Proceeding contribution from Joan Ruddock (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 12 January 2006. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Security of Supply.
Security of Supply
I am sorry, I cannot. If we cannot cope with solving our CO2 emissions without new nuclear build, what does that say for countries such as China? One new dirty coal power station is being built in China every week. Are we to suggest that China goes wholly nuclear to deal with its energy needs and its CO2 emissions? That is absolute nonsense. How long would uranium last if China did so? As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) in particular has said, the answer clearly lies in the clean coal technologies and, as many Labour Members have said, in developing renewables. That is the way that we help the emerging economies and the least-developed countries of the world. If we are serious about our global leadership—I believe that we are—that is what we must do. I thought that that was what we were doing. The second report on the White Paper was absolutely packed with positive achievements. The framework treaty with Norway will ensure that up to 20 per cent. of UK future gas demand comes from that country. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) spoke about unreliable countries and cited Algeria as one of them, but Algeria has provided energy to Europe for 40 years without significant interruption. We have increased the renewables obligation to more than 15 per cent. by 2050. We have doubled the energy efficiency commitments, by making a £2 billion investment. We have exceeded the Warm Front scheme targets. We are developing carbon abatement technologies. We have taken action and have plans for a range of renewables. We have new buildings regulations. We have an energy efficiency fund. We could do all those things better and we could do more of them. I particularly welcome the energy review, by which we can find out how to do better with the renewables obligations. Opposition Members may be surprised that France generates more electricity from renewables than we do, as do Germany and Spain. There is so much that we could do. We could raise our building standards to the highest that operate elsewhere in Europe. The borough council in my constituency uses only green energy. Why does not every local authority use only green energy? A state-of-the-art, low-energy school has been built in my constituency. Why is every school not built to that standard? I tell Ministers that we must not lose our nerve. Nuclear energy production is now an old technology and, like all old technologies, it leads to environmental degradation. It is not the answer. We can do more on renewables. We can do much more on energy efficiency, which is responsible, and we can reduce demand without reducing our lifestyles. The energy review needs to be predicated on the basis that this country and the globe need environmentally sustainable development, which needs to be at the heart of the review.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 441 c522-3
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Companies Conservation Coal Climate change Energy Electricity generation Energy supply Distribution Fuel poverty Imports Oil Natural gas Nuclear power Prices Storage Sustainable development Tax allowances Renewable energy Reviews Reserves
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 21:22:33 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_290798
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_290798
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_290798