Examination of Witnesses (Questions 51-73)
JOAN RUDDOCK
MP, PROFESSOR DAVID
MACKAY
AND PROFESSOR
NICK PIDGEON
13 JANUARY 2010
Chairman: We welcome our third panel
in what has been a pretty hectic morning, looking at geoengineering
and the regulation of. We warmly welcome Joan Ruddock MP, the
Minister of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
We seem to be seeing a lot of each other at the moment, Joan,
we are both working on the Energy Bill. A warm welcome to Professor
David MacKay, the Chief Scientific Adviser at the Department for
Energy and Climate Change, we have not met you formally before,
but you are very welcome to our Committee, Professor MacKay. And
last but by no means least, representing RCUK, Research Councils
UK, Professor Nick Pidgeon. Welcome to you all. We are very tight
for time, we are finishing at 11.25, so if we could keep our answers
really quite tight, we would be very grateful.
Q51 Graham Stringer: What sort of urgency
does the Government give to research into geoengineering? I suppose,
so that we are all talking about the same thing, it might be useful
to have the Government's definition of what they understand to
be geoengineering.
Joan Ruddock: Thank you for the
question. Can I first of all apologise to the Committee for the
fact that I understand for some completely unknown reason, you
failed to receive, and it is undoubtedly our fault, we did not
succeed in delivering to you our written evidence. I understand
you now have it, but obviously you would have appreciated it much
sooner, and I apologise for that. I will answer your question
on urgency, and then I will ask David if he would like to define
the geoengineering which he knows that we understand, just in
case I fail to be precise in the technical terms. Is there an
urgency in this matter? Our view is there is not. We do not think
that at the moment, it is a priority for Government. The techniques
that are involved are ones which are far from being developed
to the point of viability at the moment. That is quite different
from saying one should not keep a watching brief, but we do not
think there is an urgency in terms of this particular dimension
to addressing climate change. What we do believe is utterly urgent
is to continue on the route which this Government has followed
so keenly of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this country,
of legislating to that effect, and of participating in the international
discussions about trying to arrive at a global deal, which goes
beyond the Copenhagen accord that we have just struck, so that
we can ensure that the world effort is designed to keep us within
no more than a two degree Celsius temperature rise. That is the
priority of these times, and that is where the Government is on
that matter.
Q52 Chairman: That is clear. Definition?
Professor MacKay: I think in DECC,
we recognise the same categories that the Royal Society use in
their report, we recognise the important distinction between carbon
dioxide removal and solar radiation management. I think we would
include in geoengineering some forms of activity that I think
would be viewed as innocuous and legal, such as someone growing
trees and putting them into a disused coalmine, that activity
would be essentially the reverse of our current coalmining activity,
and I think we would include that as an example of small scale
geoengineering activity. We would also include, I think, the growing
of biomass for co-firing in a power station that has carbon capture
in storage, we would include that as another example of a geoengineering
option that again I think would not be viewed as politically unacceptable.
Q53 Graham Stringer: Let me be clear,
so that I understand you are both saying the same thing, I understand
what Joan is saying, that you want to concentrate on reducing
carbon dioxide, but does not the Government's energy policy and
the security of supply depend on developing carbon capture technology,
as Ed Miliband said? If I understand what you are saying, Professor
MacKay, carbon capture is understood to be geoengineering but
it is not getting urgent treatment?
Professor MacKay: Yes, I am sorry
to have
Q54 Graham Stringer: That is what
I really want to understand.
Professor MacKay: I am sorry to
have complicated things. Clearly we do have a policy of developing
coal power stations with carbon capture and storage. If those
power stations were used to co-fire biomass, then that would cause
carbon dioxide reduction, so I was just wanting to give a complete
answer. There are some forms of geoengineering that clearly are
possible and also are perhaps not controversial
Q55 Graham Stringer: So what you
are really talking about that you are not putting research into
is solar radiation management; is that too simplistic an understanding?
Professor MacKay: I think the
Minister's answer was yes, the more controversial forms of geoengineering,
especially the forms of geoengineering that would have cross-boundary
impacts, are not a research priority. We do think they are important
concepts that we would like to understand better, and we are happy
to see the EPSRC, for example, investing in research into these
options, but it is not an urgent priority to have research into
these boundary crossing methods, which would include solar radiation
management, and also some other forms of geoengineering that do
carbon dioxide removal, for example, using the oceans; again,
those would have cross-boundary impacts. We view these, as Professor
King said earlier, as interesting options to keep on the table,
but they are very much options of last resort, and they are not
an urgent research priority right now.
Joan Ruddock: Can I just for the
record, Mr Willis, make it very, very clear that whereas, and
perhaps I was foolish to ask our Chief Scientific Adviser to give
the definition, because in its broadest sense, it does include
things that are already part of the Government programme. So in
its broadest sense, yes, carbon capture and storage, where it
is considered to be geoengineering, is part of the programme,
and is a matter of considerable urgency, and we are applying ourselves
to that, not least in the Energy Bill, which is currently going
through Parliament. So there is a distinction which I think we
need to be very clear about. The areas that we are not pursuing
except in a small way, which I am happy to explain to you if you
want that detail, are those of carbon dioxide removal of the kind
that is
Q56 Graham Stringer: I just wanted
to be clear we were talking about the same things really. Just
going back to your original answer, Joan, which I understand,
are you not open to the charge of being complacent? Copenhagen,
to put it mildly, was not a success, there is no guarantee that
the international community will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere. Do you not think we should be doing research
for a Plan B, if the international community fails, as it patently
did in Copenhagen?
Joan Ruddock: First of all, I
do not agree the international community failed in Copenhagen.
We did not succeed in getting certain things, we did not get as
great reductions as we sought to get, and we did not get a timetable
to move towards a legally binding treaty. But we have got, for
the first time ever, agreement between developed and developing
countries that they will make changes in their emission reductions;
those are to be codified, they are going to be delivered by the
end of this month, and we have got the agreement that we need
the world community to stay within the two degree centigrade rise
that all our activities in reduction should be aimed to keep us
within that framework, and to avoid dangerous climate change.
So I do not agree it was a failure, it is a good start, in my
view, and it has got to be built upon, and I think the danger
of adopting a Plan B, if that were even feasible, which I would
question, but the danger in adopting a Plan B is that you do not
apply yourself to Plan A, and the point of Plan A is it is all
entirely do-able. We know how to do these things. Every country
in the world knows how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With
a financing mechanism, it is possible to help the developing countries
that cannot otherwise afford it. If the argument is that we failed
to make an international agreement of the best substance on this
occasion, then how much more difficult might it be to create a
regulatory framework for geoengineering which has greater implications
for the whole world, in terms of possible risks and environmental
damage and concern? So if one is difficult, then I would suggest
the other might be more difficult, and that is why the priority
must be to enhance and move further beyond what we have with the
Copenhagen accord.
Q57 Graham Stringer: I understand
the priority, and I understand the arguments. I do not agree with
you about Copenhagen, I think it was a fiasco and a failure, but
we can disagree about that. Is not the danger with the policy
that it is all the Government's eggs or all our eggs in one basket,
and if that does fail, then there is not a Plan B? Should not
the Government be at least considering in a theoretical sense
what choices it would make within the sort of range of geoengineering
possibilities, that if things go wrong, and there has to be a
different approach, should not the Government be considering that?
Joan Ruddock: Well, it is not
to say that the Government should not consider, it is a question
of urgency, which is the question I was asked.
Q58 Graham Stringer: Well, if it
has considered, has it made a choice then?
Joan Ruddock: I said it is clearly
not in our view a matter of urgency, it is clear that we have
other and much greater priorities which we need to apply ourselves
to very vigorously, and we will. So what I am suggesting is that
we look to more of a watching brief, and that we do things at
a de minimis level. I think that very much accords, as I understand
it, with what the Royal Society is suggesting, and I think they
are a very good barometer in these matters. So, for example, we
do have some small expenditure on modelling techniques, for example,
and if the Committee has time, Mr Willis, I can just say what
research is being undertaken with Government money.
Q59 Chairman: I think that is in
your note to us, is it not?
Joan Ruddock: It is.
Chairman: No, we will leave that on the
record.
Q60 Graham Stringer: Just within
that spectrum, have the Government made any choices? Does it have
any priorities of which way it would want to go if Plan B was
necessary?
Joan Ruddock: I think it would
be entirely premature, because we are dealing with techniques
here which are not proven techniques, which have great risks,
which do not have a regulatory framework, and frankly, at the
moment, it would be, I think, quite ridiculous for Government
to be making any choices. But in terms of the major areas where
there is interest, injecting sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere,
for example, there is some current work which has Government funding;
there has been work on low level cloud development, which again
has some Government funding; and there has been another study
on the impact of oceanic iron fertilisation on cloud formation.
So on some of these areas, which are the ones that are particularly
being put forward by those who advocate these kind of solutions
as a Plan B, there is what I would call a watching brief taking
place, and some small amount of Government funding, and as you
continue to question, I can indicate further what the Government
is interested in doing.
Q61 Chairman: I think just before
we leave this particular angle, you have made it clear that you
do not want to spend a great deal of money in terms of putting
money into research.
Joan Ruddock: Correct.
Chairman: We will come on to RCUK in
a second to look at some of the work that is going on there, but
surely, Minister, you have an interest in supporting international
regulation, because if somebody in the United States or China
or Indonesia actually goes heavily into geoengineering in terms
of large scale experiments, that may well affect not only neighbouring
countries but, of course, work in the oceans, for instance, could
significantly impact ultimately on our ecosystem as well. So what
are we doing in terms of that global regulation?
Q62 Dr Iddon: Could I just add a
rider to that, Chairman? Sir David King in the previous panel
actually suggested that we ban temporarily solar radiation management
techniques, because once you put trillions of mirrors in the sky,
for example, they are irretrievable. Do you have an opinion on
that as well, Joan?
Joan Ruddock: I do indeed. I mean,
I think first of all we need to look at what might be being done
within any particular research group, and the extent to which
we seek to put any legal constraints on that. When it is a case
of theoretical work, when it is modelling work, obviously Government
does not seek to put any restraint on that. I think the Royal
Society has suggested there should be a code of conduct; for research
at a certain level, a code of conduct is probably entirely appropriate,
and we would very much support that. But as you have just indicated,
Mr Willis, and I did not hear Sir David King, but I can imagine
why he would have said what he said, there are very, very clear
implications for every country in the world, if any individual
country were to start on a course of interfering with our atmosphere
to that sort of degree. So it is absolutely the case that we need
to develop an international regulation that comes before any deployment.
Now there is an in between stage, which would be infield experimentation,
and we may need to be thinking about that, and what implications
that might have
Q63 Chairman: I think my question
is: have you done anything in terms of discussions with international
partners about the possible regulation of geoengineering? I am
not talking about domestic geoengineering, which from this Committee's
point of view would not be regarded as geoengineering, but have
you had any discussions, I mean, yes or no?
Joan Ruddock: There are continuing
discussions obviously between people in the department and people
who are engaged in this work. What we have been considering is
setting up within the department a working group that would actually
study this issue. Now we are considering that positively, but
we are also very aware of the position of the Royal Society, and
we will, I think, need to work closely with them, because they
are also setting up a series of working groups, and so (a) we
do not want to duplicate, (b) there is undoubtedly more expertise,
not to embarrass our Chief Scientific Adviser, but more expertise
in the whole of the Royal Society than we could possibly have
within DECC itself. So we are considering this matter, we are
aware that this is work that needs to be done, but we want to
proceed in the most useful way, and that is why we are continuing
to have discussions with the Royal Society. I do not know if David
might want to add something to that?
Chairman: Can I just bring in Tim Boswell?
Q64 Mr Boswell: I am grateful, Minister,
not least because I fear I have to go in a moment, but may I just
pick you up on what you have said? I understand why in a sense
you are devolving the scientific burden to the Royal Society,
but in terms of, as it were, the ministerial clout, you need to
be introducing some of your counterpart ministers, either in the
EU or climate change fora or whatever, to the importance of this.
Is this something that you are doing as a department as well as,
as it were, the professional scientific network?
Joan Ruddock: I personally cannot
recall any ministerial involvement in discussions, and I do not
believe our Secretary of State either has been holding such discussions.
So I think at this stage, it is unlikely that we have had any
ministerial discussions on regulation, but we are aware, our officials
are alive to the issue, and it is something that we know needs
to be done. Of course, the IPCC is going to be reporting itself,
and we have taken a lot of our leads from reports from the IPCC.
It is clear that if there is to be regulation, it is going to
have to be in some international body, whether a scientific body,
or whether the UN itself, but clearly, this is something that
will have to be developed over time.
Chairman: You have made that clear. You
have mentioned the Royal Society, and I know Ian Cawsey wishes
to pick that up.
Q65 Mr Cawsey: It is quite interesting
that an awful lot of what has been said so far is about the Government
almost holding a watching brief on this, and waiting to see what
the developments are. I just wonder to what extent that is enough,
certainly in terms of public opinion, because it strikes me that
if you look at quite recent things, GM crops being one, even climate
change really, there is quite a significant dislocation between
where public opinion is and where scientific opinion is. I can
see geoengineering ever so easily fitting into that category yet
again. The Royal Society did say in their recent report on it
that the acceptability of geoengineering will be determined as
much by social, legal and political issues as by scientific and
technical factors. Do you agree with that assessment, and if you
do, what will the Government do to encourage debate on the social
acceptability of geoengineering?
Joan Ruddock: Well, I do not think
it is for the Government to encourage a debate on the social acceptability
of geoengineering, because that presumes that the Government has
taken a view that geoengineering is a good thing, and that we
should actually deploy. We have not taken that view. I think that
it is important to involve the public in discussions as these
things develop. It is important not to allow the public to get
into a position where the public has been alarmed or is ignorant,
so it is very important that the dialogue includes public communication.
It is one of the considerations that we make about setting up
a working group; should we do so, then indeed we would want to
see that it contained a wide spectrum of people, including social
scientists, ethicists, as well as scientists and administrators.
So we are alive to the fact that there would need to be public
engagement, and we know that NERC have a public dialogue programme
that they are about to launch. So it is important to talk with
the public and to avoid ignorance and prejudice, but at the same
time, it is not for the Government to persuade the public of the
need for this.
Professor Pidgeon: From the RCUK
perspective, I will just make one comment about research: obviously,
as you know, a small amount of money following the Royal Society
report will be going into fundamental research on top of the research
that is currently being done, and also the public dialogue has
been initiated. The latter will be a first, really, anywhere in
the world. For the UK to do that, that is fine, but we might also
want to think more widely about public dialogue, because this
is an international question, so the poor and people in other
countries will have an interest in the outcome of geoengineering
research. But the point about research I would like to make is
that although it is not urgent, the science and the social and
ethical research should come together at an early stage. Very
often, those of us who study public acceptance of technology,
nuclear power is a good example of this, social scientists were
only asked 20 years after nuclear had become extremely unpopular
to actually look at why this might have occurred. I think we have
learnt that lesson, so RCUK and ESRC in particular are very keen
that as research progresses on the science, research on the ethical,
legal, economic and public acceptability issues also takes place
as well.
Q66 Mr Cawsey: In the first session
we had this morning, where we had people from different countries
via videolink participating, I think they all came to the conclusion
that whilst the NERC was going off and doing this consultation
here, it was actually much more important that there were international
talks going on and protocols and things being established there,
so what is the Government doing to try and encourage that to happen?
If we do continue with this public consultation through the NERC,
how can we diminish criticism that actually, this is what we always
do, we always consult the public, and then actually it has no
effect on the policies at the end of the day anyway?
Joan Ruddock: I think if I may
say so, Mr Cawsey, your questioning is still in my view premature,
we are not at that point. The Committee clearly may like to comment
on this, but our first decision is as to whether we set up a separate
working group within Government to look at all of these issues,
or whether we work with the Royal Society to look at all of these
issues. We are going to do something, it is not that we are doing
nothing, we just want to see the lie of the land, and make our
decisions as to how we progress, but whatever progression is undertaken,
as Professor Pidgeon has said, it will quite rightly engage social
scientists and others alongside scientists.
Q67 Mr Cawsey: I can understand why
the Government would take that view, and I do not necessarily
disagree with it, for what it is worth, but it is not necessarily
premature to take a decision that this would be better dealt with
internationally rather than nationally, is it?
Joan Ruddock: I think it is going
to be for the working group towhether with us or jointly,
or however it is done, we need a basis on which people have the
opportunity to do some work, to do some thinking, and to come
up with some proposals, because it is not possible for a government
to just leap into an international negotiation. We have to develop
our own thinking, we have to decide what it is we think is appropriate
to put forward in an international forum, and we have to decide
which international forum it would be appropriate to attempt to
engage with. So at the moment, none of these things have been
worked through, and that is why I cannot say to you, we are just
going to rush off to the UN or wherever and say, let us all start
this debate. Clearly, the initiative might come from others, but
we have to get our own framework sorted out as to what we think
is appropriate, and that is work that has not yet been done.
Q68 Chairman: Can I bring in Professor
Pidgeon here? I am really quite confused about RCUK's position,
and certainly the evidence that you have given us. There is an
international convention on biological diversity, which deals
with issues surrounding the oceans, and yet in your evidence to
us, you are suggesting that any sort of regulatory framework is
premature, and yet there is a regulatory framework in existence,
which presumably the UK participates in developing.
Professor Pidgeon: I should add,
I am not a lawyer myself, so I cannot comment in detail on the
law.
Q69 Chairman: I am not either, so
we are on common ground.
Professor Pidgeon: My reading
of the evidence, which I had some input to, but obviously not
all of it, is that RCUK are saying, as many have said today, that
we have a heterogeneous field here that we call geoengineering,
so many, many techniques, and it is likely that some techniques
and deployments, if they were to come about, will fall under existing
regulation, and others will fall between aspects of regulation.
For others, there may be nothing at all. Again, that is why we
need the analytic work now, to look at what regulation applies.
To take another example, with nanotechnology five years ago, we
were in a very similar situation, and DEFRA sponsored a gaps analysis
to look at what areas of regulation would apply to certain nanomaterials,
and that has been very valuable for them, to look at where the
gaps are, so I think that is
Q70 Chairman: Sorry, is RCUK doing
that?
Professor Pidgeon: Not at this
point in time.
Q71 Chairman: Because the Government
is not doing it, the Minister has just said the Government is
not, and you are not as the Chief Scientist.
Professor Pidgeon: But we are
at what could be said an upstream moment, that is the way it is
described, in the emergence of a new technology.
Q72 Chairman: What does an upstream
moment mean?
Professor Pidgeon: So early that
the uncertainties are wide. Compare it to nuclear energy, which
is a mature technology, we know what it is, people have views
on it. In the upstream moment, we do not even know how it will
develop, and what public responses there will be. There is very
low public knowledge, which is a big challenge for public engagement,
and great uncertainties. So we are in a phase which is very uncertain
and difficult to give definitive answers on the technology, governance
frameworks and public attitudes. It is not that people are not
trying to give answers, it is just very, very early.
Q73 Chairman: I will leave the last
word with you, Minister, because we are about to close: I think
what we are trying to get is that the UK is arguably, well, I
would say definitely the world's second scientific nation, second
to the United States. We have a position of real leadership in
here. We are a nation surrounded by oceans, and we have given,
I think with respect to our Government, a real lead in terms of
climate science, and yet here is an area where clearly it is a
long way off, we are not even prepared to seriously lead the debate
in terms of a regulatory framework. Do you not find that disappointing?
Joan Ruddock: No, because as I
have indicated at the outset of this evidence session, we have
real priorities which we are working on. We have within every
part of Government people all of whom are engaged in moving us
to a low carbon economy, and making the emissions cuts that we
have committed to in law. Now that is a way forward to deal with
climate change. It is a proven way forward, and we need to do
as much of that as we can, and we need to work as intensively
as we can in the international community to ensure that as much
of that as possible happens. So there is no question about the
leadership continuing in this Government and in this country,
and you are absolutely right about the climate science. But what
I have made clear is not that we are unaware, and totally neglectful
of this area of endeavour, it is that we have not prioritised
it, and it is that we are on the point of making some decisions
about how we as a government should move forward. So we are aware
of what is required, it will be undoubtedly some international
regulation, that we need to have that in place before there is
any question of deployment, but we think deployment is rather
a long way off, and therefore, we do have time, and we should
not be panicked into this, we know what we are doing, we understand
the issues, we will look to international regulation in due course,
we will play our part in that, and as I indicated to this Committee,
and the Committee may like to comment on it, we either set up
a working group within Government, or we work with those who have
clearly led this field to date, and that is the Royal Society.
That is the point at which we are at, and we will be active.
Chairman: Minister, thank you very, very
much indeed for your presence this morning. Thank you, Professor
David MacKay and Professor Nick Pidgeon.
|