The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment No. 40, in
clause 14, page 7, line 29, at
end insert (3A) The report
must explain how the proposals and policies set out in the report will
affect (a) global
average temperature, (b) loss
of world biodiversity, and (c)
loss of world
rainforests.. New
clause 9Duty to report on impact of climate change on
biodiversity (1) It is the
duty of the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an annual
report on the impact of the UKs carbon budgeting
on (a) UK
biodiversity, (b) global
biodiversity, and (c) world
rainforests. (2) So far as the
report relates to proposals and policies of the Scottish Ministers, the
Welsh Ministers, or a Northern Ireland department, it must be prepared
in consultation with that
authority. (3) The Secretary of
State must send a copy of the report to those
authorities. (4) The first
report under this section must be laid before Parliament and the
devolved legislatures not later than 30th September
2009. (5) Each subsequent
report must be laid before Parliament not later than 30th June in the
year in which it is
made.. Amendment
No. 42, in title, line 8, after
produced;, insert
to make provisions for the
reporting of the impact on biodiversity of carbon offsetting
measures;.
David
Maclean: Although I have tabled amendments to the clause
and have attempted to scatter other amendments across other parts of
the Bill, they all basically say or ask the same
thing. Clause
11(2) says
that the
Secretary of State in coming to any decision under this Part relating
to carbon
budgets has
to
take scientific
knowledge about climate
change into
account. I want to insert three proposals that would make it absolutely
clear that among the scientific knowledge the Secretary of State had to
take into account would be rises in global temperature, the impact of
climate change on world biodiversity and the impact in relation to the
loss of world forests.
In relation
to other parts of the Bill, where the Prime Minister is under a duty to
report on climate change, I say that he should ensure that the report
includes impact on world forests, biodiversity and temperature rises.
Why am I doing that? What concerns me? What concerns me is the fact
that this is a highly technical Bill. It is a pretty boring Bill. It is
almost like the EU treatytotally inexplicable to outsiders. One
would think that it is understood only by accountants. Like the EU
treaty, the people may go one way, yet the leaders carry on.
I worry that
when the Prime Minister comes to make a reporta change may be
made, and the report may have to be made by the Secretary of
Stateand things are taken into account, if one is merely
dealing with some of the arguments that we have had this morning, which
are interesting but esoteric arguments about 60 or 80 per
cent., I am afraid that the people in the pubs in Hexham and Penrith
are going to lose interest. They will not understand the relevance of
it
all. 3
pm As
I have been reading about this subject, I have discovered that climate
change is infinitely important to our survival. Yet, from my research
on the effects of climate change on England, it does not seem very
frightening. Why do we have this complex Bill? Why are we setting
targets that may have enormous costs for the economy and be difficult
to implement? Why are we doing it when the research into the
consequences for England suggests it would simply mean a little bit of
warming? There would be flash floods and more violent
stormsthat would not be good. We are likely to have water
shortages and hosepipe bans and, of course, if sea levels rose, large
parts of lowland England and Scotland, and Wales too, no doubt, would
be underwater. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for
Suffolk, Coastal, would not want his home to become a new Lindisfarne;
a new Holy island in Suffolk. So, there are serious consequences of
rises in water levels.
We would
have hot spellsmy research suggests that we would probably get
more train lines buckling in the heat, but we would probably not have
frozen points in winter. It is difficult to see things of
earth-shattering importance that will happen because of climate change
in England. Yet we know that the consequences of climate change can be
absolutely disastrous for the survival of the whole human race, and for
the survival of the human race in this country.
If there is
a 2°C rise in global temperature, we will find a large decline
in global freshwater resources, decreased crop yields in the world,
widespread hunger and our
seas will become more acid. There will be a loss of
biodiversity, the mass extinction of some species and extreme weather
conditions around the world. There will be widespread droughts around
the world, a near-total loss of coral reefs, and perhaps the start of
the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. There will be a northwards
expansion of the spread of tropical diseases such as malaria, and in
this country we will get more non-indigenous species. Some of those
species may be benign, but some may be quite malignant, such as our
grey squirrels in Hexham and
Penrith. We
will see the potential extinction of arctic species, including the
polar bear. The polar bear is one of those wonderful icons. My
secretary gives me an awful ear bashing in Portcullis House if I go out
and leave the lights on, because she is trying to save the polar bear.
That is something that has stuck in the public conscience. Much as
polar bears are important, as I was trying to say on Second Reading,
there are more important species than that, although they are not as
cuddlyalthough I am sure that polar bears are not that
cuddlyand do not look as
friendly. A
couple of weeks ago I went to Kew to do a little bit of background
research before serving on this Committee, and one of the things that
scared me in the wonderful greenhouses at Kew was the tiny number of
species of insects that pollinate in the world. We know about bees, but
there are other insects that pollinate around the world. If we lose
some of those rather unsexy little bugs and species, the world starves.
Nothing pollinates in
future.
Mr.
Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the
Governments current indifference to the fate of the indigenous
bee and their failure to provide for its protection from disease, shows
how easy it is for these things to go unnoticed? In fact, the bee and
similar insects provide an enormously important fundamental ecological
job.
David
Maclean: That is absolutely true. The job they do is
absolutely vital, and I suspect that my right hon. Friend is referring
to varoa and disease control. That is not a route that I wish to go
down now, but no doubt the Minister will defend the Governments
record on that in due course.
That was my
summary of the research on what happens with a 2ºC rise in world
temperatures. If we get a 4º to 5ºC rise in due course,
we will get drastically reduced crop yields around the world, and mass
starvation. Diarrhoea, which is a huge killer in the developing world,
will expand rapidly and kill millions more in Africa. The rise in
temperature would lead to widespread species extinction and huge
desertification. There would be a wholesale collapse of the Amazon
ecosystem, and the complete loss of all arboreal and Alpine ecosystems.
We would have the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet, and in Greenland,
we would see more melting of the ice sheet with huge rises in sea
levels.
When we say
huge rises in sea levels we do not need to talk about
10, 20 or 30 ft; a 3 ft1 mrise in sea levels puts half
of Bangladesh underwater, and 14 million people displaced or homeless,
as well as having an impact on our own country. Other parts of the
world would have no agricultural production whatsoever. In addition,
there is a danger that global warming could trigger further releases of
methane in Siberia and the Arctic tundra. Although this is more
speculative, if we had a 5ºC rise, some scientists say that that
there is a
50 per cent. chance that the worlds ocean circulation
systems would cease to operate, or may close down. There will be even
more horrific effects that I have not quoted to the
Committee.
If only half
of the incidents that I have just described are true, I want the
Government and the Prime Minister to put that in every ruddy report
that is produced and to refer to it. We must excite the imagination of
the British public into realising how serious the matter is. With all
due respect, vital arguments about 60 per cent. or 80 per cent. targets
do not bring the consequences home to the public. That is why I want
specific mention in the reports and in the Bill of the effects of
temperature rise I want the Secretary of State to acknowledge that when
considering scientific knowledge.
Why do I
want to see the tropical rain forests mentioned? What has that to do
with the price of fish in England? It has a tremendous amount to do
with our own survival in England. Rain forests are now receiving a
level of international attention not seen since I was at the Earth sum
in Rio in 1992. The Stern reportand thank goodness that the
Government are to keep Stern working for themshowed the
important link between forests and climate. This is a climate change
Bill, and one fifth of the total annual carbon emissions now come from
land use changes, especially tropical deforestation. In fact, cutting
down the tropical forests is releasing more carbon into the atmosphere
than the whole of international shipping and aircraft combined. That is
why, if we want to do something about this, although we need to tackle
our own industries, cars, pollution, and increasing carbon emissions,
unless we are doing things to save the rain forestperhaps in
carbon trading, which is covered in later parts of the Billwe
will not succeed in meeting our climate change objectives and we will
lose those precious forests.
Rain forests
continue to be destroyed at a pace exceeding 80,000 acres per
day32,000 hectares per day. I cannot imagine something on that
scale; that is horrendous: 1.5 acres of rain forest are
being lost every second. Rain forests once covered 14 per cent. of the
Earths land surface; they now cover a mere 6 per cent. If we
continue at the present rate of destruction, the remaining rain forests
will be consumed in fewer than 40 years. The current world rain forest
cover of 2.5 million sq miles sounds pretty bigit is the size
of about 48 contiguous states in the United States, representing 6 per
cent. of the worlds surfacebut the rate at which it is
disappearing is frightening. If we are losing 13 million hectares of
forest land every year, adding to that huge amount of carbon in the
atmosphere, the rain forests will no longer be able to be the lungs of
the earth, performing that vital role of soaking up carbon and giving
us clean air, oxygen and water in
return. As
the rain forests disappear, we are not just losing trees or the ability
to soak up carbon and produce oxygen. It is not just a large bit of
greenery. The most important thing is that, as the rain forests
disappear, we are losing the species in them; we are losing the fauna
and flora, the insect life and the animals. With them goes potential
cures for life-threatening diseases. I am told by my researchers that
there are currently 121 prescription drugs sold worldwide which come
from plant-derived sources. While 25 per cent. of western
pharmaceuticals are derived from rain forest ingredients,
less than 1 per cent. of these tropical trees and
plants are
being tested by scientists. So 25 per cent. of the drugs we use to treat
illnesses come from rain forest ingredients and we have examined only 1
per cent of those ingredients. Yet we are going to continue cutting
down the rest of the rain forests. Where on earth will we get the raw
material to make the drugs that will save human life in the future? I
have never been a flat-earther, nor have I the reputation of being a
great herbalist, but I have always believed that part of the solution
to human ills lay inside the sealed globe we call the world. It does
not lie in the synthesis of new chemicals by chemical companies, it
lies in using the products and ingredients we have. Opium is a perfect
example. Many other solutions to the ills and diseases we face are
already out there, possibly deep in the ocean, in the jungles of the
Amazon and Papua New Guinea, in fauna, in flora, and in animal species.
If we destroy them, we can never get them
back. As
I said earlier, with a huge amount of effort, we could lower the world
temperature. We can reverse climate change. We cannot bring back the
millions of species which may be destroyed if those forests are cut
down and burned. Experts estimate that we are losing 137 plant, animal
and insect species every day, due to rain forest deforestation. That
equates to 50,000 species a year. I do not mean that we are losing
50,000 of one animal, or one beastie, or one insect, but 50,000
different species. That is absolutely frightening. Deforestation of
tropical rain forests has a global impact through species extinction.
We will see the loss of important ecosystem services and renewable
resources and the reduction of carbon
sinks. I
want this in the Bill so that the people of the United
Kingdomand everyone in Penrithcan see that the loss of
the rain forest affects our human health in this country. It does not
just affect the Indians who might be living in the forest, or some of
the animals and wildlife therealthough it would be tragic if we
lost some of that wildlife, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for
Suffolk, Coastal would say, it would also be immoralit affects
us. It is in our own vital life-preserving interest that we save those
things. If we could spell out more of the biodiversity consequences in
the report that the Prime Minister will be asked to produce, we might
be able to engage the British public so that they realise that,
goodness me, this is a very serious thing. That would have more impact
than just talking about carbon at 80 and 60 per cent., important though
that
is. We
know that faunas are critical to regulating the climate. We know that
more than half the worlds estimated 10 million species of
plants, animals and insects live in the tropical rain
forest. A fifth of the worlds fresh water is in the Amazon
basin. Also, although I would be highly critical of the food miles, in
any huge supermarket these daysSainsbury in Pimlico, or any
other big marketwe see ranges of fruit and vegetables that we
did not even know existed five, 10 or 20 years ago. A total of 80 per
cent. of the developed worlds diet originated in the tropical
rain forest. Its gifts and the wonderful foods it has provided include
avocados, coconuts, figs, oranges, lemons, grapefruit, bananas, guavas,
pineapples, mangos, tomatoes, vegetables, corn, potatoes, rice, winter
squash, yams, black pepperI am getting quite hungry now. There
are many more but I will not bore the Committee by reading a huge
shopping list of food from Tesco or
Sainsburys.
3.15
pm At
least 3,000 fruit species are found in the rain forest alone. We use
only about 200 of those in the western developed world, whereas the
Indians in the rain forest consume about 2,000 different species of
fruit and vegetable. Who knows what solutions for the illnesses that we
may face lie in those fruits and vegetables? People with my condition
are told to eat a lot more oily fish. I love fish, but I hate oily
fish. Initially, I did not believe that it was beneficial, but I
certainly find it slightly beneficial in tackling multiple sclerosis. I
think, in my little mind, that if that bit of oily fish can help me in
a minor way, what else that could save people is lying in those rain
forests, which are being cut down at the rate of 80,000 hectares a
day? The
US National Cancer Institute has identified more than 3,000 plants that
are active against cancer cells. Seventy per cent. of those plants are
found in the rain forest, and 25 per cent. of the active ingredients in
todays cancer-fighting drugs come from organisms found only in
the rain forest. I am told that vincristineI shall pass that
name on to Hansard laterwhich is extracted from the rain
forest plant the Madagascar periwinkle, is one of the worlds
most powerful anti-cancer drugs. It has dramatically increased the
survival rate for acute childhood leukaemia since its discovery, and
that discovery was linked directly to the rain forest rather than to
the millions of pounds spent by multinational chemical companies. That
is why I want rain forests to be specifically mentioned and flagged up.
We have a chance to excite the British public with the wonderful
reasons why we are backing the Bill. We can terrify
themlegitimatelywith the consequences of cutting down
the rain forests, and we can tell them why climate change, which is a
terribly boring term,
matters. The
final thing that I want to flag up to the Government relates to
forests. We cannot discuss biodiversity without rain forests, and we
cannot discuss rain forests without biodiversity. I want biodiversity
to be mentioned specifically in the Bill because, as I said earlier,
everyone sees that biological extinction is the most critical global
environmental change that we face, because it cannot be reversed. Aaron
Bernstein, a doctor at Harvard medical school and one of the authors of
the book, Sustaining Life: How Human Health Depends on
Biodiversity, has
stated: When
we harm nature, we are harming ourselves...few people realise that
our health is directly tied to the health of the natural
world, The
current extinction crisis is a serious threat to humanity that is equal
to, if not greater than, climate change.
As I have
said, although the Earths rain forests cover only 6 per cent.
of its surface, they harbour 50 per cent. of all known life on this
planet. The estimated number of creatures that inhabit the tropical
rain forest is so greatbetween 5 million and 50 million
speciesthat it is almost incomprehensible. The sheer range of
numbers alone is mind-boggling. If the best expertsthe
Attenboroughs of this worldcan calculate only that it is
between 5 million and 50 million, it shows how little we have actually
explored life on Earth. If we do not understand it, for
goodness sake, we must not destroy it
first. Our
western forests are good things, too, but whereas half a dozen tree
species or fewer make up 90 per cent. of the trees that dominate
western forests, a typical rain
forest, I am told, may have more than 480 tree
species in a single hectare, which means not 480 trees but 480
different tree species. Similarly, a single bush in the Amazon may
contain more species of ant than the entire British isles. Rain forest
biodiversity is not a haphazard event, but the result of a series of
unique circumstances. Unfortunately, every year approximately 27,000
species of animal and plant life disappear from our planet. We hear
about big cuddly animals if they are in danger of extinction, but not
about the fauna, flora, bits of moss, trees and bushes. Those things
may seem utterly unimportant, boring and not sexy, but they may contain
chemicals that are vital for our survival. Scientists estimate that
there are between 3 million and 30 million species of plants, animals,
fungi, bacteria and so on. Only 1.4 million have been identified so
far, and we risk destroying the rest. Up to 30 per cent. of all species
on earth could vanish by 2050 due to unsustainable human
activitiesmainly deforestation. Medicines are just a small part
of the role that biodiversity plays in human well-being. Without
beneficial insects, most of the land ecosystems in the world would
collapse, and a good part of humanity would perish with them. We have
already discussed bees and other insects, but that is an absolutely
crucial point.
I will not
bore the Committee for much longer, because I only want to make two
points. I have made my first point on biodiversity, and my second point
concerns garbageI hope that colleagues can spot the difference.
I will conclude with the cone snail. I am not sure who has heard of the
cone snailI had not heard of it before I started my research.
Cone snails live only in coral reefs, and at least a third to a half of
all reefs are in danger of dying off due to a combination of disease,
pollution and climate change. What have cone snails got to do with
anything? The first breakthrough in pain medication in years has come
from those little snails. I have no idea what they look like or how big
they areI presume that they are tiny or even microscopic. Some
33 per cent. of terminal cancer and HIV patients for whom the strongest
opiates were ineffective are now pain free thanks to a pain-blocking
peptide from cone snail venom. I have no reason to disbelieve that
pointno one could make it upwhich I discovered during
my research. The cone snail is a tiny little thing in the coral reef,
yet people are making a highly powerful medicineit is more
powerful than opiumfrom a peptide that it produces for the
treatment of cancer patients. That in itself is justification for
saving the coral reefs. We have to save the coral reefs, if only to get
that material from the cone snail for cancer and HIV patients. How do
we save the coral reefs? The answer is by reducing the global
temperature. I
do not want to live in a world where we have only met our carbon
targets. We could meet 60, 80, 90 or 100 per cent. of our
carbon targets, but that would be irrelevant becauseas the
Minister has saidwhat is important are the measures that we
take to meet the ultimate target. There will be no point to a society
in which we have managed to meet our carbon targets, if we have lost
all the rain forests. Make no doubt about it, we can meet the carbon
targets, even if we cut down every forestit would be much more
difficult, but we could do it. The danger is that we would lose
millions of species that we do not even know about yet that have the
potential to improve or save human life. We would lose the tiny
insects, bugs and creepy crawliesthe wee
beasties as my old mother used to
saythat are so vital to our ecology and economy. I do not know
what they arenobody in the Committee knows. Nobody knows what
is in the rain forests in Brazil, Papua New Guinea and elsewhere, which
we are losing at a rate of
knots. I
am certain that the Minister will tell me not to worry about scientific
knowledge on climate change. He will say, Thats all in
there David. Well be thinking about that. I am merely
saying that my amendment would not significantly change the Bill. It
would not cause damage, and the Government would not have to impose a
new target. It would merely signal what the Government will probably
report on anyway. It will make the Bill slightly sexier, and slightly
easier for people like mevirgins in carbon mattersto
understand. It will make it easier to get the message home in the pubs
of Hexham and Penrith, and around the country. People will not buy in
to the boring bits of climate change, such as the stuff about dustbins
in clauses 69 and 70, unless we create reasons. If my proposals were
implemented, the Government would have to spell out why biodiversity
and rain forests are so vital to the survival of the human
species.
|