| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
It is unlikely that the United States will come up with a settled piece of legislation in December. It will have one foot in the camp and one foot outside it, and we
need to recognise that that could have great consequences for the European Union’s higher intended target. Are we really going to proceed with the proposal for 40 per cent. cuts by 2020 if the Americans are promising only 4 per cent.—or, given the other measures in the Waxman-Markey Bill, possibly slightly more?
I hope that we shall receive some response to the message that we are sending on behalf of those in the developing world, the people who have given us their carbon emissions free of charge since the industrial revolution. Of course, they may say that they did not give us their emissions, but their emissions were stolen from them. Those people should have an equal voice in Copenhagen. It should not be just the major economies that determine the agenda; the countries in the developing world should have an equal say, because it is their atmosphere as much as ours. If we do not recognise that, we will go horribly wrong, and there will be no agreement worth having in Copenhagen.
1.12 pm
Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): Of course I applaud the Secretary of State and his colleagues for their work, but I will accept the appeal from the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) for me to do my job between now and December in maintaining the constant pressure on the Government to be ambitious, not just for the United Kingdom but for the world. I see six opportunities. Although we are talking about Copenhagen, there are the three inter-sessional meetings—in Bonn, Bangkok and Barcelona—the United Nations Secretary-General’s meeting in New York to discuss climate change, the Pittsburgh summit, and the meeting of the Council of the European Union. All those meetings provide opportunities, and I hope that each of them will ratchet up progress.
I have only six minutes in which to speak, so I shall be brief. I begin by flagging up two facts. I shall then ask questions about what the Government have said so far, identify places where we need to do better, and present proposals that I hope I may be able to persuade the Government to take on board.
First, let me say something about our contribution. Most of the public still do not quite understand the figures, the science and the urgency. The United Kingdom’s citizens represent about one in 110 people on the planet, but we contribute about one fiftieth of global emissions. We are the country of the industrial revolution, and we have an historic legacy. We have a huge responsibility because of that legacy, because of our responsibility in the European Union, and because of our responsibility in the Commonwealth. If all these countries could come together, they could play a hugely important part. The Secretary of State said yesterday, or colleagues of his have said, that we share the ambition of the Swedes. The Swedes now hold the EU presidency, and we need to work with them and the other progressives in the EU to drag the recalcitrants along with us.
Let me make a second “setting the scene” point. The rich developed countries constitute about a fifth of the world’s population, but three quarters of the emissions are ours.
We must be clear about what we have to do. If we are to make this year the most important since the Kyoto deal in 1997, we must do several things. First, we must follow the science all the time. The direction of travel must be clear. I hope Ministers will say that they accept that emissions must peak globally in 2015 or 2016. In that case, we should aim for the 40 per cent. global target suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rather than a target of 20 or 30 per cent., which would mean a target of more than just 34 per cent. or 42 per cent. in this country. I am aware of the difficulties, however, and of the economic backdrop.
Secondly, while the Prime Minister’s speech was welcome in setting a starting point, I think that we should build on that. The United Nations is central to delivery. I suggest a leapfrog fund of the kind which I believe is proposed by the Mexicans, allowing the developed countries to contribute to the kitty of the developing countries. That would be in addition to contributions that we have already made, and would be used for purposes of technology change. I also suggest an adaptation fund to prepare people and deal with the crisis that would afflict countries such as Bangladesh—I believe that 18 per cent. of the country would be under water—and the Maldives, which would disappear completely. We need an insurance mechanism to cover developing countries that implement risk reduction against climate-related or disaster losses, and a fund to prevent deforestation, which is one of the biggest contributors of global emissions, although it is not perceived to be so important from here.
The Prime Minister proposed a $100 billion contribution. We think that $160 billion will probably be needed for each year of the period between 2013 and 2017. What can we do to increase the Prime Minister’s proposed figure? Conservative Front Benchers were asked whether they thought that this money should be additional to overseas development money. The Minister will expect me to say that the Liberal Democrats think that it should be additional. I understand the argument about the overlapping 10 per cent., but we have been struggling to implement the Brandt commission’s 0.7 per cent. target for decades. If I may put it bluntly, if we do not have additional money, we will lose many of the other opportunities of which the Minister and his colleagues are aware.
I am also not sure how much of the $100 billion—let us take that as the starting point—would be new and additional money. If 50 per cent. is to come from carbon markets and $20 billion from global official development assistance, that leaves only $30 billion of new money, which is not a very ambitious figure. Many people—including members of the campaign groups who brief Ministers, and brief me—suggest that it should be higher. Finally, what percentage should we contribute? In its briefings to us, Oxfam suggests that our fair share of $100 billion should be about 5.4 per cent., or $5.4 billion. Is that accepted? The Minister has heard the proposition; obviously we believe that the figure should be higher.
This is not just an opportunity for us to deal with the environmental crisis. It is probably the best opportunity in all our lifetimes for us to deal with the global inequity that is the legacy of industrial development. It is crucial for us to deal with that in Copenhagen, and I hope that we shall be able to do so.
1.18 pm
Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): As this is a topical debate, let me begin by quoting from a document that has been published in the last few hours under the title “The Road to 2010”. It contains a policy for nuclear proliferation. It proposes:
“A new Nuclear Centre of Excellence in the UK to promote wider access to civil nuclear power... to make a reality of the right of all countries... to the peaceful use of nuclear power.”
That will cause great celebrations in Iran and many other parts of the world. I should have thought that, if we had learned anything, it would be that the proliferation of nuclear power can lead inevitably and very easily to danger. There are no secrets left about nuclear processes, and processes for making nuclear bombs. However, we as a country decided this morning to spend a further £20 million of taxpayers’ money on nuclear subsidy.
We already have a bill of £93 billion to clear up the mess of old nuclear. It was said that that would be achieved without public subsidy, but within months we are paying a public subsidy. We have indemnified the consortium that has taken over against any accident that might take place, and that money would be paid by the taxpayer. The Americans who have the contract said they would not take it over unless they had a guarantee that the taxpayer would pay the bill for an accident that could cost billions of pounds, so there is another subsidy there. Again, in spite of the promises from the nuclear industry that it would not have any subsidies, immediately voices have been raised to say that it cannot compete on level terms with genuine renewables.
It is extraordinary that both main parties have become bewitched by the pied piper of nuclear power. I greatly admire the previous Conservative spokesman. I served with him on the Environmental Audit Committee. That Committee produced an objective and scientific report that dismissed nuclear power as an unobtainable objective economically—that is not taking into account other problems. It has never worked, and it never will work, on economic grounds, as we were reminded yesterday by the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. Every nuclear power station in this country has been late; it has never been built on time and it has always been vastly over budget.
Nuclear power is also unreliable in practice. It works for only 80 per cent. of the time. People complain about wind power not being reliable, but neither is nuclear power. We are now exporting electricity from Britain to France because of the French problems with their nuclear power stations. The problems are the result of climate change because there is not enough water in the rivers to cool the power stations. Therefore, this source of power is dangerous and its proliferation could cost the world, but we are now going to promote it to other countries. The paper says that every country has the right to have their own nuclear power, and we are spending taxpayers’ money to promote that. This is truly, deeply mad.
Mr. Jim Hood (Lanark and Hamilton, East) (Lab): Is my hon. Friend’s argument that the people of France are living in danger because 77 per cent. of their electricity is generated from nuclear power?
Paul Flynn:
That is not what I said. The point I am making is about the economic case, and I also object on the grounds of proliferation. I cannot believe that we do
not now realise the dangers arising from the facts that Pakistan has a nuclear power possibility, that Iran might also have one, and that many other smaller, unstable countries are likely to have nuclear power and, from that, access to nuclear bombs. How on earth can a reversal of policy come about this morning? This makes me feel that I should be sitting in a far corner of this House, rather than here on the Labour Benches.
Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to remind the House that my party does not share the slightly surprising cosy consensus between Labour and Tory Front Benchers, but may I reinforce the point he made that all the big mass producers of energy at present produce huge waste? The system has fantastic waste, which causes the emissions as much as anything else does. This is why the argument against renewables is so flawed. The waste from them is far less than from any other means, and their reliability is just as good as that of all the other sectors, including nuclear.
Paul Flynn: I accept that entirely. I am in a party that said in 2005 that nuclear was an unattractive option. It remains an unattractive option, and apart from the intensive lobbying that has been applied to both main parties I cannot think of anything that has changed. Nothing has changed, and we have a further example to mock the policy. In Finland, the new nuclear power station, and the prototype of what we will have in this country, is three years late. It was supposed to be generating electricity this year.
Colin Challen: We are told that heat waves of the intensity of 2003 will become a regular occurrence by 2050, yet the French will not say how many of their nuclear power stations were about to be closed in 2003. It is an official secret, but many of them would face closure at precisely the time when the demand for summer cooling will be at its highest.
Paul Flynn: I am grateful for that contribution. I am familiar with the French nuclear power stations, but may I move on to a French success: La Rance? It generates probably the cheapest electricity on the planet, and it comes from a 30-year-old tidal barrage system on a river. The turbines are still in pristine condition, and they are using the immense power of the tide.
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): The hon. Gentleman said that that French tidal power station has been there for at least 30 years. If it is such a success, why have the French not replicated it elsewhere?
Paul Flynn:
There are many mysteries in the personality of the French people that I do not understand. Many of them are entirely impenetrable to me, but I have raised this point many times in my frequent visits to Brittany. Because the French have not done that, however, there is no reason why we should not. As the paper said yesterday, we have an immense possibility for using tidal power. The paper said that half the opportunities for tidal power in the whole of Europe are around our coasts. They are not all tidal either. There is also the flow of water between Guernsey and France; an immense amount of energy is flowing there 24 hours a day. It will carry on eternally and it is untapped. If we could utilise this power with a range of barrages around our coast—or
tidal lagoons, or just simple mills—we could have surges of electricity that would come when the tide flows around our coast at different times. We could tap that, too; when the surge of power comes in the early hours of the morning, we could use it to pump water up to the top of hills and downs and allow electricity to be generated for peak times.
The geographical position of these islands presents us with by far the best opportunity, and we should be taking it instead of throwing our money away at the nuclear power industry. Billions upon billions of pounds are being thrown at it—there was another £20 million this morning, just like that. There was also £93 billion for clearing things up, and uncountable billions to build nuclear power stations. In contrast, our investment in tidal energy and other marine energy is in sums of £60 million here and £50 million there. We have a huge opportunity that we are neglecting because of the conversion of both our main parties to supporting nuclear power for no rational reason.
We should look at our priorities again, as this is the way to solve our global warming problems, which we all agree it is important to do. We must look at the power of the tide. It will go on for ever. It is clean and does not produce a legacy of poisoned fuel, and it will add greatly to amenity features in the places where it is operated. The future should be tidal. It certainly should not be nuclear.
1.27 pm
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), with whom I often find myself in strange alliance. However, I have to say today that, much as I respect his passionate opposition to nuclear power, if we add opposition to nuclear power to the unrealistic targets we already have, we will get from a dream world to fantasy land in terms of ever meeting the objectives the Government have enshrined in law.
John Mason: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, although that might be true for the United Kingdom as a whole, it is possible for Scotland to have renewable energy without nuclear power?
Mr. Lilley: That may well be the case and that is up to the Scots, but I am referring to the figures the Government have given out for the United Kingdom, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to ignore the rest of the world, let alone the rest of the UK.
The Secretary of State called for the maximum consensus in this House behind his policies. I have to say that all my experience in, and observation of the history of, this House leads me to think that its greatest mistakes have invariably been made when both Front Benches have been united, and even worse mistakes have been made when the whole House has been united. That is the case from Munich through the Child Support Agency to weapons of mass destruction. It is when the House failed to exercise effectively its adversarial functions that we have made the greatest mistakes. A widespread consensus invariably results in a reluctance to face up to inconvenient facts and difficult problems; instead, the House indulges in self-congratulation on its common good intentions. Good intentions are fine, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I suspect that
the road to Copenhagen is paved with good inventions. A lot of convenient facts—or factoids—have been invented to try to encourage us towards a destination that is probably unrealistic, and which we will undoubtedly not reach.
Colin Challen: I wonder why it would be convenient for politicians to want to invent climate change. Surely climate change is the biggest inconvenience to our normal politics that has ever been conceived of.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We finish this debate at 1.55 pm and a large number of Members, all of whom wish to speak, are still seeking to catch my eye. Could hon. Members bear that in mind?
Mr. Lilley: Politicians, having committed themselves to the idea of climate change, invent the reasons to justify it, and there is a tendency to demonise anybody who dissents from the consensus. I make a point of doing so, because I think it is helpful to have an alternative view expressed in this House. Outside the Chamber a very polarised debate is taking place, on blogs and elsewhere, between the alarmists—they are very well represented in this Chamber, and they believe that almost all the global warming observed over the past century is a result of man-made greenhouse gases and that the future will be even worse—and the deniers, who argue that as climate change occurred long before man appeared on the planet, the current climate change and that which we have observed cannot be down to man’s efforts. I entirely accept that that is a complete non sequitur; the fact that man did not contribute in the past does not mean that he may not be contributing now or may not contribute in the future.
My view is, uncharacteristically, moderate and seems to take the middle way. It is somewhere in between the two positions, because although I believe that some of the heating that we have observed has been due to man’s effort, I doubt whether it all has. I was a physicist in my youth, so I entirely accept that the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere serves to keep us warmer than we otherwise would be, that a doubling of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will, of itself, increase the surface temperature by about 1° C and that there are all sorts of feedback effects, notably the inclusion of water vapour, which is an even more powerful greenhouse gas. However, the models that are then used to suggest that there will be multiple effects far greater than the direct effect of an increase in CO2 are unreliable. I used to produce econometric models, so I know that in all these models based on finding a correlation between two things, the only certain correlation one observes is between the prejudices of the person producing the model and the outcomes of that model; it is no surprise that most models produce the result that they do.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |