Written evidence submitted by Pupils 2 Parliament (CGE0012)

 

Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

  1. Pupils 2 Parliament is a project to enable school pupils to consider and feed in their views to parliamentary, national government and national body inquiries and public consultations.  The project aims to aims to bring the particular experience and viewpoint of young people to those conducting inquiries and consultations.  It also gives school pupils the chance to learn about and consider key decisions being made by parliament, national government and public bodies, and genuinely to participate in democracy by feeding their views into real national decisionmaking.

 

  1. The project has been approved by the Clerks of both Houses of Parliament to use the term ‘Parliament’ in its title.

 

  1. This submission presents all views given by a group of 15 secondary school pupils from Bishop Hereford’s Bluecoat School, Hereford.  Their views are reported without selection, addition or comment.  Pupils were given a briefing on the inquiry topic, presented neutrally and based directly on the material related to the Inquiry on the government website.  The consultation discussion was run independently by Pupils 2 Parliament, with a member of school staff recording pupils’ views and proposals.  All views and votes came spontaneously from pupils, with no prompt or ‘lead’ on what they should say.

 

Pupil views on technology for clean growth

  1. The Committee’s Terms of Reference ask for evidence on the extent to which current and future technologies can help to meet the carbon budgets.  We asked pupils for their views on the use and development of current and future technologies in reducing emissions contributing to climate change.

 

  1. Overall, pupils were concerned that the UK should meet its targets for carbon reduction.  They wanted to see a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, both because their use releases carbon, and because they are a finite resource.  One saw climate change as heading towards an “after World War 3” situation.

 

  1. Some were keen that the UK should follow examples of low-pollution technology in other countries, such as China and Japan.  We should have an “immigration of ideas”.

 

  1. There was a view though that priority may be better given to dealing with plastic use and pollution of the sea by plastic.  Following this up, and in the light of current debates about public views on the balance between reducing plastic pollution and reducing climate change, we separately asked two independent groups of primary school children (53 children in all) whether they thought the government should put most money into dealing with plastic pollution or into dealing with climate change.  Those pupils (by 41 votes to 12) wanted government to prioritise dealing with plastic pollution over dealing with climate change.

 

  1. Pupils noted that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not all bad – what counts is getting the amount down to what is right for the environment.  Some carbon dioxide is needed by trees, but cutting down towards that level helps to avoid more climate change.

 

  1. There was a warning that safety issues that need to be resolved with all types of vehicles – for example, we were quoted worrying statistics about the number of existing cars whose engines blow up or catch fire each year.

 

  1. The group discussed the issue of air pollution by vehicles of various kinds.  Some saw taxing highly polluting engines as more promising than government backing particular technologies (though some spoke of the expense involved in complicated tax systems for different engines).  Others proposed development of engines able to switch between different types of low-emission fuels.  The least polluting fuels should always be the cheapest.

 

  1. Proposals included development of hydrogen-powered vehicles, as this is safe and proven technology for development.  There were also proposals for ways for vehicles to generate some of their own electrical drive power, such as installation of solar panel car roofs, and putting a generating turbine in the strong airflow over lorries.  Some proposed work on the use of different forms of electricity generation, such as wind power, to generate electricity directly to charge vehicles.  Work should be done on biofuels to power large vehicles such as lorries and buses.

 

  1. There were mixed views about electric vehicles.  Most saw these as the way ahead, but thought charging systems and battery storage need to be improved.  It was proposed that the deadline for stopping production and sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles should be brought forward to 2020.  Lorries should increasingly switch from fossil fuel engines to electric ones.  Electrically powered buses and trams could reduce car use and polluting emissions in cities.  Large electric vehicles for disabled people, able to take wheelchairs, should be developed.  Electrically powered mobility scooters, and use of electrical assistance to pedalling, should also be developed.  However, electrically powered bikes for people who do not need them because of mobility problems still pollute by using electricity – people who could should “just pedal”.

 

  1. Others thought that electric vehicles have been too ‘hyped’.  There were concerns that battery development and production causes air pollution, as does electricity generation itself.  Electric vehicles are expensive, and incentives might be needed for manufacturers to reduce their price.  The silence of electric vehicles can be a danger to pedestrians.  Noise needs to be ‘piped in’ to electric vehicles to warn of their approach – otherwise they could be “lethal”.  Making transport rely on electricity might  encourage the price of electrical power to rise.

 

  1. It was proposed that the entire cost of journeys should be considered, including the costs of fuel or electricity production and of charging stations for electric vehicles.  In looking at the value of replacing existing types of vehicle engines with electrical power units, it is important to compare the whole life cost of petrol or diesel vehicles with that of electric ones, counting in all the costs of fuel production and generation for each.

 

  1. There were ideas for reducing power consumption of existing vehicles.  One was to require that all petrol or diesel engines should have an engine cutoff system to stop polluting ticking over when stationary.  There was one concern with this, however, which was that engines may have a burst of high fuel consumption, and therefore high air pollution, each time they restart.  Cutoff systems are especially important in big cities such as London, with lots of slow moving traffic.

 

  1. Pupils proposed extension of car-sharing schemes.  These need to be developed and improved though;  schemes could provide a choice of a number of different vehicles in a local area shared between a number of people, but would always need to provide immediate access to a vehicle for emergency use by anyone in the pool group.  New technology could be used to meter and record each driver’s use of power. There may also be a need to sort out disagreements between car-pooling neighbours over their car use and sharing.

 

  1. Pupils raised some concerns about some of the main ways of reducing air pollution from travel.  Encouraging cycling instead of car use, for example, might save polluting emissions, but meant people switching to a much more dangerous form of transport.  Cycling is hazardous, cyclists are more vulnerable to injury in any accident, and are prone to accidents both in city traffic and on dark rural lanes.

 

  1. Considering power generation, pupils favoured solar, wind and wave power generation of electricity.  Statistics were quoted illustrating predictions of great increase in both wind power generation, and electricity generation using bio waste – with the example of ‘chicken poo’ given.  To boost use of solar power generation, it is necessary to improve night storage of solar generated electricity, and to use smart electricity supply systems that can store power to match supply and demand times.  On wind power, there was concern at the ‘unexpected consequence’ of loss of life by wildlife such as bats from collision with wind turbines.  Turbine blades may need to be enclosed within a cage for the protection of wildlife.  There was also worry at ‘expensive ideas’ in the generation of power.

 

  1. The group proposed the development of combined power systems, in which individual houses could generate power in different ways, cars could regenerate power, and the system could share stored power between the car, the house, and the grid, depending on how much had been generated and how much was needed by the house and car.

 

  1. A clear proposal was made that tree planting should be used as a main way of trying to reduce carbon dioxide in the air.

 

  1. There was a clear view that people must learn to reduce their overall demand for power.  There was need for “convincing the public to use sunlight instead of light bulbs”.  One specific proposal for urgent reduction in demand for power was to impose a weekly national power cut day.

 

 

Should the government support specific technologies or follow a ‘technology neutral’ approach?

 

  1. This is a specific question in the Committee’s Inquiry Terms of Reference.  We explained the options of selecting specific technologies to back, or of supporting and rewarding reductions in carbon emissions and air pollution, whatever technolgies are used to achieve them.

 

  1. The pupils strongly favoured government support for specific technologies.  13 of the 15 backed this approach, against 2 who backed a technology neutral approach.  None took the option offered of giving equal support to both approaches.


The choice between supporting new technologies or the development of existing technologies

  1. The Terms of Reference ask for views on the relative importance of supporting new technologies and ideas, or deploying and developing existing technologies for reducing emissions and achieving cleaner air.  We put this question directly to the pupils.

 

  1. The pupil group strongly favoured focusing support on new technologies and ideas.  10 favoured this approach, compared with 5 favouring focusing support on the deployment and development of existing technologies.

 

The relative importance of the four main elements of the government’s Clean Growth Strategy

  1. The Committee asked for views on the relative importance of each of four separate areas for future progress set out in the government’s Clean Growth Strategy.  We described each of the four areas using information from the Clean Growth Strategy document, and asked pupils to indicate the extent of their support for the importance each of these areas.

 

  1. Pupils gave unanimous support for the fourth area of the Strategy;  enhancing the benefits and value of our natural resources as a way of reducing carbon and other harmful emissions.

 

  1. The second most strongly supported area of the Strategy was developing clean, smart and flexible power.  This was supported as highly important by 12 out of the 15 pupils.

 

  1. Third in importance as seen by the pupils came improving our homes, supported by 10 out of the 15 pupils.

 

  1. Pupils saw shifting to low carbon transport as the least important of the four areas of the Strategy, supported by 9 out of the 15 in the group.

 

  1. It is important to note however, that overall, the pupils saw all four of the areas in the Strategy as definitely important to work on;  each of the four areas was supported by a majority of the group of 15.

 

The importance of specific technologies

 

  1. In response to the Committee’s request for evidence on technologies seen as having ‘particular promise’ for meeting future carbon reduction targets, we asked pupils to rate how important they saw each of a list of 35 specific technologies as likely to achieve this.  This gave us a clear statement of the perceptions of these young people on the promise of a wide range of carbon reduction and clean air technologies.

 

  1. Our list of 35 specific technologies was made up from our reading of the Inquiry information and the government’s Clean Growth Strategy.

 

  1. Pupils were asked to register their support for each technology independently and individually on paper, indicating no support, support, or strong support for each one (support scoring 1, strong support scoring 2).  A brief description of each technology was given, without suggesting either favour or opposition for it.

 

  1. These were the technologies which received majority support from pupils, each receiving a score of more than 15 (out of the maximum score of 30) from the group:

 

    1. Making walking and cycling easier for short journeys (scored 25)
    2. Maintaining and planting forests to absorb carbon (scored 23)
    3. Better recycling, with less food and biodegradable waste going to landfill (scored 22)
    4. Recycling of heat from factories to nearby homes (scored 19)
    5. Better charging and batteries for electric vehicles (scored 19)
    6. Wind power generation (including development offshore)  (scored 17)
    7. Wave and tidal power generation  (scored 17)
    8. Turning sewage into biofuel for vehicles  (scored 17)
    9. Less emissions from landfill (eg covering with chemicals to oxidise methane) (scored 17)
    10. Electric vehicles  (scored 17)
    11. Low energy houses and other buildings  (scored 16)
    12. Smart elecricity grids, storing energy and smoothing demand  (scored 16)
    13. Smart meters in houses  (scored 16).

 

  1. One technology, connected and autonomous vehicles to use roads and energy more efficiently and reduce traffic jams, received 15 points – but there was some disagreement about the desirability of self-driving vehicles.  One view was that these may not be good for the environment as they involve so much technology and many at present use petrol or diesel fuel.

 

  1. The following technologies received less than majority support from the group.   They are listed in order of the support each received:

 

Low carbon alternatives to gas boilers (scored 14)

More efficient vehicles (both in fuel consumption and eg aerodynamically shaped lorries)  (scored 13)

Power generation from general waste  (scored 13)

Low emission farming (including improved fertilisers, animal care and use of robot and sensor technologies to enhance yields)  (scored 13)

Low emission heating for buildings (eg heat pumps and solar)  (scored 12)

Hydrogen fuel cells for vehicles  (scored 12)

Reprocessing mixed plastic waste as fuel  (scored 12)

More efficient electrical equipment in houses  (scored 12)

Lorry platoons (scored 12)

Switch to hydrogen and bioenergy fuels  (scored 10)

Reducing gases from rotting waste material (by reduction or removal) (scored 10)

Carbon capture and storage from factories and other buildings (scored 10)

Greenhouse gas removal from atmosphere  (scored 9)

New low carbon / non-fossil fuels for industry  (scored 8)

Biomass power generation (scored 7)

More fuel-efficient industry (scored 7)

Greater use of wood in buildings to lock in carbon (scored 6)

Better nuclear energy generation  (scored 5)

Linking biomass grown to absorb CO2 with power generation including carbon capture  (scored 4)

Nuclear fusion for power generation (scored 1).

 

  1. Generally, pupils saw ‘lower’ technology solutions as preferable and more promising than solutions relying on development of ‘higher’ and more complex technology.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

  1. The Select Committee is recommended seriously to consider the views and perspective of children and young people set out in this report, and to include them in their report requiring government response.

 

Acknowledgements

  1. I am grateful to the Head and staff of Bishop Hereford’s Bluecoat School for facilitating this consultation discussion, especially to the member of staff who took notes of the pupils’ votes and views, and above all to the pupils themselves who gave their fresh thinking, views and ideas for this submission.

 

October 2018