New Fuels, New Rules? Workshop Proceedings

New Fuels, New Rules? Workshop Proceedings

Following an welcome by Paul Williams, Director of the Doctoral Training Centre in Low Carbon Technologies, Gillian Harrison gave an introduction to the day, explaining its purpose and format, and explained the five policy types that are available and being implemented to support the uptake of low carbon vehicles, which are, Regulation, Competition and Collaboration, Fiscal Measures, Raising Awareness and Facilitating Adoption.

The Role of Low Carbon Cars in Society – John Batterbee (Energy Technologies Institute)

John gave an overview of the role of cars in society now and how it could be in the future. He suggested that the challenge is to move from social concerns to corporate concerns and to do so we need a strategic vision. John set the context that we currently drive 40 billion miles a year, which is 10 times that of train journeys and 20 times that of bus journeys, leading to us spending 4.5% of our time in cars, and 15% of our income on them. John discussed how we used the car, who actually purchases the car (mainly fleet who do high mileage and have high turnover), that we are locked in to the infrastructure and investments made around car use (such as lifetime of car, manufacturers and refuelling). However, his take home message was that we can decarbonise transport by 2050 (which is a milestone not an end point), but it will be expensive, and we don’t have to force people away from the car to do this. Private car will remain to be a major mode of transport in 2050.

Questions were raised about decarbonisation of energy sources, accounting for life cycle emissions, changes in ownership models and feasibility of solar energy.

Low Carbon Vehicle Technologies – Andy Eastlake (Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership)

Andy gave a comprehensive overview of the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership who facilitate stakeholder partnerships for the development of Low Carbon Vehicles and has five key working groups in fuels, passenger cars, innovation, bus, and commercial. However there are cross cutting issues that mean a collaborative effort is needed to address all of them. Andy makes a number of assumptions including that that mobility is seen as a right, forcing reduced mobility is unacceptable, mobility is proportional to economic growth, solutions are required in parallel areas but change can be encouraged through carrots, ticks and information. Therefore we need a holistic perspective to a low carbon transport framework, which encompasses new fuels and technologies, more efficient use, modal shift and demand reduction. This is being achieved through improving consumer information, stimulating innovative technologies indentifying barriers, researching future needs and supporting government frameworks.

Society has developed around the automobile, from industrial and technological revolution leading to mass production and development to financial and information revolutions allowing mass affordability and integration. We now face an environmental revolution requires many aspects of vehicle technologies to be understood and addressed. The ultimate goal would be to have a zero life cycle impact for mobility – but how realistic could this ever be? Therefore the best realistic solution will be a move towards choosing a technology most suitable for the task rather than the current status of ‘one size fits all’. Efficiency can be improved by considering operation and ownership needs in more depth and trying to match the two through changing perceptions. However, the automotive council technology roadmap ultimate aim is still seen as the FCV, and this has skewed the UK R&D agenda. Though there is no supportive roadmap for fuel and energy infrastructure because we don’t know what we need as different know how many of each vehicle type is likely – we need scenario modelling to do this.

The automotive industry is global – there is no car built just for the UK, but UK has specific needs and cultures. However the UK could benefit by taking advantage of incentives for new technology development and getting the best technologies here in the UK. Changes however are slow – it took 15 years for the Prius to go from niche market to highest selling. This will be more so for different technologies as they require supportive infrastructure and energy storage breakthroughs (eg battery costs and capacities).

There will be no ‘silver bullet’ and consumers can only make right choice in when they know what they need a car for. Currently cars are bought as an insurance policy to be able to use wherever for whatever. Perceptions and thinking about it are not current challenged, as people don’t want to think about it! We need to understand who consumers trust to be able to challenge the perception of what a car actually is. One word of caution as technology develops - if we created autonomous vehicles - mobility may increase as can then use travel time for other things!

The Ethics of Climate Change - James Garvey (Royal Institute of Philosophy)

James begun his talk with a warning – that moral philosophy is different from moralising. He made clear to the audience that as a ethicist, he is not necessarily the most ethical of people. Similarly, for engineers, we may have a better understanding of how technologies work that how we ought to use them. Society has a relatively good underatdning of climate change science, economics and poltics, but moral dimensions of climate change are just mentioned in widespread media – it is not directly explored and there are different arguments, used by those both for and against action, all based on science rather than moral understanding.

What we should do about climate change seems at first obvious, but dependent on how you approach it. For example, if the moral obligation is on those who did most damage it’s ‘us’ to make the change – we have used more than our fair share of carbon sinks which are a scarce resource. But as China and India’s emission rapidly increase and they become the greater emitters – how does this change the responsibilities? So what initially seems obvious, very quickly becomes much more complicated.

Some of the questions raised by ethicists regarding climate change action: Do we doom those who would benefit from adaptation if we focus on mitigation? How do we balance the needs of the poor now and the poor in the future? Will future people be the same people (the non-identity problem)? Are all emissions equal? (Henry Shue – luxury vs subsistence emissions) What is sustainability? Even when one refers to the Brundtland definition, we are then faced with what is a need? Should this include parts of ones own identity? How do we balance risk against uncertainty? Should voices in negotiations regarding climate change be proportional to the risk of impact that a section faces (ie India will get much greater voice than US)? Should we introduce sanctions against the worlds biggest polluters as we do against nations we know are performing atrocities against their people cf Zimbabwe, South Africa? How do we address apparent inconsistency between lifestyles and rationality (for example republicans in America are pro-life but also climate skeptic, pro-guns and pro-death penalty!).

The challenge remains as to how we can implement that? How much of our lifestyles can we keep? Who do we class as being responsible for historical emissions? For the first time we are seriously taking about representing the rights of future generations including spokesman in local government and talk of a UN commissioner for Future Generations. Further to this it is built into the US constitution that there be, ‘liberty for prosperity’. Agency has been smeared out as complicated intuitions about morality have evolved with us. Now the context has evolved and we haven’t had the time to think about these questions before. We are at risk of passing on the major moral challenges to the future because we aren’t making moral decisions, which is understandable because this is a type of problem so dissimilar to one than humans have faced before and it is complex and unobvious. Much work (eg Pacala and Scolow wedges) casts climate change as a technological problem only, which may be misleading and is constantly evolving. We can reduce emissions with the technology we have already got, but greatly up-scaled, allowing us to keep our lifestyles. This approach does not address the moral problems of climate change, so may result in solutions that are not appropriate or sustainable.

Facilitated Discussion

(Note: This is not a word by word accurate transcription of the discussion)

Question 1: Will the introduction of low carbon vehicles change the way we view and use cars in the UK?

Initial online questionnaire results to question

AE: We can already see that the way we view them is - for example the Prius has a certain culture about it, and is given a somewhat celebrity status amongst cars. Other non-conventional vehicles coming onto the market (such as the Zoe) are positioned differently to other cars, such as the way they are portrayed in the marketing, who is targeted etc. Regarding use, that will be somewhat slower, as currently we still want to use them in the same way.

JB: Perhaps the question to ask is actually if it is necessary to make these changes? Yes, people will change, but an important point is that we don’t need to push people to make the change – we can deliver a low carbon fleet without having to ask people to change.

JG: A concern may be that owning a low carbon car may then give the owner more inclination to do the ‘wrong’ thing afterwards – allowing ourselves a kind of moral flexibility – for example will people drive more, because they have bought themselves a ‘green’ car (nb especially if it is cheaper to drive?)

JK: Research is doing the opposite – one question that could be asked is if ‘green’ could ever be seen as ‘sexy’ as ‘fast’.

JG: That’s very unlikely but it could get to a point that larger ‘gas guzzlers’ gain a bad reputation as being unsociable?

JB: My neighbour has 2 Prius’s so one can be on the drive for show when the other is in use.

AE: Range anxiety issues are already making people drive differently and this is something being discussed public. However, there are economical displays on dashboards that drivers may be motivated by.

GH: Such as the Nissan Leaf system which is connected between all drivers - provides a competition.

JB: There is segmentation within markets, and many consumers care more to how a car looks rather than what it actually is. People respond to marketing in many different ways as car ownership is very much down to individual choice. More information is available before even entering a car showroom than ever before, so targeted marketing from manufacturers could influence distinct proportions of the population before they purchase.

Question 2: Is there a general defensible claim that one should be able to own and run a car that meets ones needs, and do certain segments of society have a stronger claim than others?

Initial online questionnaire results

AE: Mobility is a right – but not necessarily car ownership, even though they are very much linked. Manufacturers are looking at different ownership models and are being more flexible in their role. Similar to the development of the mobile phone market, one could argue that communications is a right and mobiles are the means. It is not likely that certain segments have stronger claims, but when considering this, it may be relevant that some people have different values of time that they spend travelling?

JB: Very little in the UK has to do with ‘need’ – and is more about ‘want’. Our society is structured around want and how can you have a right to something that you have a choice in? So the notion of this question is a struggle itself. There is a similar problem when it comes to arguments for demand reduction as how can an acceptable level of reduction be derived or defended? There are some parts of the country where you just can’t get by without a car, ie rural areas – do these have a claim for a basic level of subsistence?

JG: In philosophical literature, discussions on need are often parallel with discussion on what a right is. It can be argued to be what constitutes a good life, for example, Sen describes ten things that can be defended. But do we need to take time to work out ones own needs? Henry Shue argues that subsistence needs more important than luxury (but where do we agree to draw the line?)

AK: Needs and rights are surely an evolving concept (think of TV ownership), that should be imbedded in our aspirations for what we want for our citizens. This doesn’t necessarily mean we can, but need to be something that is part of our society.

JB: When it comes to institutions - no one really trusts them anymore (did they ever?) and the government are responsible for doing this – so do we have the right institutions to evaluate evolving questions (and obligations)?

AE: Mobility is a core component of how we operate as a society. We need to progress in the same way whilst solving problems of the past – we can’t simply stand still.

AK: Perhaps then there is a government obligation to support that.

SB: What about choice for example when people are made redundant from one job and have to get another job further away?