Climate Change: Progress

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Krebs]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the publication on 30 April of the report by the Climate Change Committee Progress in adapting to climate change: 2025 report to Parliament, what plans they have to increase efforts to adapt the United Kingdom to the effects of climate change.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to strengthening the nation’s resilience to climate change. We welcome the Climate Change Committee’s latest report and are carefully considering its recommendations. We will respond formally in October, as required by the Climate Change Act. In the meantime, we are working to strengthen our objectives on climate adaptation and to improve the framework that supports departments and communities in managing the impacts of a changing climate.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. The report from the Climate Change Committee points out that there has been no progress in adaptation to climate change since the previous report. During the eight years that I chaired the adaptation sub-committee, we said exactly the same thing. As Yogi Berra would have said, “It’s déjà vu all over again”. The report also says that the Government have no specific measurable targets or objectives for adapting to climate change. I will ask the Minister about just one area. The report estimates that by 2050, approximately one in four properties in this country could be at risk of flooding if there were no adaptation to climate change. My question is: is this an acceptable level of risk? If not, what level of risk do the Government think is acceptable?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, first, on the substantive point that the noble Lord makes about progress, he will know that we are not yet halfway through the national adaptation programme 3. Therefore, the response to the Climate Change Committee, which is due by October, will very much reflect the work in progress in terms of what we need to do to beef up the current plan and implementation and to look forward to the NAP4, which starts in 2028. We are not complacent; we take the committee’s report very seriously, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and her committee for the work they have done. On the noble Lord’s substantive point on the issue of objectives, I very much accept that that is one of the matters we will be considering over the next few months. Secondly, on flooding, of course the report of the committee and the prediction it has made about the 8 million properties that are at risk of flooding by 2050 is something that no Government could take complacently. He will know that we have already committed £2.65 billion to repair or build flood defences, and of course we will look further into this matter in light of the committee’s report.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I am probably breaking the rules here—I should address the House rather than the noble Lord—but nature-based solutions, which create biodiversity and other benefits, such as benefits for human health, mental health, water purification and flood control, are excellent schemes if they can be made to work effectively and cost effectively, bearing in mind all the benefits. Carbon capture and storage from industrial processes or, indeed, from air sources—from carbon that is already out there—is the bit that is not yet tested and not yet proven. We need to get ahead and decide whether we can make that work in the UK, which, I hope, is what the Government are trying to do. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.

On Amendment 35, I share the joys with noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—not in the same house, I may say—of being an off-grid home owner who wants to do their bit for carbon reduction. At the moment, the choice for the average home owner in a rural property of an aged sort, which is highly dependent on oil because they are off the gas grid, is not terrific. You live in trembling fear of the wretched boiler breaking down: in an emergency situation such as that, the choice that then faces you is either just slamming in another oil-fired boiler, or else shelling out 20-odd thousand and waiting in the cold for six months while they work out how to put in an air source heat pump, which will probably not work at all anyway. It is not a choice. We need options for that rather beleaguered population in the country, many of whom live in aged, drafty houses and have very little assets of their own to be able to upgrade or may have a listed building of the sort you cannot upgrade.

Renewable liquid fuel seems to allow a simple transition using existing kit rather than having to capitalise up front for a totally new technology. It could produce—literally from next week, if you wanted it to—carbon reductions of up to 80%. I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I hope the Government can do that too.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I will say a few words about biomass and Drax. In so doing, I have to declare a conflict of interest in that I chair Drax’s independent advisory board on sustainable biomass.

The point I want to make is very simple: the devil is in the detail. There are circumstances under which biomass is not sustainable as a source of energy, where it does not replace the carbon emitted from the chimney stack by the growth of new trees. On the other hand, there are circumstances under which it is carbon neutral. Therefore, the crucial thing is to understand whether Drax is sourcing its material in a sustainable way.

It is not my job here to defend Drax and it is certainly not my job to comment on government subsidy, but I can say that there is a very detailed literature on forest carbon. If any noble Lords wish to make assertions about the carbon neutrality or otherwise of biomass burned by Drax at its power station, they should first study this literature in great detail and not rely on second-hand reports on “Panorama” or in other media outlets. So, I simply urge those noble Lords who wish to comment on Drax to study the detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

What the noble Lord told us about being on the advisory board of Drax is very interesting. But how about the shipment of all this timber across the Atlantic and the burning of it in the United Kingdom? That seems to me to pollute the atmosphere, as well as contributing to CO₂ emissions.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord for those questions. As I said, it is not my job to defend what Drax does. I am asked not to do that but to hold its feet to the fire on the sustainability questions relating to the sourcing. With regard to the life cycle analysis, Drax has an obligation to report the life cycle emissions of the power station, and the regulator scrutinises that reporting.

On the question of emissions from the stack at the UK power station, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, under the UNFCCC accounting system, the accounting for those carbon losses are in the source country, not in the consumer country. Whether that is sensible is a matter for debate, but the fact is that the US has to declare the loss of carbon, and therefore in the UK’s accounting that counts as zero because the US has already accounted for it. Many people think that the consumer, not the producer, should have to account for it. It is not my part to adjudicate on that debate, but it is a perfectly valid debate to have.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, we seem to have gone into Committee mode.

I want to talk briefly to Amendment 35 from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to which I have added my name. It is important never to forget that there are those issues in rural communities. I also am on oil, I regret to say. In Northern Ireland, 50% of households are dependent on oil and only 33% are connected to the grid. It is an important area, and I very much support the spirit of that amendment.

I also want to talk very briefly to Amendment 7, which is about adding “nuclear energy” to the list in Clause 3. I do not understand this amendment because Clause 3(2)(b) on the list refers to

“the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy produced from fossil fuels”—

that must include nuclear—and Clause 3(2)(d) refers to

“measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy”.

I would have thought that the nuclear sector would say it met both those objects. To add nuclear energy to that list would suggest that it does not meet the other two criteria, so that seems totally counterproductive.