It is now the general consensus of Governments and scientists (except those whose studies are paid for by the oil and automotive industries) that our industrial activities, transport included, are affecting the world's climate. The full and detailed impacts are as yet unclear (although plausible and frightening prognoses are constantly being improved). As the first line of the U.K. Government's consultation document on its climate change programme says: "Climate change is recognised as one of the greatest environmental threats facing the world today" (page 2).
As I write this, in the middle of April, the rain falling outside has just turned to sleet, verging on snow. We have just had an unusually early spring warm spell - and the first Hawthorn blossom a matter of days ago - now broken by cold air which has meant the heating has had to go on again in our house. These are not in themselves statistically significant events, but global warming will lead to increased variability in weather patterns, and extreme weather events will become more common. Eastern England is likely to see less rain in the summer - with what rain there is tending more often to come in storms, from which the water runs off quickly, causing floods and not helping to recharge depleted groundwater - so crops and wildlife will suffer and droughts will be more frequent. Water supply is already a source of armed conflict, as in Palestine.
Low-lying land will be at greater risk to marine incursion - a particular problem for places like Bangladesh, the Netherlands, Pacific atolls and, indeed, the south-east of England, still sinking as a reaction to the disappearance of ice from the north-west after the last Ice Age. Temperatures will increase on average, but that also implies increased water loss from the soil, plants and water-bodies - but, should the Gulf Stream shift north, we could suddenly start to experience New York winters.
The natural ranges of living creatures will change, affecting crops and wildlife, as well as the occurrence of pests and diseases. Tropical diseases are spreading north already and rats are now surviving the winters in Scandinavian cities.
The major cause of these changes is the extra amount of greenhouse gases we have been putting into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. The key gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) - plus the legacy of emissions of chlorofuorocarbons (CFCs). Following the Kyoto summit in 1997, the U.K. committed itself to a further voluntary reduction in emissions of the six key gases: 20% on 1990 levels (1995 for HFCs, PFCs and SF6) by 2010. In October 1998, the Government published a consultation paper, pulling together its various policies in various spheres and their impact upon greenhouse gas emissions.
This paper covers emissions from across the economy, rather loosely grouped into sectors for allocation of potential savings. These sectors overlap considerably, but transport accounts for a fifth of emissions, 42 MtC of a total of 194 MtC predicted for 2010 (and representing a 10% cut from 1990 levels) [see note 2]. Transport also shows the greatest potential for lower cost reductions, at 4 MtC, whereas "business" shows greatest potential for higher cost measures, with a 7 MtC saving. Transport is also the key sector linking together all the others - for instance, "business" emissions can be saved by increasing transport emissions (reducing the number of factories, assuming lower unit emissions, served by increased transport activity).
The consultation paper (paragraphs 131 to 137) outlines a dual strategy for promoting fuel efficiency: increasing fuel duty and promoting more fuel-efficient vehicle designs. The assumption is made that such fiscal and technological measures will work together to reduce energy use and carbon dioxide emissions. Unfortunately, the contributions of the two strategies are not simply additive, but will in part cancel each other out. As vehicles become more fuel-efficient, they become cheaper to run, so reducing the impact of increases in duty. Furthermore, unless duty increases keep pace with vehicle efficiency improvements, the cost per kilometre of driving the more efficient vehicles will fall, which in turn is likely to encourage greater use and so greater energy use and emissions. The answer to the consultative question (ii, page 39), 'Are our estimates of the impact of higher fuel prices and the E.U. CO2 from cars strategy in the right range?', has therefore to be that they can only be over-optimistic.
Furthermore, it is imperative that the fuel duty escalator continues beyond 2002. The need to reduce emissions goes beyond the current intermediate targets. Also, because of changes in driving patterns with reduced traffic, a 10% reduction in traffic does not translate as a 10% reduction in emissions. A greater reduction in traffic is needed to achieve a given reduction in emissions.
It is claimed (paragraph 143) that reducing congestion would reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Congestion is a sign of demand exceeding supply. In other words, congestion suppresses demand. The removal of congestion leads to increased vehicle use and therefore increased emissions, not reduced. Congestion actually keeps emissions lower than they might otherwise be. Where congestion is an issue for emissions is in its impact upon non-car modes. If public transport, cyclists and pedestrians can be freed from these delays, then there will be a benefit in terms of emissions. A general policy of reducing congestion is, however, counter-productive.
Further, the paper (paragraph 144) describes predicted emissions reductions from the take-up of road-user and work-place parking charges. 0.8 MtC could be saved if there was full take up in all cities of the size of Southampton and above, with a 0.3 MtC saving if only London and a third of other such cities took up the measures.
In the case of road-user charging, these predictions are overly optimistic. Charging for entry into or driving within urban centres would make only a small impact on traffic levels on affected roads, at the prices currently suggested, and would do nothing to prevent the spare capacity being filled by others who can afford the charge but who are currently deterred by congestion. Thus, traffic reductions (and consequently emissions reductions) due to road charging are likely to be short-lived and negligible in comparison with national emissions. Furthermore, charging in urban centres, where traffic levels are not, on the whole, growing and are restrained by congestion, is likely to lead to significant diversion to out-of-centre destinations and increased pressure for urban-fringe developments, in turn generating yet more traffic and emissions. Despite Planning Policy Guidance 6 and 13, the planning system is not currently strong enough to resist this pressure, especially where 'political considerations' like Private Finance Initiative deals for public investments are allowed to over-ride planning considerations. It is these suburban and urban-fringe areas where traffic is growing fastest and which are unlikely to be the subject of road charging.
The paper asks (question i, page 39): 'Which other measures would most effectively strengthen the impact of the fuel duty escalator?' The most effective measures are the real promotion of traffic reduction strategies, public transport, walking, cycling, car clubs, home deliveries and local services and facilities, together with taxation on car ownership. These measures also help to fulfil other environmental and social objectives.
It is important to bear other environmental and social objectives in mind in all policies, and the contribution of agriculture to reduced climate change is a case in point. The paper (questions ii and iii, page 54) seeks measures to reduce nitrogen application to land and comments on the potential for using energy crops as a renewable energy source, as well as constraints thereon. It must not be forgotten that energy crops currently involve nitrogenous fertiliser inputs and may use land that would be required for food production in lower-input, more sustainable forms of agriculture.
Assuming that energy crops are not constrained by this concern, the type of crop and its fuel use need careful consideration. It is clear from various studies, particular that by the Energy Technology Support Unit, that a number of transport fuels derived from energy crops require so much in the way of energy for growing, harvesting, processing and distribution that they are little better than means of storing energy - like batteries - and so make little contribution to the reduction of climate-altering gas emissions. The worst cases are grain-based ethanol (2% energy saving) and Rape Methyl Ester ('biodiesel': 12% energy saving). Furthermore, other studies have shown that the use of food crops as fuels is an inefficient means of utilising the potential of biomass for renewable energy. The International Energy Agency found that 'energy forestry' (short-rotation coppicing) for electricity generation is preferable by far, even to the production of methanol from the wood.
The Government's greenhouse gas reduction strategy is not based upon avoiding climate change per se, nor on reducing emissions as quickly as practicable. It is, rather, based upon reducing emissions of these gases by 20% on 1990 levels (1995 for hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexaflouride) by 2010. This does, indeed, go beyond the U.K.'s commitment at Kyoto, but we are not alone in this, and a 20% reduction is still not enough; it is an intermediate target. This is all well and good, except that the Government's strategy does not look beyond the intermediate target. The measures countenanced seek to achieve the 20% reduction as cheaply as possible, but may not be the best ones to take us beyond 20% in the future. Indeed, the discussion above suggests that they may not be up to achieving even this intermediate target.
Surely we need policies in place now which will continue reducing greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2010. Otherwise we are, frankly, tinkering and hoping the problem will go away of its own accord. As the saying goes, "no pain, no gain" - but then it was the previous Government which was so fond of that phrase.
[If you have come to this point by following a reference link from within the text, simply click on your 'return' button to go back to your place in the article.]