Global Warming (Hansard, 27 June 2000)

§ Mrs. Helen Brinton (Peterborough)

The potentially devastating effects of world climate change through global warming are becoming increasingly clear. The world will be 3 per cent. warmer in a hundred years' time and the sea level is projected to rise by 40 cm by 2080. Sixty million people will be at risk of flooding and many will have to flee their homes permanently.

The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution has only recently underlined the starkness of the threat and the scale of the challenge. Refrigeration is contributing significantly to the problem. Under the Montreal protocol, chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbon refrigerants were to be banned because of their potential to damage the ozone layer. Most users of refrigerants decided to switch to hydrofluorocarbons, which do not deplete ozone; however, they have a significant global warming potential or GWP. The Government estimate that, on average, HFCs have 2,274 times the GWP of carbon dioxide. If anything, the trend of recent scientific research is to rate the GWP of HFCs ever higher.

As long ago as 1995, the United Kingdom Government panel on sustainable development recommended phasing out HFCs. Kyoto included HFCs among the emissions that must be reduced to stop global warming. As "Climate Change: draft United Kingdom programme" published in March stated, the trouble is that as the mass change to HFCs projections show, there is a strong underlying upward trend in emissions, as HFCs are used as a replacement for ozone-depleting substances. It continued that the Government believes that this trend is unsustainable in the longer term and that action should be taken to limit the projected growth A recent study by Atlantic Consulting concluded that, by 2010, HFCs might represent 4 per cent. of the United Kingdom's greenhouse gas emissions. On that basis, phasing out HFCs would help us to achieve more than a third of our legally binding target reduction of 12.5 per cent. of greenhouse gases.

We will not learn to live without refrigeration unless we really have to, so what can we do? Fortunately, there are alternatives: technically, they are known as NIKs—not in kinds— most of which are represented by hydrocarbons, or HCs. HCs do not damage the ozone layer; their GWP is negligible. They are extremely efficient and effective refrigerants and, most importantly, the technology is available and they are in increasingly wide usage. There is no refrigeration application for which NIKs cannot be used. That is why they are being used in supermarkets, petrol forecourts, art galleries, banks and people's homes, and even in the McDonald's restaurant in the famous dome.

The Government have toughened their stance on HFCs. In the same publication on climate change they said: HFCs are not a sustainable technology in the long term—the successful phase out of ozone-depleting substances is being achieved with a range of technologies and HFCs are only necessary to replace ozone-depleting substances in some applications. The Government believe that continued technological developments will mean that HFCs may eventually 178WH be able to be replaced in these remaining applications. HFCs should be used only when other safe, technically feasible, cost effective and more environmentally acceptable alternatives do not exist. HFC emission reduction strategies should not undermine commitments to phase out ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal protocol. HFC emissions will not be allowed to rise unchecked. The balance of evidence in the HFC debate has shifted. For many years, the discussion centred almost entirely around the availability of alternatives to HFCs. The HFC producers, of course, asserted that there were none. However, after years of successful development and use, much of it in the United Kingdom, it is clear that a range of alternatives is available and that the burden of proof is on the chemical industry to prove that HFCs are necessary.

That leaves us with two challenges. Those who make and profit from HFCs will want to fight their corner. They have alleged that HFCs will prove to be an insignificant part of the global warming issue. However, the current volume of HFCs in the atmosphere is 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is rising by 5 per cent. a year. That is not insignificant. They have also said that the energy efficiency of HFCs more than offsets their direct GWP. Yet an analysis of some 50 studies of the relative energy efficiency of HFC and environmentally benign HC refrigeration shows that, on average, HCs give an improvement in energy efficiency of 6 per cent. in domestic use, 15 per cent. in commercial use, 9 per cent. in air conditioning and 10 per cent. in heat pumps.

It is true that HCs are highly flammable, but so are many other substances that we use every day. The technology is well proven and safe. In Germany, which has some of the strictest attitudes and laws on health and safety, more than 95 per cent. of domestic refrigerators use HCs, and after more than 70 million operational years, not a single accident has taken place. The polluters continue to promote their pollution, but I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to stand firm, because the Government's policy is right.

However, a second challenge awaits. How do we progress from having good intentions to achieving the needed market shift? I suggest that we consider incentives to change. Will my hon. Friend confirm that supermarkets that want to reduce their climate change levy might be able to negotiate away part of their liability if they use HCs in refrigeration? Will he consider including NIK refrigerant and air-conditioning systems in the technologies covered by the enhanced capital allowance scheme and in the definition of low-carbon technologies, which will determine eligibility to receive encouragement from the £50 million energy efficiency fund?

Will the Minister study the Danish proposal to tax the consumption of refrigerants in accordance with their global warming potentials? Lord Marshall had more than one economic instrument in mind when he examined the problem, and he was highly sceptical about the ability of voluntary measures to reduce HFC leakage.

Companies investing now should not be locked into capital stock that does not meet good environmental standards. Action taken this year can prevent pollution that will otherwise cause global damage in the next 20 years of equipment life. Developing countries such as 179WH China, India and Indonesia are moving straight from CFCs to HCs, without bothering with the now dated technology of HFCs.

I shall now speak wearing my Select Committee on Environmental Audit hat. Only some Departments and quangos are shaping up to the challenge by installing green refrigeration where possible. I do not yet see a central push covering all the Departments and the devolved Administrations. In hospitals alone, there must be enormous potential to convert refrigeration to environmentally benign systems. Is a mechanism available to co-ordinate such a scheme? That would show genuinely joined-up government, to use the common phrase.

I endorse the Government's policy. It is right to get tough on HFCs. I do not blame the manufacturers for defending their vested interests, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will listen carefully to their arguments. I urge him to consider a range of incentives to produce the market shift that we need to avoid decades of unnecessary pollution.

Last, but by no means least, it is pleasing that the United Kingdom is the world leader in developing the alternative technology. Our technical advantage presents us with an opportunity to take a rewarding industrial and political lead. The sooner we move, the sooner the benefit will arrive.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin)

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) raises an important matter. Global warming is probably the most important environmental issue facing the world. I shall begin by making a few general points about the action that the Government are taking to tackle the threat of climate change, then respond briefly to some of the points that my hon. Friend made.

Evidence mounts that climate change has begun. Globally, the past decade was the warmest recorded. In the United Kingdom, four of the five warmest years ever measured fell in the past decade. We are now continually reminded of our vulnerability to climate events. We cannot say for sure that events such as the storms that hit Europe at the end of last year or the floods that devastated Mozambique are the direct result of man-made changes, but we can expect such extreme weather events to become more frequent and more severe as temperatures rise.

Despite the milder winters that we have recently enjoyed, the United Kingdom will not escape some unwelcome effects, which could also involve huge costs. We know that we shall not be able to avoid some climate change. Greenhouse gases that have already built up in the atmosphere will make some rise in temperature and sea level inevitable. We must work together to ensure that we are best placed to adapt to the impacts that we cannot prevent.

However, all is not doom and gloom. The worst effects of climate change can be avoided if every country, Government, organisation and individual acts now to cut emissions. That will be a major challenge, but it is one to which we must all respond. At the Rio Earth summit in 1992, countries agreed voluntarily to return 180WH their emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. The United Kingdom will be one of the few OECD countries to meet that target.

At Kyoto in 1997, developed countries agreed collectively to reduce emissions by 5.2 per cent. during the period 2008 to 2012. For the first time, targets will be legally binding and different countries have taken on different targets to reflect their national circumstances. Following our negotiations at European level, the United Kingdom agreed to a 12.5 per cent. cut. Although the Kyoto agreement was a significant step, it is only the first stage in an effort that will need to continue throughout this century and beyond. Much bigger cuts in emissions—perhaps 60 per cent. or more—will be needed globally if we are to avoid devastating climate change.

The draft climate change programme that we published on 9 March provides a new, strategic focus for action against climate change in the United Kingdom. It sets out the way in which we shall meet our Kyoto target and move towards our domestic goal of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. It builds on the positive action that business, local government and other organisations are taking. It signals that changes will be needed in the long term. It also provides a framework that draws together existing actions and a series of new measures that will ensure that the UK's emissions continue to fall during this decade and beyond.

The draft programme covers all sectors of the economy, and we have focused on flexible, cost-effective policies that will be good for the economy and for people, as well as for the environment. The refrigeration sector, on which my hon. Friend focused, is important. We all recognise the huge social benefits that refrigeration brings. We all use and need refrigeration, but it has an impact on the environment in terms of energy usage and emissions of refrigerants. Over the years, the industry has made great efforts to improve the energy efficiency of refrigeration and air-conditioning systems, and we hope that improvements will continue to be made. However, we also face the challenge of reducing HFC emissions from refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment.

As my hon. Friend explained, HFCs are powerful greenhouse gases and, as they are increasingly being used as replacements for ozone-depleting substances such as CFCs and HCFCs, emissions are forecast to grow strongly in the near future. This trend is unsustainable in the longer term, and action must be taken to minimise emissions. That is why we announced our new position on HFCs in the draft climate change programme. I am aware of the concern expressed by industry in relation to this announcement, and I am grateful for this opportunity to explain what we are trying to achieve.

It is vital that our position on HFCs is seen as a whole, in the context of the proposed measures set out in the draft programme, which states that HFCs are not a sustainable technology in the long term. However, it also recognises that they are necessary to replace ozone-depleting substances in some applications, and that HFC emission reduction strategies should not undermine commitments to phase out ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal protocol. This is very 181WH important, as the new European Commission regulation on ozone-depleting substances, which comes into force later this year, will ban CFCs and introduce tighter controls on HCFCs.

For some, it will be necessary to switch to HFCs, but we are now asking industry and users to look closely at all the alternatives and select those that are more environmentally acceptable. Safety, technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness should be taken into account before investment decisions are taken. Some businesses have already made the move. I think that my hon. Friend mentioned the example of Iceland Frozen Foods.

I want now to respond to some of my hon. Friend's suggestions for encouraging the move to alternative refrigerants. In relation to the climate change levy, she mentioned reduced liability for supermarkets using hydrocarbons. Eligibility for a discount in respect of the levy is based on the sectors covered by parts Al and A2 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations. That has a clear rationale, because it covers the main energy-intensive sectors, and firms covered by those parts of the regulations must operate in an energy-efficient manner not required of other firms. The climate change levy is designed to improve energy efficiency in the business and public sectors. The Government welcome improvements that may flow from using hydrocarbon refrigerants, but they do not intend to open eligibility for a negotiated agreement to those who take action in this area.

As I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates, decisions under the enhanced capital allowance scheme are a matter for the Chancellor. However, refrigeration equipment is one of eight technologies listed in the March Budget that the Government intend to make eligible for the enhanced allowances. Decisions on which low carbon technologies will be supported 182WH through the energy efficiency fund will be made in the light of the outcome of the forthcoming spending review, on which I am not in a position to elaborate.

As regards the tax on refrigerants, the Government share my hon. Friend's aim in tackling the issue of climate change and, as a matter of course, will keep a close eye on environmental developments and proposals in other European Union countries. I should add, however, that Lord Marshall's report focused on the business use of energy rather than on refrigerants. The Government have set out their environmental tax policy in their statement of intent on environmental taxation.

As regards the public sector's use of alternative refrigerants, Departments are encouraged to avoid HFCs wherever they can, although, as for other organisations, there may be occasions when a non-HFC solution is not feasible. My hon. Friend is right to identify hospitals as significant users of refrigerants, and I shall ask my officials to explore with their counterparts in the Department of Health the scope for further reductions in HFCs.

In the long term, however, as a result of continued technological improvement, HFCs may eventually be replaced in the applications where they are still needed. In the meantime, we shall discuss with industry the measures that can be taken to minimise emissions from these sources. We hope that that can be done by strengthening our voluntary agreements with industry.

The consultation on the draft climate change programme has now ended, and we are carefully considering the responses. We plan to publish a final programme later this year, which we hope will provide a framework that enables the United Kingdom to face the challenge of climate change and ensure that we safeguard our planet for the future.