---

Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill

My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Whitty for having taken on this timely and highly relevant Bill. We all have reason to be grateful. Like other noble Lords, I declare various interests: as a resident of west Cumbria, as president of the Friends of the Lake District, which represents CPRE in the whole of Cumbria, and as the vice-president of the Council for National Parks. It is impossible to over-emphasise the significance of climate change and increasing energy dependency, not least on unpredictable and unstable Russia and its surrounding territories. They are among the most acutely challenging issues of our age. They demand the immediate priority attention of us all. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has so powerfully argued, they have done so for years. Perhaps I may first say a word on nuclear energy and power. We are told that the strategic decisions are still open—but are they? Or how far has an irreversible momentum, encouraged by No. 10, in fact been generated? There are issues of what the real costs will be, as distinct from what may be the self-delusive cost estimates, and there are issues of security and terrorism as well. These are not just about reactors but also about waste. How convinced are we that these issues can be resolved in a way that will meet all the eventualities of the centuries ahead? On waste, what, also, about the very real geological concerns? Just how geologically stable for the centuries ahead is west Cumbria or any other possible storage site? How far do we let a relatively small population protect the relatively large ones from the risks? How can we responsibly forge ahead before finding a reliable solution for the existing quantities of waste? The legacy of waste will remain lethal for hundreds—if not thousands—of years. How can we ensure that those responsible for monitoring and containing that danger will remain alert to the hazards, when the task of monitoring is so inherently boring? How could we be certain that the survivors of an as yet unforeseen global catastrophe—a collision with a giant meteor, perhaps, or a world war—would understand the risks? All generations make decisions with significant implications for their successors. However, the rate, scale and significance of the decisions made by our generation are unprecedented. We must be far more conscious of, and socially responsible for, the generations ahead. Nuclear decisions demand careful, objective and cool analysis. There is no room whatever for impetuous, dramatic sound-bite politics. Global warming and security are urgent challenges—of that, there is no doubt—yet we must get things right for posterity as well as for ourselves. Alternative energy will always, it seems to me, be an aggregate of smaller and more modest contributions. I confess to being impatient with anti-windmill campaigners who use the argument that any particular windmill farm makes only a marginal contribution. Indeed, there is far more to be done by small windmills sympathetically placed at street, house, office, school, hospital and community level. We need power and energy for a decent, civilised existence—but a vital part of that is its aesthetic quality. We need space, contrasts and what might be called psychological balance. Scenic treasures and the character of our whole countryside matter greatly. We cease to value them at our peril—just think of the past rape of the Welsh valleys and the Yorkshire dales. We have to demonstrate a greater readiness to examine aesthetically sensitive alternatives and to look more closely and honestly at the experience and costs elsewhere in the world. Submarine and subterranean alternatives for cables are an example. Is there not a price worth paying to avoid the rape of some of the finest remote and wild countryside in Europe or the world, as giant pylons stride across the Scottish highlands to meet not just Scottish but English demand? How will our great-grandchildren evaluate any of our short-termism? Think of the feeling with which we sing ““Jerusalem””. However, the issue is not only the aesthetic consideration, as there are also social challenges. We must not be party to creating new social sinks or ghettos, as the articulate middle classes shove the intrusion of new infrastructure on to relatively deprived communities, which are then landed with the windmills, incinerators, landfill sites and the rest. Surely we need a clear and convincing national strategy in which the contribution of each sector is identified, together with careful, sensitive and socially responsible arrangements for the precise location of necessary infrastructure. At the moment, ““not in our back-yard”” prevails, in a kind of anarchy. We have to get the nation positively behind an exciting and comprehensive strategy with which it can identify. Tidal power will, naturally, be an important part of that. It is in these spheres that I find the Bill so relevant. I want to emphasise energy conservation for a moment or two. The Government’s house-building drive provides an ideal opportunity. Every house and new office block, and every new school and hospital should be an example of conservation. Indeed, they should all contribute to energy production as well, whenever possible. That calls for still more imaginative use of building regulations. The tax system, grants and planning regulations should be brought together to encourage action not simply on new building but on existing buildings. It is extraordinary that more of industry and commerce does not seem to recognise that energy efficiency is a vital element in its competitiveness. Not long ago I attended a seminar of business and professional people in west Cumbria. The dialogue turned to the arguments for persuading sons and daughters to study engineering. Nuclear and alternative energy were being used as examples, but no one was talking about conservation as perhaps the most important argument of all. What about geothermal energy? As a member of the Court of Newcastle University, I have been deeply impressed by the conviction of both the vice-chancellor, Christopher Edwards, and the dynamic and visionary Professor Paul Younger. Under their guidance, the university is initiating a great deal on the geothermal front. I shall try to precis their position. The geothermal research programme of 1976 to 1990 concentrated on power. What is needed is far more analysis of the potential for energy. This has to look at the direct-use possibilities: space and district heating, aquaculture, greenhouse heating and much more. We have to look again at geothermal heat pumps and the tapping of highly suitable groundwater that is present in so much of the UK. There are the ancient hydrothermal structures of the United Kingdom in Cornwall, Devon, the north Pennines, the Lake District, west Cumbria and the eastern highlands of Scotland. What are the opportunities for the use of the geothermal resources of all the radiothermal granites of the United Kingdom? In addition, there are our man-made geothermal aquifers—our flooded deep mine workings. The relevance of geothermal heat pumps is underlined when seen against the stark reality that some 37 per cent of total UK carbon emissions is caused by the existing heating and hot water systems of our buildings. Once again, all new building, not least schools, hospitals and offices, should surely be required to utilise geothermal potential wherever possible. Too often the conservative inertia of architects and the construction industry has ruled the day. Like the vice-chancellor and the professor, I just do not understand why the United Kingdom is lagging so far behind much of Europe and north America on the geothermal front. Sooner or later the penny will drop, and we shall try to catch up. Then we may be dependent on the expertise and industrial capacity developed elsewhere instead of being world leaders in the business. It is not too late. Everything that the Government can do to spur us on will become a more than sound investment. It is not altogether a joke to note that Denmark now generates more income from windmill production than from bacon. Instead of lamenting the deindustrialisation of Britain, we should be in the vanguard of new developments across the whole range of alternative energy. The need for visionary leadership based on sound analysis cannot be over-emphasised. Part of this will be politically exacting. Our society has become dependent on the expectation of cheap energy and power. That expectation can no longer be met. We have to change our culture and reduce demand. We simply have to make it part of our instinctive approach to life that lights, televisions and all the gadgets thoughtlessly left on to consume electricity unnecessarily are simply not acceptable. They are, in a way, as treacherous to our national security and interest as lights left on without the blackout curtains being drawn were seen to be during the Second World War. The best leadership is always by example. How much energy, in the form of heating, lights, projectors and other electrical equipment, is unnecessarily consumed here in the Palace of Westminster, or indeed in the offices of Whitehall? We desperately need national, regional and local targets for reducing energy demand, but we need personal and family targets as well. The issue starts with each of us individually, and with all of us in the places where we work, live and enjoy ourselves. I believe that this Bill is crucially important.