| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con): Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Dawn Primarolo: I am afraid that the shortage of time means that I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I know that I will have many opportunities to discuss such matters with him.
The hon. Members for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), for Cities of London and Westminster and for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) touched on housing reform and the way in which the Government need to take that forward following the Barker report. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West also mentioned property investment funds and pointed out how successful they have been elsewhere. He said that it was important to consult on all such matters, including the Barker proposals, so that we get the right mix of development to release land.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) referred to the Gershon report and also the announced amalgamation of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise under the O'Donnell review. Like him, many hon. Members have commented on the formation of the new department over the past two days. It will be to the advantage of business to have one contact point, and it will be to the advantage of the Government to have one department so that we are able to achieve the very things that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell suggested on regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire is absolutely right that we must have clear, accountable leadership rather than complex accountabilities that undermine where responsibility lies. We must ensure that the
accountability is clear to Parliament. We need quantifiable goals, clarity of communication and ongoing analysis, and I believe that all those measures are in place.As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said yesterday,
- "we cannot be a strong economy if we are weak in education and science."—[Official Report, 17 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 333.]
I am unable to respond to many of the points made in the debate in my short winding-up speech. However, the Government intend to publish the Finance Bill on 8 April and that will clarify many of the issues that hon. Members raised, so we will then be able to move forward with our debates and ensure that Britain achieves economic excellence and leads the world in science and technology.
Debate adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
Debate to be resumed Monday 22 March.
PETITION
Sub-Post Office Closures
6 pm
Mr. Fabian Hamilton (Leeds, North-East) (Lab): I am grateful for the opportunity to present this petition from my constituents who object to the closure of two sub-post offices in my constituency.
This is the humble petition of Councillor Ronald Feldman and others of like disposition. They are concerned
- "That proposals to close our local post offices, Alwoodley Park and Sandhill Parade, would cause a vital part of our community to break down; that these post offices provide a good postal service and social role in our community.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Post Office Ltd to reconsider its decision to close local branches and make sure that this vital link to the Community is not lost.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc."
Climate Change
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
6.1 pm
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd): I should like to open my debate today by asking the Minister to consider the following scenario: in five years' time the populations of the Scandinavian countries flood south into northern Germany and the Netherlands, five years later those populations themselves are forced to flee further south to southern France, Italy and Spain, and by 2025, those populations flee to the north coast of Africa, the EU collapses and war breaks out.
Those are not the thoughts of an "end is nigh" board-carrying ranter. It is the scenario put together by Peter Schwarz and Doug Randell for the Pentagon in October 2003. The report was commissioned by Andrew Marshall, the founding director of the Pentagon office of net assessment. Marshall was asked by President Bush to lead the Pentagon military review, part of which involved an assessment of climate change. The report stated that
- "the real threat to national security is from global warming triggering an abrupt climate change event".
The report was highlighted by The Observer, which managed to get hold of a copy, and it has been further highlighted by an "Horizon" programme in November 2003.
The main reason for the scenario that I have just outlined is the collapse of the Atlantic conveyer, or the north Atlantic drift, as it sometimes referred to. The Atlantic conveyor is a vast warm current with 16 times more volume than all of the rivers of the earth combined. The current carries the heat of a million power stations. It allows Britain to have a warm temperate climate, despite the fact that it is as far north as Alaska or Newfoundland, where polar bears live. Warm water is carried on the surface from the Caribbean up to the north Atlantic. When it reaches the north Atlantic it cools and becomes denser. It also increases in salinity, which helps the water to sink to the bottom of the ocean and then return on the final leg of the journey back to the Caribbean, thus creating a continuous conveyor belt effect.
The conveyor belt is in danger of being switched off because of global warming. There are two main reasons for that. One comes from the melting of the ice of the North Pole, which is 1,000 miles long, 400 miles wide and 2 miles thick at its centre. It is one of the biggest blocks of frozen water in the world, and if it were to melt completely, it would raise water levels by 6 to 7 m, drowning most of the major cities in the world.
Air surveys have been carried out over the Arctic at regular five-year intervals, and they show that warming is already taking place. Certain glaciers in Greenland have doubled their speed in recent years, sending massive amounts of frozen fresh water into the Arctic
ocean, thereby altering its salinity. Much of that fresh water is heading for the sinking zone of the Atlantic conveyor.The other sources of fresh water are the mighty rivers that straddle northern Russia—the Ob, Enesai and Elena—which are increasing in volume and disgorging huge volumes of fresh water into the Arctic ocean. It is predicted that global warming will lead to a much wetter world. The major northern Russian rivers already disgorge 20 times more fresh water into the sinking zone of the Arctic than comes from the glaciers of Greenland. Some scientists claim that there will be a 50 per cent. increase in discharge from those Russian rivers into the Arctic ocean in the next 100 years. The influx of that fresh water is altering the salinity of sea water in the north Atlantic, which is in turn is altering the ability of the water to sink to the bottom of the sea and may cause a breakdown of the Atlantic conveyor.
When many people in Britain think of global warming, they think of the UK reaching temperatures like those of the south of France; some even say that they look forward to it. However, that is not what will happen in the scenario envisaged by Schwarz and Randell. The pace of change could be very rapid. Within a decade, the Atlantic conveyor could be switched off, leading to the nightmare scenario that I outlined in my opening remarks. Temperatures could fall by as much as 20°F. Temperatures in London could be as low as those in Spitzbergen, which is 600 miles north of the Arctic circle.
The BBC's "Horizon" programme of November last year interviewed a number of eminent scientists about the effect of rapid climate change on the UK. Professor Bill McGuire said:
- "I can only describe it as catastrophic. It's clearly going to influence every single one of us every day of our lives."
- "You could expect to see sea ice off the coast of South East England, probably several miles offshore."
The effects would not be limited to Europe. The Atlantic conveyor is just one part of a continuous loop of interconnected underwater currents that affect the climate patterns of the whole world. Those complex interconnected ocean currents transport heat and moisture around the planet. When the conveyor has altered direction and shut down in the past, that has caused global temperature changes within decades. Those past changes can be measured in ice cores, ocean bed sediments, pollen and seed deposits. Much more research needs to be conducted on those valuable sources of information. An understanding of the way in which climate patterns have worked in the past will help us to gain a greater understanding of present and future changes and dangers.
The problem of global warming is not one to be tackled by future Governments or populations, but must be tackled here and now. If we do not take action,
we risk the collapse of the whole fabric of our infrastructure. There is strong evidence that the first stirrings are making themselves felt. Around the Arctic circle, Inuit peoples have witnessed the retreat of ice fields. Animals that they rely on for food are migrating to other areas. In the late 1980s, a Russian nuclear-powered ice breaker became the first surface ship to reach the geographic north pole. Last year, India and France recorded their highest temperatures ever, and thousands of people died of heatstroke. Since 1995, there have been more than 35 hurricanes, and they are increasing in ferocity. A few years ago, hurricane Mitch killed 10,000 people in the Caribbean. In May 2003, there were 562 tornadoes in the United States.Schwarz and Randell say that several actions should be taken immediately. They call for improved predictive climate change and for a deeper understanding of the relationship between ocean patterns and climate change.
Yesterday, I spoke to one of the top British scientists working on British research on ocean currents and climate change. The Government have invested £20m in research in this area. We must give them credit for that, because it is the biggest science research grant that has ever been given. The scientists will put in place 22 underwater buoys across the 26th parallel, from the west coast of Africa to Florida. Two of them will provide a satellite link, which will give continuous information for a four-year period, while the rest will store information to be examined on a yearly basis. That research is welcome, and the grant is one of the largest ever given; but is it enough?
What research is being conducted on the conveyor belt in other oceans? Is sufficient research being conducted into freshwater flows in the northern Russian rivers? In January this year, our chief scientific adviser agreed with the Pentagon assessment, saying:
- "Climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today, more serious than the threat from terrorism."
It is not just research on the monitoring of climate change that needs additional funding. A key aim should be research into renewable energies to allow the growth of CO2 emissions to be curbed. Since the advent of privatisation of the utilities, the excellent research facilities of the Central Electricity Generating Board have been shut. That decline now needs to be reversed. We should be investing in research and development in respect of renewables in this country. We need to be leading the world on that.
Is there enough co-ordination between countries as regards that research? The United States and Norway are donating additional amounts of $7 million and Euros2.5 million to that project. What measures is the Minister's Department taking to co-ordinate and enhance international research to help us to understand the threat? Have the Government placed that item on the agenda of all multinational organisations that could
have a bearing on research, such as the EU, the G8 and the United Nations? Are we pressing the case at the top table?Our Government have done more than most to promote the issue of global climate change. The Deputy Prime Minister led the way in Kyoto, but have we done enough to maintain the momentum, especially in the light of the most recent information? It states that the UK and European countries could be the first to suffer from rapid climate change if the Atlantic conveyor were slowed or stopped.
Schwarz and Randell call for comprehensive predictive models of climate change impacts, to redress potential sources of conflict between and within countries where there is competition for limited food, water and energy supplies. To achieve that, detailed research on the potential ecological, economic, social and political impact would be needed. Certain countries that are homogeneous, and enjoy social cohesion, such as Japan, will fare better in attempts to change the behaviour of their population peacefully than other countries that already have racial, social and religious divisions, such as South Africa, Indonesia and India. Such countries will have difficulty maintaining order.
A matrix of vulnerability could be produced for those countries likely to suffer most. That would help to predict the impact of rapid climate change on agriculture, water and mineral resources, as well as the technical capability to adapt and change, and would include such issues as social cohesion and the adaptability of the population.
Schwarz and Randell suggest that adaptive response teams be established to address and prepare for events such as mass migration. That migration, even just in Europe, would be 100 or 200 times greater than the one seen at the time of the Irish potato famine. All such scenarios could be planned for in advance to mitigate their impact.
Particular attention should be paid to the areas of the world that supply food. The impact of drought and pests on those areas should be studied, and contingency plans drawn up in advance.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |