---

Climate Change Bill [Lords]

I strongly agree. Some areas of the science are settled, but many are not. Having read extensively the literature, my tentative conclusion is that there is still considerable uncertainty about how the climate system varies, and particularly about how it reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. We should regard the current estimates of the magnitude of future warming as tentative. I note that the only reliable survey that has been conducted of 550 of the world's leading climate scientists says that two thirds are convinced that most of the observed warming is related to human action. In other words, a third are not convinced of that. It is worth bearing in mind that many of the so-called 2,500 scientists in the IPCC process vehemently disagree with the panel's conclusions, even though they support the section on the science in the main report on which they have worked. Let us suppose that the science was settled and that we could take the central scenarios of the IPCC as the basis for policy making. What action should flow from that? To answer that question, the Government rely entirely on Lord Stern, as the Minister said this afternoon. Stern's view is that we should implement a crash programme of carbon emissions reductions, as implied by the Bill. The problem is that Lord Stern's report, far from being endorsed by the lion's share of the world's environmental economists, has been comprehensively shredded by them. At a symposium at Yale, the leading experts assembled with Lord Stern and thrashed it all out in detail. I will not go into the detail now; I do not have time. Suffice it to say that the flaws were politely and, in my view, brutally and decisively exposed. In their view and mine, his report is littered with far too many mistakes and controversial assumptions to be taken as a serious basis for policy action at this time. Professor Nordhaus, probably the world's leading environmentalist, described the conclusions as ““completely absurd””, as has Professor Richard Tol. Professors Mendelsohn, Yohe and a number of others have said pretty much the same. Professor Tol said:"““If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps, if I were in a good mood, I would give him a 'D' for diligence; but more likely, I would give him an 'F' for fail.””" There is much more of that ilk from economists around the world and from most of the UK's leading experts—most, but not all. Some support Lord Stern, but he is in a minority. The Government persist in taking their lead from Lord Stern, in which case, logically, they should carry on listening to him. But he has changed his views since his report. He now says that we should cut emissions by between 80 and 90 per cent. by 2050. So why do the Government not go for 80 or 90 per cent.? After all, Adair Turner also supports 90 per cent. By the way, Tony Blair, not to be outdone, has told us that he favours virtually 100 per cent. cuts. With those proposals, we move fairly briskly out of the implausible world of large cuts and swiftly into the theatre of the absurd. What about the measures in the Bill? I have time to address only a few. A central objection raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) is that the Bill is unilateralist. No other country has been foolish enough to consider such a measure. It is a profound mistake to take the unilateralist route. First, we contribute only 2 per cent. of global emissions. Secondly, if we go ahead unilaterally, the UK will be disproportionately hit because we will increase our cost base when other countries have not increased theirs. A third reason is that although UK emissions will fall, they will reappear, probably at even higher levels, as the industries that we closed down with our higher cost base reopen in China and elsewhere. Finally, once we have acted unilaterally, the Chinese will have every incentive to delay an international agreement. That point has not been made at all today. After all, why should they rush to agree anything when they can acquire our industrial base and those of other countries silly enough to go it alone? It is regrettable that the Government have not even thought through the issue enough to make the Bill's implementation conditional on some action by others. At least the EU approach to cutting carbon emissions contains some conditionality. There are many other deep flaws in the Bill, but I do not have time to discuss them. It will hit the poorest in our society and in societies throughout the world. As I have already mentioned, the Government have only the sketchiest idea of how to go about this huge undertaking and of its cost. One clause—recently added—is enough to make the Bill objectionable to me. It now requires 70 per cent. of carbon emissions to come from domestic efforts and not to be purchased from abroad. Either the carbon emissions trading scheme is something that we want, in which case we should be allowed to buy as much as we need from it, or it is a corrupt or hopeless scheme, in which case it is not the right way forward and the domestic requirement just imposes an unnecessary extra burden on our economy. It has to be one or the other. I support proportionate action, including a modest carbon tax, technological research and adaptation, but the Bill is not proportionate.