Foreign Affairs and International Development

Debate between Meg Munn and Caroline Lucas

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I want to take the opportunity offered by the debate on the foreign affairs and international development aspects of the Queen’s Speech to raise again, as hon. Members will have guessed, climate security. I want the House to recognise that climate change is an issue of security and that it should not just be tucked away under the heading of environment and then forgotten about. On that subject, it is interesting that we do not have a day to discuss the environment and energy aspects of the Queen’s Speech, perhaps because there are not very many of them. I was struck by the fact that this time around we do not have a day when those aspects of the speech might usefully have been covered.

I want to place climate strongly in the framework of security issues and to say how sorry I am that ambitious measures to address the climate crisis were conspicuous in their absence from the announcements about the forthcoming legislative programme. That is an extraordinary omission when successive Governments have acknowledged that climate change poses one of the greatest threats to our collective security. Indeed, the coalition Government acknowledged as much in the foreword to last year’s national security strategy, which states:

“The security of our energy supplies increasingly depends on fossil fuels located in some of the most unstable parts of the planet. Nuclear proliferation is a growing danger. Our security is vulnerable to the effects of climate change and its impact on food and water supply.”

[Meg Munn]

I support what the hon. Lady is saying about this being an important international issue. When I was a Minister at the Foreign Office, climate change was seen as one of the key priorities and I found that our missions around the world also took it very seriously. A great deal was being done at that time.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am pleased to hear that, because at the moment it feels like there is real tension in the Government about where climate change sits, as the Chancellor clearly sees it as an obstacle to his economic development plans and there is not much of a fight back.

The absence of such matters in the Queen’s Speech is a tragedy, because there are so many opportunities to pursue a green agenda at the same time as pursuing jobs and a stable economy. Indeed, by investing in a green economy, which is far more labour-intensive than the fossil fuel economy it replaces, we can get those jobs and get the economy stable again.

Hon. Members will know that climate change is already affecting many of the poorest communities around the world, undermining their livelihoods through changes in temperature and rainfall patterns and through the increased frequency and intensity of floods and droughts. It has been estimated that climate change is already responsible for about 300,000 deaths a year and is affecting 300 million people, according to the first comprehensive study of the human impact of global warming from Kofi Annan’s Global Humanitarian Forum.

Although the impacts of climate change will fall disproportionately on the global south, this argument is not just about poorer people in far flung places. Increasingly, extreme weather events are happening much closer to home as well, such as the 2007 floods in Britain, which saw the largest ever civil emergency response since the second world war. From our riverside location at Westminster, we should perhaps take comfort from the fact that the Thames barrier is being prepared to cope with the sea level rise of 1.9 metres that is being projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the full range of its climate scenarios. Frankly, I am alarmed that we are having to consider such a sea level rise and that such measures are not being planned elsewhere.

The truth is that growing recognition of climate change as a serious threat to our national security, our economy and international development is not resulting in commensurate action domestically or internationally. What in the Queen’s Speech could help us? The new energy Bill, if it were significantly more ambitious than proposed, could play a role. Investment in major power infrastructure today will be with us for decades to come, but there is a real risk that rather than the “secure, clean and affordable” electricity system that we have been promised by the Government, we are more likely to end up with an insecure, dirty and expensive one. To avoid that, we need four crucial elements to be introduced into the electricity market reform proposals.

First, and most importantly, the energy Bill must contain a clear and absolute commitment to decarbonising electricity generation by 2030. That is not a radical green proposal, but is based on the advice from the Committee on Climate Change. I hope that the Prime Minister will ensure that that happens, given his own explanation of the crucial role of the committee. He said that it exists to

“take the politics out of climate change and show our intention to get to grips with the problem.”

Here is a perfect opportunity for him to demonstrate exactly that.

The second thing missing from the EMR proposals to date is the vast untapped potential of energy saving. We could argue all night about the various costs of low-carbon technologies, but I think that those on both sides of the House would agree that it is often a lot cheaper to save energy in the first place. The energy Bill must therefore introduce mechanisms to equalise support for demand reduction and energy saving, such as a feed-in tariff for energy efficiency. That should be the priority, not planning to subsidise EDF’s nuclear-generated electricity to the tune of £115 per megawatt hour. That is the level of subsidy that would be necessary based on EDF’s recent announcement of a new £7 billion price tag per nuclear power station. Let us remember too that subsidising nuclear power would fly in the face of the coalition’s promise not to provide taxpayer subsidy for nuclear. As the City analyst Peter Atherton has succinctly concluded, the only way that new nuclear could be built is

“if the construction risk was transferred to the taxpayer”.

I am extremely concerned that that is exactly what the Government will try to do.