Proceeding contribution from Lord Rooker (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 30 October 2006. It occurred during Ministerial statement on Climate Change.
Climate Change
My Lords, I take the noble Lord’s point and apologise if I misunderstood him. I freely accept that there will have to be arrangements for transporting biofuels around the world. Nevertheless, a start will be made to develop a large-scale, world-class biofuels industry. This cannot be done on small plots of land, hence we are using the experience of Brazil, South Africa and Mozambique. The noble Lord also asked about the need for a balanced supply of energy. The energy White Paper published in the summer made it clear that we want a balanced supply. We will be using fossil fuels for a considerable time, and some 20 per cent of our power comes from the nuclear industry. We have made it clear that we will not use public subsidy, but the existing nuclear supply will be phased out and the question therefore arises about replacements so that there is a balance. And it is, of course, carbon-free. I have not read the 700 pages and do not know if there is a mention of hydrogen. Yet—I have used this example in this House before—I have been into a dwelling in the Midlands which is fuelled by hydrogen as an experiment. There are experiments going in the UK now; they are small scale but high-level experiments and other fuels are used. I freely admit that I have not seen the headlines today, but sometimes the hysterical approach of the media can be counter-productive. I am not saying that every scientist in the world agrees with this, as no doubt I am about to be reminded. Yet the position on climate change, as explained today, is vastly different from what it was 10 or 20 years ago. On balance, taking the precautionary principle, we have had it set out that if we do not move on carbon—if it went up from 450 to above 550—we may not be able to get it back anyway. We have to deal with this issue. If the scientists are wrong, at least we survive. If they are right and we have done nothing about it—which we owe to the next generations—then it is a complete failure of our society. There will obviously be debates on this and legislation, as the Government have indicated. I am grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said about Defra’s handbook. It is incredibly easy to read, unlike some of the material put out by government departments that sometimes have a difficulty with material for general consumption. They always want to get it right, so you end up with too much detail and the message gets lost. This Defra handbook is incredibly easy to read and ought to be compulsory reading. I am grateful for what the noble Baroness said about Defra doing that, and also welcoming that it was the Treasury who commissioned the report. This goes beyond the environmental aspects, as the Statement said. It is also about security, energy and finance. The report shows, in summary, that we can deal with climate change without wrecking our economies, provided we move now. If we leave it 10 to 15 years, then, as the report makes clear, we are in a no-hope situation.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 686 c78-9
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Costs Air pollution Climate change Carbon dioxide Developing countries Climate change levy Electricity generation Exhaust emissions Fuels Pollution control Renewable energy Taxation Research
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 00:47:34 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_355955
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_355955
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_355955