State of Climate and Nature
Debate between Lord Lilley and Lord Whitehead(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right to draw attention to what is sadly likely to be a large number of deaths directly attributable to the recent heatwave we have had in this country. Those deaths can quite possibly be attributed to the lack of readiness that we have in our building fabric and our homes for the consequences of climate change and what will happen with temperatures in future. I hope she can take some comfort from the fact that the Government are actively reviewing how we make sure that building standards are fully compliant with climate change resilience for the future. If we build our buildings so that they can undertake those future climate shocks rather than be victims of them, we will have done a good deed for the future.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, the Statement in another place said that reducing emissions would lower bills. This country has reduced emissions by more than any other country, yet our bills are now higher than any other OECD country, nearly all of which rely on gas like us. Can the Minister explain this? If he is going to say that, in future, renewables will be cheaper than fossil fuels, then why do they need subsidies, and, if they need subsidies, how can he say that they are basically cheaper?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Lord is substantially but not entirely correct about OECD prices; however, he is not entirely correct that other OECD countries are reliant on gas to the extent that we are in this country. A very substantial driver of electricity prices is the volatile price of gas, as he will know, and the reliance that we still have in this country on gas as a market-maker for electricity very substantially leads to those high prices. Therefore, on the idea of getting off that wheel we are on, of volatile gas prices leading to volatile electricity prices and to high energy prices, it is quite right that we resolve that by making sure that our energy arrangements are as low carbon—and, hence, not gas based—as they can be.
Carbon Budget Order 2026
Debate between Lord Lilley and Lord Whitehead(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My Lords, first, let me thank noble Lords for their valuable—that is what it says here in my brief—contributions to this debate. I cannot say that I endorse that entirely. I also cannot quite get my mind around the parallel universe that some noble Lords seem to have been inhabiting while making their points this evening.
On that parallel universe, I draw noble Lords’ attention to a very significant speech that was made today just a few hundred yards from this building. It was given by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who, as part of London Climate Action Week, made an impassioned speech on climate change, including what we need to do about it, how quickly we need to do something about it, and what we need to do on electrification and low-carbon economies in particular.
I hope that noble Lords will go away and look up that speech, because among other things it completely gives the lie to the idea that no one else in the world is terribly interested in this climate change business, that no one else is doing anything about it, that the activities we are undertaking on climate change are just blowing in the wind, and that we are giving away our industries to other people who will take advantage of them. A number of the industries that they are talking about are sunset industries that are being replaced by low-carbon industries which, if we are not careful, the rest of the world will run away with. They would then overtake the advantages that we have at the moment in green industry, which we are doing very well in. The green economy has grown three times as fast as the general economy in the last few years.
The people who live in this fantasy parallel world appear to be saying that none of that counts. We are making tremendous changes to how energy is distributed in the low-carbon economy. This is a good thing for climate change purposes and will bring people’s bills down in the long term. The energy we will be using will inevitably be cheaper, more affordable, less volatile and more stable than the energy we are using now. It will produce a very large number of jobs: £100 billion in green investment has come into this country over the last two or three years.
However, none of this appears to have any effect whatever on the parallel facts that are put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, appeared to be saying that the rest of the world was moving away from action on climate. I was at an international meeting this morning where people from around the world were standing up and saying what they were doing about this, how committed they are to a low-carbon future and how important it is for their own countries and for the world that we continue down this path.
This climate budget has to be set in the context of the real world of facts and information about where our world is going and what we need to do to make sure that it does not continue in the direction that it appears to be going at the moment, rather than in the context of quite a lot of what we have heard this evening about why all of this is a waste of time. I am afraid that I must single out the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, in this respect. One really cannot make a serious case that, because we cannot completely know the future, we should do nothing whatever about it and just hope that the market somehow sorts it out. We have got to take action.
As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned, we took action with the Climate Change Act, which was carried by everybody in the Commons except five people. I can name them.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is with us this evening. At least I can say that the noble Lord is consistent. He did not sign it in the first place and I do not think he would sign it now if he had the opportunity.
That Climate Change Act, which requires us legally to carry out these carbon budget examinations, set up the Climate Change Committee to advise us on the science behind the proceedings and tell us what we need to be doing, not just now but in the future, so that we have time to make policy for what we will be doing to match what is required in those carbon budgets. We have that legal obligation, because we passed the Climate Change Act together in that year.
It has stood us in very good stead. It has directed what this country tries to do, without telling us what we do in detailed policy. Some of the discussions this evening have set up what the Government are apparently going to do and then said, “We don’t like it very much”. No, the Government are not going to go around shooting cows and rounding up livestock for slaughter. The Government will be doing what it is doing now and investing £5 billion over two years in farming. This is perhaps the largest investment in sustainable food production and nature recovery in this country’s history.
Alongside that, the Government are actively exploring ways to reduce livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions, including through scientific research on mitigation strategies and management, feed, such as the increasing adoption of methane-suppressing food products, and breeding. There are many alternative ways of making sure that agriculture and land use plays its part in climate change emission reductions without the straw man that some of the opponents of climate change action seem to have set up in this Chamber—that the Government are somehow going to chase livestock out of the country in order to meet climate change restrictions. To produce alternative theories, I am afraid you need alternative facts.
The impact assessment has, among other things, a fairly exact examination of the costs of doing nothing, as opposed to the costs of doing something. This has been a long-standing theme. The University of Cambridge, for example, estimates that climate damage will reduce global GDP by up to 24% under a high emissions scenario by 2100. There are pages of other information about the costs of doing nothing, as opposed to the cost of doing something, and I always advise noble Lords to go to impact assessments if they want to know the truth about what is happening on any piece of legislation.
My noble friend Lord Hunt underlined that the regret amendments that we have in front of us are big on things that are not liked very much and tiny to insignificant on what, if anything, to do about it. Indeed, one has a responsibility, if one does not like what is being done now, to say what should be done alternatively. Alternatively, if one does not like, say, the climate change legislation, stand up and say that, and say what else you will do instead, or, as some Members have said, just deny that the whole thing is an issue and have an alternative universe of facts to try to underpin that.
I am conscious that I will have to write to a number of noble Lords on specific issues, but I thought it necessary to put what we are doing tonight in the right context. What we are doing is making sure that our futures are secure in this world.
Carbon Budget 6
Debate between Lord Lilley and Lord Whitehead(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, given that the pursuit of carbon budgets has so far given us the highest electricity prices in the OECD, can the Minister confirm that the pursuit of decarbonisation has so far primarily resulted in the deindustrialisation of Britian, and that our carbon budgets do not take account of the fact that we have simply exported carbon emissions to the rest of the world?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
It is certainly not true that the pursuit of a low-carbon economy has led to deindustrialisation. The noble Lord need only look at the £60 billion of investment that is coming into the green economy and all that goes with it. Indeed, the low-carbon economy is growing three times as fast as the general economy. Many of the things that are coming in concerning low-carbon energy are very much concerned with industrial plants, grids, new forms of electricity generation and so on, which will not only produce large numbers of jobs but a very sound industrial base for the country.
COP 30
Debate between Lord Lilley and Lord Whitehead(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Rees has a tremendous record of taking action on global warming and low-carbon economies in his own city of Bristol. The question of how cities bring to bear the enormous potential of their action alongside Governments nationally and internationally has long been recognised in terms of the Curitiba commitment and other things, where cities across the world have banded together to take local and sub-national action alongside national and international action. My recipe for this continuing is to encourage UK cities to take part in those international joint city arrangements and become partners in global green gas carbon emissions reductions, which can take place at all levels. COPs have increasingly recognised that and have enabled cities to play a much greater role in discussions as those COPs progress.
Lord Lilley (Con)
If the noble Lord, Lord Rees, my noble friend Lord Deben and the Secretary of State are right that the cost of renewables is on a declining curve and already cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives, that will be a wonderful thing, but can the Minister explain why, if they are cheaper, we need to guarantee for 20 years a price in real terms for renewables backed up by subsidies in the shape of state-financed back-up power for when renewables are not producing and therefore cannot compete with fossil fuels?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
It is because the model of how renewables develop is precisely the opposite of how fossil fuels develop. They are very capital-intensive and, after that, the power that comes from them is, in essence, free. Therefore, we need to establish, through capital support in particular, those renewable arrangements which can give us in perpetuity that cheap power for the future. These things in essence are not subsidies; they are investments in how that power reaches us for the future. I am sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and I have had debates in the other place, that this discussion will continue, but I very much stand by my view—and accept he stands by his view—that non-fossil fuel power is inevitably going to be cheaper, more secure and more reliable than the fossil fuel economy we have at the moment.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Indeed. At COP 30, the essential integration of nature and climate change was emphasised both in the communique at the end and during discussions. I can assure the noble Baroness that the UK Government are absolutely alive to this. In terms of investment in nature funds, we have shown practically that we are willing to, as it were, put our money where our mouth is and make sure that we are full players in the international integration of nature and climate change action.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I still did not understand the answer from the Minister. If renewables are cheaper, why do they need a subsidy and a guaranteed price, just because they need a lot of capital up front? The same is true of most industries and it is simply not a convincing reply.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
As the noble Lord will know, these underwritings are not permanent.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
They are usually for 15 years, which means that a renewable development that is subject to that underwriting has, at the end of 15 years, a fully amortised and free energy solution for the future. Therefore, it is tremendously good long-term value, as far as that energy supply is concerned, to have that initial undertaking, which reduces and goes down to zero after that 15-year period.