Climate Change and Flooding

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

May I get into my stride a little bit, and then give way? That was a premature intervention.

For the people of Cumbria, these were the third major floods in a decade. In 2009, they were told that the rainfall was unprecedented and that it was a once-in-a-century event, and yet just six years later, rainfall records in the county were again broken, causing devastation and heartbreak in the run-up to Christmas.

Flooding is already rated as the greatest climate change risk to the UK, and the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change has warned that the frequency and magnitude of severe flooding across the UK is only going to increase. Periods of intense rainfall are projected to increase in frequency by a factor of five in this century. Indeed, the most recent Met Office analysis suggests that global warming of 2°—bear in mind that Paris does not limit us to 2°—would increase the risks of extreme flood events in the UK by a factor of seven. It is not enough to respond to the flood risk simply by focusing on building more flood defences. We need to look at how we can reduce the risk through improved land and river management, and we need to minimise the future risk of floods and other extreme weather events by tackling climate change.

We welcome the Paris accord. Nearly every country around the globe has committed to: reducing carbon emissions, building a carbon-neutral global economy, trying to limit temperature rises to 1.5°, and to reviewing our ambitions every five years. Richer nations are recognising their responsibilities to developing countries with the climate finance provisions. That is all very welcome and will make a positive difference to climate safety, but it would be complacent to suggest that the Paris accord on its own is enough.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The hon. Lady is making a strong case. As she will have heard from Paris, from civil society and from the countries that are most vulnerable to climate impacts, about 80% of known fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground if we are to have a hope of avoiding dangerous climate change. We need a global transition to 100% renewables by 2050. I wonder if she could say whether she agrees with that.

[Kerry McCarthy]

It is very important that we make progress on that. As I will come on to later in my speech, the fact that the Government’s policies seem to be moving away from encouraging renewables—indeed, harming the renewables sector to a very high degree—makes it very difficult for us to make the transition from fossil fuels, which is something we very much want to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have already given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to contribute. I want to make a bit of progress now.

Under this Government, there is a long term-plan for economic and energy security, part of which involves improving our resilience and investing in flood defences. Extreme weather events are becoming more common. There have been devastating floods in Cumbria, Lancashire, Northumberland and elsewhere, and there has been record rainfall. Water levels in our rivers have been more than half a metre higher than they have ever been before. Yesterday, during my second visit to Cumbria in a week, I went to Appleby and Threlkeld, where I met residents, Army volunteers, and others whose work has been tremendous during this rescue effort. I saw the sheer power of the water, which had washed bridges downstream, but I also saw a huge amount of spirit and resilience among the Cumbrian people.

[Caroline Lucas]

May I invite the Secretary of State to return to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) about maintenance grants, and the amount that will be spent on maintaining existing flood defences? Does she accept that there is a shortfall of £2.5 billion between that amount and what the Environment Agency says is needed, and, if so, is she going to fill the gap?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can confirm that, as the Chancellor said in the autumn statement, we will increase our current maintenance expenditure of £171 million a year in real terms. In a climate in which we are having to reduce Government budgets, we are increasing, in real terms, both flood capital spending and flood maintenance spending. That shows where our priority lies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Calum Kerr]

The hon. Gentleman displays an admirable knowledge of the subject. If I ever live in a house built on a floodplain by the Conservatives, I will know where to go for advice.

It is important to consider all aspects. The debate is about climate change and flooding, but many other issues such as land use and planning could be covered in a lot more detail. We must always plan to prevent flooding at a local level and mitigate where we can. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I thank him.

The Scottish Government enacted their Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act in 2009. This introduces a sustainable and modern approach to flood risk development which considers the problems of climate change. For instance, it creates a revised and streamlined process for protection schemes as well as a framework for co-ordination between organisations involved in flood risk management. New methods have also been put in place to ensure that stakeholders and the public have an input into this process, as is happening in Hawick now.

Another hugely important piece of legislation is the Climate Change (Scotland) Act, again enacted in 2009. This sets some of the toughest climate change targets in the world, with an interim 42% reduction by 2020 and an 80% reduction target by 2050. Ministers are required to report regularly to the Scottish Parliament on progress and emissions. Earlier this year, the Committee on Climate Change concluded that Scotland had continued to make good progress towards meeting these ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets. We are on track to meet that 42% target ahead of schedule. In fact, we continue to outperform the UK as a whole.

In western Europe, only one of the EU15 states, Sweden, has achieved greater reductions. The Scottish Government have not hit all their targets, partly because of data format revisions, but they should be applauded for their ambitious vision and for seeking to lead the way. The determination is that Scotland should continue to be a world leader in this area. That, surely, is the right approach. We should acknowledge their ambition and successes so far. I hope that in this Chamber we will recognise that there is a lot to learn from them in terms of best practice. For instance, the Scottish Government have pledged some £1 billion of funding over two years for climate change action and have plenty of reason for optimism.

Last year, renewables overtook nuclear as Scotland’s largest source of electricity. Only last month, wind turbines produced 131% of the electrical needs of Scottish households. These are highly encouraging figures. However, no nation can operate in isolation in this area. Only by working together can world leaders properly address this, the greatest global environmental threat of our age. At last week’s Paris summit, we finally managed to achieve a universal agreement—one that has been signed up to by rich and poor countries alike. I congratulate the Secretary of State on her role and hard work in securing success at that historic event, which was also attended by Scotland’s Environment Minister and First Minister. The deal reached will not by itself solve global warming. It is not a panacea. But Paris finally showed that the will, along with a firm commitment, is there.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman will know that emissions from aviation and shipping were left out of the Paris agreement. Does he agree that that is a fatal omission and, similarly, that airport expansion, be it at Heathrow, Gatwick or anywhere else, would fatally undermine the UK’s ability to make a fair contribution to keep global warming well below 2 °C, let alone the 1.5 °C goal that is a matter of survival for many vulnerable countries?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who plays a very important role in the GLOBE organisation of parliamentarians. This debate comes at a timely moment after the Paris agreement, and after the tragedy of the floods that we have seen. I know that many hon. Friends want to talk about the effects on their constituencies, so I will try to keep my remarks reasonably brief.

I want to focus on the question of what the Paris agreement means for UK domestic policy. In doing so, I praise the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who played an important role in the talks. She was the host of the high ambition coalition between developed and vulnerable countries, and her office was its headquarters. She deserves credit for the very constructive role that she played. Having said that, when I listened to her statement yesterday, I felt, while I do not want to be unfair to her, that her position was somewhat to say, “Everything has changed and nothing has changed.” In other words, internationally everything has changed, with high ambitions, zero emissions and all that stuff, but for the UK things are the same as before. I want to make the case that that cannot be right, for four reasons, three of which are to do with the agreement itself.

First, on 1.5°, no previous agreement has enshrined a commitment to try to commit to

“efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5 C.”

This is a higher ambition than there has been in any agreement before. The Secretary of State knows that, because she was one of the people who helped broker the agreement. The reason it was brokered is very interesting: it was because of the case put forward by countries like the Marshall Islands that will disappear with warming of more than 1.5°. Some people fear that the high ambition coalition was a ruse to break up the G77 and China grouping in order to put pressure on the Chinese to get an agreement. I do not believe that it was a ruse. However, we cannot just say, “Our domestic policy will not change,” because if we suggest that our attitude to a 1.5° agreement is the same as to a 2° agreement, countries like the Marshall Islands will conclude, “Hang on a minute—were these people serious after all?”

The Committee on Climate Change picked up on this point in its release yesterday, saying that it would make it even more important—I am paraphrasing somewhat but I do not think I am misrepresenting it—that we met its recommendations on carbon budgets, and that it might be the case that further steps should be taken. It said that it would come back to the Secretary of State on that in early 2016. I would be interested to hear what she thinks are the implications of this more exacting target—because it definitely is more exacting.

[Caroline Lucas]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very strong case, which I appreciate. Surely the difference that 1.5° makes means that we need to think again about aviation expansion. In yesterday’s aviation statement, which came right after the climate statement, nobody even mentioned climate, and yet aviation is one of the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

[Edward Miliband]

When we were in government, I played one part in the rather unhappy saga that is Heathrow. In response to the demand that we should approve Heathrow, I pushed for a separate target for aviation emissions. Of course that must also be looked at as part of the 1.5° target. There cannot simply be unconstrained expansion of aviation. The hon. Lady makes a good point.

Secondly, the agreement contains not just the 1.5° aim but a long-term goal of zero emissions. When I asked the Secretary of State about this yesterday, she said that she was happy pursuing the existing targets in the Climate Change Act. I think that those targets are very important, because I helped legislate for them, and I am very happy that she wants to make sure that we meet them. However, when I was Climate Change Secretary we had not had a global agreement for net zero emissions. We cannot possibly say, “We’ve got this global commitment to zero emissions in the second half of the century but it has no implications for UK domestic policy.” Of course we have to look at what it means for the UK.

My case to the Secretary of State, which I hope she will consider—I am not asking for an answer today—is that when the Energy Bill comes back to this House in the new year she amends it to ask the Committee on Climate Change to do something very simple, which is to look at this issue and make a recommendation to Government about when we should achieve zero emissions. That would do a number of things. It would send a cross-party message that Britain is determined to be a climate leader; the Secretary of State has talked eloquently about the impact that the Climate Change Act had, with cross-party support. It would also reduce, not increase, the costs of transition, because it would provide a clear trajectory to business and, indeed, to future Governments.

I say to Conservative Members, who have understandable concerns, that it would be supported by business. I am not the most radical person on this issue. The most radical people are, believe it or not, Richard Branson, Paul Polman of Unilever and Ratan Tata. They want not just what I am suggesting, but something much more radical—they want zero emissions by 2050. Perhaps that is what the Committee on Climate Change will concede, but my approach is much more pragmatic, as is that of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). Let us not pluck a figure out of the air—such as 2050—without having the experts look at it; let us look at what the implications of the global goal of zero emissions are for the UK. That is a very reasonable suggestion.