---

The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): My hon. Friend means water?

Mr. Blizzard: Tidal current, providing energy for our country. We will need all those sources to achieve our targets, and it would be madness to abandon wind at this stage.

I ask again: why are the Conservatives so opposed to wind energy? I think the answer lies in their real but unwritten energy policy. It is clear from what many of them said during the passage of the Energy Bill, and from what has been said this evening, that their real policy involves a new generation of nuclear power stations. Conservative Member after Conservative Member has advocated that. Their leader and Front Benchers will not formally announce it, because they do not want to tell villagers who oppose wind farms "Don't worry, we support you on that: we are going to build a nuclear power station instead."

Mr. Liddell-Grainger: My constituency contains four nuclear reactors. There has been an application for 12 turbines next to them. I have received more complaints about the turbines than about the nuclear reactors.
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1239
 

Mr. Blizzard: I shall not extrapolate, and apply information about one place to the whole country.

Nuclear energy is, of course, a zero carbon dioxide emission generator, but it is costly too—just as costly as wind energy. I think it pointless to argue about the respective merits of these energy sources, because ultimately we shall need them all if we want to maintain security of supply and meet the long-term target of a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Neither wind nor renewables in general will be the sole answer to the problem, but surely we must get whatever we can from wind energy. Future generations would not forgive us if we did not make maximum use of the wind, but I am afraid that the Conservative policies that we have heard this evening would not achieve that.

We have been told that a nuclear review might be produced within a year of the arrival of a possible Conservative Government. That would be much too quick, and it would require Government finance, because nuclear energy does not take its place in a liberalised energy market on its own. Such a development would stifle and suffocate investment in renewables, and wind energy and other renewables would remain babes strangled at birth. The Government's policy in the White Paper is right—to keep the nuclear option open but to keep it at bay for some time to enable wind and other renewable energy sources, and other carbon dioxide reduction technologies, to get off the ground and play their full part.

Wind energy, especially from offshore wind farms, is key for my constituency. As I said, it is a coastal constituency. Global warming and climate change are real threats to people who live by the coast. I am not talking only about the impact that a rise in sea levels would have on places such as Lowestoft, Kessingland and Corton that are actually on the coast. One can also foresee the Waveney and the Hundred rivers becoming huge lakes, with massive flooding penetrating miles and miles inland and affecting other towns, such as Beccles and Bungay, and villages in my constituency. That is why I am concerned about climate change, and that is why I do not want to oppose wind energy but to promote it.

Wind energy also provides a huge economic opportunity. For many economic activities, Lowestoft, as Britain's most easterly point, is not exactly in the best geographical position, but for developing a wind energy industry, Lowestoft is in the ideal position. It is a port right in the middle of the best and most expansive area designated suitable for offshore wind development from the Wash to the Thames estuary. With many years of expertise in building, assembling and installing offshore structures with the oil and gas industry, Lowestoft is, as its brochure says, "Britain's leading edge" in wind energy.

The turbines for Britain's first truly offshore wind farm at Scroby sands were, I am proud to say, assembled in and shipped out from Lowestoft harbour. We have formed the Lowestoft wind energy steering group, which I chair, to maximise our opportunities and I am pleased that the East of England Development Agency
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1240
 
is now giving us financial support to establish an offshore renewable energy centre to build on that geographic advantage. The presence of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science also helps, because it does much of the environmental assessment work offshore. I am proud to say that we are also building a large wind turbine at Britain's most easterly point in Lowestoft and we hope to see that completed by the end of the year.

The Labour party will go into the next election supporting wind energy as a key part of achieving our policy of 20 per cent. renewable generation by 2020, as a milestone on the way to the 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. We need to prevent constituencies such as mine being submerged by rising sea levels from global warming. The Conservatives, on the other hand, are trying to play opportunist politics, desperately grasping for votes, and have no sensible energy policy. They do not want to announce what they actually support and they will go into the election keeping the people in the dark. Their policy is so confused that if they did win the election, people would literally spend more time in the dark as, once again, under the Conservatives, the lights would go out in Britain.

9.8 pm

Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South) (Con): I welcome the fact that—contrary to what the Liberal Democrats say—the motion embraces the issues of climate change. We on this planet face two challenges. The first is that we are using up our resources faster than we can replace them. The Government have a duty to protect those resources, but that is not easy when facing relentless demands from a restless society. The second challenge is that our climate is warming. Nature is telling us something when daffodils flower a week earlier than they did four years ago, when sharks are found in unprecedented numbers around Scotland and sea levels are rising. Something is clearly going on, and the question posed by many people is whether man is causing it. In my judgment, the answer is yes.My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) made an excellent speech and he referred to the Greenpeace lecture by Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser, in which he said that man's activities clearly play a part.

Research shows that there have been seven or eight global warming cycles in the past 800,000 years and that atmospheric carbon peaked at 250 to 275 parts per million during each of those cycles. As the Minister will know, today the figure is 378 parts per million and rising fast at the rate of about two parts per million a year. As my hon. Friend said, Sir David King warns that the ice caps will melt when atmospheric carbon hits about 500 parts per million, and the reasons that he gives for that increase are deforestation and population growth.

Given the huge growth in the economies of China and India, neither of which is part of the Kyoto agreement and whose populations are growing at 70,000 people a day, we have to put international leadership on climate change at the heart of our foreign policy. That is why I am critical of the Government: they talk a good fight, but they do not do much about it. We have heard that
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1241
 
CO ₂ emissions have risen since 1997. During Foreign Affairs questions the other day, the Foreign Secretary lectured the House about the robust line on the Kyoto agreement that he was taking with the American Administration, but he was unaware that CO ₂ emissions were rising.

I agree with those who call for us to hit the targets. We must hit the 2050 target, but we need coherent policies and a road map in place so that we know how that will be achieved. Some measures could be taken immediately. We should phase out hydrofluorocarbons, as announced by the Leader of the Opposition, and carbon trading has a serious part to play, but we can address the issue most by making renewables a key component of our energy policy. My complaint is about the slow pace of change. In 2003, 69 per cent. of suppliers failed to meet their renewables targets.

The Government have put heavy emphasis on wind farms. I listened with interest to the last speech, but it was a misrepresentation: the Opposition are not against wind farms; what we question is the building of onshore wind farms, and there is huge potential in offshore wind farms. I recently had the opportunity to visit North Hoyle, where some 50 turbines have been put up already, with another 450 proposed. Wind will not be enough on its own. As the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) often tells us—he did not do so today—it takes several thousand wind turbines to replace one power station.

Wind turbines must be built offshore, where large numbers of them would be acceptable. That is why the change in planning guidance is wrong. Five or 10 wind turbines on a hillside will not have that much impact on electricity supply, but they will have a big impact on the local environment. If a block of flats cannot be built on the top of a hillside that is of outstanding natural beauty, why can wind turbines be built there? I am delighted that the Conservative party will repeal the planning guidance when it takes office.

It is in energy policy that our attempts to meet the challenge must be driven forward. The failure to stimulate other renewables is a disaster. We will not hit the 2010 renewables target, which the Government admit, as is shown by their review of the renewables obligation. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said in his opening speech, for the first time in history, we will be dependent in the long term on imported energy, but most dangerously of all, that coincides with the phasing out of coal, under the large combustion directive, and nuclear power.

Notwithstanding the fact that no new power station is under construction in this country, mainly as the result of the spot market operations of the new electricity trading arrangements, by 2030, we will have an energy mix of 20 per cent. renewables, 70 per cent. gas and 10 per cent. oil. That, in itself, poses three problems. First, as I said earlier, there would be no solution to the problem of intermittency. Secondly, we will not be on course for the 2050 target. Thirdly, we will be heavily dependent on imported energy, which will, in truth, emasculate foreign policy.

I agree with the Government that it is right to keep open the nuclear option, but I also agree with James Lovelock, the Right Reverend Hugh Montefiore, Sir Crispin Tickell and the Government chief scientists that
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1242
 
we have to embrace that option and give it urgent consideration, as that will not only give us economic and political independence and a key tool in fighting climate change, but with the first hydrogen-fuelled production car coming on stream in 2010, provide the answer to mass hydrogen production, which will give us a triple whammy in one go. However, the Government have ducked the issue, and I seriously pose the question, can democracy combat climate change? The Government ducked nuclear power because it is unpopular. Kyoto has been an issue in the United States presidential election.

The Liberal Democrats posture on the environment. I drew attention to their inconsistencies last week over their support for a number of road transport projects. They have argued against air travel, yet at the same time they support airport expansion. I wonder whether that is because BAA plc is one of their largest donors. They argue against waste incineration in Guildford and Hull, but support it in Sheffield. It is no surprise that Stephen Tindale, the executive director of Greenpeace, said:

"The Liberal Democrats don't seem to have any principles when it comes to waste management and will say anything that they think gains them electoral advantage."

They also campaign against 4x4s, but many of them drive around in them.

On wind farms, their hypocrisy knows no limit. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) said that his party supports wind farms, but it has been stated in the press:

"Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Norman Baker last night accused anti-wind farm campaigners in the West country of 'acting irresponsibly'"—

at least he is consistent—but the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey)

"has backed the campaign against a development at Fullabrook Down in his constituency, which would see the erection of 20 turbines up to 360ft high.

Responding to Mr. Baker's comments he said: 'Norman is not responsible for our planning policy.'"

That is what the Liberal Democrats think of their own spokesman.

---