some little time ago.
Q317 Mr Caton: The other thing that
cold ironing presumably would help with is air quality at docks
and when we have just received a report saying that 60,000 people
die as a result of pollution from the maritime industry I would
suggest that the government's policy should be such that we should
be encouraging shifting to cold ironing. What you actually say
is that the government's policy to expect major ports to formulate
plans for the provision of cold ironing facilities once an international
for shore connection has been agreed. When do you think that agreement
is going to be reached and how is the government seeking to speed
progress towards it?
Jim Fitzpatrick: As I said, Mr
Caton, we are examining the main question as it stands at the
moment, whether it is a cost effective measure against local pollution
even at the ports where there are significant berthing times for
some of the larger ships. We do think that more work is needed
on the engineering stands as to the economic and environmental
effects before definitive conclusions can be reached. I am not
quite clear about the timeframe for that work but I can write
to the Committee and let them know how far we have progressed
that research.[11]
Q318 Mr Caton: From the sound of it we
are a long way away from mandating ports to introduce cold ironing?
Jim Fitzpatrick: We are certainly
not in the position at the moment to mandate ports, no.
Q319 Joan Walley: Can I finally turn
to air quality and non-CO2 contributions to global warming and
ask about the MARPOL VI convention that was agreed. Really just
to ask how effective do you think it will be in improving air
quality in UK ports and really what your assessment is of the
shipping industry's ability to meet these new targets and these
new standards?
Jim Fitzpatrick: We are very pleased
with the outcome of the negotiations at the IMO to amend the MARPOL
Annex VI and the UK did play an important role there. The amendments
have the potential to significantly improve air quality at sea
and on land with knock-on benefits naturally for human health.
This will be done naturally over time with a reduction to the
permitted maximum sulphur content in marine fuel and with even
stricter limits in the emission control areas of which there are
currently two—the North Sea and the Baltic. Road transport
fuel is already subject to strict contents and it is important
from our point of view that ships are also subject to stringent
regulations to reduce their environmental impact also. So as well
as amendments to MARPOL Annex VI changes to the NOx technical
code have also been agreed, which will improve the engine standards
for ships so that fewer nitrogen oxides will be produced also.
7 See Ev 84 Back
8
See Ev 84 Back
9
See Ev 84 Back
10
See Ev 84 Back
11
See Ev 84 Back
| 
