Global Warming

HL Deb 20 March 1991 vol 527 cc699-718

7.57 p.m.

The Earl of Shannon

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to ensure that the various implications of global warming have been presented to the public for general debate.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I seek this evening to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to ensure that the various implications of global warming have been presented to the public for general debate. I have done that because I am concerned that outside inter-governmental fora, universities, environmental research centres and the boardrooms of responsible business corporations, the public at large finds itself confused and at a loss. Adding to that situation, I fear that government and far too many environmentalists alike have to face claims of a greenhouse conspiracy when urging further action. It is the divided views of environmental scientists and economists as reported by the media —often in an irresponsible way—which may make the public reticent to respond positively and with commitment.

During the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on, "The Environment: A Comprehensive Strategy", I referred to the then forthcoming international global warming debate, which took place at the premises of the Royal Society in London on 7th and 8th March. Speaking at the debate, which I had the privilege to chair, was a Mr. Peter Thompson, the chairman of Strategy Europe Limited, whose idea it was to hold the debate. The Minister of State for the Environment, Mr. David Trippier, paid tribute to him for his initiative.

In his address on the media and global warming Mr. Thompson said, I would hope that readers, listeners and viewers will be as critically alert about editorial environmental reporting by the media, as they are now about party political propaganda and rhetoric".

Without detracting in principle from Mr. Thompson's views, I would mention the positive and responsible role of the regional and local media both he and I found in its reporting of the global warming debate. The BBC, independent and community local radio stations in many parts of the country in their mainline news and current affairs programmes, demonstrated much interest in the debate. This interest applied to the regional press, notably the Yorkshire Post. I am also glad to say that representatives of a number of scientific, technical and academic journals attended the debate and are writing papers and reports on it. However, the national media was another story. The debate would have passed totally unnoticed were it not for the BBC TV "Breakfast News", the Daily Telegraph, Independent Radio News and Sky Television.

In the main, the national media's view can best be illustrated by the comment of the environment correspondent of the Financial Times when he was offered a copy of the statement made by the Prime Minister of Norway, Mrs. Bruntland, to which I shall refer later. He said at that time: I don't want to see what she [Mrs. Bruntland] says. She is always talking about global warming".

I am happy to say that there was no such jaundiced view when I had the privilege to relay Mrs. Bruntland's statement to those who attended the global warming debate. Eminent speakers and distinguished delegates, as one, warmly welcomed the Norwegian Prime Minister's deep and moving anxiety for the crisis which we are all facing related to the greenhouse effect and its global warming.

Returning to Mr. Thompson's address on global warming and the media, Professor Patrick Michaels, a speaker at the debate, responded by referring to an article published in a North American journal which discussed the dilemma of debate on scientific thought. He reported the journal as saying: On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but … which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well".

It goes on to argue that, in order to capture the public's imagination, media support is essential, along with some frightening scenario and statistics. It is then up to the scientist to strike the right balance between being effective and being honest. Professor Michaels' illustration has more than a ring of truth in it. It was this type of dilemma which has fuelled media debate and confused the public. That was the background to the conception and setting up of the global warming debate and, I might add, was also the background to this question which I am putting to Her Majesty's Government.

The debate, in association with the Environment Council and supported by the United Nations Industrial Development organisation and the United Nations Environment Programme, covered two days and, within its framework, there were seven mini-debates. The themes of these were: the scientific approach. the economic implications, Eastern Europe, the role of the rainforests (in which we were addressed by Dr. Jane Goodall who flew from Tanzania to be with us and make an address); the media and global warming; transport; energy; the framework policy legislation for the environment; and the business response to global warming.

The structure of the debate was to have opposing positions on all the subjects discussed. Speakers came from five countries and delegates from seven and most of them were environmental specialists and corporate advisers playing a full participating role. I was pleased to see that the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy had senior representatives at the debate. Although the debate was a-political, it strove to close the gap between conflicting opinion and thereby stimulate a collective response either to advise action to check the rapidity of global environmental damage or to deliberate more effectively and speedily to produce answers before time runs out.

As I have mentioned, the Prime Minister of Norway, Mrs. Bruntland, sent a message for me to read out to those gathered at the debate. Perhaps I may be allowed to read some extracts: The threats to our global environment have become even more alarming since the World Commission on Environment and Development presented its report, Our Common Future, in 1987. In our efforts to save the global environment, a special responsibility lies with the industrialised countries. We have drawn upon the natural capital left to us by our forefathers, we paid little or none of the true environmental costs of our growth, and we have passed on most of the bill to the generations coming after us".

Opening the economic debate, Mr. Nicholas Hartley, senior economic adviser to the Department of the Environment, suggested that there are three ways to lessen global climate risks. First, to intensify the amount of scientific research in order to reduce climate and impact uncertainties; secondly, to foster the development of new supply and conservation technologies; and, thirdly, to make immediate reductions in emissions. On the subject of Eastern Europe, professor Zdzislaw Kaczmarek, of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, mentioned in his speech that the world's most developed countries had demonstrated that market mechanisms alone could not sufficiently protect the environment.

The non-CO₂ elements of the greenhouse problem, which include population growth, deforestation and others, was addressed by Mr. Malcolm Edwards, commercial director of British Coal Corporation. A new jurisprudence was called for by Mr. Malcolm Forester, director of the centre for environmental law at the University of Southampton. He said it would promote the common interest in the biosphere above absolute sovereignty over natural resources— a new De Jure Gentium of the environment".

On voluntary codes of practice, Dr. Horst Wiesebach, deputy director general of UNIDO, stated his organisation's experience shows that voluntary guidelines are broad in their scope and cannot cover every situation which may arise. The principle of their use lacks a mechanism which could motivate the industry to apply them. The subject of carbon dioxide emissions by industry in the united Kingdom was addressed by Mr. Christopher Hampson, chairman of the CBI environment committee and an executive director of ICI. He stated that UK industry is currently a major contributor to the nation's carbon dioxide emissions although these have halved since 1960. He added that if industry was properly motivated, it could effectively deliver desirable change.

Another initiative, which I mentioned during the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was that a national survey on the corporate policy on environmental safeguards was to be launched. The survey was conceived and conducted by Strategy Europe Limited, with which I have some association. To-date, 4 per cent. of the major companies which received the questionnaire have responded, against the background that the questionnaire asked for no details of the respondent or of his organisation. What this says about public affairs directors, to whom the survey was addressed by name, and about their corporate attitude to environmental responsibilities, I am not quite sure. The responses received, however, have significant importance and merit, in that they proved to be a litmus test of a good cross-section of the industrial sectors.

Three questions in the survey, dealing with the levelling of tax and levies on companies to contribute to global warming and the environmental damage caused by the Gulf war, produced a majority view against. A report on the responses to the survey is to be published, and there is also to be published a comprehensive report on the global warming debate, which will include speakers' addresses in edited form. There will also be audio recordings of the whole of the two-day debate, in edited form. For those who are interested, these can be obtained from the organisers of the survey and debate.

Arising from these frank responses to the survey and from the key thoughts at the global warming debate are a number of recommendations to which I hope this Government will give ear. They are as follows. First, that industry should be properly motivated in order to respond positively to effect business practices on environmental issues. Secondly, that the Government should review their dependence on voluntary codes of practice in industrial sectors to see whether their application should be strengthened by further legal frameworks. Thirdly, that legislation should be introduced to protect non-executive directors from their boards, which effect merely cosmetic environmental stances.

Fourthly, that those Secretaries of State appointed to monitor their department's environmental activities should encourage the appropriate media to act responsibly and concentrate on fact rather than fiction. Fifthly, that, in terms of this country, academics and scientists associated with environmental problems should be encouraged by the Department of Education and Science to work together in the interest of public wellbeing. Sixthly, that the Secretary of State for the Environment should ensure that the broadest factors are considered by the IPCC in the development of a framework policy.

Seventhly, that in Eastern Europe, Western environmental expectations should be allowed to be interpreted by countries which are more able to evaluate the resources which they can put to environmental concerns. Eighthly, that the Department of the Environment should establish public debates, in regional areas throughout the United Kingdom, to assess and evaluate public anxieties on the greenhouse effect and global warming and that the cost of mounting these debates should come out of the public purse.

Finally, I should like to put right a statement which I made, in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about European Commission reported legal challenges to the Government for infringement. At that time I was quoting a news item from the Daily Telegraph dated 25th September 1990. After considering a kind note from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and one from Mr. Kenneth Collins, a Member of the European Parliament and chairman of its environmental committee, whose statement it was that was the subject of the report, it would seem that the report in the Daily Telegraph was inaccurate.

8.15 p.m.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, for putting down this Unstarred Question at what is very much an appropriate moment, as I shall show later. I particularly congratulate him on his chairmanship of the conference to which he referred. It would be of benefit to all of us concerned with the environment if we could be supplied with the papers when they are ready.

I say that this is a particularly appropriate moment to discuss the Government's attitude to the question of global warming so far as concerns the public of this country because the best opportunity that the Government had for initiating a debate among the public was just 24 hours ago. The Chancellor had the opportunity in the Budget of showing the Government's hand towards global warming and educating the public at the same time. The House will recall that on many occasions since the publication of the environmental White Paper last year—we have questioned the Government on items in it—we have always been referred to the fact that this was the business of the Chancellor and that we should wait for the Budget. Well, we waited. And we have seen what is contained in the Budget.

I am making the assumption that by now, particularly since the report of the IPCC, it is accepted that there is at least a very strong prima facie case for accepting that global warming is a reality. I refer to the report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, on this subject in which he and his committee stated clearly that the case was such that we should at least accept what is called the preventive policy, assuming that these changes are likely to take place and that it will be too late if we do not accept the very strong probability that they will take place.

I have been closely associated with the School of Environmental Studies at the University of East Anglia. From my knowledge of the work done there and elsewhere in academic circles, I have no doubt that this is the only sensible—indeed, the only responsible policy—that any government can take towards the prospects of the next 50 years. What do we find in the Government's attitude, as shown yesterday, towards this issue and towards the public, which largely depends on the Government for its lead? We were told in the White Paper that the Government's policy is that the polluter should pay. Let us look at that and let us look at the Government's attitude in the Chancellor's speech yesterday.

First, on the question of carbon dioxide emissions, the use of vehicles is a very important element. We live in the privileged part of the world. We live in the developed half of the world. We in the developed part are responsible for 85 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions. Those emissions are a consequence of the consumer society. It is the responsibility of all those in public life, and especially of the Government, to bring to the attention of the public the stark realities of the dangers if we continue along the consumer lines to which we have become accustomed over many generations.

We looked yesterday to see what courage the Government had in telling the public that the polluter should pay; that it, the public, would have to pay more for its petrol; that the Government were not prepared to continue to subsidise company cars to the extent of £3.4 billion a year, a grant which is four times as great as the subsidy given to British Rail; and that we should look at road taxing in relation to different sizes of engine. We wanted to see what the Government intended to tell people to encourage them to use catalytic converters.

The Chancellor's speech was timid: it tinkered with all these major problems. Perhaps the right honourable gentleman was frightened, like President Bush, of public opinion. If economic policy is to be governed simply by vote catching, one can see the dangers he foresaw. However, we are talking about life on this planet over the next 25 to 50 years. I was glad to hear the noble Earl say in his opening speech that it is now clear that market forces alone will not control the polluting of our planet and the fuelling of global warming.

In this respect one has only to study the United States. President Bush is not prepared to reduce the fuel guzzling of the United States because, as he says, public opinion polls show that the public is against it. That is hardly leadership. Market forces will not reduce the dangers. In this country we have seen the lobbying that goes on. Only today I received a package from a major company which sought to persuade me that what I had been saying about the use of CFCs could not be justified. We have seen the operation of the oil companies in killing the imaginative plan in California for a green policy. It is up to the Government to control those market forces in the way that their own scientific advisers and international scientific advisers have shown is essential if the planet is to be saved from disaster.

We are pleased to see the increase in petrol prices although the differential between the price of unleaded petrol and leaded petrol is not likely to persuade many people to change to unleaded. The tinkering with the taxation of company cars is hardly likely to meet the challenge of the £3.4 billion a year. Road tax is not to differentiate between the size of car engines. Catalytic converters are apparently to receive no encouragement.

More than that, on the other side of the coin of how energy can be saved, the market for energy conservation equipment has declined by 28 per cent. over the past two years. It is 28 per cent. smaller in 1990 than in 1988. Our GDP for the fourth quarter of 1990 was 1.1 per cent. lower than in 1989. In other words, we are becoming poorer. Yet for that same 12-month period, energy use increased by 1.8 per cent. with the consequence that carbon dioxide emissions increased by 1.6 per cent. That hardly promises a stabilisation of carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005, still less a reduction of such emissions by at least 20 per cent., which environmental scientists believe is essential if global warming is even to be retarded. Yet, on energy saving equipment, this very constructive element in the equation, VAT is still to be charged. If the Government were serious in trying to educate the public into using energy conserving equipment, if the Government were concerned about increasing investment in energy saving equipment, they would remove VAT from it altogether.

When one is looking for a reduction in the waste of energy and for a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and the emissions of other greenhouse gases, where do the Government stand on those other forms of energy which do not pollute the planet? I refer to solar energy and wind power. We see nothing encouraging in the Government's relations with the public on these matters. I have elicited from the Government Front Bench figures for the amount they are investing in research on renewable energy sources. It is a mere fraction of the amount they are spending on research into nuclear energy. Surely that flies in the face of all experience and advice concerning the greenhouse effect. Where does one find in the Chancellor's Budget yesterday any consideration of the carbon tax on fossil fuels, which cause 50 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions, proposed by the previous environmental adviser to the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, now chairman of the Conservative Party?

I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will not give us the old and now tired answer that the whole problem will be met by the use of nuclear energy. We have had that canard before. We have pointed out that nuclear energy is wildly expensive, inefficient and builds up a legacy of highly dangerous toxic materials with which neither the Government nor anyone else have any idea how to deal. A programme has been laid down of clear scientific advice to the Government. It includes energy efficiency, renewables and taxation of the polluter at such a level that pollution is reduced. These are the methods which all scientific advisers have suggested to the Government and to the public.

However, we are still awaiting a lead. Will the Government have the courage to tell the people of this country the real, harsh and stark alternatives? The public must be educated into recognising the fact that we have to change our form of living in this country and that in the developed world internationally if we are to play our part in saving the planet from disaster.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Hampton

My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Earl, with all his experience on the subject, for bringing the problems which could arise from global warming once more to our attention. As he said, the public are at present confused and at a loss in regard to the matter. The Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, produced an impressive report on the greenhouse effect to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, referred. We can only briefly mention the subject in this debate. The Committee's first conclusion was an acceptance that, greenhouse gases have increased and that global mean temperature is higher now than in 1850".

The Committee went on to say that, they consider it likely, though not proven"—

I emphasise the words "not proven"— that the observed increase in greenhouse gases has contributed to the warming".

Surely that is enough to show us that we must take seriously the problem that global warming could bring about considerably worse weather conditions and, in some places, devastating flooding. Steps certainly need to be taken to avert a possible crisis. To do so, the public needs to be fully informed on what it can do. While Ministers happily say, "We are all green now", our submission is that not enough is being done.

The 1980s saw the rise in the United Kingdom of the new force of green consumerism. As the public became more aware of environmental issues they started to demand environmentally friendly goods from manufacturers. The speed with which the public moved to CFC-free aerosols and lead-free petrol was a case in point. Such cases have proved time and again that, given accurate and comprehensible information, individual consumers are willing to play their part in preserving and protecting the environment.

Survey work carried out for the Consumers' Association has shown that consumers' purchasing decisions are based partly on the environmental effects of the products. In a separate survey of CA members, 81 per cent. of those questioned said that they were prepared to pay extra for goods which were less damaging to the environment. However, in the most crucial area of the relative efficiency of domestic electric appliances, where the most efficient appliances are not necessarily the most expensive, accurate and comprehensible information is not available to the consumer at point of sale.

The Consumers' Association has given me a most helpful brief on this subject. The association says it is convinced that big energy savings are possible in this area and that energy efficiency labelling would provide an excellent way of simultaneously protecting both consumer interest and the environment. For example, as the March edition of Which? reveals, if a member of the public was setting out to equip a kitchen with a new fridge, dishwasher, washing machine and tumble dryer and had sufficient information in all cases to distinguish the most energy efficient appliance in the range, the extra cost of purchasing the most efficient appliances would be £30. However, given average usage, that increment in cost would be saved in running costs in the first year alone. Further, looking to the environment, over half a tonne less carbon dioxide would be contributed to the atmosphere each year; that is, working on the basis that every unit of electricity generated at a coal-fired power station will be adding about one kilogram of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Let us take another example. Some fridges cost half as much again to run as others. That is due to poor insulation, badly fitting doors and so on.

However, such comparative information is presently hard to come by. Although for many years the Consumers' Association has measured the relative efficiency of major appliances as an important part of its product evaluation for Which? and has, in consequence, built up a unique database of energy consumption by brand and by model, such information is not available to the consumer at point of sale; that is, with the exception of those fridge purchases made at any branch of the John Lewis Partnership.

The Energy Efficiency Office has put forward proposals for a voluntary energy labelling scheme for domestic appliances. However, its proposed starred rating scheme, whereby appliances more efficient than a set minimum will get a star rating from one to five, will fail to identify to the consumer appliances which are less efficient than the standard minimum.

Although we hope that consumer pressure will prompt all manufacturers to take part in the scheme, manufacturers' current belief that running costs are not a priority with their customers, combined with their initial reluctance to make the first move lest it should place them at a commercial disadvantage, suggests the need for a mandatory scheme. The European Community has proposed such a scheme which will initially be applied to refrigeration equipment where the greatest scope for efficiency is to be found. However, we remain concerned that, given the current progress of the framework directive, this is unlikely to be implemented in the United Kingdom before 1993. In our view the Government should take the initiative in the matter and implement a mandatory labelling scheme.

Before I conclude, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, a few questions of which I have given him notice. First, what incentive is there for the newly privatised electricity industry to encourage the use of more efficient appliances by labelling them in the electricity shops? Is it because they will sell less electricity if they do so? In addition, will the Government accept the fact that market forces often working only in the short term—both the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and the noble Earl touched upon this point—are not sufficient when consumers do not have the information, and retailers the incentive, to buy and sell efficient appliances? Experience in the United States and in Canada has shown this to be the case. Finally, what are the Government doing about the need for better education on environmental awareness in our schools?

I end with a short passage from the Liberal Democratic policy paper on the environment entitled What Price our Planet? It reads: Liberal Democrats believe that each and every person can make a contribution to meeting the environmental challenge. Changes in lifestyle can have a positive effect. But those changes in lifestyle must come voluntarily out of a recognition that we are all responsible to future generations for the state of the environment that they inherit".

The passage goes on to state: To ensure that people can make informed choices we believe that far more effort is needed from Government and industry, at all levels, to provide reliable information about the issues, and actions, individuals and communities can take".

Will the Government accept that statement?

8.38 p.m.

Lord Peston

My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, for introducing this short debate, perhaps I may point out that my own contribution is rather inexpert and will, therefore, have to be brief. On the subject of global warming, although I know that there is controversy in this respect, it seems to me that the balance of argument must surely be that global warming has taken place. Further, although I understand that there is some controversy among scientists as to whether there is a greenhouse effect, I believe that the balance of opinion lies with those who say, "Yes, there is".

It is difficult to believe that, as is acknowledged, the fact that the five warmest years of this century all occurred in the 1980s can be a coincidence. This is a subject we must take seriously. Equally, without panicking the public, we must recognise the effects that global warming will have. Action is required because those effects are adverse. There are its well-known adverse effects on trees. If we have global warming all sorts of species will begin to disappear. We have read about the melting of the Polar ice-cap and the rising sea level. In addition, there are statements which I do not believe are apocalyptic; namely, that we shall experience more extreme weather as a result of global warming—heatwaves, droughts and hurricanes.

It is a serious matter, and it is right that the noble Earl on this occasion, and other noble Lords on other occasions, have emphasised the importance of dealing with it, and looking for policies. I understand the noble Earl to be saying that education is part of what we should do. We should inform and persuade the public, first, of the seriousness of the problem; and, secondly, that some things can be done and, it follows, some things must be done. I shall make a few remarks on that topic.

I recognise—curiously the Government contradict themselves in their White Paper—that we have made considerable progress. I had not looked at the figures for the past year to which my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby referred. Clearly, the economy is in a cyclical downturn. He said that our energy use in the past year has increased. I did not check that figure and I apologise to him for not being aware of it. However, that is a one-year phenomenon. As I understand it, having studied the problem in some depth, if we take the longer view, the energy intensity of our economy has decreased considerably. Whatever else we say about our country and the whole of the advanced industrial world, we are producing more with relatively less energy. In that sense, we are doing something to solve the problem. That is one of the points that puzzles me about the remarks in the White Paper. It says, and I do not disagree with it, that we must approach the problem internationally; that a country cannot act on its own; that the whole matter is of international concern and requires some kind of international framework for progress to be made.

The Government seem then to go too far. Having emphasised the international framework with which I agree, they imply, and in one or two places say, that no country acting on its own can do very much. That seems to me to be wrong. I agree that we need to act internationally, but countries acting on their own can do a great deal. The evidence I have cited, which shows that we are all using less energy and are doing a number of other sensible things, is indicative of the fact that we can do things on our own even though co-operation will play an important part if progress is to be made. I hope that when the Government consider those matters they will realise that they cannot duck out of taking action in our country merely by saying that matters would be a good deal better if we were operating in an international framework. Of course they would, but we have important things to do ourselves.

The important point, as my noble friend and other noble Lords have emphasised, is that the action to be taken is tough and is, unfortunately, unpopular. I do not join my noble friend in attacking the Government for that, because any government will have to face up to that unpopularity. I hope that those of us on this side of the House who look forward to being in power will be willing to be as unpopular as my noble friend wants the Government to be. The things we need to do are the things that people do not like. They involve raising taxes on environmentally unfriendly activities. People do not like paying taxes. It may mean some regulation of industry, which industry does not like; but, nonetheless, it is difficult to see that we can achieve much without standards and methods of intervention. If we move to alternative technologies, as we need to, they may involve higher costs. So to obtain the environmental benefits the consumer may have to pay more. That is unavoidable. It is a matter of tough policies, persuasion and education.

Like other noble Lords, I am not persuaded that the public fully understands how serious the problem is. We are faced with the usual position, that people on the whole tend to be shortsighted with respect to their own standard of living. They do not see that their descendants will have a major price to pay if we do not act appropriately. In that connection, I assume that the rubric of the noble Earl's Question enables me to say that one area in which we need a great deal more activity is research. We need more research into global warming and alternative technologies.

Perhaps I may mention a point that is dear to my noble friend's heart: that the technologies that should concern us most are those likely to be used by the developing world. Although the advanced industrialised world has to a large extent been the cause of the problem until now, we are rich enough and determined enough to rein back what we do. The danger is that the emerging world—I do not for one minute blame it for this—is likely to adopt as its way forward the obsolete technologies, because they are cheap. It is our duty to invest in production methods suitable for the emerging nations which will enable them to raise their standards of living and at the same time not pollute the atmosphere.

We must move away from fossil fuels. We have been moving away from them and we must do so a great deal more. Solar energy and wind energy have a key role to play. It is a disappointment to many of us that we have not made the technological advances that we had hoped to make, and in particular we have not made the economic advances that we should have liked. When dealing with wind power we have the standard contradiction which is most irritating. People, notably farmers, try to move into wind power. They do so partly to diversify, because we have been told that as part of the CAP we must diversify. Then, as I understand it, the Department of the Environment announces that windmills are environmentally unattractive, and it tries to prevent progress with the windmills. We lose both ways. We are told that we must not pollute the atmosphere by using conventional fuels. We then go for windmills, people say that they are ugly and that permission will not be given for them to be installed. The Department of the Environment occupies easily the ugliest building in the United Kingdom, and I wonder whether it has had its whole environmental judgment distorted by that building and therefore does not realise that it is supposed to be a department of the environment. I live in Marsham Street and so I have the problem of having to look at that building most days of the week.

I must speak about nuclear power. As my noble friend is aware, on this I disagree with him slightly. The priority is not to increase global warming. The important point about nuclear power—whatever else is said about it—is that it does not add to global warming. It does not emit any of the gases involved. It may have other environmental disadvantages, but on the whole nuclear power does not increase global warming. If one were to take the view, first, that we do not want global warming; secondly, that we do not want fossil fuel; and, thirdly, that we do not want nuclear power, we shall end up cold in the winter. We have to make up our minds.

My last point—wearing my education hat, and following the noble Lord, Lord Hampton—relates to the national curriculum. Educating young people who will be the future decision makers is just as important as educating ourselves. I am very concerned as to whether there is a place in the national curriculum for this subject. As noble Lords know, the problem is that the compulsory part of the national curriculum does not include any subject like this. The education on it is supposed to happen through what are called cross-curricular themes. Most of us who have taught know that cross-curricular themes tend to he topics that are neglected. It would he a great pity if such subjects were regarded as optional when other disciplines, important though they be, are compulsory. It would be a tragedy if, between the interstices of the individual subjects in the national curriculum, a topic such as global warming which is more generally of the environment, disappears because exam questions must be written more specifically in history, geography, economics and so on.

I have ranged across a number of issues because the subject is so interesting. I end as I began, by thanking the noble Earl. It has been helpful to us to raise the topic. I know full well that he will not let it go away, and even if he did my other noble friends will keep at it. I look forward very much to hearing the Minister's comments on these matters.

8.51 p.m.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, I have listened with interest to this debate and especially to the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. I am grateful to him for summarising the proceedings of the seminar he chaired recently on the subject of global warming at the Royal Society. Perhaps I may also say how grateful I am to him for graciously withdrawing his earlier criticisms of the Government in respect of compliance with Community environmental law.

Perhaps no environmental subject has so captured public imagination in recent years as global warming. Every spell of unusual weather brings more speculation about the possible impacts of global warming on climate and sea levels. It is important that the public are properly informed about the causes of global warming, the likely effects, and what can be done about them. The debate chaired by the noble Earl made a very useful contribution to this process.

We have consistently argued the need for policy to be based firmly on sound science and have sought to keep the public informed of the developing scientific consensus. We have backed up our conviction through our support for the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC working group on the science of climate change was chaired by the UK. It brought together over 300 of the world's leading scientists in this field who concluded that, allowing for the many uncertainties involved, increases in greenhouse gas concentrations caused by man's activities will result in additional global warming. This has—in the words of the former Prime Minister—given us an "early warning". To that extent, there has been a general consensus in which I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch.

The Government recognise the seriousness of the threat. Work must continue on the underlying science of climate change and on predicting and quantifying the effects of such change. The UK's involvement in the IPCC continues to be significant. The establishment of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research last year gives us a strong base from which to contribute to the international debate.

We are clear that there is sufficient evidence to justify action now given the length of time greenhouse gases emitted by our generation will remain in the atmosphere and the potentially severe effects of climate change. We are pursuing action internationally and at home.

Action must be taken globally. The UK accounts for only a small proportion of greenhouse gas emissions—for example, only 3 per cent. of world carbon dioxide emissions. So there is little point in unilateral action. Indeed, there would be a danger that we would simply export the problem by encouraging greenhouse gas emitting processes to move to countries without a target. I hope that that answers in part the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the action needs to be international. Can anything be done here in the UK? Yes, it can. And we shall do it. However, it needs an international effort to get the global emissions down since we produce only 3 per cent. of total CO₂ emissions. We are participating to the full in negotiations for a climate change convention. Those negotiations began in Washington last month and should be completed in time for the United Nations conference on environment and development in Brazil in 1992.

At home we have taken steps to inform the public about the greenhouse effect and the implications of global warming. This is at the heart of the noble Earl's Question. In 1989 we published a booklet, Global Climate Change, explaining the greenhouse effect and the threat of climate change. Copies were sent to all schools to capitalise on the strong interest among schoolchildren in global environmental issues and to ensure that the next generation will be alert to the threat and the need for action.

This was followed by the environment White Paper, This Common Inheritance, which again explained the greenhouse effect and the action the Government were taking to tackle the threat of climate change. We produced a short version of that, which was given wide circulation, including all schools. In saying this I hope I answer one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and that he derives encouragement from my answer.

Perhaps I may add something about the environment in the context of the national curriculum, particularly as it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. There is a long tradition of environmental education in our schools. Pupils have investigated aspects of their environment through a variety of subjects. Teachers have used the environment as a stimulus for pupils' learning. We are now introducing the national curriculum and environmental education has been identified as one of the five cross-curricular themes of the curriculum. There are explicit references to the environment and environmental issues in various national curriculum subjects, particularly in science and geography. History, art, English and other subjects also have a part to play. These measures will provide children with a sound knowledge and understanding of the environment and how it affects our lives, both in the small scale and on a global scale.

Greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere. Indeed, water vapour is the most important natural greenhouse gas. The problem is that human activity is increasing the concentrations of the natural greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, which is responsible for over half the greenhouse effect, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. In addition, the chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs, powerful greenhouse gases, are entirely man-made.

The UK has announced that, as our contribution to the global action required, we are prepared, if other countries take similar action, to adopt a target of bringing UK emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, back to 1990 levels by the year 2005. We are also pursuing measures to reduce our emissions of methane, and we are committed, together with other EC countries, to phasing out the production and consumption of CFCs by 1997.

Taking action on all greenhouse gases together, the global warming potential of Britain's emissions should fall significantly, by approximately 20 per cent. by 2005 compared with levels in 1990.

The White Paper set out a first tranche of measures to achieve our carbon dioxide target. We are already taking many practical steps in the fields of energy efficiency, renewable energy, transport and forestry which make sense in their own right as well as controlling greenhouse gas emissions. We have said that we would like to maintain the nuclear option for electricity generation but only if it becomes more economic and the industry demonstrates that it can maintain high standards of safety and environmental protection. The Government will carry out a full review of the prospects for nuclear power into the 21st century in 1994.

Energy efficiency is clearly one of the most cost effective and environmentally sensible measures for us all to take. Energy efficiency helps to reduce emissions of CO₂ through using less fuel while also making economic sense. OECD figures show that between 1983 and 1988 the UK's energy intensity—the ratio of energy use to GDP—fell at a faster rate than that of most of our competitors, including Japan, which is widely regarded as the most energy efficient nation. Further improvements in energy efficiency could make the greatest single contribution to reducing energy consumption in the short term.

The Government are putting in hand important moves to achieve further improvements in energy efficiency. The Energy Efficiency Office will continue to participate in this, drawing on its experience since the office was established in 1983. Such has been the success of its work that savings of over £500 million a year are estimated to have been made. The EEO's budget has been increased substantially to £42 million in 1991–92.

The Government are acting to make buildings, which account for nearly half of Britain's energy use, more energy efficient. Amendments to the building regulations will improve the energy efficiency of new homes by 20 per cent. The effect of these changes will be monitored to see how they might be further strengthened. A significant part of the EEO's best practice programme relates to buildings and provides independent advice to owners, occupiers and building professionals. For private sector housing the new system of renovation grants enables local authorities to help less well-off people in housing which falls short in terms of energy efficiency. For local authority housing, £60 million has been allocated to the green house demonstration programme to support innovative and exemplary projects. Furthermore, the EEO's new home energy efficiency scheme will complement these initiatives by providing advice and grants for less well-off households in both private and public sector housing.

We are setting an example through our campaign to promote energy efficiency on the Government estate. We aim to achieve savings rising to 15 per cent. over five years. Work on the campaign is being taken forward under the direction of the new ministerial group on energy efficiency, chaired by the Secretary of State for Energy. Each department is represented by a Minister who has been given special responsibility for his department's own use of energy. Each department has appointed an energy manager and has produced a strategy to achieve the 15 per cent. savings target. Many ideas and initiatives to improve the energy efficiency of government buildings have been forthcoming.

The Government are also taking action on appliances and lighting. That point was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. We are encouraging energy labelling of appliances and pressing for an EC scheme. The EEO is continuing its work with industry, which is responsible for over a third of CO₂ emissions, to provide advice and guidance on improving energy efficiency through the best practice programme.

I was interested to hear the results of the survey of industry referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. I note the rather poor response to the survey, but I do not think that necessarily implies a commensurately low level of interest in environmental issues within industry. Industry is increasingly acknowledging that it is in its own interest to be in the forefront of environmental improvements, under the combined pressure of consumers and shareholders, and with an eye to the commercial advantages of developing new environmentally friendly technologies. The progress made by ICI in cutting its energy consumption is but one example of that.

This Government will continue to work with industry but will not hesitate to introduce regulations where necessary to control pollution. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be establishing a forum to allow a regular dialogue between Ministers and business on matters of environmental concern. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment are undertaking a series of seminars for business to encourage environmental management and set out the assistance that the Government can offer. On global warming, the message will be that improving energy efficiency in industry not only helps the environment but also saves industry money, as the experience of the best practice programme shows.

Transport is also a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. About 20 per cent. of the UK's total CO₂, emissions come from transport. Transport is, of course, essential for economic and social reasons. Nevertheless, the Government are firmly committed to reducing its impact on the environment. In particular, in yesterday's Budget, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced substantial increases in the duties on petrol and Derv, giving the motorist a strong incentive to choose more efficient vehicles and ensuring that those who pollute most, pay most. He also announced heavier taxes on company car benefits. These will encourage both employers and employees to think more rationally about the choice of vehicles and when and where they should be used. I believe that answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. In his Budget speech my right honourable friend encouraged preventive measures. The noble Lord scathingly mentioned tinkering provisions. However, it is difficult to know what he would recommend in this area. Various other measures are in hand, or planned, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport. I shall mention just a few.

From November 1991 an emissions check will be included in the MOT test and it is planned to introduce speed limiters for heavy goods vehicles from August 1992. The Government are currently supporting massive investment in rail—£7 billion in British Rail and London Transport over the next three financial years. Looking to the longer term, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport have jointly commissioned a study of the role that land use planning could play in reducing the need to travel.

At least one noble Lord has argued that all these measures will be insufficient to achieve our carbon dioxide target. I said earlier that these measures were only the first tranche. The White Paper made clear that it will be necessary to take a number of further measures over a period of years. In the long term these will have to include increases in the relative price of energy, perhaps by changes in taxation. But long term measures affecting the relative price of energy can only sensibly be taken when competitor countries are prepared to take similar action. Unilateral action could damage the economy and would make little contribution to global warming. We have made clear that tax or other measures directly raising the price of energy outside the transport sector will not be introduced in the next few years.

We must recognise that progress in controlling carbon dioxide emissions will require the involvement of all sectors of society, companies and individuals. The Energy Efficiency Office is conducting a gruelling programme of seminars on different aspects of energy efficiency. I have myself spoken recently at seminars on energy efficiency in modern buildings and on energy efficient lighting.

Steps are being taken, following on from the environment White Paper, to inform individuals of the contribution they can make to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. This is an important part of the ministerial group's remit. We wish to raise the public consciousness of the link between energy and the environment and are seeking media support. We hope that energy efficiency will be featured in soaps, documentaries and local and national radio.

Earlier this month my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment launched a new booklet, Wake Up —To What You Can Do For The Environment designed to help the general public to adopt an environmentally friendly lifestyle. Some 5 million copies have been printed and it is widely available through the main supermarkets. The Wake Up leaflet will be followed by a major publicity campaign later this year on energy efficiency in the home. Our aim will be to help the public make the link between their own consumption of energy and the threat of climate change. As has been mentioned tonight, that link remains poorly understood. There are many ways in which individuals can help to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as householders and transport users. The Government know that they require the co-operation of all these individuals to achieve results.

We are also working with local authorities to help them to exploit the many ways of improving their own energy efficiency, following on from the work of the Audit Commission which identified a potential for savings of £100 million. We are also encouraging local authorities to provide a lead in their local community. During May environment Ministers, with EEO support, will be hosting a series of seminars for local authorities on energy efficiency.

Turning to the questions that I have not yet dealt with, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked about the disparity between the R&D spent on renewables, as opposed to nuclear. He has asked that question before and I give him the same answer. There is no reason why expenditure on renewables R&D should bear any proportional relationship to nuclear expenditure. Each energy technology requires a different level of investment to carry out the necessary R&D in its development for commercial use. Both nuclear and renewables provide valuable benefits in terms of diversity and protection against the damage which burning fossil fuels does to the environment. I believe it would be wrong and artificial to suggest that one is better value than the other.

In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, regarding the incentives as applied to the newly privatised generating supply industry—and I believe that this should, in a way, interest the noble Earl who also touched on market forces—the new market orientated structure of the industry does not ignore the needs of the environment.

The new regime provides a stable basis in its price controls for the companies concerned, while facilitating the proper economic pricing of electricity. It introduces considerable competitive incentives on generators and suppliers to be fuel efficient and cost efficient, as well as responsive to their customers' wants. The arrangements explicitly recognise the need to take account of the effects of generation, transmission and supply on the environment, and the need to provide economy and efficiency in the use of electricity. There is no reason why energy efficiency cannot go hand in hand with the competitive privatised industries that we have created.

The new structure is capable of evolution in the light of experience, and the director-general has said that he will consider the effectiveness of the energy efficiency incentives when he comes to review the price control in 1994. Each regional electricity company has to have a code of practice for the provision of information on the efficient use of electricity, and this is overseen by the Director-General of Electricity supply.

I have spoken for rather longer than I intended. I think it is clear that the Government take the issue of global climate change very seriously indeed. To sum up, we are actively involved in discussions to agree an international approach to controlling greenhouse gas emissions; and we are working to control the UK's own emissions. The White Paper set out the first phase of measures to help achieve our carbon dioxide target. These include action to improve energy efficiency across the whole economy, action to increase the contribution of renewable sources of energy and action to control carbon dioxide emissions from transport. We recognise that the success of our initiatives will depend largely on decisions made by individuals. We are taking steps to ensure that the public understands both why global warming may occur and what they can do about it.

House adjourned at eleven minutes past nine o'clock.