Martin
Horwood: The Minister has perhaps an unduly optimistic
view of the integrity of all Government proceedings, but perhaps that
is reassuring in someone
who is serving as a Minister. There is a need for the amendment, but in
the light of the hour and the lack of support for it on the Government
side, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
18 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
19 to 22 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
23Targeted
greenhouse
gases
Martin
Horwood: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in
clause 23, page 12, line 15, after
‘dioxide’,
insert— ‘( ) methane
(CH4), ( ) nitrous
oxide (N2O), ( )
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), ( )
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), ( )
sulphur hexafluoride
(SF6).’. This
is an important amendment and one that is, in its way, just as
important on a similar set of principles as the inclusion of aviation
and shipping that the Government have already conceded. It has been
subject to a substantial campaign outside Parliament from people who
are concerned that the plans and policies we adopt in this place are
representative of a genuine and comprehensive effort to tackle climate
change. It is pretty difficult to see how that can be done by
legislating for only one greenhouse gas—carbon
dioxide. Various
arguments have been put against the inclusion in the Bill of the other
greenhouse gases that make up the Kyoto basket of greenhouse gases. It
has been said that carbon dioxide is the most important gas and that,
in any case, it represents 85 per cent. of greenhouse gas emissions.
That is certainly true. It is obviously important that we focus a large
part of our effort on carbon dioxide, but there are other potent
greenhouse gases. The short-term impact of
methane—CH4—is much more serious than that of
carbon dioxide. It captures heat 20 times more efficiently than carbon
dioxide, so, in its way, it is a much more potent gas, even though it
is present in the atmosphere in a less persistent
way. 7
pm In
the same way in which aviation and shipping should not be allowed to
escape the provisions of the Bill, we need to ensure that greenhouse
gases such as methane are tackled. Otherwise, we could be in the
ludicrous situation in which if the other greenhouse gases that only
represent 15 per cent. of emissions now are allowed to proliferate and
we make huge efforts to reduce carbon dioxide, the percentage of other
greenhouse gases might rise on a much faster scale. We could end up
with 20, 30 or 40 per cent. of our emissions coming from those
remaining greenhouse gases, if they are allowed to
increase. In
Committee in the other place, Lord Rooker argued:
“We
have a good understanding of the costs and benefits of reducing
CO2 emissions, whereas there is much less understanding
about the cost-effective potential of reducing other greenhouse gas
emissions, particularly in the long-term.”—[Official
Report, House of Lords, 8 January 2008; Vol. 697, c.
841.] In one
sense, that is an argument against us participating in the Kyoto
protocol, which, of course, demands that
we accurately measure and account for the whole basket of greenhouse gas
emissions. If we were to include other greenhouse gases in the Bill, it
would be a good incentive for developing better measurement systems for
the other greenhouse gases. Perhaps we have been lax in developing a
better understanding of those other greenhouse
gases. Our
understanding is not quite as bad as Lord Rooker suggests. The National
Audit Office’s report, “UK greenhouse gas emissions:
measurement and reporting”, goes into some detail about the
methodology used to look at the whole basket of greenhouse gases. It
talks about the intergovernmental panel on climate change guidelines on
greenhouse gases, which specify in detail what methodologies to use for
calculating emissions, and how trade-offs between precision, accuracy
and resources should be approached. The report states that emissions
should be estimated
“using a bottom
up approach. Using the economic activity data supplied by government
departments, trade associations and businesses, AEA and sector
specialists the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) and the
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research (IGER) model
emissions of all known anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases in the
UK within the following five specific source sectors: energy,
industrial processes, agriculture, land use, land use change and
forestry,
waste.” It
goes on to
state: “These
broad areas are then broken down into activity types, subtypes, and
activities. The emission-producing activities include the combustion of
fuels such as coal in power stations, the use of petrol and diesel in
road transport, industrial processes such as cement manufacture,
agricultural sources such as enteric fermentation in cattle, and
sources and sinks of CO2 caused from changes in the way land is
used.” In
case hon. Members are in any doubt about the meaning of enteric
fermentation, I can tell them, courtesy of Wikipedia, that it means
fermentation within the digestive systems of ruminant cattle. I am
trying to avoid using any unparliamentary language, but I was
interested to discover that most of that fermentation is belched rather
than emitted in any other way. Half of Australian methane emissions are
created in that way, which has been a serious incentive to the
Australian Government to support research into the vaccination of
cattle to try to reduce
flatulence—[Laughter.] Although that
is making hon. Members laugh and smile, that is a serious result of
Australia measuring and recognising the seriousness of reducing methane
emissions. I understand that other research on that is under way in
Japan and
Germany. Finally,
there is the possible excuse that the Government are following the
recommendation of the joint scrutiny Committee, which was divided over
the issue of other greenhouse gases and said:
“Expanding
the Bill in this way might therefore jeopardise its coherence and the
extent of support which it might
command.” Just
in case the Government are inclined to quote that Committee in support
of their position, I shall cite some of its other
conclusions: “We
agree with the Government on balance that it is reasonable for the Bill
to focus on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, and we therefore
accept its overall architecture. However, this in no way relieves the
Government of its responsibility to continue to reduce other greenhouse
gases”. It
is difficult to see how we are going to follow that instruction with no
policy tools at our disposal that even look at those other greenhouse
gases.
The
amendment is, in its way, as important as the measures on reducing
aviation and shipping emissions. The logic for the Government’s
acceptance that we cannot exclude any large section of the economy from
greenhouse gas measurement and reduction policies applies just as much
to the other greenhouse
gases.
Gregory
Barker: I have much sympathy with the spirit of the
amendment, about which the hon. Member for Cheltenham spoke fluently.
It would be foolish to consider the science of heat-trapping gas
emissions on a global scale without taking due consideration of the
full basket of greenhouses gases. It is well known that, as the hon.
Gentleman said, methane has 22 times the heat-trapping potency of
carbon dioxide. It is less well known, although it causes considerably
more concern to learn, that nitrous oxide is 310 times more powerful
than carbon dioxide as a heat-trapping gas. Any agreement that moves to
deal with greenhouse gases globally must therefore include the full
basket of the six major gases. However, we should remind ourselves that
the Bill legislates for only the UK, as the Government were at great
pains to remind us during the discussion over their principal
aim. The
evidence presented in the DEFRA report on national statistics in
relation to UK greenhouse gases shows that carbon dioxide, standing at
85 per cent. in 2006, accounts for the vast majority of UK emissions.
Importantly, the remaining 15 per cent. of emissions, which comprise
the more potent greenhouse gases, are, I am pleased to say, in steady
decline in this country, whereas the UK’s carbon dioxide
emissions have risen substantially since 1997. That is why the primary
focus of the legislation should, at least for the time being, be on
reducing carbon dioxide
emissions. To
back up my argument with some figures, UK emissions in 1997 were 548.1
million tonnes CO2 and, in 2006, they were 554.5 million
tonnes CO2. That is an increase of 6.4 million tonnes. DEFRA
statistics show that UK CO2 emissions have risen in five of
the past 10 years. The UK will meet its Kyoto reduction
targets only because of the dash for gas under the last Conservative
Administration, which resulted in a reduction of the UK’s
CO2 emissions from more than 590 million tonnes in 1991 to a
low of 540 million tonnes in
1999. In
March 2006, the Government dropped their manifesto commitment, which
was repeated in three successive manifestos, to cut carbon emissions by
20 per cent. by 2010. The 2010 target was set independently by the
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. It was replaced in 2006 by
the climate change programme review, which pledged to cut emissions by
15 per cent. by 2010. Despite Labour’s three manifesto promises
to slash emissions by 20 per cent., carbon emissions have clearly risen
since 1997. In 2006, CO2 emissions fell by just 0.1 per
cent. The Bill must focus on reducing carbon dioxide
emissions. Allow
me to contrast the figures on carbon with our national emissions of
other greenhouse gases. According to DEFRA, in 2006, methane accounted
for 7.5 per cent. of the UK’s emissions, but that was a
reduction of 53 per cent. below 1990 levels. In 2006, the main source
of methane emissions were landfill sites and agriculture, but emissions
from landfill and agriculture have reduced by 61 per cent. and 13 per
cent. respectively since 1990. Again, according to DEFRA, emissions of
nitrous oxide, which is a particularly nasty gas, fell, thankfully,
by 40 per cent. between 1990 and 2006, with a
year-on-year reduction from 2005-06 of 3.7 per cent. If only we could
repeat that level of performance on carbon dioxide we would be in a far
better position to meet our 2050 targets in good
time. Given
the drop in emissions of the basket of greenhouse gases and, by
contrast, our poor national record of reducing CO2, which
constitutes 85 per cent. of our emissions, the focus of the Bill should
remain on carbon dioxide only. We might find that emissions of other
greenhouse gases rise in future. Fortunately, there is sufficient
flexibility in the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to redefine the
scope of the Bill when and if it is seen to be fit to include the other
heat-trapping gases.
We should
remain mindful of the challenges ahead in reducing our carbon dioxide
emissions. The Government’s willingness to build a new and
unabated coal-burning power station at Kingsnorth springs to mind. That
power station alone would emit more than 7 million tonnes of
CO2 into our atmosphere if the emissions were not captured
and stored from some point in the future.
I note that
the Government’s consultation on the definition of
“carbon capture ready” was discreetly announced last
night. We should bear in mind the implications of that definition as we
debate that further in this Bill.
Mr.
Woolas: I was expecting a debate about science on this
sensible amendment; I am now drawn into politics. My reaction to the
comments by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle is “double
shocking”.
A number of
allegations have been made. Let me address the content of the
amendment, rather than my party’s manifestos. There are very
strong arguments indeed for including the other greenhouse gases in the
Bill’s targets and budgets, particularly scientific arguments,
which are, of course, the strongest. Also, including those gases would
ensure consistency with the international approach. The European and
international approach is for targets that cover all greenhouse gases
rather than just CO2 and we recognise that our current
targets are not consistent with that approach. Therefore, we said in
the other place—I repeat it here—that we will include
other greenhouse gases in our targets if that is what the committee
advises; I suspect that it will do so.
There is a
very important point that I ask the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle
to consider. In including the other greenhouse gases, one must, of
course, have strategies for reducing them. While we concentrate on the
CO2 element, on which there are strategies and policies in
place and there is expectation of progress in the future, that is not
necessarily the case for all the other greenhouse gases. That is not a
reason for not including them, though.
Gregory
Barker: Surely the Minister will accept that a reduction
in CO 2-equivalent emissions of methane or one of the other
greenhouse gases has exactly the same impact in terms of global warming
as a reduction in CO 2? Therefore, the priority must surely
be to develop those reduction strategies.
Mr.
Woolas: Indeed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that
point is important and is often missed from the debate. We tend to
interchange “CO 2” with “greenhouse
gases” in the public debate, as if they were the same
thing.
We genuinely
seek advice from the committee on the scope to reduce the other
greenhouse gas emissions. The hon. Member for Cheltenham used some
examples of emissions from agriculture. However, it is not obvious what
the scope to reduce them is.
Miss
McIntosh: When I listed the other greenhouse gases that
could fall within the definition, I understood the Minister to be
saying that he was minded to introduce them at a later stage and that
the Government had not excluded their introduction, but were not doing
so at this stage. Is that
correct?
Mr.
Woolas: We are minded to include them, we want to include
them, and we want the advice of the committee as to what the scope for
reducing them is. We want to include them for two reasons. The first is
the science, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham has said, and the second
is international compatibility. It is important that we do include them
for those reasons.
I want to
challenge the arguments about the figures made by the hon. Member for
Bexhill and Battle. He claimed that the United Kingdom’s
progress against its Kyoto target was a result
“entirely”—if he did not say
“entirely”, at least
“substantially”—of the dash to gas. That is not
fair. There have been a huge number of energy-efficient measures in the
country that have contributed towards a decline in the emissions: the
climate change levy; the climate change agreements, and the Carbon
Trust in the business sector and the energy efficiency commitment in
the household sector, which are independently audited, as are the
measurements of emissions. In the energy supply sector, the
introduction of competitive markets in production and supply has driven
a large reduction in the UK greenhouse gas emissions since the early
1990s. Further savings in CO2 per unit of energy have come
from the renewables obligation from higher diesel penetration in the
transport fleet and from the European
emissions trading scheme.
7.15
pm If
the Government were cynical, we would simply accept the amendment on
the basis that we could show that the total basket of non-CO2
gases has fallen by 38 per cent. since 1997. That
would be a “stick it in your pipe and smoke it” piece of
propaganda on behalf of the Government, but because we have integrity,
we will not fall into that trap, although it would be easy for me to do
so. The figures on the reduction in emissions show that the UK has made
significant progress against the 1990 and 1997 baselines.
Since 1990,
UK emissions of all greenhouse gases were 18 per cent. below the
baseline year. For CO2 only, UK emissions were 8 per cent.
below the baseline year. Therefore, the provisional UK emission figures
for 2007 were 1 per cent. lower than in 1997 for CO2, and 9
per cent. lower for all greenhouse gases. Taking emissions trading into
account, the most recent figures were 5 per cent. lower and 12 per
cent. lower for all greenhouse gases. That shows that economic growth
can be decoupled from a growth in emissions. That is far from the
picture that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle mischievously tried
to piggyback on to the back of the genuine and improving amendment
tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. I ask for the amendment to be
withdrawn.
| 
