5 HS2 and emissions
53. The Climate Change Act 2008 contains a binding
commitment to an 80% reduction in the United Kingdom's greenhouse
gas emissions, as measured against a 1990 baseline, by 2050. It
is therefore important that the emissions caused by large-scale
infrastructure projects such as HS2 are at the very least no more,
and ideally are less, than would otherwise be generated.
54. The Environmental Statement asserts that
HS2
will play a key part of the UK's future low-carbon
transport system and will support the Government's overall carbon
objectives. In comparison with most other transport modes, high-speed
rail offers some of the lowest carbon emissions per passenger
kilometre, and significantly less than cars and planes.[124]
Robert Goodwill MP told us:
HS2 has been a transport project, and it has
never been promoted primarily to reduce carbon. However, we are
serious about carbon and that is why we have produced a carbon
footprint for the project far earlier than any other project of
this scale and complexity. … the majority of the carbon emissions
associated with HS2 will be regulated via the European Union Emissions
Trading Scheme. This will mean that the majority of emissions
associated with HS2 will not lead to an increase in overall EU
carbon emissions.[125]
55. In 2011, the Transport Committee concluded that
"at best, HS2 has the potential to make a small contribution
to the Government's carbon-reduction targets." The Committee
considered that while HS2 would not result in reductions of carbon
emissions, it could nonetheless produce less carbon than alternative
capacity-enhancing solutions such as an expanded network of motorways
or increased reliance on domestic flights.[126]
Calculations presented in HS2 Ltd's 2013 Environmental Statement
suggested that when juxtaposed against the UK's projected carbon
footprint for 2030, the emissions from the HS2 scheme would amount
to 0.15% of the UK's overall annual emissions.[127]
The Environmental Statement further stated that the operational
emissions of HS2 during the first 60 years are likely to be lower
than emissions from comparable air and road transport schemes,
resulting in projected savings of 2.97-3.16 MtCO2e. However, when
emissions from the construction phase are added, there would be
an overall net increase of 2.14-2.62 MtCO2e.[128]
HS2 Ltd attributed the operational reduction in emissions to passengers
choosing it over more carbon-intensive forms of transport ('modal
shift') and the knock-on effects from freeing up passenger and
freight capacity on existing rail networks.[129]
However, given that the scheme would not start operating until
2026 (2032 for the entire Y-shaped network, including phase 2),
any savings from its operation would be preceded by an increase
in emissions caused by construction.
56. A Network Rail study found that emissions per
passenger kilometre were lower for high-speed than for conventional
rail, but that this was dependent on higher occupancy rates for
high speed trains. As the occupancy levels of conventional and
high-speed rail came closer together, it noted, "the advantage
high-speed rail has in terms of direct emissions per passenger-km
is eroded".[130]
Some have questioned the forecasts of passenger demand and modal
shift used by HS2 Ltd HS2 Action Alliance told us:
The passenger numbers that have been given in
HS2's business case are relying on a huge increase in business
passengers. If you look at the evidence that is available it shows
that business travel is not increasing by huge amounts. .... The
figures show that inter-city [demand] is plateauing.[131]
Greengauge 21, on the other hand, said that the current
levelling of business traveller demand was consistent with long-term
trends which continue to show overall growth. They concluded that
HS2 demand forecasts were in fact "quite conservative"
and did not reflect the most likely outcome: "The demand
figures are cautious and therefore the carbon figures are cautious
as well".[132]
Peter Miller of HS2 Ltd told us that given the current high demand
on the West Coast Main Line and the attractiveness of the proposed
line, they were expecting "high loading" on the railway.[133]
57. The Government's 2013 Economic Case for
HS2 forecast that 4% of potential HS2 passengers were likely to
come from road and 1% from air.[134]
HS2 Action Alliance and Stop HS2 believed that this would be insufficient
to achieve a reduction in emissions, but Greengauge 21 told us:
1% diversion [from air travellers] gives rise
to, in the Environmental Statement, between 2.2 and 2.8
million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent savings. ... Even
with a very cautious assumption, ... there is a significant carbon
benefit and that is because short distance air travel is very
substantially more carbon-intensive than rail, including in that
high-speed rail.[135]
58. The elimination of the direct link between HS1
and HS2, proposed in the March 2014 Higgins report,[136]
might affect the size of a modal shift from short-haul flights.
Stop HS2 considered that:
The only realistic prospect that you had of significant
modal shift from air would have been if you had been able to get
on a train at, say, Manchester and get off in Madrid, which of
course now you won't be able to do because the HS1 link has been
cancelled. That was potentially the only way that you were going
to increase aviation modal shift.[137]
The Department told us however that the carbon calculations
had not included any modal shift from international aviation:
In both the Environmental Statement and
the Economic Case there is no assumption about carbon savings
for international aviation. The only carbon savings that have
gone on in terms of aviation are about domestic aviation savings,
so the removal of the HS2/HS1 link does not affect the figures
in the Environmental Statement or the figures in the Economic
Case.[138]
59. Nevertheless, the Environmental Statement
acknowledges that any overall reduction in operational emissions
would depend on other factors which could not be predicted with
precision and which HS2 Ltd could not influence. The most important
of these is the rate of decarbonisation of UK energy generation
over the decades during which HS2 trains would operate. As we
discussed in our latest report on the Carbon Budgets, there may
be a review of the Fourth Carbon Budget, covering 2023-2027, in
2014.[139] And as we
noted in our 2013 report on Energy Subsidies, the pace and effectiveness
of de-carbonisation remain in doubt.[140]
Despite our recommendation for an early binding commitment to
the energy-intensity target advocated by the Committee on Climate
Change, the Government plans to consider such a commitment only
in 2016, when it also has to set a Fifth Carbon Budget for 2028-2032.[141]
60. The high maximum speed of HS2 trains—360
kph—will contribute to the project's operational carbon
footprint if the electricity it consumes has not been decarbonised
by then. HS2 Action Alliance estimated that an HS2 train travelling
at 360kph would use three times as much energy as an Inter-City
train travelling at 200kph.[142]
Greengauge 21 calculated that while reducing the top operation
speed from 360 kph to 300 kph would result in a 19% reduction
in energy consumption, this would represent a 7% overall
reduction in HS2's emissions. The impact of speed on emissions,
they concluded, was "not as great as perhaps people make
out or have implied".[143]
HS2 Ltd told us that the possibility of lower train operation
speeds had not been considered,[144]
and Peter Miller framed the issue as much in economic as in environmental
terms:
The greatest expenditure of energy is when you
are moving from a standing start to get yourself up to a speed,
and there would be a fractional difference between, for instance,
a speed of 330[kph] compared to 360[kph]. It is the point about
getting up to speed, and then when you are at your cruising speed
you are that much more energy efficient. Yes, you will be using
more energy at a higher speed, but you are getting the overall
benefits of moving that large number of passengers around from
place to place as a result.[145]
61. There is some debate about whether HS2 will
deliver a reduction in emissions by taking travellers off the
roads and planes. But at best, the savings are likely to be relatively
small. The carbon footprint of the project hinges on emissions
from its construction as well as from the operation of the trains,
and that raises issues about striking a balance between minimising
emissions and minimising disruption to communities and habitats,
for example by using cuttings and tunnels which involve greater
emissions in construction. Perhaps a bigger issue is the potential
effect of the decarbonisation of the generation of the electricity
used by the trains; a matter that has been largely absent from
the HS2 debate so far.
62. The Department of Transport and HS2 Ltd should
put forward proposals for an emissions monitoring system to help
resolve, and bring transparency to, the likely effect of HS2 on
overall transport emissions. While the impact of lower maximum
train speed on reducing emissions is currently not seen as substantial,
the legally binding commitment to reduce emissions makes even
a small reduction desirable. HS2 Ltd and the Department should
therefore examine the scope for requiring a reduced maximum speed
for the trains until electricity generation has been sufficiently
decarbonised to make that a marginal issue, and publish the calculations
that would underpin such a calculation.
124 Hs2 Ltd, HS2 Phase One Environmental Statement,
Non-technical summary (November 2013), p157 Back
125
Q130 Back
126
Transport Committee, Tenth report of Session 2010-2012, High Speed Rail,
HC 1185-I, para 77 Back
127
HS2 Ltd, Phase One Environmental Statement, Volume 3: Route-Wide Effects,
para 5.1.16 Back
128
ibid, para 5.1.9, Table 1 Back
129
HS2 Ltd, Phase One Environmental Statement, Volume 3: Route-Wide Effects,
para 5.1.4 Back
130
Network Rail, New Lines Programme, Comparing environmental impact of conventional and high speed rail
(2009), piii Back
131
Q1 Back
132
Q8 Back
133
Qq131-134 Back
134
HS2 Ltd, The Economic Case for HS2 (October 2013), Para 5.5.2 Back
135
Q13 [Mr Steer] Back
136
Sir David Higgins, HS2 Plus, March 2014, pp12-14 Back
137
Q13 [Mr Rukin] Back
138
Q107 Back
139
Environmental Audit Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2013-14,
Progress on Carbon Budgets, HC 60, September 2013, para
36 Back
140
ibid, paras 22, 26, 27, 29-34 Back
141
ibid, para 59 Back
142
HS2 Action Alliance, (HS2 045), para 2.1 Back
143
Q1 [Mr Steer] Back
144
Q136 Back
145
Q139 Back
|
