Carbon Dioxide Emissions (Hansard, 29 January 2004)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)
My Lords, I shall first, unusually, correct the noble Lord. The UK target under the Kyoto protocol is actually to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent below 1990 levels. Provisional data show that UK greenhouse gas emissions were 14.9 per cent below 1990 levels in 2002. Therefore we shall meet the Kyoto target. We remain confident that by delivering appropriate policies we can meet the domestic goal of a 20 per cent reduction by 2010. Further step changes will be needed if we are to meet the 2050 target.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, I am grateful for that minor correction. Is the Minister aware of the growing anxiety that DTI Ministers continue to fight shy of any real conclusion about the need for more nuclear generation? In doing so, they are losing a valuable opportunity that would take them on the way to meeting those commitments, which begin to look more like a PR exercise than real undertakings.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the noble Lord has on occasion been with us in Committee on the Energy Bill. He knows that the discussions about a nuclear 319 component of energy policy have been fairly robust and will, no doubt, continue to be so. The point about meeting the Kyoto targets is that we need no new nuclear capacity to meet them. We believe that the policies set out in the energy White Paper, if fully delivered with the energy efficiency and renewables contribution, can ensure that we meet those targets without new nuclear power. Particularly after 2010, this will require some step changes in both consumer and business behaviour. Of course, we are keeping the nuclear option open and constantly under review.

§ Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, although he is quite right to say that we need no new nuclear capacity, we do need all our existing nuclear capacity unless and until alternatives are in place that generate the same volume of electricity and the additional electricity needed to meet the productivity demands such as those set out in the OECD report?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I do not entirely agree with that. Certainly on present policies there will continue to be a nuclear component until the mid-2030s, even if there is no new build. But that will be a diminishing component. Indeed, we can meet our projected energy requirements in 2020, provided that the policies enunciated in the White Paper are maintained, with a much reduced nuclear component by then.

§ Lord Ezra
My Lords, in spite of the optimism expressed by the Minister, in order to make sure that we achieve our targets, would it not be prudent for further steps to be taken now to support other energy technologies, apart from renewables, that are likely to lead to a reduction in emissions?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, further steps are being taken on renewables, on more energy efficient use of carbon fuels and the development of alternative technology. That includes keeping the nuclear option open by research and expertise being maintained, so that we could, if necessary, revert to a nuclear option. But if the various components outlined in the White Paper are delivered on current policies and on policies which are envisaged in that paper, then we do not need to rely significantly on any technology that is not so far included within that calculation.

§ The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, are the Government adopting contraction and convergence as the just and intelligent way forward on global emissions?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, in energy policy we are not talking about the contraction of economic growth, but of decoupling the demand for energy from economic growth, so that the coefficient for energy in developed countries would become negative. That would allow greater scope for developing countries to grow their own economies at a rate that brings their standards of 320 living closer to those in developed countries. It is not exactly contraction, but it provides for some reduction in the energy take of the northern countries.

§ Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, will the Minister clear up a misunderstanding once and for all? Nuclear is not included in renewables, yet nuclear does not have carbon dioxide emissions. Why can it not be counted in the percentage that is necessary to achieve the Kyoto targets? Surely, on that basis there must be some sense of urgency in going for new nuclear as well as, as the noble Lord said, maintaining existing nuclear.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, in one sense the nuclear component is taken into account in meeting the Kyoto targets as, as long as we keep a certain nuclear component, it does not contribute to the carbon figures. Although for the future nuclear technology is a low carbon or near-nil carbon technology, it is not a sustainable technology until we have found ways of dealing with nuclear waste. Once that is dealt with in a satisfactory way, then one reopens the question of the contribution of nuclear. But we are not anywhere near that point. It has economic consequences, as the costs of disposal and decommissioning need to be taken into account, which make nuclear power a not very cheap form of carbon saving.

§ Lord Lea of Crondail
My Lords, it may be that the anomaly arising from the noble Baroness's question is why the carbon levy does not allow a dispensation for nuclear. On the Question that is actually on the Order Paper, is it not timely to remind ourselves that although Britain has gone well ahead of other countries in Europe, and certainly in the world as a whole, in going for Kyoto plus, the fact is that, although competitiveness can be an argument, having given a lead, we now see countries such as India and China starting to move in the direction of signing up to Kyoto? Britain should be congratulated—under both parties, going back to 1992 at Rio—on giving a lead on this question.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The lead given at Kyoto and that given by the UK within the EU in the EU's contribution to Kyoto have been very important. It is also important that we maintain that lead. The UK and Germany are leading the EU contribution to deliver our Kyoto targets. This has not been, and will not be, to the economic disbenefit of UK industry because, if we are ahead of the game in the technologies that are needed for this new era, UK industry will be competitive and will gain as a result of being ahead of the pack.