Climate Change (Hansard, 26 October 2004)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)
My Lords, we launched a review of the UK's climate change programme on 15 September. The review will provide an assessment of progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions since the programme was published in 2000 and to see if we are still on track towards our 2010 domestic goals. Where needed, we will look at where we should introduce new policies and measures and/or strengthen existing ones.

§ Lord Ezra
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but does he recall that the Prime Minister, in his speech on 14 September, after emphasising the gravity of the climate change situation, spoke of the need to invest in large-scale existing technologies and to stimulate innovation to new low-carbon technologies? Does he further recall that the Prime Minister went on to refer, among other technologies, to carbon sequestration, which would make coal usage fully consistent with safeguarding the atmosphere, and to combined heat and 1166 power, which almost doubles the efficiency of electricity generation? In the light of the Prime Minister's specific reference to those two developments, what further measures do the Government propose to take?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, there are already significant measures to develop existing technologies and to find new technologies. The specific ones to which the noble Lord refers have already received substantial government funding. Clearly, clean-coal technology of various sorts, including carbon sequestration, is part of the solution. The noble Lord is more familiar than most with the recent difficulties of the CHP market, but the Government remain committed to finding ways of stimulating CHP and other low-carbon and nil-carbon technologies.

§ Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Prime Minister's blood-curdling remarks about the imminent threat to the people of this country from global warming are probably about as well founded as his earlier remarks about the imminent threat to the people of this country from weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Before any further speeches are made or action taken, would it not be a good idea if the Prime Minister asked his close friend and loyal colleague the Chancellor to instruct the Treasury to undertake a thorough cost/benefit analysis of this difficult issue?

§ Lord Whitty
No, my Lords, I do not accept that for one moment. In fact, to call warnings about global warming "blood-curdling" seems to me the height of irresponsibility. I am surprised at the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. This is one of the major problems facing the world. It is important that we tackle it in a cost-effective way. The Treasury and the Chancellor have been very involved in developing the best policy measures, support systems and R&D in order for us to be at the forefront throughout the world in tackling climate change. I commend my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's speech. It indicates how Britain is leading the world in this respect and not being dragged backwards by the kind of comments that we have just heard.

§ Lord Tanlaw
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the target of renewable energies may be better achieved if something could be done about the anomalies that exist with planning permission? On the one hand, some of those who object to wind turbines, including His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, do so because they are highly visible. On the other hand, the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds object to them because they are highly invisible to our pilots and, indeed, to rare birds. Can the Minister resolve that anomaly because they cannot be both?
Does he know how many civil or military aircraft have been brought down in the past five years by wind turbines? How many rare birds, according to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, have been brought down compared with the small bird population, which has been reduced by 70 per cent in London by the 1167 erection of greenhouses and conservatories, for which planning permission has been granted but to which the RSPB has not objected?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord's basic point that some of the objections to wind farms, which we have debated frequently in this House, are based on quite absurd criteria. But it is important that the planning system operates and people and institutions are allowed to object. It is also important that the guidance on planning decisions favours renewable energy projects in so far as they are compatible with broader planning objectives.
Renewable energy, whether in the form of wind farms or other low-carbon and nil-carbon technologies, is an important part of the future landscape. As regards the numbers concerned, I am not aware of a single aeroplane that has been brought down by a wind farm either here or anywhere else in Europe. Denmark, which has a long history of technology, found that bird populations, although initially affected, rapidly learnt to avoid wind farms, although it was obviously too late for some of them. Birds are able to change their routes just as much as human beings and, I hope, Royal Air Force pilots.

§ Baroness Billingham
My Lords, is the Minister aware that European Sub-committee D has just completed a report on climate change? It has taken six months. For all members of the committee, it has been an enormously interesting and instructive experience. In that report, we make some fundamental and powerful recommendations.
Of course, it is a cross-party sub-committee and we are of a voice that this is something that we have to deal with here and now. Will the Minister lend his weight to the fact that we ought to have a very early debate on the report in this Chamber, which I am sure would be very interesting?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I very much welcome the report and the work that the noble Baroness and the other members of the sub-committee have put in. I do not necessarily agree with all of their conclusions, but I would suggest that the report is required reading for all noble Lords, including, perhaps I may venture, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson.
Clearly, this is one of our major political, economic and environmental problems. We all need to understand it better and face up to the dilemmas identified by that committee. As regards a debate in this House, I would welcome such a debate, but, as the noble Baroness knows, that is a matter for the usual channels.

§ Lord Vinson
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that throughout the world there are 400 atomic power stations and 30 new atomic power stations currently being built? So we as a race are up to our neck in world atomic power development whether we like it or not. As this is the only long-term, inexhaustible CO₂-free form of energy, is it not time that we stopped faffing 1168 about looking at silly green tokenism issues and got down to the one source of energy that can really save the planet?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, if I may say so, that, again, is a fairly irresponsible intervention. Green technologies and renewable technologies of all kinds will help to provide a diverse way of providing energy without the detrimental effect of carbon-based fuels. No one is saying that a particular form of energy—whether wind power or anything else—will supply the totality of the answer. But it is important to recognise that although nuclear power may be a low or near nil-carbon alternative, it is not a sustainable alternative until we have found the technology for dealing with the waste that emerges from it.
The Government are not faffing about that. We are saying that we do not rule out nuclear power playing a major role. But that problem has to be resolved as, frankly, does the current problem of many non-carbon technologies. Nuclear is one of the most expensive in terms of carbon saved, as we see now in the amount by which the Government have had to underwrite British Energy's operations—and in future will have to, even at the cutting edge of nuclear technology.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, would the noble Lord say how much has been spent on the handling of nuclear waste?

Noble Lords
Next Question!