COMMITTEE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)
Inquiry into Climate Change
28 May 2009
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir
Witnesses:
Mr Neil Alldred )
Mr Declan Allison )
Mr Malachy Campbell ) Climate Change Coalition Northern Ireland
Mr Seamus Óg Gallagher )
Ms Eithne McNulty )
Mr Peter Archdale )
Mr Malachy Campbell ) Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside
Mr Patrick Casement )
The Chairperson (Mr McGlone):
The Committee will today hear evidence from the Climate Change Coalition Northern Ireland (CCCNI) and then from the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside (CNCC). The Climate Change Coalition comprises a wide range of environmental and development groups, all of which wish to see Northern Ireland play its full role in combating global climate change. The coalition’s goals are to raise awareness of climate change and to change behaviours and public policies to deliver local and global benefits.
From the Climate Change Coalition, we have with us Mr Neil Alldred, who is the director of the international development programme at the University of Ulster’s UNESCO Centre; Mr Malachy Campbell, who is the policy director at the World Wildlife Fund Northern Ireland; Mr Declan Allison from Friends of the Earth; Mr Seamus Óg Gallagher, who is the policy officer at Northern Ireland Environment Link; and Ms Eithne McNulty, who is the regional manager of Trócaire. You are all very welcome. As you are probably aware, the Committee’s inquiry into climate change is proving to be very interesting. The Committee is delighted to have you all with us today.
The Committee has already received your submission. You have 10 to 15 minutes at most in which to give us an overview of your position, and we will then take questions from Committee members.
I thank you again for appearing before the Committee. Yours is a very representative group, and I am aware that many of you carry out very valuable work, in all fields.
Mr Neil Alldred (Climate Change Coalition Northern Ireland):
As chairperson of the coalition, I thank the Committee for affording us the opportunity to appear before it. I should begin by informing the Committee that the Climate Change Coalition Northern Ireland has formally changed its name to Stop Climate Chaos Northern Ireland (SCCNI). That is because we work collaboratively with Stop Climate Chaos in Ireland and the rest of the UK.
Eithne McNulty and I will go through some of the main terms of reference of the Committee’s inquiry, in an attempt to offer our submission in a structured manner.
Ms Eithne McNulty (Climate Change Coalition Northern Ireland):
Stop Climate Chaos Northern Ireland comprises a wide range of environmental and development groups, who all wish Northern Ireland to play a full role in combating global climate change. That goal is, of course, also the Committee’s. SCCNI believes that strong moral, ethical, economic, social and environmental imperatives exist for Northern Ireland to contribute its fair share of global emissions cuts to combat global climate change. Those imperatives are very important to our group.
The Assembly’s priority should be to introduce a Northern Ireland climate change Bill, with a legally binding regional target to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions here by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. Those are not new statistics, but they are important, and we will refer to them again during our submission. We also ask that the Assembly support the international negotiation process for global warming to peak at no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. The Committee will again be familiar with that statistic, but it is, nonetheless, very important.
Our third and final ask is that the Assembly assist the poorest countries and improve biodiversity, in Northern Ireland and in countries around the world, to adapt to the unavoidable effects of climate change. The poorest countries are, of course, hardest hit, and they are already trying to adapt to the effects of climate change.
I shall now respond directly to the inquiry’s terms of reference. Term of reference (a) states:
“To identify the initial commitments for Northern Ireland that will ensure it plays a fair and proportionate role as part of the UK in meeting climate change targets.”
We are aware that the Assembly has accepted that the provisions of the UK Climate Change Act 2008 will be extended to Northern Ireland. However, the UK Act does not set specific, legally binding targets for the devolved Administrations to reduce emissions; therefore, setting those targets is the Assembly’s concern. Setting specific Northern Ireland targets will ensure that we make a fair contribution to emissions reduction, and it will also enable Northern Ireland to benefit from the social, economic and environmental gains of a move to a low-carbon economy — a move that is a worldwide effort.
Northern Ireland’s per capita emissions are 12·83 tons per annum. Therefore, we compare badly with the UK average of around 10·5 tons per annum, the global average of four tons per annum and the global fair-share average of 1·65 tons per annum. That is why we refer to the problem in moral, economic, social and ethical terms, and if we are to be ethical, we must reach a level of 1·65 tons per annum. Realistically, Northern Ireland should at least match the UK targets and that is why the Executive and Assembly must urgently make a commitment to introduce a Northern Ireland climate change Bill, with legally binding regional targets, matching those in the UK Act.
We advise that the interim target of 34% by 2020, rising to 42%, should be adopted. The Executive must prioritise action on climate change as they develop a Northern Ireland Bill. For instance, the money that the Chancellor identified for energy efficiency and renewable-energy measures in this year’s Budget should be used for the same purposes in Northern Ireland, and it should not simply find its way into the block grant and disappear. New policies that are being developed should be used to deliver action on climate change.
Furthermore, the review of public administration (RPA) process should be used to introduce a statutory duty on new councils to make a significant contribution to achieving emission-reduction targets.
Mr Alldred:
Term of reference (b) states:
“To consider the necessary actions and a route map for each significant sector in Northern Ireland”.
The Committee on Climate Change’s first report, ‘ Building a low-carbon economy — the UK's contribution to tackling climate change’, which was published in December 2008, includes an analysis of what opportunities exist for making emissions reductions in Northern Ireland. However, those actions will not help Northern Ireland to achieve the important target of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050. Therefore, we need to go beyond that, and we need to engage more strongly with the UK’s Committee on Climate Change. That Committee has a number of obligations, and, in our submission, we quote from sections 34(1) and 38(3) of the Climate Change Act, which states that the Committee is obliged to offer information, advice and support to help to determine priorities and actions that are required to achieve the overall targets. That is extremely important.
Although support exists to help to identify significant sectors and the extent to which each sector can assist in achieving a contribution to the 80% and 34% targets, sectors and businesses will be able to deliver only if the targets form a part of an overall package in which the whole of Northern Ireland plc engages. We cannot look to key sectors to make extraordinary contributions. Everyone must play a part in that, and I hope that the Committee will address that as part of a Northern Ireland climate change Bill. While a Northern Ireland climate change Bill is taking shape, interim measures can be taken. The procurement strategy, procurement budgets, energy efficiency and rapid deployment of renewable-energy options exist, and they can be entered into now, while the Assembly is pursuing a Northern Ireland climate change Bill. Energy efficiency and procurement could be important areas to identify.
Term of reference (c) states:
“To identify the costs associated with meeting these obligations and compare them with the costs that will be incurred if they are not achieved.”
In our submission, we reference, among others, the Carbon Trust, the Northern Ireland Green New Deal Group, the UK Committee on Climate Change and the Stern Review. We will leave those details with you, but I will headline the figures. The Stern Review made the point last year that if we all invest now in order to avoid some of those difficulties, costs of only 1% to 2% of GDP will be incurred, whereas, if we leave investing to a later date, we could expend between 5% and 20% of GDP. Therefore, the evidence is there, and I am sure that the Committee is familiar with it. In our submission, we try to repeat the evidence from many different specialists in the UK and Ireland.
Term of reference (d) states:
“To identify a formal cost effective mechanism for assessing the potential impact of new policies on climate change/CO2 emissions.”
The coalition believes that all plans, programmes and policies should be assessed using climate impact assessments to determine their contribution to, or impact on, achieving carbon budgets. In Northern Ireland, we are familiar with the equality obligations for rural proofing. Many mechanisms exist for ensuring that prior assessments and ex post facto monitoring take place, and we urge the Committee to take due cognisance of those mechanisms.
Term of reference (e) states:
“To make recommendations for appropriate targets/actions that could be included in the new Northern Ireland Sustainable Development Implementation Plan.”
The key climate targets that the sustainable development strategy should deliver would be, and must be, those that are identified in a Northern Ireland climate change Bill. There should not be any separation. The sustainable development strategy here should include as its targets those already identified — and, I hope, enshrined — in a Northern Ireland climate change Bill.
Northern Ireland should at least match the targets set by the EU for the UK to generate 15% of its energy from renewable resources by 2020. That target is challenging but certainly achievable. The 2008 all-island grid study found that up to 42% of power generation could be from renewable resources in Ireland — a figure that Stop Climate Chaos Northern Ireland regards as the most appropriate target for 2020. The sustainable development strategy should also help to deliver the recommendations on how to achieve any emissions reductions that the Committee for the Environment’s report on its inquiry into climate change proposes.
Term of reference (f) states:
“To make recommendations on a public service agreement for the DOE Climate Change Unit’s commitments in the second Programme for Government”.
We respectfully draw to the Committee’s attention that the climate change unit in the Department of the Environment (DOE) does not have a mandate across the whole of Government. It has certain restrictions. For example, the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) is responsible for building; the Department for Regional Development (DRD) is responsible for transport; and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) for bioenergy policy. We humbly suggest that the example of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in the UK, which does have a governance model that is capable of addressing all UK Departments, may be a useful way forward for Northern Ireland, should consideration be given to expanding the remit of the DOE’s climate change unit.
Term of reference (g) states:
“To consider what secondary legislation raising powers within the UK Climate Change Act would contribute to Northern Ireland’s commitment to the UK Climate Change Bill.”
We feel that, although possibilities exist with trading-scheme powers and carrier-bag taxation, the primary focus of the Committee and of the Assembly should eventually be to look to introducing primary legislation in the Assembly. We do not consider the secondary-legislation objectives of the UK Climate Change Act to be sufficient to help Northern Ireland to define its own priorities. We urge you to look at the possibility of primary legislation to effect your own targets.
Term of reference (h) states:
“To express views on if and how the Assembly might conduct more effective scrutiny of climate change responsibilities across all relevant departments.”
We feel that the ability of the Committees, and the Assembly as a whole, to scrutinise progress would be greatly enhanced by ensuring that the Committee report to the Executive and the Assembly, and that the Executive respond to the Committee’s report in the Assembly.
Ms McNulty:
Term of reference (i) states:
“To produce a report on the findings and recommendations of the inquiry by September 2009.”
Stop Climate Chaos Northern Ireland hopes that the Committee for the Environment will recommend the introduction of a Northern Ireland climate change Bill that has a legally binding regional target to reduce our CO2 emissions by at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050, and an interim target of at least a 34% reduction by 2020.
That is repetitious, but it is the main ask. Those percentages, of course, match the targets in the UK Climate Change Act, and the expected targets in the Republic of Ireland Climate Protection Bill 2007. Those are the minimum requirements for us to play our part in the global attempt to avoid dangerous climate change.
The Chairperson:
Thank you very much for that concise presentation. It comprehensively covered all the issues, many of which have already been raised with the Committee.
Mr Weir:
I welcome our guests, and, like the Chairperson, I appreciate the way in which the presentation was structured to deal with each of the inquiry’s terms of reference separately, which made it easy to follow.
You spoke of your concern at the money identified’s not going purely into the block grant. I suppose that that is, effectively, a Barnett consequential. How much do you understand has been allocated this year on that basis?
Mr Seamus Óg Gallagher (Climate Change Coalition Northern Ireland):
Would you like to ask another question, and we can return to that?
Mr Weir:
Take a wee minute or two to gather your thoughts. You say that the Committee on Climate Change report identified that Northern Ireland could reduce its emissions by around 2·5 million tons of CO2. I have made a quick calculation, and my figures may be wrong, but when you speak of the per capita figure, you imply overall CO2 emissions from Northern Ireland of around 21 million tons. Is that correct?
Mr Declan Allison (Climate Change Coalition Northern Ireland):
It is around 22 million tons.
Mr Weir:
If 2∙5 million tons can be dealt with through the methodology outlined, that would amount to a reduction of around 11% or 12%. If a 34% cut is to be made by 2020, that still leaves a large gap to be filled. What are your views on how we can bridge that gap practically?
Mr Malachy Campbell (Climate Change Coalition Northern Ireland):
The figures come from AEA Technology, which reviews the greenhouse-gas emissions for the entire UK. Northern Ireland produces 16∙5 million tons of carbon dioxide, so the percentage overall is likely to be higher. One of the important issues is energy efficiency —
Mr Weir:
May I stop you there? You said that Northern Ireland produces 16∙5 million tons of carbon dioxide, yet a minute ago we spoke of 22 million tons. What is the correct figure?
Mr M Campbell:
I am citing AEA Technology’s figures, which give an overall figure for the UK. The figures are then disaggregated for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Mr Weir:
I appreciate that. However, you have just cited 16∙5 million tons, yet Mr Allison cited a figure of 22 million tons.
Mr Allison:
There are different methodologies for measuring carbon emissions.
Mr M Campbell:
Were the figure to be in and around 16 million or 17 million tons, the percentage saving is obviously higher. An important issue is the role of energy efficiency. You may be familiar with the Carbon Trust, which works with businesses. It says that at least 30% of energy, and potentially up to 50%, is wasted. That means that savings of that magnitude could be made by using existing technologies, at basically no cost, and almost immediately, if we reduced our absolute consumption of energy.
Therefore, some of the savings will be made through reducing our absolute consumption, and some will be made through going down different technological avenues; for example, in transport or through using different means of generating heat and power rather than just relying on electricity. There is a number of options.
Mr Weir:
You outlined energy-efficiency options. One of the problems will be disagreement over what the figures are, as I highlighted. Depending on how one aggregates the figures, Northern Ireland’s carbon emissions total 16 million or 17 million tons or else 22 million tons. If it were 16 million or 17 million tons, that would put us below the average UK per capita figure, whereas 22 million tons would put us above it. On the energy-efficiency side, you mention new technologies and efficiencies to be made in fuel. Are those not the 2∙5 million tons that are already identified? There still seems to be a gap.
Mr M Campbell:
There is something about which I am unclear. We spoke of per capita emissions earlier. That is the amount of carbon that each one of us, as an individual and on average, emits.
Mr Weir:
When we spoke of per capita emissions, a figure of 12∙83 tons and the UK average of 10∙5 tons were mentioned. What I am saying is that a per capita figure of 12∙83 tons equates to an overall figure of 22 million tons of carbon emitted, yet if the overall figure is 16 million or 17 million tons, Northern Ireland per capita emissions are probably slightly lower than the UK average.
Mr S Gallagher:
The figure of 12·83 tons is taken from DOE’s own assessment made of January 2009, ‘Northern Ireland Environmental Statistics Report’, so it is the official Northern Ireland position.
Mr Weir:
It agrees with the aggregated figure of 22 million tons rather than that of 16 million or 17 million tons.
Mr S Gallagher:
This is after the process that Arlene Foster —
Mr Weir
With respect, you say that, but I see another witness shaking his head. One of the two figures is accurate, but both cannot be accurate. We cannot have a situation in which, if it were only 16 million or 17 million tons, the per capita figure is just under 10 tons.
The Chairperson:
May we get to the point?
Mr Weir:
I am confused. If we are to consider what needs to be cut, we need to have a clear understanding of what the base figure is. There is a gap between an aggregation that says that the figure is 16 million or 17 million tons or else 22 million tons.
On the delivery side, a cut of 2·5 million tons has been mentioned. If that figure is to meet the 34% reduction or the 42% reduction, much more will have to be done than a cut of 2·5 million tons. I am trying to work out what additional actions should be taken to get beyond what has already been identified.
Mr S Gallagher:
I shall return to the first part of your question. I will not attempt to provide the exact figures that were outlined in the Budget, but the ballpark figure is £400 million, which was identified in the Budget for energy-efficiency measures in the UK as a whole. Some £550 million was identified for renewable-energy schemes, which, I presume, are similar to our environment and renewable energy fund. That will go into micro-generation, district heating schemes, and so on.
Further money — somewhere in the region of £575 million — was put towards offshore wind-farm development. How that is disaggregated for the Northern Ireland block —
Mr Weir:
Roughly speaking, the figure is about £1·5 billion. Is that right?
Mr S Gallagher:
Yes. The Government are trying to lever more money from the European Central Bank to put more money into the pot. As the Committee will be aware, it is difficult to find pure, ultimate figures in the Budget and to determine how many have been recycled from previous statements. The overall package of measures for the green element of the recovery process may go as high as £4 billion or £5 billion in the UK.
Mr Weir:
Obtaining that figure may be useful. I suspect that the Department of Finance and Personnel may have it. It may be useful for us to find out what the Barnett consequentials of that are; that is, what would be coming to Northern Ireland directly.
Mr S Gallagher:
We wanted to make the point that money is being set aside in the UK. We need to make a commitment to use that money in a similar way to start trying to tackle the problem. We need to show a little bit of leadership and say that we understand that reducing CO2 emissions is an important issue in which we are willing to invest. We need to use that money. Declan will say more about the returns on that investment.
Mr Weir:
I understand that, but we need to identify what we are getting. If one of the ideas is somehow to ring-fence that money, we need to know what the figures are.
Mr S Gallagher:
Yes; absolutely.
On your other point, Arlene Foster, when she was Minister of the Environment, highlighted that different accounting measures were being used and that it was quite difficult to find out what Northern Ireland’s emissions were at that point. The figures that we are quoting were produced by the Department of the Environment. The figure of 12·83 tons per annum is the DOE’s official figure for Northern Ireland.
Mr Weir:
How did we get the figure of 22 million tonnes?
Mr S Gallagher:
That is obtained by multiplying 12·83 tons by the population figure of 1·77 million.
Mr Weir:
Therefore, by definition, if you multiply the two, that gives a figure of around 22 million tons. It is simple mathematics.
Mr Beggs:
Could we not have correspondence on that?
Mr Weir:
You mentioned the “spend now” idea that came from the Stern Review and other bodies; that is, invest for the future. You also said that the effect on the economy would be less than 1% of GDP. Do you have any estimate of what impact that would have, what money needs to be spent from the Northern Ireland block grant, or what the cost would be to Northern Ireland in actual terms?
Mr Alldred:
We do not offer specifics on that in our submission, but we draw evidence from the Northern Ireland context, because the Stern Review was considering the entire UK. The Carbon Trust’s research states that if Northern Ireland adopts the UK’s renewable-energy target of having 15% of all energy produced by renewables by 2020, that should lead to the creation of 33,000-odd extra jobs. According to Northern Ireland Green New Deal Group, a proper spend on high levels of insulation will produce a return. We accept that a cost will be incurred now.
Mr Weir:
We appreciate that, for anything that involves additional energy-efficiency savings, there will be a degree of payback in the long run, but it is important to get a grasp of initial outlay costs as well. Mr Allison:
As part of the Green New Deal Group, we are doing some work on housing, public and commercial buildings, transport and innovative industries. We are preparing the document on housing at present and have not got on to the others yet. When the documents are ready, we will be very happy to present them to the Committee.
On housing, however, we estimate around £330 million will be needed to retrofit 30,000 homes a year, up to a total of around 600,000 homes. That is the estimate, given the current energy —
Mr Weir:
Did you say £330 million a year?
Mr Allison:
Yes.
The Chairperson:
Do you mean newbuild homes?
Mr Allison:
No.
Mr Weir:
It is pre-existing homes, is that right?
Mr Allison:
Yes. Retrofitting existing homes is where the greatest energy-efficiency gains can be made. It would be fairly simple to improve building regulations so that all new homes would be —
Mr Weir:
That outlay relates purely to housing. You are looking at other aspects, but your documents are probably at too early a stage to put figures on.
Mr Allison:
Yes; that is correct.
Mr Ross:
In your written submission, you say that the Assembly should assist the poorest countries. What do you mean by that? Do you mean financial assistance? If so, I imagine that Westminster would play the primary role.
Ms McNulty:
We are a global society, so what we do by way of mitigation here will have a spin-off for the poorest countries. That is why we refer to cutting emissions as having an ethical and moral side to it. I urge the Committee to adopt a set of principles that refers to the ethics and morality of the argument, because the more CO2 that we emit here, the greater the impact in the developing world.
I visited Mozambique last year to look at the impact of climate change on the poorest communities in the southern area of that country, where flooding has a real impact. Sea levels are rising owing to climate change. The Save River flows from Zimbabwe into Mozambique and floods at the point where it reaches the Indian Ocean. The communities living in that usually fertile valley have been displaced by flooding in 2000, 2003, 2007 and 2008. That is the real impact of climate change. We are causing CO2 emissions, but it is the people of the developing world who are feeling the greatest effects of that. That is why we argue strongly that the Committee must have a developing-world emphasis in its thinking when dealing with the issues.
Mr Alldred:
We are not seeking financial contributions, and we recognise that international development is not a remit of the Assembly, but we think that if it informs —
Mr Ross:
What you mean is that the Assembly should be setting an example.
Mr Alldred:
Yes. If the Assembly takes a fair-trade perspective and adopts an ethical procurement policy, for example, that can contribute substantially. We urge the Committee to keep those issues in mind.
Mr Ross:
In your submission, where you state that the people of Northern Ireland are asking for leadership from the Assembly, you go on to say:
“92% of respondents were willing to make changes to their lifestyles”.
Who was sampled for that? Whom did you ask? Was it random sampling?
The Chairperson:
I ask that one person respond, please. We are conscious of time, which is limited.
Mr S Gallagher:
The research was conducted by Sustainable Northern Ireland on behalf of the Northern Ireland climate-impacts programme, and it was externally verified by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA). The survey took in a proper cross-section of people and was of a sample size to be statistically valid in Northern Ireland.
Mr Ross:
What did you ask? If people are asked whether they are willing to make lifestyle changes, they will say yes. Did you define those lifestyle changes? The Committee has heard in recent weeks about the types of lifestyle changes that are being espoused. When people are told that by saving energy they will save the environment and save themselves money, they will say, “Absolutely, because that will benefit me.” However, when talking about some of the radical lifestyle changes that we have heard about over the past weeks, people may not say yes. When you ask people about lifestyle changes, are you telling them what those changes will be or is the question asked in a more general fashion?
Mr S Gallagher:
The survey asked a number of questions in context, such as: If the Assembly showed leadership, what actions would people be most likely to take? Of course, people will choose those actions that have the least impact on their lifestyle, but it demonstrates a willingness to move.
However, people will not move unless leadership is shown right across Northern Ireland. Some people on the ground are already doing their bit as much as they can, but much more of an incentive from Government is needed to create a mass movement. Government need to clarify the direction in which they want to go.
Mr Ross:
You said, “an incentive from Government”. Do you mean that people should be incentivised to change their lifestyles, or do you mean that Government should use a big stick to make people change? Is that what you mean by leadership?
Mr Alldred:
No, Government have a huge range of tools at their disposal. The public can be educated or can be financially incentivised, but the Government can also exhort, encourage and show leadership. They can be exemplary, or otherwise. We suggest that there is a groundswell of opinion from thousands of members from many of the organisations that we represent. We get the impression that there are very strong movements in the Churches in the different communities across Northern Ireland. A huge number of people is ready to make some kind of sacrifice, as are businesses. If Government set the framework and the pattern through which people can contribute, people will want to contribute. We are all looking to politicians to offer us moral and practical, hard-headed leadership.
Mr Ford:
Thank you for your presentation, particularly the helpful way in which it was set out today. You specifically referred to the need for a Northern Ireland climate change Bill. I want to explore what would be contained in such a Bill. You said that regional targets for the devolved Administrations are not contained in the UK Act. You also talked about intermediate targets and five-year budgeting. I presume that you consider all those being included in any legislation. However, what about issues such as climate impact assessments and procurement policies? Do you foresee a Northern Ireland climate change Bill as being widely encompassing?
Mr S Gallagher:
The Bill should provide an overall framework through which all our efforts can be focused. It should include a continuation of what is in the UK Act; outline the powers of the Committee on Climate Change; how we receive its advice; how we respond to that; and how that advice sets out a framework for the Government. It might also outline some further areas of secondary legislation in which there are particular advantages in Northern Ireland’s pursuing.
In addition, the Bill should probably contain requirements for each Department to outline — using an official reporting mechanism — how it will contribute to the climate-change targets. Any legislation needs to be all-encompassing, although that does not mean that every element has to be dictated in fine detail. The UK Act is quite detailed, but it is not a very large piece of legislation compared with some others.
Mr Ford:
Related to that, your written submission referred to the Committee for the Environment’s sharing its responsibility for scrutiny across the range of Departments. I am not sure how much you have heard about other people’s submissions on the likes of, for example, the Westminster Environmental Audit Committee, but, given the structures of government that we have here, I am not quite sure how that scrutiny could be centrally co-ordinated. You seem to highlight that that level of scrutiny is needed, but do you have any further verbal suggestions?
Mr S Gallagher:
First and foremost, the role of the Committee on Climate Change is vital. Internationally respected experts have analysed the potential of our economy to make savings and have given us recommendations, so we must treat those recommendations very seriously. The mechanism by which Departments respond to those recommendations should be debated fully in the Assembly so that the issue receives the cross-cutting scrutiny that it deserves.
The Department of the Environment has limited powers in areas such as building regulations and bioenergy policy, so we suggest that there may be good reason to consider — in the wider talk that is taking place on departmental restructuring — an energy and climate change Department and, thus, a Committee that would have oversight of a climate change Bill. That might help to provide cross-cutting oversight.
Mr Ford:
Would that still be on the basis of one Committee’s relating to one Department, as opposed to the Scottish model?
Mr S Gallagher:
We suggested that the responsibility for delivering the targets could be shared across the Executive so that every Committee would have a role in overseeing what its Department does. However, a special public-service agreement would be given to the central climate change Department to have an oversight role. Thus, that Department’s Committee would have an oversight role for the entire Assembly.
Mr Beggs:
Thank you for your submission and presentation. My first question concerns the Department of Energy and Climate Change in England. You said that establishing a similar model here could improve cohesion and integration, and you highlighted the present fragmentation here. You did not mention the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM), which has the remit for sustainable development. Where should it fit into your model?
Mr S Gallagher:
The coalition has not discussed OFMDFM’s role in detail. The relationship between sustainable development and climate change is vital. If a new sustainable-development strategy includes tough targets on climate change, and if we start to act on the Programme for Government targets to reduce CO2 emissions by 2025, we will be moving in the right direction. I do not feel comfortable enough saying —
The Chairperson:
If you discuss that matter relatively soon, and before our inquiry ends, you should submit that information to the Committee.
Mr Beggs:
That leads on to my next line of questioning. Which targets are more important: the 2020 targets or the 2050 targets? The 2050 target is too far in the distance. It is 40 years hence, and few of the decision-makers will be around to be answerable for their decisions. Therefore, do you concur that a 2020 target may be more important and significant in bringing about change?
Mr Alldred:
The coalition is absolutely united in the view that we need to set a framework but have milestones in that time period. The UK and other countries have selected the 2050 target as the major target, and, therefore, we are happy to support that approach. However, it is vital to attempt to meet the 2020 target.
Our submission suggests that if progress is made towards a consensus at the Copenhagen meeting in December, the 34% target for 2020 will increase to 42%. Therefore, we are keen on the intermediate targets. Moreover, we have made submissions to the effect that we want milestones, not only at 2020 but at other points. We are keen to ensure that the plans do not become an amorphous aspiration in a long-term future. We agree that the strategy must be practical and be not too far in the future.
Mr Allison:
The trajectory, and how we reach the target, is more important than the end point. We must monitor the total amount of carbon that is emitted in the meantime. Therefore, it is vital to have a clear trajectory on which to reach the target rather than an end point only.
Mr Beggs:
Your submission says that you expect targets to be set in the Republic of Ireland climate protection Bill 2007. Can you update the Committee on that legislation’s progress? It is vague to say that you expect targets to be met. We can, of course, distort the market by having significantly different targets in different areas. Therefore, it is an important matter, on which I want to hear your views. Given electricity generation, the grid for the area and the single-pricing mechanism that has been introduced, do you agree that it is important not to distort the environmental aspects of electricity generation by having significantly different policies in the two jurisdictions?
Mr Allison:
The climate protection Bill is still in its early days. However, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has stated his support for it, but the targets have yet to be decided. I cannot say very much more about the matter.
Mr Beggs:
Do you agree that, if the proposals on either side of the border are not similar, potential exists for less environmentally friendly electricity generation as a result of a distorted market?
Mr S Gallagher:
I believe that to be correct, and that is why the Republic’s decision to take the climate protection Act route is reassuring. Its Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Eamon Ryan, recently made more ambitious statements than ours on the proportion of renewable energy that the Republic hopes to generate. Therefore, the Republic hopes to follow the same path as us. As well as that, the all-island grid study was a collaborative project. If that leadership and direction continues, the single energy market will not be distorted on the island.
Mr T Gallagher:
I thank you for your helpful presentations on important subjects to which you are very committed. However, from reading your submission, I am unsure as to whether you feel that the introduction of trading schemes and of methods to reduce the use of plastic bags are worth the bother. Will you clarify those two aspects of your presentation?
Ms McNulty:
It is worth bothering to tackle the issue of plastic-bag usage because, as our submission suggests, although it may not do much to reduce CO2 emissions, it raises awareness among the public and gets them to question whether a disposable bag is needed for every purchase.
Therefore, the concepts of CO2-emission reduction, green energy, care for the environment and the impact on the developing world are brought much more into the public perception. That makes the Committee’s leadership role in introducing a Bill of the type that we seek, because to do so requires a positive response from the public in the North of Ireland. Beginning that process with a relatively simple initiative on plastic bags prepares the ground by making the Northern Irish public more receptive.
Mr T Gallagher:
What is your stance on trading schemes?
Mr S Gallagher:
Trading schemes are administratively very difficult to initiate. I believe that Northern Ireland’s economy is too small to do that, so it would have to be done in collaboration with the rest of the UK, and perhaps even with the rest of Europe.
We know that a cap-on-trade scheme will be among solutions that will be presented at the Copenhagen negotiations at the end of the year. Again, we think that trading schemes, properly managed, have a big role to play. There must be no grandfathering — a system that grants carbon credits to the current most polluting activities. Instead, there must be an auction that ensures a fall in total carbon emissions year on year, which will achieve results. However, trading schemes are very complicated to run. I am not ruling them out completely — advice would be needed from the Committee on Climate Change — but they are not the correct method to target and deliver fast and reliable action in Northern Ireland at this stage.
The Chairperson:
I thank the witnesses for their evidence and compliment them on the clarity of their easily read and succinct written submission, which is what the Committee often requires.
I am mindful of the fact that the Committee meeting must finish before 1.00 pm, so the Committee will move on to hearing oral evidence form the Council for Nature, Conservation and the Countryside (CNCC), which was established under the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. The council’s statutory role is provided for in the Environment ( Northern Ireland) Order 2002. A summary of the CNCC submission, along with comments from the specialist adviser, has been provided to Committee members.
The Committee has with it Mr Patrick Casement, chairperson of the CNCC, and his deputy chairperson, Mr Peter Archdale. Both are very welcome. Mr Malachy Campbell has joined them after a quick change of hats. I am sorry to inform the witnesses that the Committee is under time pressures, because the Senate is required for use by others. Please give us an overview of your submission, after which members will put a few questions to you.
On behalf of the Committee, I extend an invitation to make another presentation to the Committee some time in the future. That would be most welcome, because the Committee has heard much about the council and its role. We wish to hear more from you about your role, so I trust that you will welcome my invitation on behalf of the Committee.
Mr Patrick Casement (Council for Nature, Conservation and the Countryside):
Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for the invitation to give evidence today. The CNCC is a statutory advisory council to the Department of the Environment. It provides advice on nature conservation and countryside matters, and it is a statutory consultee on the designation of national nature reserves, areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs), areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks, as well as on matters relating to the Wildlife ( Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and natural-heritage grants. In addition, it provides advice on a wide range of other subjects, including biodiversity, access to the countryside, planning issues and renewable energy.
As you said, Chairperson, I am the council’s chairperson and Peter Archdale is its deputy chairperson. We are the only members of the council who are remunerated in any way. The other 18 members are volunteers, and, among them, they have a wide range of expertise and experience, and come from an enormous number of backgrounds.
I shall briefly summarise the evidence in our submission, being careful not to submerge members in a blizzard of figures. First, we are convinced that climate change is taking place. Moreover, we believe that the pace of change is faster than has been predicted up until now, and many positive feedback mechanisms are producing effects that feed into that vein.
We believe that climate change is largely as a result of man’s behaviour and the production of greenhouse gases. In order to combat it, the EU and the UK have set targets to prevent temperature rises of more than 2°C above the approximate levels that existed in 1750.
The predicted effects of climate change include: a rise in sea levels, which will affect the coastline, infrastructure, property, agriculture and natural habitats; drier, hotter summers and wetter, milder winters, which will have major effects on water supply, agriculture, carbon storage, and freshwater habitats; more severe rainfall events, which will lead to flooding problems and other matters that must be addressed for buildings; and more storms, which will lead to sea surges and to damage to property and woodland. A wide range of severe problems will affect every aspect of our lives.
There is an overwhelming need to mitigate climate change, and we fear that the cost of inaction may be many times greater than that of tackling the causes. To start to reduce our CO2 emissions, we must shift to using more renewable energy, consider generating more energy locally and utilise low-carbon technologies. In a minute, I shall ask Malachy Campbell to say more on that subject. We must integrate policies throughout Government, and we need a much greater degree of strategic planning. Coastal retreat is one such issue, because we have no plans for where we will allow the sea to encroach to, or for where we will make a stand and attempt to stop it. Therefore, we must consider that matter much more strategically.
Climate change has serious implications for biodiversity. Some people may say, “So what?”, but the natural environment is important because it provides a wide range of vital environmental services. I shall ask Peter Archdale to say a few words on that subject. On biodiversity and natural habitats, we must make immediate progress with adaptation. We need to take practical action now to increase ecological resilience and to accommodate change. In other words, in places, we may have to allow the sea to encroach. We need to take integrated action through partnerships, and, again, we need strategic planning that is based on sound knowledge.
Peter Archdale will now say a few words about the environmental services natural habitats and biodiversity provide.
Mr Peter Archdale (Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside):
I expect that every Committee member’s constituency contains at least one area of either blanket or raised bog. One point that is not often made about peat bogs is that a significant part of Europe’s bogland is in Ireland. One hears much about the ability of trees to capture carbon, but a recent survey led by Roy Tomlinson at Queen’s University estimated, based on a direct comparison, that 47 times more carbon is locked up in peat bogs than in all the agricultural land, forestry and soils in Northern Ireland.
Patrick mentioned biodiversity, and peat bogs form largely from sphagnum moss. The peat bogs are frequently damaged unintentionally, or intentionally, when they are reclaimed for agriculture without consideration’s being given to the full use of the wetland or upland areas. For example, when there are extreme weather events, such as took place last summer, the bogs absorb much of the water and prevent flash floods. The landscape has been extensively modified without considering where the boundaries of the bogs occur.
Broadly speaking, an area that is beginning to be better understood is land-use policy, as are other issues that we mentioned in our paper, such as managed retreat. Those issues must be faced. We must consider not only the short term and the narrow impact. Some issues can have extremely broad, deep impacts that are still not fully appreciated, either by the decision-makers in Government or the people who live in the area concerned. The ability to look at the big picture is important when considering the issue as a whole.
The Chairperson:
What do you mean when you say that 47 times more carbon is locked up in peat? I do not understand that point.
Mr Archdale:
I had a problem when I read the numbers because the units referred to are gigatons. “Giga” probably comes from gigantic, and it is an awful lot. What we are really talking about is the amount of carbon. Therefore, when it is possible to calculate —The Chairperson:
What does that mean in practical terms?
Mr Archdale:
One can calculate how much carbon, which originally came from the air, is locked up in agricultural land, forests, and so forth, and come up with a number. Do not quote me on this, but, from memory, that number is approximately 200 gigatons. That number does not mean anything to me. However, the number that has been calculated in the same way for blanket and peat bogs is 47 times greater, so that is the comparison. In other words, 47 times more carbon is locked up in peat than everywhere else in Northern Ireland. Does that help?
Mr Casement:
To put that into context, Wallington estate in the north-east of England covers 13,500 acres, of which approximately 3,000 acres are peatland. More carbon is locked up in those 3,000 acres than is produced annually by the entire population of north-east England, which comprises the combined conurbations of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Sunderland and Middlesbrough. A vast amount of carbon is locked up in peatland in one small area of Northumberland.
The Chairperson:
As an ordinary person who is trying to understand what that means, does the point that you are making concern what would happen if that peat were extracted and burned?
Mr Casement:
If that happened, all that carbon would enter the atmosphere. It would contribute to the greenhouse effect.
Mr Archdale:
Moreover, when drained, peat is no longer saturated, and it subsequently oxidises. We see that in areas of the Sperrins, for example, where it is well known.
Mr Casement:
If drained or exposed to the air in any way, peat starts to oxidise and emit carbon dioxide. That is one of the concerns about having drier, warmer summers.
The Chairperson:
I may be about to ask you a question to which you do not know the answer. Let me know if that is the case, and the Committee will find the answer elsewhere.
Is 47 times more carbon released when peat is burnt than when it is drained? You may not know. We can find out whether that is the case.
Mr Casement:
No. The figure is exactly the same whether it is drained and released slowly or picked up and burnt. It is simply released more slowly, whereas burning releases it quickly. Draining it or exposing it to the air means that it will disappear gradually over a few years.
Mr Malachy Campbell (Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside):
An additional consideration for peat bogs, apart from carbon storage, is that if they are destroyed, dug up, burnt or whatever, methane is likely to be released. That is a problem, particularly in places such as Siberia, where there are huge tracts of boggy land. The global-warming potential of methane gas is 23 times that of carbon dioxide, which means that one ton of methane has the same warming potential as 23 tons of carbon dioxide. That additional factor makes preservation of peat bogs even more important.
Mr Casement:
The business of permafrost areas that might melt is one of the positive-feedback mechanisms that probably lead to a more rapid rise in temperatures than we had originally anticipated. I will ask Malachy to say a few words on green technologies.
Mr M Campbell:
I will try to be brief. For the record, all members of the CNCC are independent. Anything that I say is my own personal view and, I hope, reflects those of the CNCC. It has nothing to do with any other function or role that I perform.
Another issue about the move to a low-carbon economy, which is also a means to tackle climate change, is that significant economic opportunities exist here. Northern Ireland has a tremendous wind resource. At present, around 95% of all renewable electricity in Northern Ireland is generated by wind. That strong bias towards wind power is likely to continue. However, other options include biomass energy, wave power and, potentially, solar energy. Overall, we believe that efforts to tackle climate change must be multifaceted. However, we should play to our strengths. Wind is one of Northern Ireland’s strengths. It is likely to continue as such.
I understand that the Committee previously received a presentation from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). The CBI has stated that now is the time to move towards a low-carbon economy. I know that it has highlighted the potential economic benefits that can be gained from that. A number of other groups, such as Northern Ireland Manufacturing, has also made climate change one of their priorities. It is important to highlight cost. Although there will obviously be an initial outlay, the overall financial effect is positive, because not only will money be saved but jobs will be created through inward investment, and so on.
As I said, the bias towards wind power is likely to remain in the longer term. However, a multifaceted approach must be taken.
Mr Casement:
There are strong lessons to be learned from the biodiversity process and the setting of targets. A target has been set to halt biodiversity loss by 2010. It is palpably clear that that target will not be met. Analysis has been carried out as to why it will not be met. One major factor is that too much time has been spent on talk and not enough on action. That sends out a strong message that it is time that we acted on climate change. We do not have to discover and learn every last fact, nor research everything that there is to know about climate change.
The second reason that biodiversity targets will not be reached is that efforts are too spread out and badly co-ordinated. Government, in particular, have not taken a co-ordinated approach. The message is strong that, to tackle climate change, joined-up government is needed. Under current arrangements, we believe that joined-up government is OFMDFM’s responsibility. We believe that it has shown serious lack of leadership. That is manifest by the failure to appoint a new sustainable development commissioner for Northern Ireland. That sends out all the wrong messages in the first place. To try to tackle some of the issues is an important part of the Office’s role. There are serious gaps in what Government are doing through OFMDFM.
The Chairperson:
Hopefully, the meeting will add some focus to that work. That is the purpose of your being here. Thank you for giving up your time to be here.
Mr Ford:
I want to pick up on the point that Mr Casement highlighted in his written statement and that he has just told us about, which is the failure to do anything about high-powered targets. You will have heard earlier discussions about the structures that we need for scrutiny. Based on your experience of working with the DOE and its agencies, have you any suggestions as to the right scrutiny mechanisms, as opposed to just telling Ministers to do the job, on which, perish the thought, I might agree with you?
Mr Archdale:
It is not a simple answer, because if it were, many other Governments would have come up with the mechanism. A balance must be struck between the short-termism of politics and the long-termism of the environment, and that is particularly difficult, as you will doubtless agree, in our situation, because the whole system is geared towards a four- or five-year cycle, and getting politicians re-elected. Therefore, there needs to be a consistency and a long-term vision so that there is not the constant changing and off-setting against short-term issues. An approach similar to that of the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) would be a powerful way in which to give that recommendation.
However, the thread then needs to run through to be seen in political manifestos. Ultimately, I wish to vote for a party that says that it will follow the SDC’s general recommendations. Looking at other cross-cutting issues, we, collectively, have failed significantly on issues such as coastal management, where there is an EU directive to push us in that direction but nothing is happening. As the Chairperson said, there is much talk but very little action. I do not know whether I have answered the question.
Mr Casement:
The actual structure is less important than the need for leadership to be shown somewhere, and for people to step forward and say that they will take responsibility. As Peter says, it is exactly the same with integrated coastal management, where no Department has stepped forward, or been pushed forward, and said that it will take the lead, and that is what is needed in both cases.
The Chairperson:
Thank you. Members have queries, and I ask them to be concise, as we are under pressure for time.
Mr Weir:
I agree with what has been said about action rather than talk, so I will keep my questions as brief as possible. In your submission, you made reference to targets for 2050. Do you have any projected targets for 2020? In your suggestions for 2050, you state that the targets should be closer to 95%. Where did you get the 95% figure, as opposed to the 80% figure, which is generally mentioned? Do you think that a 95% reduction in CO2 emissions is realistic by 2050, given that most people would consider an 80% reduction to be challenging?
Mr M Campbell:
Yes, the 80% reduction is challenging but achievable. In most cases, although it is not explicitly said, an 80% reduction — at least — is required by 2050. That is based on the best available scientific evidence and relates back to the targets agreed by the EU and the UK on the need to limit temperature rises to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. If that is the ceiling, the EU and the UK have worked out what an appropriate concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be required in order to ensure —
Mr Weir:
You said that you believe that the target should be closer to 95%.
Mr M Campbell:
Several individuals and thinkers say that it is necessary to get closer towards 95%, particularly in industrialised countries, because we in the industrialised countries have, historically, been responsible for the majority of the emissions thus far.
Mr Weir:
Is a 95% reduction doable?
Mr M Campbell:
Anything is doable if the will exists. In 10 years, the United States went from thinking about putting a man on the moon to putting a man on the moon. If the political will is —
Mr Weir:
They did not return to the Stone Age.
Mr M Campbell:
I do not see the relevance of the Stone Age to this debate.
Mr Weir:
What do you feel the reduction level should be by 2020?
Mr M Campbell:
Any targets that at least match those in the UK Climate Change Act would be appropriate. We have not gone as far as to specify the CNCC’s view, but, I hope that we will be able to match the UK-wide commitments. There is real potential for the use of renewable sources.
Mr Casement:
Stop Climate Chaos Northern Ireland made the point that the trajectory is as important as the target. We must tackle the issue, and, therefore, the intermediate targets are important.
Mr Archdale:
I have real difficulty with putting hard numbers on the issue. The reason for that is essentially the answer that I gave to Mr Ford. Your problem, as politicians, is selling the idea and getting re-elected, and that is why climate change is low on the political agenda.
The Chairperson:
The view that climate change is low on the political agenda is questionable.
Mr Archdale:
It will move up the agenda when events such as the summer —
Mr Weir:
The Minister has done his best to put climate change higher up the political agenda. [Laughter.]
Mr Archdale:
I accept that point totally, but the real point is that the long-term impacts of failure to do enough are severe. People’s perceptions will change when the lights start to go out, and so forth, but it will be too late by then.
The Chairperson:
Many of us accept that, which is why we are here today to focus on the issue.
Mr T Clarke:
Do you have a figure, Malachy, for how much savings wind turbines generate compared with more conventional methods?
Mr M Campbell:
I cannot answer that question directly, because it depends on with what method wind energy is compared. The relative emission savings that wind turbines generate depend on whether they are being compared with coal-fired power stations, oil-fired power stations or whatever type of gas-fired power station.
Mr T Clarke:
Can you make a general comparison?
The Chairperson:
You can get back to the Committee with the relevant figures if you wish.
Mr T Clarke:
Once again, wind energy is being advocated as the best method without its being measured against any other method. It is sometimes good to make comparisons. Someone with your background should have an idea of how much carbon is used in the production and installation of a wind turbine, and how long is the payback? It should be borne in mind that we are discussing the 2020 target.
The Chairperson:
You can supply us with the relevant figures if you do not have them immediately to hand.
Mr M Campbell:
I have some of the figures to hand. The payback time for greenhouse-gas emissions that are generated in the life cycle, manufacturing and insulation of a wind turbine is generally between three and six months. For a power station, the payback time can be 10 years or more in some cases.
Mr T Clarke:
I would like to have a look at the source of those figures. Chairperson, you were quick to say that some parties support the use of wind turbines. Our party was one of those supporters, but your party made a representation in support of wind turbines on bogland or lowlands. Is it a good idea to put wind turbines on bogland, which has to be drained?
Mr Archdale:
Again, it depends. People need to be very clear about the full ramifications of their actions. Wind turbines may be appropriate on bog that is not very deep because of the high energy returns. Energy returns from lowlands may be less, but the accruing damage may be less, too. It is a complex situation. We are not taking a broad enough view at present — the issue needs to be considered in the context of all the consequences.
Mr Casement:
All renewable energy sources need to be looked at to determine their total carbon budget. It is no use using the headline figure. Instead, the costs of production and installation and the damage that they may do to the environment must be considered. It is crucial that those sums are applied to all forms of renewable energy; otherwise, installations will be put up that cost, rather than gain, carbon. If we can get that right, wind and other energy sources have huge potential. As Malachy said, a very strong mix is needed at different levels, both at the large scale and at the micro scale, at which individual houses are able to produce their own energy.
The Chairperson:
We often find that many wind turbines have to be placed on elevated hill tops, which, invariably —
Mr Casement:
Landscape issues must be taken into account.
The Chairperson:
You will never get absolute compatibility in a decision-making process.
Mr Casement:
That is a difficult issue, and one that we are facing, because we are asked to give advice on the location of wind turbines.
Mr Beggs:
What is your mechanism for taking that into account? How do you decide on the overall benefit?
Mr Casement:
We have to look at the site and the supplementary planning guidance to draft Planning Policy Statement 18 (PPS 18), which covers wind energy and considers landscape character for different areas. More importantly, we look carefully at the substrate — the soils on which the turbine is to be built. When wind farms are proposed on deep peat, for example, we recommend that the proposals be turned down. We recommend that proposals to build wind farms in high-value landscape areas are turned down.
We try to take a balanced view on the issue, and to do so is not easy. We all find ourselves in difficult situations in which we try to encourage the use of renewable energy but in which we sometimes have to say that installations should not go up in a certain place.
Mr Beggs:
You said that the carbon-emission reduction target should be 95%. It is important that that is a SMART target so that people feel that it is achievable. A reduction of 80% will require much change and adaptation, and it seems to be an ambitious target, but one that we have to go for. Is your proposal for a 95% reduction in danger of being seen as unachievable?
Mr M Campbell:
The CNCC’s view is that the target of 80% is a good target for which to aim. Our document tries to reflect an evolution in thinking. The target should be at least 80%, but arguments are being made in many circles that the target should be higher than that, and perhaps as high as 95%. The document is meant to reflect that developing line of thinking rather than see it as a hard-and-fast target.
Sweden has said that it wants to move towards a fossil-fuel-free economy by 2020. If a country such as Sweden can aim to do that in 11 years, a reduction of 95% in 41 years does not seem so unrealistic. The 95% target reflects a line of thinking on the need for severe reductions in carbon emissions and for the urgency of that cutback.
Mr Beggs:
You made specific proposals for electrification of transport and the adoption of hydrogen-powered vehicles. Do you agree that there is little point in moving to electrical or hydrogen-powered vehicles if oil and coal is burned to generate the electricity? Through those proposals, for an organisation that calls itself the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, you are getting into some specific technical areas. Do you agree that some dangers are associated with that and that an overall package is required? You mentioned Scandinavia, where, as I understand it, a great deal of hydroelectricity and nuclear energy is used. What is your view on such methods of producing electricity?
The Chairperson:
Can I have only one response to that, gentlemen? We have overshot our time by a good bit.
Mr Casement:
We are pro-hydropower — subject to provisos on the net balance of the resultant damage. The CNCC comprises 20 individuals, and I suspect that there are up to 20 different views on nuclear energy in the group, but we have not explored that. I think that it is slightly beyond our remit.
I accept that we have been specific in certain cases. However, human abilities and human ingenuity are remarkable. One only has to look at the advances that have been made in wind-turbine technology in the past two years, let alone the past 12 years, and we are seeing enormous strides being made in efficiency, in effectiveness and in the amount of power that the same size of turbine can produce.
We must recognise that we have enormous capabilities. If we can produce electricity by renewable means, we are freed immediately from the carbon economy. I see that as a positive feedback mechanism. Once one starts to make significant improvements in becoming carbon-free, one gathers a momentum that is almost unstoppable, because it makes such good sense, not only environmentally but economically.
The Chairperson:
Thank you for your presentation and for taking the time to be with us today for our valuable inquiry. We will see you again.
Mr Casement:
We look forward to that.