Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had
with the Climate Change Committee about their Jet Zero strategy,
published on 19 July, and whether it is consistent with the
United Kingdom’s sixth carbon budget.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport () (Con)
My Lords, Ministers and officials regularly engage with the
Climate Change Committee and its recommendations were considered
alongside other evidence in the development of jet zero strategy.
The jet zero strategy is aligned with the Government’s net zero
strategy, which sets out our economy-wide plan for achieving net
zero by 2050 and for meeting our carbon targets.
(LD)
My Lords, the Climate Change Committee recently red-rated the
Government’s aviation plan on the grounds that it
“relies heavily on very nascent technology scaling up
quickly”.
Given that the Government’s targets are legally binding, will the
Minister say what specific policy proposals are being developed
to speed it up and to develop a plan B should that not be
possible?
(Con)
I appreciate that we do not agree with the Climate Change
Committee on the imposition of limits to air travel. We believe
the technology-led approach is correct. Within the jet zero
strategy there are 62 policy recommendations and we are looking
to put them in place as quickly as possible. One will be to
support the development of a sustainable aviation fuel industry
in this country which we believe could, at least in the
medium-term, have a significant impact on reducing carbon
emissions.
(Lab)
My Lords, several Conservative think tanks have made a number of
comments and proposals on managing demand in the aviation
industry, including VAT on flights and a frequent-flyer levy.
Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government have had
any discussions on these proposals? After all, it is very likely
that their reliance on new technology is not going to be adequate
to meet the targets on climate that they have set in time.
(Con)
As I alluded to in my earlier answer, the Government believe that
limits on air travel are not appropriate at this time and indeed
would be counterproductive for one of the most significant
sectors in our country that is also important for the wider
economy. I am aware of various proposals for frequent-flyer
levies, and there are many disadvantages to those sorts of
interventions. The Government are not considering that at this
time.
(CB)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Minister is talking about
sustainable aviation fuels, but they are going to have to come
from somewhere. I understand from the jet zero strategy that the
Government are aiming for 5 million tonnes by 2050. Is that
enough to cover the number of flights we need? Secondly, have the
Government assessed the impact that growing that amount of
biofuel—I assume most of the sustainable fuel will be
biofuel—will have on food prices? It seems we possibly have a
policy here which risks indirectly subsidising flights with
higher food prices, because at the end of the day we have a
limited amount of land.
(Con)
Our sustainable aviation fuel policy is very clear that we will
not be looking for any feedstocks to come from economically
viable land that would otherwise be used for food. The sorts of
feedstocks we will be using for sustainable aviation fuels will
be black-bag waste—biomass—and we will also look at alcohols.
There may be another way that we can do power to fuel by
harnessing hydrogen and carbon dioxide from the air. There are
many production pathways that sustainable aviation fuels can
follow. None of them involves the use of biological outputs from
farmland.
(Con)
Would my noble friend not agree that it would be a great shame to
restrict the freedom of people to travel around the world in this
way? Surely it would be much better for us to invest more in
looking at these alternative fuels. There is a great interest in
hydrogen in the industry. Can my noble friend confirm that the
Government are giving as much support as they can to the various
research operations in this country and elsewhere to develop that
fuel, rather than preventing people travelling?
(Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. We want to maintain the
benefits of air travel and to harness the various technologies
out there. My noble friend mentioned hydrogen; after I leave the
Chamber today, I shall be going to meet ZeroAvia, a company that
has a hydrogen fuel cell-powered aircraft and is looking to scale
that up. Indeed, the Government have invested in ZeroAvia and we
will continue to invest in hydrogen or other propulsion
technologies going forward.
(LD)
My Lords, my noble friend talked about reliance on nascent
technology. One way of speeding up technology has been through
the Aerospace Growth Partnership—which I am sure the Minister
knows is a joint industry and government enterprise—and its
Aerospace Technology Institute. Can she perhaps tell us how much
of the money being spent in the ATI is devoted to technologies
that will help deliver the sorts of results that my noble friend
is seeking?
(Con)
I do not have the specifics on the exact investment in ATI, but I
can tell the noble Lord that, in total, it is £685 million for
aerospace R&D. He mentioned working in partnership with
industry; that is what is so important and what underlies the jet
zero strategy. It is not just the Department for Transport having
a think all on its own. We are working with industry and
academia, and we have done a consultation that drew 1,500
responses. We will look at the technology; some of it is nascent
and some is more developed than that.
(Lab)
For the aviation industry to become net zero, passengers need to
be able to access airports through active or public transport.
What recent steps have the Government taken to support the
building of new rail, bus and cycle links to UK regional airports
in particular, and what form has that support taken?
(Con)
As the noble Lord will know, connectivity to regional airports
would be the responsibility of the local transport authority, but
the Government have invested significantly in active travel and,
in addition, in buses. When it comes to rail, I have just come
out of a meeting with Manchester Airport, for example, and it is
looking in great detail as to how rail services going to and from
Manchester Airport will be able to support its development in the
future.
(GP)
My Lords, the Jet Zero Strategyreports:
“Non-CO2 impacts currently represent around 66% of the net
effective radiative forcing”
of aviation—the global warming potential of flying—and notes that
the Department for Transport analysis does not take any account
of these outputs of water vapour and nitrous oxide at high
altitudes. Instead, it commits to a five-yearly review of the
evidence. How will the Government deliver net-zero aviation if
these effects are found to be significant even with non-fossil
fuel aviation fuels?
(Con)
For once, I agree with the noble Baroness. Non-carbon dioxide
emissions are incredibly important, yet the science is as yet
unresolved. There are significant uncertainties around the
impacts of all the different emissions produced by aircraft,
particularly at high altitude. We are looking at the research and
will be developing policies once we have had more time to
consider where the science currently is.
(Lab)
Earlier on, my noble friend Lady Blackstone referred to
“Conservative think tanks”. The only Conservative “un-think
tanks” I have heard about spend all their time attacking net
zero. Can we get absolute confirmation from the Minister that the
Government will stand firm on this against the lobbying clearly
coming from the gang started by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson,
which is hell-bent on continuing to use fossil fuels?
(Con)
I am grateful to be able to report that I have had no lobbying at
all from anybody who is not in favour of net zero. As the noble
Lord clearly knows, it is the law and we will be setting
intermediate carbon budgets as we are required to do by law.
(Con)
My noble friend will be aware that in the United States, United
Airlines is buying zero-emission electric aeroplanes for
commercial flights from 2026. Even if that slips, and it is only
for very short-distance hopping, what about the vision for this
country? Do the Government have a view on when we can see
zero-emission flights, either domestically or internationally, in
this country?
(Con)
The Government remain technology-agnostic when it comes to
aircraft. It will be up to the airlines to decide which aircraft
best suits their need, based not only on the duration of the
flight but on the infrastructure. But my noble friend is
absolutely right that there are some fairly rapid developments in
aircraft at the moment, and both Airbus and Boeing are looking
very seriously at how to decarbonise longer-haul aircraft. From
the department’s perspective, we will shortly be doing a
consultation on how we get to net-zero domestic flights by 2040.
