---

Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill

My Lords, I, too, shall trespass in the gap. First, I wish to ask an Eric Forth memorial question. I shall miss him. How do the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the Government justify the draconian powers in Clause 13? I shall not rehearse the arguments. They were well rehearsed in the Commons. I should very much like to know their opinions so that I can judge what we should do in Committee. Secondly, my plea is directed at the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. Since we are starting to take this subject seriously and it is impacting on so many aspects of our lives, it would be enormously helpful if we had a real currency to talk about. Since we are trying to control carbon emissions, can we consider these issues in the round in terms of the effects of a decision on lifetime carbon emissions, on the carbons used, the carbon dioxide generated per unit of consumption, or whatever? For instance, on cars the only evidence I can find is a study conducted in Canada, for most of which you have to pay a large sum of money, but which shows clearly that in units of carbon generated per mile the hybrid cars which are all the rage now are relatively inefficient. In fact, the poor old Ford Focus which I am pleased to drive comes near the top of the list. When you look at the lifetime costs, in particular in terms of the costs of producing the equipment, you get a very different picture than from considering the consumption of fuel, spare parts, or whatever. If you consider microgeneration paying back over 20 years, I very much doubt that that would be done at an energy cost equivalent to that when supplied by microgeneration. So I suspect that you are looking at a net carbon loss from that small outfit. But if we are looking at carbon generation, that is the currency we should be allowed to consider. We need more information to do that better. Several noble Lords have mentioned leaving the lights on or turning equipment off. Again, the issue needs a whole House approach. Leaving the light on is a very efficient way of heating the House. It probably saves you money compared with having the boiler on. So in winter, you should leave the lights on and you would save energy because of the way the energy is distributed through a light. Compared with electric heating, it is probably more efficient. We need to consider these matters honestly and in the round. We have to face up to the consequences of our energy consumption habits. Covering the place with windmills may seem uncomfortable, but it is a consequence of what we are doing. To me it is unacceptable to try to export that cost by ripping up the forests of south-east Asia and covering the area with oil palms so that we can proudly say we are using biodiesel. We have to face up to the consequences of our energy use habits; we have to say that burying old newspapers is unacceptable; we have to burn them and use them in CHP plants. In doing that, I hope that the Government will explore a way of compensating those of us who end up living next to such installations. It is not pleasant living next to incinerators; they generate so much traffic and other things. Would it not be possible to allow people who live close to such a plant to benefit from cheap power?