HL Deb 27 February 1990 vol 516 cc595-7

2.50 p.m.

Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:

Why they refused to set targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and did not respond to requests to help developing countries curb greenhouse gases at the recent United Nations conference in Washington.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh)

My Lords, as we recognised in the Noordwijk Declaration, the basis for the target of stabilising carbon dioxide emissions will be considered in the light of the IPCC report and the second world climate conference in November 1990. We are aware of the needs of developing countries and at the meeting in Washington we pledged additional funds to enable developing countries to participate in the work of the IPCC.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the problem of the greenhouse and related effects is the most fundamental challenge facing our world over the next quarter of a century? Is not the pledging of targets for the control and reduction of carbon dioxide emissions one of the most important efforts to be made in that regard? Within that framework, is there not a danger that in raising their standard of living the third world may well reduce any benefits from reductions in the northern world? Is it not therefore essential that third world countries are enabled to raise their standard of living without at the same time damaging the prospects of the planet's environment?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is repeating the thoughts that he must have had in order to decide to put down the Question and my main Answer dealt with what he has just presented to noble Lords.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, that does not answer the question. Did not both the British and United States Governments refuse at the IPCC Conference in Washington to set targets and just put it off until later, as they did before?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord is well aware, the suggested targets were not on the original agenda. Her Majesty's Government played an important role in assuring that a compromise resulted from that meeting. If we are to launch a successful attack upon the problems that face the global planet, it is important that we do so by achieving compromise and agreement, not by having divided parties.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that recent reports, including one debated in this House, show conclusively that one of the greatest culprits in encouraging the greenhouse effect is fossil-fuel power stations, what has become of the Government's programme to deal with that situation in this country?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, this country has a substantial nuclear programme. Under the new energy Act, some 600 million megawatts have been allowed for renewable resources. I await the conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, to the nuclear cause.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I asked what had become of the Government's programme to deal with fossil-fuel power stations and the emissions from their chimneys which cause the greenhouse effect. How far are the Government into the programme which was announced some time ago?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, the Government are already committed to some £600 million of expenditure on detoxifying fossil-fuel power stations.

Lord Mcintosh of Haringey

My Lords, reference has already been made to the important debate on that subject which was held in the House a few weeks ago. Does the Minister recall that a major conflict was pointed out between his department's forecasts of the emission of greenhouse gases in the form of carbon dioxide and those implied in the Department of Transport's forecasts of increased car ownership? Can he say whether his department is winning the battle against the Department of Transport?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, there is never a conflict between the departments of this Government. I should point out that it is entirely right and proper for the Department of Transport to consider the prospective requirements of the individual.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, once again the noble Lord extolled the virtues of nuclear energy. At what stage will the Government have second thoughts, bearing in mind the increasing proof that nuclear energy causes cancer, leukaemia and all kinds of other diseases?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord will be aware, as will those Members of the House who watched the Channel 4 programme on the environment on Sunday night and saw the removal of carbon from heavy diesel engines in trucks, which is also thought to cause cancer, emissions from fossil-fuel power stations may possibly cause cancer. It is a nasty fact of life that all forms of pollution, from whatever source, may be a danger to human life.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, if there is no dispute between government departments, there should be. How can the Department of the Environment be pledged to reduce carbon dioxide emissions when the Department of Transport is preparing for a 142 per cent, increase in the use of cars in the next 20 years? Is that not a cause for dispute between the departments? With regard to the noble Lord's Answer concerning the Government's pledge to increase funds to third world countries to help them develop without polluting the atmosphere, what was the figure that they pledged at the IPCC Conference?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, it would be extremely irresponsible for the Department of Transport not to inquire into prospective and possible figures. The House would be extremely dissatisfied if a Minister of Her Majesty's Government came forward in 20 years' time and said, "Oh dear, we didn't know and we didn't think". We must inquire about possibilities. Then common sense will rule between the departments of this Government.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my second question? What was the figure which he mentioned in his Answer that was pledged by Her Majesty's Government to the third world at the IPCC Conference?