COP26: Limiting Global Temperature Rises

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome).

I am going to change the tone of the debate, because in so much of it we have had a bit of negativity, whether that was from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—I congratulate her on securing the debate—who was almost saying that we should atone for the sins of our fathers when it comes to our carbon, or from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton), who thinks that it will cost us much more in taxes.

I disagree fundamentally with both outlooks. I very much believe that we can have a greener, better future and halt the decline. It is clearly an issue, but I do not believe that it is irreversible. Nor do I see our taxes rising: there will be many more green jobs and technologies in future to offset that and we will have a net gain in jobs and increase in wealth.

I see this as a more positive debate and the UK’s role in it as a very positive one. After all, taking the presidency of COP26 really is a marker in the sand, not just for our country, but for what we can achieve. COP26 presents a critical chance for countries to accelerate the transition to a cleaner, greener, more resilient global economy. We have heard many times in this debate why we need to do that for the environment, which is clearly correct, but we should also touch on how the population of this country want us to do it as well. Recent research from the WWF and Demos shows that the public are united in getting the UK to meet our climate goals, with 90% supporting the roll-out of electric vehicles and 77% wanting a more ambitious approach to low-carbon heating in homes.

I welcome the Government’s moves on heat pumps this week. I hope that we also get involved with hydrogen for home heating, which is another solution. The Government are making great progress. The UK stands in a position of authority because its nationally determined contribution is an emissions reduction

“by at least 68% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels”—

a significant increase on our previous target of 53%, and clearly in line with our 2050 target. Numerous Opposition speeches referred to NDCs; in fact, our NDC is far better than the EU’s target of only a 55% reduction. We are a global leader, and we are showing how we can do this faster.

I acknowledge that I am nearly out of time, but I want to touch briefly on the finance sector, which has an incredibly important part in the role that the UK can play in getting to a low-carbon future. The UK is a global leader in finance, but we must also show how our companies need to play their part. We have heard a lot about how the UK and the world can do more, but businesses can also do a lot more.

It is therefore important that we use COP to make it mandatory for all large companies to disclose their net zero transition plans, which should be aligned with 1.5°, and to set out a clear timeframe for mandatory implementation. As the House knows, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on environmental, social, and governance, so the subject is close to my heart. We need to get companies and business on board and show them the business opportunities of low carbon and the role they can play in lowering our emissions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Seely]

I completely agree. In fact, one of the points that I am coming to is that virtue-signalling about exporting our emissions is incredibly counter-productive. Half our emissions have come about purely because we have exported our guilt to other people. So I agree with the hon. Lady, and, by the way, I thank her for this debate.

Here are some specifics for the Minister. Shutting down our own gasfields while continuing to import gas from other countries is not sensible policy making. I had the privilege of talking to Chris Stark, one of the Government’s senior climate advisers, who said that our renewables would be able to supply us in 15 or 20 years. We were discussing the issue in the context of security, especially in relation to Russian gas. Chris was absolutely right, but for the moment, whether we like it or not, we will be continuing to use that natural gas. It make no sense, therefore, for the relevant committees to deny an extension of the Jackdaw gasfield when we are simply importing gas from elsewhere. We should consider the mileage and pollution costs of bringing gas here by ship, and the fact that we are getting it either from the middle east or, sadly, indirectly from Russia.

Let me come to the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). Half our emission gains in the last 20 years have been because we have been exporting our guilt, effectively to China. Again, it makes no sense. Every time we offshore jobs and wealth creation, we are offshoring them to a country that will take longer to cut its emissions, and has 300 coal-fired power stations. We should be onshoring jobs, because we will do a better job, however imperfectly, than others in trying to reduce the carbon emissions and making that more successful or, at least, less polluting.

We need to take people with us. Most of us here are talking to an important but relatively small part of the electorate who care passionately. Perhaps more people will in time; indeed, I am sure that they will. At the same time, however, we must talk to the people who are worried about bills—who are worried about keeping their families, their children or mum and dad warm this winter. If we do not take people with us, we will lose this debate. Hearing the Californian Windsors lecture hoi polloi from their private jets is hugely counterproductive. Again, we need a sense of realism.

There is a series of practical questions that I would like the Minister to answer. Does she agree that having a housing policy involving low density and greenfield development is no longer sustainable? We all know that the most carbon polluting form of housing is the kind of detached houses that we see in greenfield development. We need land use to be much more effective in this country, not only for quality of life and for plenty of reasons that people involved in planning care about, but also because of the environment.

Wind power is a great success story, and the sceptics have been proved absolutely wrong. Many of the wind turbines that we see out in the North sea are actually made on the Isle of Wight by Vestas. I am delighted that Vestas is there, and I hope that the Government will help me to ensure that it stays there, because it wants to increase the size of the massive blades that it is building. But what news on wave power? What news on tidal power? We have been waiting for years. We have very strong tides in this country, and while tidal power will never provide 100% of our energy supply, it could provide up to 10% or 15%.

Finally, and most important, there is nuclear power. We have avoided this for 10 or 15 years, much to our cost now. I congratulate the Government on the money that they are putting in, but we need to invest considerably in a series of small-scale Rolls-Royce nuclear reactors which will create jobs in this country, and to do it on an industrial basis.

[Alexander Stafford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Seely]

I will.

[Alexander Stafford]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman had already given way twice; I am sorry about that.