---

Climate Change Bill [Lords]

The speech of the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) demonstrates that this debate cannot be just about targets; it also has to be about ensuring that this and other Governments have a coherent energy policy. None of us chooses when we are born, so none of us chooses the challenges that face us during our lifetime. However, the challenge of climate change is probably the most serious that faces us as decision-takers, legislators and politicians. This Bill is therefore probably going to be the most important in this Parliament, and as one of a number of us who today mark having been in the House for 25 years, having been elected on this day in 1983, I can think of few Bills that have had an equal potential to contribute to the common wealth and the common good. As I said in an earlier intervention, if anything the published science may well underestimate the urgency of the problem. Professor Spicer, a constituent of mine, of the centre for research at the Open university, says that"““the IPCC reports are designed to be internationally palatable””" and"““they also tend to be highly conservative. For example, the most recent Working Group 1 report admits that it deliberately ignores the most recent findings documenting the accelerating loss of ice from the Greenland ice cap and that overall ice dynamics are poorly understood. Consequently the problem of future sea level rise is downplayed despite the fact that this is likely to cause considerable economic, social and political disruption because much of the world's population live in major port cities. More disturbing is that the very climate models used to predict the future are themselves conservative: they are anchored in the present and seem incapable of reproducing the patterns and process of climate change that the geological record tells us has happened in the past.””" This is an important Bill not because, as is clear from the science and the IPCC, these matters are extremely urgent but because we have a moral duty to take action. In the last Parliament, the International Development Select Committee, of which I, the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) and others were members, undertook a lengthy inquiry into climate change and sustainable development. Our conclusions, which were unanimous, were not earth shattering but some of them are worth reminding the House about:"““Irreversible changes are occurring in our climate as concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere rise….Human activity is accelerating climate change and the scale of the action needed to tackle it is unprecedented…We believe that the precautionary principle must underpin any approach to climate change and the consensus provided by the IPCC should provide the basis for action…Given their relative contribution, the burden of finding a solution to the problems posed by climate change should fall mainly on developed countries…The impacts of climate change will not be evenly spread across the globe and are likely to fall disproportionately on the poor…Climate change has the potential to increase further the inequality between developed and developing countries…Rising temperatures and changes in precipitation will place hundreds of millions of people additionally at risk from either hunger, water shortage, coastal flooding or malaria.””" We concluded:"““The timescale is urgent and the UK and other donors have to take a lead in building capacity so that policy makers and politicians in developing countries can understand climate change in the context of the local issues facing their country, and translate that understanding into effective policies and mechanisms.””" It is crucial that, as with this Bill, we do take the lead. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, observed only recently that, as a newspaper report put it,"““too many rich countries…had failed to take the action needed to convince the developing nations to sign up to a deal in Copenhagen next year that could help to stabilise global emissions.””" Whether we like it or not, it is us who will have to take the lead. Rajendra Pachauri said:"““You may not be able to get an agreement in one shot, let's say by Copenhagen, that sets you on the path of stabilisation in keeping with some kind of long-term target…Looking at the politics of the situation, I doubt whether any of the developing countries will make any commitments before they have seen the developed countries take a specific stand.””" He said that there were ““reasons for dismay”” regarding the failure of rich countries to cut carbon emissions, and that"““This really doesn't give anybody the conviction that those that had agreed to take action as the first step are really serious about doing so. And in several developing countries you get the feeling—in fact people state it very clearly—that these guys””—" rich countries—"““are going to shove the whole burden on to our shoulders. That's why it's necessary for the developed world to establish a certain credibility.””" I am vice-chairman of the all-party group on China, about which we have not heard very much today. A new coal-fired power station is coming on stream in China every couple of weeks. China is still classified as a developing country, and if we cannot convince it that we are genuine and for real about cutting our carbon emissions, there is absolutely no way we will get it—at Copenhagen or anywhere else—to sign up to binding targets that reduce its carbon emissions between now and 2050, or any other date.