§ 2.43 p.m.
§ Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ Why their document Energy Efficiency: The Government's Plan for Action lowers the expected savings in household carbon emissions by 2010 which were set out in the energy White Paper.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)My Lords, Energy Efficiency: The Government's Plan for Action contains an aim of securing carbon savings from household energy efficiency of 4.2 million tonnes of carbon per annum by 2010. The figure of 5 million tonnes of carbon in the energy White Paper was an initial indication of what might be delivered. But detailed analysis since the energy White Paper has led us to conclude that 4.2 million tonnes is a realistic figure to set as an aim for the household sector. Latest revisions of projected carbon savings from other sectors more than offset this recalculation.
§ Lord EzraMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but in view of the prime importance attached by the Government to energy saving, why was the anticipated shortfall not made up in other ways? Bearing in mind that the objectives for energy saving are now somewhat reduced, that the target for renewables on present trends is unlikely to be achieved, that the target for CHP has been reduced by 20 per cent and that the latest indications for emissions show that there has actually been an increase, do the Government still expect to attain their Kyoto and EU objectives by 2010?
§ Lord WhittyMy Lords, there has been a recent and short-term increase in coal burn, which has accounted for the very recent increases in carbon use, but the overall Kyoto objective of 12.5 per cent by 2008 to 2012 will be achieved. We are confident of that. The Government also have a 20 per cent domestic target, which is more stretching and is one that we are confident that we can achieve, but with substantial intensification of those measures. Regarding energy efficiency, my point is that although the household component has been reduced, other sectors have been increased by more than that. Therefore, that contribution is still valid and robust.
§ Lord TanlawMy Lords, can the Minister say how atmospheric carbon can be reduced to target in 2010 5 by killing off nuclear power generation by 2007, or by supporting the Ministry of Defence's objections to the erection of wind turbines all across the country? If the Government cannot meet the objectives published in the energy White Paper for renewable energy sources, does the Minister intend to reduce atmospheric pollution with a new carbon tax on business and power generation, or will it be, in the words of his right honourable friend, by,
taxing the motorist out of the car and on to public transport",or will it be a bit of both?
§ Lord WhittyMy Lords, every sector has to bear its responsibility, and fiscal measures are part of the way that that is achieved. We already have fairly high fuel taxation and the climate change levy has proved an extremely effective way of achieving carbon savings with energy efficiency in the business sector. The renewables target is ambitious but, we believe, is one that we can achieve. The run-down of nuclear power stations is unlikely to affect the situation for 2010, although renewables will have to begin to replace some of that, alongside other measures outlined in the White Paper, beyond 2010.
§ Lord Dixon-SmithMy Lords, I can understand the Minister's optimism, even if I do not accept it with regard to the national situation. However, is he satisfied that we are not escaping from reality, because while we work hard in this country, we are still exporting to other parts of the world plant that generates a great deal of carbon dioxide?
§ Lord WhittyMy Lords, just as every sector in the United Kingdom and the EU needs to bear some responsibility for reducing carbon emissions, so does every country in the world, particularly the developed countries which have by far the largest element of carbon emissions. It is important that not only all EU countries meet their commitments—although not all are currently on track to achieve them—but that other countries such as the United States also meet those targets.
§ Lord Maclennan of RogartMy Lords, what assumptions are the Government making about the contribution of nuclear generated power from France towards the reduction of our Kyoto targets?
§ Lord WhittyMy Lords, the presumption on importing energy from France is that that will continue at the present rate. Therefore, it does not affect the calculations of the reduction.
§ Lord Jenkin of RodingMy Lords, was it not clear from the interesting speech made on Thursday by the Minister's colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, that the Government are now clearly having second thoughts about embarking on a new programme of nuclear generation? Is the Minister 6 aware that many of those who took part in that brief debate detected a marked change of emphasis on the part of that Minister?
§ Lord WhittyMy Lords, I was not present for that debate but I am aware of what my noble friend Lord Sainsbury indicated, which is what we have indicated throughout the proceedings on the Energy Bill and before; namely, that we are keeping the nuclear energy option open but that we believe and are confident that we can meet the targets outlined in the White Paper without new nuclear build—but we would always keep that technology open as an option to help to meet both our energy requirements and our carbon reduction aims.
§ Lord Peyton of YeovilMy Lords, neither the noble Lord nor anyone else in the Government have yet said what they are doing to keep the option open. Are they investing any money, because such options do not stay open automatically, they are not fixed open doors—far from it?
§ Lord WhittyMy Lords, I disagree with the presumption there. We continue to maintain a substantial nuclear element at present, which brings us technological advance, and we are funding significant amounts of nuclear research. However, in most respects, nuclear technology is known, available and can be established. Were we to require nuclear energy to meet our objectives, it would be possible for us to do so; we have the expertise, knowledge and research and engineering base here to do it.