---

Renewable Energy (S&T Report)

My Lords, to find that my Motion was drawn in the ballot for the same day as the report of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, on renewable energy was due to be debated, seemed to me to be a happy accident, even providential; to discover that the movers of the Motions should be both Lords of Liverpool, the one temporal and the other spiritual, feels almost like an act of God. The matters before us are very serious. I begin with a stark warning from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the poorest countries in the world will be the first and most to suffer. Africa, Asia and Latin America are all at risk from sea-level rise and flooding. Already environmental refugees are numbered in their millions. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies has evidence that 13 times more people die per environmental disaster in low human development countries than in countries of high human development. On visits with the relief agency Tear Fund to India, Africa and central America I have seen first hand the devastating consequences of environmental disasters—irregular seasons leading to total crop failure, poverty and malnutrition; hurricanes that have devastated villages; and flooding that has swept children away to drown. To quote an Indian commentator:"““In the recent past human actions were trivial when set against the dominant processes of nature””." That is no longer so. The human species now influences the fundamental processes of this planet. Ozone depletion, world-wide pollution and climate change are testimonies to our power. That view is reinforced by the academies of science of the G8 countries, who call on the leaders of the forthcoming summit to acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing, and to identify action that can be taken now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In a poem by Gerald Manly Hopkins called ““God’s Grandeur””, there is the optimistic line:"““And for all this, nature is never spent””." I wonder whether he would have written so hopefully of today’s world where our Prime Minister has gone on record saying that unchecked climate change could have the potential to be catastrophic in both human and economic terms. I labour the point deliberately in case anyone should think that the Motions before us are just the hobbyhorses of eco-enthusiasts. The planet is facing a crisis of global proportions. Unfortunately, the people with the power to act are the most protected from feeling its impact; and those who do feel the devastating winds of climate change are the poor and are powerless to do anything about it. In a recent lecture to the RSA, Sir John Houghton made the plea that:"““Global pollution requires a global solution””." That is why the forthcoming G8 Summit is so vital to the future of the earth. If the leaders are anxious to go down in history as those who made a difference to the future well-being of the planet, it needs to be said that unless they take action on climate change there may well not be a future history in which to record their meeting. The Prime Minister rightly wants to place at the top of the G8 agenda both Africa and climate change. Dealing with poverty in Africa calls for debt cancellation, good governance and fair trade—but it also calls for action on climate change, which will increase Africa’s poverty through droughts and floods. That is already happening. What is the point at Gleneagles of taking steps to reduce poverty with one hand but, by refusing action on climate change, to increase poverty with the other hand? Both problems need to be tackled. The Prime Minister’s dual emphasis on Africa and climate change is to be warmly welcomed. On a recent visit to America, which concluded with   me leading a seminar at the World Bank on faith and sustainable development, I learned how much Americans value the leadership of the Prime Minister. I heard it said at a senior level in Washington that the President was not unsympathetic to the call to act on climate change, but that it was the Senate which needed to be persuaded. It is therefore a relief to note that this week the Senate has begun at last to consider a programme to regulate and control CO2 emissions. Let us hope that this shift in the Senate translates into a more robust statement in the communiqué from the G8 summit. As the report of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, shows, investment in research and development of renewables in America in 2004–05 was $250 million, which actually compares favourably with the UK Government’s investment of only £12.2 million in 2002–03. The Science and Technology Committee derided that sum as deplorable. Many of us who welcome and support the Prime Minister’s leadership in placing climate change at the top of the G8 agenda want him to strengthen his own   position, which we feel is undermined by the Government’s own record. The Prime Minister rightly says that time is running out. Leadership is exercised by both rhetoric and example. The former without the latter robs you of authority. The government of China, whose economy is expanding at a remarkable rate, is allegedly embarking on a programme of building 600 coal-fired power stations. The imagination goes into meltdown at the effect that that will have on the climate and the environment. But any pleas from the G8 leaders that they, the Chinese, should invest in alternative sources of energy or develop and apply clean-coal technology, or that they should reduce energy consumption, would have the Chinese scrutinising our recent history and our current strategy and timetable for the same things. To adapt a famous saying, we should be careful about removing the dust from our neighbour’s eyes when having a lump of coal in our own. It is the considered view of many who are extremely sympathetic to the Government’s aims that, when it comes to energy efficiency, reduction and conservation and to the implementation of a programme of renewable sources of energy, the Government’s policy at home is ad hoc and lacks the investment, the strategy and the timetable necessary given the urgency of the situation—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, referred. Our energy consumption falls into three categories—buildings, transport and industry. According to Sir John Houghton,"““large savings can be made in all three sectors, many with significant savings in cost””." But it is simply not happening on the scale needed. Over the next 20 years, for example, 4 million homes will be built. But where is the policy to ensure zero energy development? And what is the co-ordinated strategy to reduce the amount of energy consumed through transportation? One of the conclusions of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, is:"““The Government are not taking these problems sufficiently seriously””." I know only too well that it is very easy for people like me to stand up and make demands on the Government. I would like to reassure the noble Lord the Minister that I sometimes put myself, believe it or not, in their shoes and imagine how the executive must cope with all the competing demands. I know that the Government cannot do everything. I know that they have to establish priorities. But this is precisely the point. Both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have already established climate change as their priority. Having established climate change and, therefore, by implication, energy reduction and renewables, it is right for us to ask whether or not they have in place a strategy and a timetable to deliver on their acknowledged priority. In another place on 14 June the Minister for Energy announced the figure for investing in carbon abatement technologies. He acknowledged the major expansion of coal-fired power generation expected in China and India, saying that he wanted,"““to put the UK at the forefront of what could be valuable export   opportunities””.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/06/05; col. WS55.]" The figure announced was £25 million—approximately the cost of one city academy. I do not mock; I happen to chair the governing body of an academy that will open this September. But does that sum of money really reflect the Government’s priority on climate change? On 13 June, the Minister announced that the Government are spending more than £500 million between 2002 and 2008 on emerging renewable and low-carbon technologies. That figure over six years is about £80 million a year. But given all that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said about the urgency of climate change, does £80 million a year seem adequate to the threat; does it seem commensurate with the millions of environmental refugees; does it seem a proper expression of the word ““priority””? In a comprehensive and visionary speech last year on climate change, the Prime Minister set out what needs to be done nationally and internationally. Referring to the target of 60 per cent reduction of CO2 emissions by 2050, he said:"““This implies a massive change in the way this country produces and uses energy. We are committed to this change””." He added:"““We need . . .  to invest on a large scale””." The question is: do the Government’s policy and sums of £80 million a year for six years express this ““massive change”” and investment on a ““large scale””? I know from other statements that the Government hope for and fully expect investment from the commercial sector—rightly so—but the market has a poor record in anticipating trends in the long term. It responds overwhelmingly to price and to the short term. Although the market has been effective in bringing reduced energy prices during the past two decades, in its raw form it takes no account of environmental or other external factors. That is why leadership and intervention are required from the Government to stimulate and regulate the market for the sake of our futures and the common good. Environmental factors must be integrated into the Government’s energy and economic policies. The point was powerfully made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in an address to the Energy and Environment Ministerial Roundtable three months ago. He said:"““Environmental issues—including climate change—have traditionally been placed in a category separate from the economy and from economic policy. But this is no longer tenable. Across a range of environmental issues—from soil erosion to the depletion of marine stocks, from water scarcity to air pollution—it is clear now not just that economic activity is their cause, but that these problems in themselves threaten future economic activity and growth””." That is the clearest statement from the Government that we cannot expect the market to be the protector of our environment. Environmental factors must be integrated into the Government’s economic policy. The wellbeing of the planet and the needs of the poor require all the G8 countries, who produce 50 per cent of the world’s CO2 emissions, and our Government in particular, to have a strategy and timetable for energy reduction and renewable resources on the scale that is so evidently and urgently necessary. There is an African proverb which eloquently and succinctly points up our responsibility to future generations:"““We have borrowed the present from our children””." I support the Motion.