| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Economic Affairs Committee also saw as a positive result—I am sure that many noble Lords will be thankful for this—the fact that there is a balanced approach in the energy review. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, expressed disappointment about the lack of realism surrounding the projections on renewable energy. That is certainly something to be argued about, but the review proposes increasing the output from renewable energy fivefold to 20 per cent, with new technologies also encouraged and new opportunities for smaller, decentralised energy sources. So we look forward to a more detailed explanation of how the difficulties in these areas will be overcome.
In addition, there will be a big push on energy efficiency. Inefficient electrical goods will be phased out, with potentially enormous gains. A remarkable7 per cent of household electricity can be consumed just by leaving products on standby. A further hope is that coal can be cleaned up and that carbon can be captured and stored safely in our old North Sea oilfields. We are promised that planning permissions will be accelerated, but we were promised that in the past and so we shall see. Let us hope that the inescapable consultations will also be accelerated.
We must now await the promised White Paper on energy at around the turn of the year, along with the Stern review on the economics of climate change. If both now come to their expected conclusions, I believe that this House, through its Questions, debates and committee reports, will have played a useful part in shaping both energy and climate change policies in more productive, parallel courses. As the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, and others have said, those original contributions continue. I trust that we have also played our part in getting Her Majesty's Treasury more fully engaged in co-ordinating and leading government policy on climate change.
12.03 pm
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, I was a member of the committee and I echo his tribute to the superb chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Wakeham. I also echo my noble friend's tribute to the late Professor Pearce, our special adviser, and to our admirable Clerk, to whom we continue to be greatly indebted. I sense that in this debate I shall, to some extent, be swimming against the tide. That is a slightly slower process, so I apologise in advance to noble Lords if I take a little longer.
I start with what is indisputable, or at least what is generally accepted as fact. During the 20th century as a whole, the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide increased by around 30 per cent. There are natural sources of carbon dioxide, but it is likely that the increase was due overwhelmingly to man—that is, it was anthropogenic. At the same time, there was a warming, but it is surprising how small the increase in temperature was. Over the 20th century as a whole,
14 July 2006 : Column 917
Unlike the emissions of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, that increase has not been a steady process; it has come in fits and starts. I shall give the broad figures, which are generally accepted, so I do not need to take much time over them. Before 1915, there was no change at all; between 1915 and 1945, there was a considerable spurt; between 1945 and 1975, there was a slight cooling—indeed, at that time Professor Lovelock and others were saying that this was the precursor of a further ice age; and, from 1975 to 2000, there was another spurt of roughly the same magnitude as the first. We know that there is natural variation in the climate as well, so how much of that second spurt was due to natural variation in the climate and how much was due to carbon dioxide emissions and their anthropogenic greenhouse effect? Of course, no one knows. The Government's response to our report states that the Met Office considers that more than 50 per cent of warming in recent decades is attributable to anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases. Let us assume that the Met Office's best guess is right and that more than half the 0.4 per cent increase during those decades—in other words, about a quarter of a degree centigrade—was due to carbon dioxide. That is the 20th century.
I turn to the 21st century. I hate to differ fromsuch an eminent scientist as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, but the Hadley Centre chart shows that there has been no further increase in global temperatures since 2000. I make nothing of that because no one knows what will happen in the future, but the warmest year is still 1998. So global warming has not yet happened to any significant extent, and yet one hears all the time that any unusual or television-worthy event—from Katrina downwards—must be due to global warming. But, again, that is not the view of the experts. The experts on tropical storms set up an international panel, which included the tropical storm expert for the Met Office. The panel reported:
“The main conclusion we came to was that none of these high-impact tropical cyclones could be specifically attributed to global warming”.
That is not surprising, because there is hardly any global warming anyway.
Why has the 30 per cent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide had so little greenhouse effect? I am not a scientist, but it is not so curious when one recalls that the greenhouse effect is overwhelmingly a product of water vapour, whether in the form of clouds or otherwise. Again, experts differ in their views, but that accounts for between 75 and 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect. It is perfectly true that carbon dioxide is the biggest single component of the other5 to 25 per cent. That puts the matter into perspective.
14 July 2006 : Column 918
Going off at a slight tangent, I should add that it also puts into perspective the view that is constantly put outside this place that carbon dioxide is a form of pollution. We have not heard that said here and I would not expect noble Lords to use those words. Carbon dioxide is no more a form of pollution than are clouds of water vapour. Carbon dioxide is a life force; plants require it to flourish. Indeed, the more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, thebetter the development of plant life, which is notaltogether a bad thing. Incidentally, the process of photosynthesis is more efficient with a greater degree of carbon dioxide, so plants need to extract less water from the soil.
The past is clear and the argument turns to the future. As our report says, the IPCC, which is well known to this House, has a number of scenarios that suggest that over this century the temperature might rise between 1 per cent and 6 per cent. As we point out in our report, that is based partly on demographic and economic assumptions that are highly implausible and which are not in any way central. In other words, there is a considerable upward bias on the basis of those assumptions on the economic side. That is what generates the amount of carbon dioxide projected in the scenarios.
Then, of course, there are the computer models, which develop temperature increases based on a particular increase in the amount of carbon dioxide. As can be seen from reading the literature, that science is quite clearly not at all settled. In particular, the science of clouds is not settled and, as any climate scientist will tell you, that is the most difficult and intractable form of climate science to understand. What is the interaction between carbon dioxide and clouds of water vapour? That is extremely uncertain and critical. If what is put into the computer models is mistaken, the outcome in temperature projections will be mistaken.
Many scientists—I agree that they are a minority—differ from the scientists in the IPCC and the scientists at the Hadley Centre. For example, only last April, 60 or so scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister saying:
“Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future”.
Faced with this uncertainty, what should we do? Some people like to rely on the precautionary principle: because anything might happen, we must spend anything in order to prevent it. I have come to believe that, most importantly, the precautionary principle needs to be applied to the precautionary principle itself, otherwise we shall find ourselves doing very stupid things in its name.
Certainly Kyoto is not the answer. With the best will in the world, it is impossible to believe that it is. It is recognised on all sides that it is totally ineffectual in reducing carbon dioxide emissions or in reducing temperatures. However, those who support it claim that it is a first step to much more rigorous and tougher agreements of this kind. That is pie in the sky.
14 July 2006 : Column 919
More important, the United States refuses to be part of that process and the big developing countries—the big emitters—such as China, India and Brazil have no constraints under Kyoto and will not accept any constraint under a future Kyoto. The developing countries have a very good argument. They say, “You in the developed world became rich on the basis of cheap carbon-based energy and now it is our turn to do so. Why shouldn't we?”. They also say, “You have caused this 30 per cent increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so it is your responsibility to mitigate it if that is what you wish to do”. The terms in which they put that argument at a United Nations climate change conference last May are interesting. Mr Prodipto Ghosh, the permanent secretary of the Indian environment ministry, said:
than action against global warming. That is their choice. Far from global warming being a threat to the poor, it is the measures to mitigate it in those countries that are a threat to the alleviation of poverty. That is absolutely fundamental and everyone has to understand and recognise that. Those countries are going ahead as fast as they can.
The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, mentioned the massive Chinese coal-fired power station programme: one new power station every five days for seven years. As a result of that, in the next 20 years, China will have overtaken the United States as the biggest single emitter of carbon dioxide. China will not undertake the huge expense of retro-fitting carbon capture and storage to stop those emissions. What will happen? Western taxpayers certainly will not pay the Chinese—that is also pie in the sky—to undertake such a huge programme. Western countries are being timid enough in raising funds to meet their own Kyoto targets, which are much less. The costs involved are very substantial.
The Kyoto principle is to raise the price of carbon-based energy to the level where non-carbon-based energy becomes economic. But that means that, as this process takes place, energy-intensive industries and processes in Europe will increasingly migrate to China or India, as the textile industry has done, to take advantage of cheaper energy there. We will meet our targets all right, but nothing will happen about global emissions; they will just come from China and India rather than from Europe. No wonder the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union warned last April that Kyoto could seriously damage the European economy, and prohibitively so,
especially if big emitters such as America, China and India are not brought in.
This week’s government energy policy conclusions need to be seen in that context. The nuclear optionis presented in two terms: security of supply and helping in the battle against climate change. On security of supply, I shall quote the words of Adam Smith, which will be well known to your Lordships.
14 July 2006 : Column 920
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but the Companion tells us that when there is no time limit on speeches, Back-Bench speakers are allowed 15 minutes.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, I shall quickly come to a conclusion, but, of course, that is advisory.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, it is advisory. The exception is if we are listening to a speech of exceptional and “outstanding importance”.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, advisory is advisory.
I leave the Government’s energy White Paper to say that, although the economics of nuclear are a bit doubtful, wind cannot be a serious option given that it is necessary to have full back-up conventional power for when the wind is not blowing. Electricity supply must be on tap all the time and electricity cannot be stored in large quantities except at prohibitive cost. That makes the cost completely prohibitive. Anybody favouring wind power as opposed to nuclear is wholly irrational.
In conclusion, the only way forward is what we have suggested in our report: adaptation. It is hubristic to imagine that we can change the climate. Adaptation is something we can and will do. It means that we meet the warming problem whether it is natural or the result of carbon dioxide emissions. It means that we can pocket the real benefits of climate change while mitigating the cost.
The more I see of this issue, the more it seems TheDa Vinci Code of environmentalism. It is a great story and a phenomenal bestseller. There is a grain of truth, but a mountain of nonsense.
12.21 pm
Lord Teverson: My Lords, some years ago I was a Member of the European Parliament, where great respect was paid to the work of this House and, in particular, its reports. It is a privilege for me now to speak to one of them as a Member of your Lordships’ House; indeed, a report considering one of the greatest challenges to us all.
One of the most important things the report does is to encapsulate and summarise some of the challenges and statistics we must confront. Every year, we are putting some 7 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. Over the last few hundred years, we have already increased carbon from 280 to 380 parts per million, with a target of 550 by the year 2100. That, even by those standards, will raise temperatures by 2.5 degrees centigrade by 2300. One of the key points of the report is the time lag; not the time lag of normal economic systems, but a stock of carbon that will last for 200 years. Our actions today affect not just our grandchildren, so often cited in environmental discourses, but future generations well beyond that.
I am aware that it is easy for there to be a doomsday scenario in environmental debates, which is perhaps exaggerated and might scare us away from
14 July 2006 : Column 921
When I saw the title of this report, The Economics of Climate Change, I looked particularly at the bill. What was the cost to us, as a planet, of global warming? Indeed, the report quotes two figures: in net present values, one is $2 trillion, and the worst case scenario is $17 trillion—some 50 per cent of current global GDP. Those figures are themselves quite astonishing, yet the report manages to downgrade that risk to saying that, over a 50-year period, it might represent only 1.3 per cent of global GDP per annum. That almost leads us to the thought that this problem might therefore be quite manageable.
Those estimates are risky. I shall talk about where the report has highlighted important instances of danger, but not pursued them—specifically, the non-linear and irreversible effects of global warming. Most of them are listed in the report. Ocean circulation particularly affects the north Atlantic; there is little scientific evidence at the moment, but a case could be persuasive. Yet we know that if the Gulf Stream was not there, that would decrease temperatures not by the two-thirds of a degree we have had so far this century, but by some eight degrees centigrade. We would all feel that considerably. It is around the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica, and the permafrost, particularly in the northern climes of Canada and the Russian Federation, where we would then have a methane loss which would have a double-whammy effect on global warming.
Not specifically listed as a non-linear, irreversible event, though mentioned in the report, is biodiversity. Biodiversity is literally a treasure house of our planet. There are clearly already signs that species are having to change range, with extinctions due to certain species being crowded out by others. Much of that is currently local, but it will become regional and global. We already have dying coral reefs, and a number of bird species have disappeared. I admit that predicting and taking strong action on these unpredictable events is difficult, but they are the largest impacts and something which we cannot ignore. Nor are they costed in this report.
I emphasise the fundamental argument of adaptation versus mitigation. The report says that there should clearly be more emphasis on adaptation. That is true; there must be adaptation activity, but it is a dangerous route to champion too strongly. It is tempting, because it seems a more manageable way forward and does not totally rely on global co-operation, so it is easier. However, the strategy clearly benefits rich countries and is unattainable to those of lower incomes.
I notice that the economic analysis of the report laid a lot of stress, as did the IPCC, on the convergence of developing and non-developed economies. While that might be true, there is going to
14 July 2006 : Column 922
It is not just rich countries that will find that there is no dilemma. I come from the south-west. It is clear that, even in developing economies, we must make choices about where we adapt. If there is a choice between protecting London, the tube system and our financial centres, and keeping the waters out of the Isles of Scilly or the main railway line across the south Devon coast—even last year it cost £9 million to keep it in operation—it will be stark. As the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, rightly pointed out, in New Orleans we had an example of the richest, most successful economy in the world utterly failing to adapt sufficiently to a short-term measure. The cost to rebuild and protect New Orleans is estimated at£35 billion.
The report mentions a document with a seductive title about the social costs of carbon, which tries to add up the costs arising from damage by global warming. All sorts of figures can be arrived at, but they are not social costs—they are costs in human life and land, particularly in areas such as Bangladesh where a one-metre rise in sea level would put 17.5 per cent of the country under water and displace35 million people. The phrase “the social cost of carbon” is a euphemism equivalent to “friendly fire” and “ethnic cleansing”.
12.30 pm
Lord Rees of Ludlow: My Lords, it is my privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, onhis maiden speech. He has performed great publicand private services to the south-west, especially Cornwall, which he served as an MEP. It is fitting that his maiden speech has been in today’s debate because he belongs to a party that has contributed so much constructive thought on environmental issues in general and whose crowded Benches today testify to its commitment to discussing this subject.
The report we are debating today is welcome for its focus on the economic challenge of coping with climate change. However, I share the view of earlier speakers that its tone disappointed many people, not just the Government. The report unduly disparaged the IPCC and downplayed current scientific understanding. By highlighting gaps in our knowledge and by contending that,
14 July 2006 : Column 923
the committee aligned itself uncomfortably closely with lobby groups that use such rhetoric to oppose efforts to tackle climate change.
Of course, there are uncertainties in the science but they should not obscure the compelling consensus that climate change is a serious issue. Rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are already warming our world and making our oceans more acidic. The cumulative evidence has been documented in scientific papers by many thousands—the overwhelming majority—of independent researchers.
Even within the past year, the evidence has hardened. A discrepancy between temperature measurements on the ground and in the atmosphere has been resolved, and the evidence that the world is now warmer than at any time in the past four centuries—the “hockey stick” graph—has been firmed up by a reanalysis by the National Academy of Sciences, which pointed out that it was just one of several lines of evidence.
But the most important datum is entirely unambiguous. There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than there has been for at least half a million years: the level has been rising at about0.5 per cent per year. Even if no more CO2 were emitted at all, there is so much inertia in the climate system that the warming could continue for decades.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |