Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260
- 279)
WEDNESDAY 12 MAY 2004
PROFESSOR SIR
DAVID KING
AND MR
DEREK FLYNN
Q260 Mr Lazarowicz: Turning to the
Foresight Project a little more closely, how would you envisage
the project will help the UK prepare for the impacts of climate
change on flood risk? How do you see the work being taken forward
from this project?
Professor Sir David King: The
work is already being taken forward. In these new Foresight programmes
I will not take on a programme until the Government minister agrees
to be the stakeholder minister and will chair, therefore, a stakeholder
group who oversee the work of the Foresight programme. In this
case Elliot Morley is the stakeholder Minister and he has familiarised
himself with the work of the programme for the last year or so,
and even as we reported the final outcomes he was setting up a
group of people to take it forward, including the leading scientist
who played a key role on our programme. So the Government is already
preparing itself to follow through many of the recommendations.
We will re-examine that from the Office of Science and Technology
in about a year's time, to see what progress has been made.
Q261 Mr Lazarowicz: How far do you
think that the approach which has been adopted in the Foresight
Project could be adapted to and inform other aspects of climate
change policy as well?
Professor Sir David King: That
is a good question. I would broaden that to other aspects of climate
change and many, many different aspects of Government policy.
These programmes are quite work intensive and we can only run
three or four programmes at a time in the Office of Science and
Technology. I think the value of these programmes, which is a
means of mining into the scientific knowledge base in the UK,
which is very substantial, in order to assist Government in policy
making, is very powerful indeed. So the answer is I am sure there
are many ways in which we can help.
Q262 Mr Breed: Under the Foresight
Project you indicate that you think it is about 1.6 million people
currently at high risk of flooding from river and coastal flooding
and that this might be trebled in the next 75 years. Can you give
us a thumbnail sketch of what the factors are that you think will
influence how many people will be at risk from flooding, because
if it becomes patently obvious that if you are going to live in
a certain area that has flooded for the last three or four years
or so, it is going to be pretty unlikely that anybody is going
to go there any more, so they will find somewhere else. So how
do we get to a situation where three times as many people are
going to be at high risk, unless they are a lot of lemmings, really?
Professor Sir David King: The
assumption underlying those risk analyses is if we have a business
as usual scenario. In other words, if Government does no more
than it is doing
now—
Q263 Mr Breed: And if people do no
more than they are doing now.
Professor Sir David King: And
if people do no more, that is right.
Q264 Mr Breed: That is unlikely,
is it not?
Professor Sir David King: It is
highly unlikely for various reasons. You have stated it but if
I could just give you the underlying reasons? The possibility
of insuring houses in areas which are going to be flooded once
every three years on average is going to be very low indeed. The
value of those houses will drop, though, and that makes it attractive
to people to buy in. There is a counter issue there. Planning
is, I think, an absolute key factor here, so good planning, based
on these analyses, must be a risk reduction factor. The whole
tone of our document is to say, what does Government need to do
to maintain risk levels at roughly where they are today, or even
lower?
Q265 Mr Breed: On that basis then
it is worked on really Government or human activity not doing
very much; that is what could happen?
Professor Sir David King: Yes.
Q266 Mr Breed: That is on a basic
simple straight line?
Professor Sir David King: Yes.
Q267 Mr Breed: On that basis, then,
what areas do you think will be most affected in flooding generally?
We talked about coastal and river and such, but only earlier this
week—I come from Cornwall—parts of Devon and Cornwall,
which are not actually near the coast, have been absolutely inundated
with very sharp rain showers—more than showers, absolutely
drenched—so even people not living by the coast are being
subject to flash floods. Which areas are going to be most affected
and how are they perhaps likely to differ from today? In other
words, you have talked about the planning and the coast, that
we might be able to plan that out, so that is a factor. What other
factors, where they are differing over the next 75 years, for
people to be in this high-risk situation?
Professor Sir David King: The
biggest risk that we find is really the intra-urban flooding that
I referred to earlier—or perhaps it was the Chairman who
referred to it—because a flash flood that overwhelms the
drainage system of the city is going to cause the most damage
because you have the largest density of housing. So the cost and
the number of people at risk are highest in those situations.
If I could just say that it would be a very long answer to your
question to give a long list of all of the measures that we suggest
need to be put into place, but one thing is clear from our report,
that there is no golden bullet, there is no simple solution; it
is not a matter of building another Thames Barrier. We have a
whole range of things that we say will have to be put into place.
Q268 Mr Breed: Do you mean by that
places that are currently vulnerable to flooding are actually
the most obvious places that are going to soonest become the most
likely of high-risk places of flooding? In other words we have
clues, clues are already there, and we can actually start to do
something because even if there were modestly increased climate
differentials these places are really going to be . . .
Professor Sir David King: What
is important here is to describe what we were doing in relation
to what Defra does anyway. So Defra has a programme which has
been a five-year forward look, spending about half a billion pounds
a year, increased from £200 million five years ago, so a
substantial increase already, but based on analyses of risks without
taking into account climate change. What we have added into that
is the global warning.
Q269 Mr Breed: The sorts of economic
losses that you are predicting, there is a massive range, from
one billion to 27 billion pounds or such. I suppose it is almost
impossible when you are looking at 75 years ahead. I think what
you are saying by that is that investment early in this is likely
to save significant amounts and that we really have to bite the
bullet, as it were, and start to put in some real money, real
investment into this area; that half a billion pounds is not even
beginning to address some of these things, and Government has
to put in a long-term significant programme of real money over
a long period of time to create the investment necessary?
Professor Sir David King: That
is absolutely right, but there are really two messages that come
out of this. One is investment early is money well spent, which
is what you are saying; but the second message is that this range,
one billion to 27 billion, depends on global scenarios, it depends
particularly on which emission scenario we are on. If we can reduce
global emissions to a ceiling level at 450 parts per million,
then we would considerably reduce the risk and the cost of meeting
the risk. If we go up towards 1,000 parts per million by the end
of the century, which a business as usual scenario would take
us into, the cost becomes virtually prohibitive. So that is very
important.
Q270 Mr Breed: Going back to what
you said before about fusion and everything else, what you are
also saying is that, as we normally say, prevention is better
than cure, so therefore is it not better to put more money into
the investment of alternative forms of energy rather than put
investment into trying to tackle the results of existing energy
concerns?
Professor Sir David King: There
is a much bigger bang for your bucks in reducing emissions in
mitigation then there is in adapting to the change.
Q271 Chairman: Just refresh my memory,
you said 450 parts per million versus a business as usual, or
unchanged, 1,000; where are we now?
Professor Sir David King: We are
currently today at 379 parts per million and rising at about two
or three parts per million per annum, and the standard warm period
level is 260 to 270. The standard ice-age level is 200 to 220.
If we now go backwards 420,000 years we cannot find a period when
the globe was at the present level of carbon dioxide.
Q272 Joan Ruddock: I was going to
ask a number of things about sewers and flash flooding and all
those sorts of jolly items, but I think you have touched on a
number of the things that I might have asked. You said in a previous
answer that it was not the case of another Thames Barrier. As
a London Member, could I ask you just on that specific issue?
The GLA told me that the barrier had been raised 19 times in January?
This sounds to be a really grave problem and we of course had
those amazing scenes in Dulwich recently of tremendous flooding
there which occurred very, very suddenly. Can you say something
specifically about London? Again, you indicated that there is
a range of possible measures; what are the measures you think
that we need and why is it not a second Thames Barrier?
Professor Sir David King: The
first thing to say is that the use of the flood barrier is an
indication of the influences of global warming. However, we have
to be careful to distinguish the uses in anger, that is to prevent
flooding—
Q273 Joan Ruddock: I thought you
meant there was a difference of degree.
Professor Sir David King: . .
. from the attempts to see what happens if we store up water.
So they have been doing a lot of work in the Thames Barrier, raising
the barrier for other reasons than risk reduction. So the figure
I gave you of around six or seven times a year is a better indication
of how things have got worse; but, remember, it used to be once
every five years, so it is a 30-fold increase in use to prevent
flooding. One flood, £30 billion worth of damage to London,
the damage to the economy considerably greater; we would anticipate
flooding the Underground, we would anticipate losing a few power
stations. So it would be very, very severe. We are, through the
Environment Agency, maintaining the barrier quite well, Chairman.
I have not really answered the question fully nor would I be able
to in the time. London obviously is a point of focus. The Environment
Agency is starting a new study of the Thames Barrier with a view
to updating the defences provided by the barrier out to the year
2030. It is my understanding, but we will be waiting to see with
interest the results and outcomes of their study, that the barrier
is good to 2020. It is a wonderful piece of civil engineering,
it is also such an attractive piece of architectural engineering,
and it really is a matter of British pride that that barrier has
worked without fail on every flood occasion. We can anticipate
that small adaptations to the barrier will allow us to extrapolate
forward to 2020. There will have to be added flood defences around
the barrier over that period of time, but all of this can be done.
Extending it beyond that period will take a substantial piece
of civil engineering and planning.
Q274 Joan Ruddock: That is a most
interesting answer; 2020 is not far off.
Professor Sir David King: No.
Q275 Diana Organ: Can I just ask
on that, the time it took between saying yes, we will have the
barrier, and the completion of the barrier that we have at present,
how long was that?
Professor Sir David King: The
London flood that really stimulated the discussion in Parliament
was 1926 or 1927 and the barrier was eventually operating in 1982.
Q276 Diana Organ: My line of questioning
is obvious, when you are saying that something very substantial
in the line of civil engineering needs to be added for protection
beyond 2020.
Professor Sir David King: No.
I am saying we know we are good to 2020, the Environment Agency
looking at what is needed out to 2030. Beyond that at this point
in time we cannot say. I am not saying that it is going to collapse
in 2030.
Q277 Diana Organ: No, but that we
might need something much more substantial than the present barrier?
Professor Sir David King: Depending
on the scenario, absolutely.
Q278 Alan Simpson: Can I just come
in here? So you are saying that it only took us about half a century
to get from an awareness of the problem to a structural solution
and now you are saying we have less than 20 years, 15 years' cognitive
time to come up with another in place solution?
Professor Sir David King: Chairman,
I am delighted with the way that this questioning is going. I
keep being told that politicians only look at a short timescale
and the purpose of this exercise was to get across the message
that we do have to look out to 2050 to 2080 so as to better prepare
ourselves for these events.
Q279 Chairman: My colleague's questioning
is to reflect how easy it is in the world of politics to push
everything to the right. Postponement of expenditure at the time
that you are talking about is too easy, and it is how do you get
the imperatives, which your work suggests, to be acted upon now
against a background where, within the short-term, everybody is
saying, can the Chancellor sustain his current public expenditure
projections? Here you have some good candidates for additional
expenditure, so it is opportunity, cost or more money, and it
is easy enough to postpone those decisions. I think the message
you would say is that you should not be postponing it?
Professor Sir David King: Yes.
| 
