SC(3) CR-T2

Sustainability Committee

Inquiry into Carbon Reduction in Wales: Carbon Reduction by Transport

General emissions reduction questions

Q1 If sustainability is to be achieved, the UK emissions reduction target will have to be changed at some time in future to require much greater reductions. (Evidence: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Sensible planning in Wales would take this into account now.

Rural but potentially productive and relatively uniformly settled areas such as most of Wales are better placed to contribute to overall C02 reductions than urban areas (mainly because of access to land for low emissions food, fuel and materials) implying greater reductions targets than are appropriate to the UK as a whole.

Q2 Consumption is the more appropriate measure, since location of C02 release is irrelevant in climatic terms. There is thus little point in considering location of release, other than to attempt to transfer blame. Nations inevitably vary greatly in terms of emissions within their borders by accident of resources available to them.

Transport-specific questions

Q3 Transport challenges are the high number of rural dwellings in Wales and the current poor and uncomfortable public transport provision. Railway construction has some potential, particularly if powered by non-fossil sources such as wood. In rural areas, most private vehicles are used almost entirely for journeys to a nearby town, and could therefore, already be powered from conventional batteries. Although this submission relates to transport, employment patterns are relevant, since very local employment reduces commuting. Rural Wales has significant agricultural potential for production requiring manual labour.  Localised retailing and recreational opportunities also have the potential to reduce transport and engender community.

Q4 Current policies give insufficient emphasis to emissions reduction, in view of the real reduction requirements (several times the UK target) necessary to give atmospheric stability. (Evidence: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)

Q5 In view of the reductions necessary for sustainability, there is almost no obvious and significant evidence of success to date by the National Assembly of Wales in this regard.

Q6 Alternative targeting would achieve greater transport emissions reductions. Rural bus travel is tiring, but greater rail provision would allow frequent, comfortable, low- emissions travel. Funding for the replacement of closed railways would be effective in terms of C02 reductions per cost. It would be desirable to modify rural drivers’ current habits in order to avoid discouraging the use of horse transport on otherwise suitable roads. This would cost little, slightly reduce fuel use, and might be effective. In urban areas, pantographs for tram and trolleybus would reduce emissions long into the future for a single outlay now. (Nuclear power generation for traction use should be encouraged, if evidence suggests it is the lesser of several evils.) Parking and, if practical, fuelling for fossil powered vehicles should be charged highly and for fossil powered vehicles should be charged and/or rationed to discourage their use, whereas electric traction should be less penalised.

Q7 No evidence available at short notice.

Q8 No evidence available at short notice.

Q9 Targeting by sector is attractive because some sectors (most notably transport) have much greater potential for reduction but also have anomalously greater reluctance. Much of the transport emissions are due to comfort habits. Without division of targets by sector, sectors important to daily survival might be deprived of emissions allowance while luxury modes of transport, used by an increasingly privileged few, continue.