Abolishing the car and other tall tales from the eco-future

Written by Chris Huhne MP and published in Liberator Magazine on Sat 15th Sep 2007

Not surprisingly, the tabloid press picked up the transport part of our climate change paper when we launched it at the end of August. No-one can accuse us of pulling our punches - the climate change plans are radical, and are also the first truly comprehensive programme from any political party - but the media line of attack was bizarre. The Lib Dems plan to abolish the petrol engine and hence the car! What we propose is in fact that the EU's gradual decline in average emissions should not just extend to 2020, but that we should provide the certainty that carmakers crave by pushing it out to 2040. By that time, the EU should ban the sale of new carbon-emitting vehicles.

In fact, I would be surprised if the petrol engine had not gone long before. Over the last year, the Tesla electric car in the US has abolished all the preconceptions about milk floats. With Li-ion batteries, it has a range of 200 miles, charges overnight, and will warm Jeremy Clarkson's petrol-head heart by going from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds, which is about as quick as you get and is a lot quicker than is good for you.

Altairnano has gone further: the company's new nano-technology allows a much greater surface area to be packed into a small battery both extending life and speeding up a charge. It claims its battery will give a 250 mile range on a 10 minute charge, and the British-based Lightning car company has signed up: its car will have a top speed of 130 miles per hour and a similar vroom to the Tesla. And if people want to drive around in cars that do not damage the environment - either hydrogen fuel cell, or battery powered from renewables - then why not?

Our green policies are just J.S.Mill's harm principle applied to a new field: we should be free to do as we will so long as we do not harm others. Individuals should be free to travel however they wish. However this must not be at the expense of fellow human beings or the next generation who will face the worst effects of climate change if we do nothing. Using economic instruments, taxation and regulation the purpose of our climate change proposals is not to prevent choice or stifle freedom, but to create a fair and level playing field that takes account of the full consequences - now and in the future - of our behaviour. I make no apologies for tough proposals on sustainability: it is the height of selfishness to rob future generations of life chances.

The only way of moving the car makers to sustainability is through green taxes and longer-term regulation. In the short run, our road policy builds on our existing policy for Vehicle Exercise Duty, where gas-guzzlers would pay £2,000 a year while the cleanest cars pay nothing. In the long run, the EU's single market rules need to set mandatory targets to cut vehicle emissions through technical measures from the current average of 163g/km to 130g/km in 2015 and 95g/km in 2020. The carmakers are screaming, but they do not have a leg to stand on since they promised to deliver with a voluntary code and lamentably failed.

As well as the obvious carbon dioxide savings electric cars are quieter than petrol vehicles and emit no dangerous fumes. With our cities and countryside enjoying fresh air and quiet streets, would we have the same objections to cars? As liberals our answer is surely - as long as the social costs of maintaining and managing roads are met - that people should be free to enjoy them. A key condition, of course, is that the electricity is generated from renewables, and the climate change paper commits to zero carbon electricity too using German-tested feed-in tariffs to boost wind, wave, tidal and solar power. Subsidies should be directed at infant industries that will eventually become economic when they reach sensible scale, not at ageing and failed technologies like nuclear.

Aviation is harder both politically and technologically. Our package of proposals for aviation also seeks to ensure that air travel is put onto a level playing field with alternative means of spending money. Currently the prices paid by air travellers do not remotely match their economic and environmental costs. With passenger numbers and carbon dioxide emissions doubling over the past ten years this cannot be left unchecked. This is particularly important as emissions from aviation have a much greater effect on climate change than ground level emissions due to a process called 'radiative forcing' which is generally judged to increase their impact by a factor of between two to three.

Last year, we made a start with our green tax proposals on capturing these costs. We would reform the Air Passenger Duty with a pollution charge based on the emissions of the aircraft, rewarding fuller and more fuel efficient planes. Our new Climate Change Charge would also raise money, ensuring where possible that domestic public transport alternatives to air travel are attractive enough to encourage substitution, while protecting those life-line routes where it is essential.

But we have to be realistic about the limits of national action, something that the Tories forgot with their now-abandoned green air miles scheme. Nothing could be simpler than avoiding being charged for long flights by changing planes in Dublin or Paris-Charles de Gaulle. So the focus of measures that might merely relocate the activity must be international - or at least at European Union level. It is a farce that while petrol and diesel for your car is subject to substantial tax and duty so you may pay 95 pence a litre, aviation fuel is exempt from these charges and you pay just 25 pence a litre. We should press the EU to set a minimum tax rate on aviation fuel, as well as applying VAT to air tickets and charges. Aviation should also be included in the EU emissions trading scheme.

This would have a real impact in slowing the growth of air demand, and also in encouraging far more research into environmentally friendly propulsion. The University of Exeter currently has a jet engine working on bio-fuels in the lab, but getting it into the air with a fuel that stays liquid at very low high-atmosphere temperatures will take time.

By contrast to air travel, rail travel went into vertiginous decline between the 1960's and 1990's and were often treated as the Cinderella budget for public spending. Since 1996 the decline in rail travel has been reversed, with a 40 per cent increase in passenger kilometres. The railways are now carrying more people than at any time since the forties. There has been an even greater increase in rail freight which, tonne for tonne, produces 90 per cent less carbon dioxide than road freight. On current numbers, however, the existing network for both passengers and freight is expected to reach capacity by 2015.

A step change is needed if our railway infrastructure is to keep up with demand. Our proposals would see the income from our motorway freight toll and Climate Change Charge funnelled into a "Future Transport Fund" (FTF) to catalyse investment in rail. The Fund would have flexibility to support the projects with the greatest passenger and environmental benefit, and could choose to 'front-load' its funding which would allow a release of up to £12 billion, effectively doubling government rail investment in the 2009-2014 period.

Some, such as John Redwood in his economic competitiveness review to the Conservative shadow cabinet, have argued that intercity rail links should not be a priority. Clearly the FTF would have to assess each project on its merits, but we believe that there is a strong case for a high-speed rail-link. High speed rail can shift the most demanding inter-city trains onto dedicated track, releasing capacity for freight and commuter lines. Moreover, only high speed rail will kill domestic aviation stone dead. But the Future Transport Fund should have enough funding to overcome remaining local bottlenecks, improve stations and signalling, and even embark on new network of freight lines.

Nor do we ignore the less glamorous aspects of transport, whether it is cycling to work or walking to school. If we are serious about tackling congestion and pollution we must start encouraging a shift away from short car journeys by making the alternatives more attractive. Short car journeys are among the most polluting with the first half mile producing 60% more fumes than normal while catalytic converters are not fully working for the first three miles - the distance of around half of all car journeys.

Promoting walking and cycling are not just good for the environment but also improves public health and helps to re-invigorate our communities. Studies have shown that increased walking in our towns and cities leads to increased social interaction, as people meet their neighbours on their way to walk. Our streets and parks become safer when more people use them, and neighbours notice what is happening to each other, discouraging the anti-social behaviour that can terrify vulnerable individuals. Local shops and businesses benefit too from passing trade, securing jobs and sense of community.

Our climate change paper includes imaginative proposals to promote cycling. In Paris the innovative new 'Velib' scheme put 10,000 bicycles on the street on the 15th July. This massive programme has 750 hire points dotted around the city, meaning that in central Paris you are generally never more than 150 metres away from a hire bike. There are plans to double the number of bikes and add another 600 hire points by the end of the year.

The idea of city bicycle hire is not new in Europe. What makes this scheme different is both the scale and the management. The first half hour of each ride is free, encouraging short journeys and maximising the usage of the bikes, each of which is being used an average of six times a day. Parisians must register using a credit card and pay a €150 deposit and all bikes are electronically monitored, helping to deter the thefts and misuse that were common in previous attempts. Unlike previous schemes, in Paris there is no direct cost to the tax-payer. It is run by a private company, whose income is generated through advertising and hire fees for longer rides.

The transport side of our climate change policies can help kick the image that green living is going to be tough and full of hair shirts. Yes, we need to be firm about policy if we are to drive the market towards eco-friendly products and solutions. But a green future should not be painted as all abstention, hardship and self-sacrifice. Saving energy at home can keep us just as warm: why spend £385 a year more on energy in each British household than the Swedes, when their January temperatures are 7 degrees below ours? Cheap warmth is just as warm. Whether it is cycling to work in a higher density and more liveable city, or whether it is roaring away on a longer trip in the Clarkson-approved electric-mobile, a green future can be healthy, responsible - and fun.

Chris Huhne is having fun as the Lib Dems' shadow environment food and rural affairs secretary.