Stephen Doughty
Main Page: Stephen Doughty (Labour (Co-op) - Cardiff South and Penarth)
Caroline Flint
Can the hon. Gentleman be a little patient?
The scientific consensus is shown by the fifth assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published last year, which said that warming of the climate is “unequivocal” and that human influence on the climate is clear. We have chosen the subject because this is a crucial year in keeping the global rise in temperatures below 2ºC and avoiding catastrophic damage to the planet. That 2ºC target was agreed at the UN conference in Cancun in 2010. As we know, above that the risks of climate change move beyond our control. We have chosen the topic because this year our country needs to show international leadership, especially in Europe. As the official Opposition we have a role to play in helping to encourage the Government to get the best possible deal in the fight against climate change at the Paris climate conference towards the end of this year.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
In the light of the incontrovertible evidence that my right hon. Friend has just cited and the importance of the conference later this year, does she not find it extraordinary that there are still Conservative Members who deny the existence of climate change? I noted the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) trying to intervene.
Caroline Flint
It is extremely worrying that so many Government Members are still in denial and refuse to accept the views of the majority of scientists around the world. Not only are they a threat to the environment; they are a threat to the jobs and opportunities these changes bring.
Caroline Flint
The problem is that although the right hon. Gentleman is right that there is a cost to change, there is a bigger cost to doing nothing at all. The investment that we make will not only help us make energy cheaper and homes warmer but create job and investment opportunities. He might like to stay in the 19th century, but I would like to take us forward to a better—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but that is what it is—“Let’s stay with what has gone on in the past, even though we know that it is not fit for purpose for the future.” There is everything to gain from having a cleaner-energy future. However, I am glad in some respects that he continues to be a minority voice in the House on the issue.
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend’s point. Does she agree that the Stern report made it clear that the medium and long-term costs to this country and many others, particularly developing countries, will be far greater than the costs of not dealing with the challenge of climate change now?
Caroline Flint
Absolutely. At the moment we are ranked sixth in the world for green goods and services. Just think how many more jobs we could create if we moved up to third or fourth place. The benefits would not just be at home, because we can export new technologies abroad. One example is carbon capture and storage. Not only can the technology be applied to fossil fuels, but it has industrial applications for our energy-intensive sectors.
We had an awful lot of shilly-shallying in the past five years about support for carbon capture and storage—nobody was quite sure where the money was and what it was being spent on. I ask the Secretary of State whether we will see any cuts in support for CCS in the forthcoming emergency Budget. She will obviously say, “I can’t say, that’s a matter for the Chancellor,” but I really hope that the new DECC team is putting its shoulder to the wheel to ensure that such cuts do not happen. There was too much interference from the Chancellor in the past five years—he did not work for investment and did not support this area of public policy.
Stephen Doughty
We all want to see emissions falling. Celsa Steel in my constituency uses one of the most efficient steel-making processes in the European Union—it is in the top 10%—and has invested massively in a carbon-efficient steel workshop. However, it is competing against increasingly carbon-inefficient steels that are coming from, for instance, China and Turkey. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and representatives of Celsa, to discuss how we can drive down emissions while at the same time not offshoring them to countries such as China and Turkey?
Amber Rudd
That is a very good point, and I, or my hon. Friend the Minister, will certainly meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss it. He is right: we must make certain that none of our carbon reduction programmes leads to carbon leakage. We must ensure that we keep business and industry here, and that we keep growing employment while also maintaining those commitments. Let me add—slightly controversially, given that I have spoken so much about consensus—that the way to deliver that is to have a strong economy, and some might draw attention to the difference between the parties in that respect. If we have a strong economy, we can lead the way.
Through our actions, we are providing a guiding light for others. We are demonstrating that climate-friendly economies can be successful economies, and that the low-carbon sector provides opportunities for jobs and investment. Britain’s low-carbon sector grew at 7% last year, outstripping the growth levels in other parts of the economy. It is now valued at around £122 billion, and supports nearly half a million jobs. It is larger than the aerospace, pharmaceuticals and chemicals sectors, and equivalent to the gross value added by the food and drinks sector.
Clean power is booming. Over £42 billion has been invested in renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage since 2010, and that investment is spread across all regions and countries in the UK. Last year the UK attracted a massive 30% share of renewable power investment in the EU.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
No one has ever denied that carbon dioxide is a global warming gas. No one has ever denied that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere since we started industrialising. Not many people are bothering to deny the fact that there has been an increase in temperature of about 0.8 °C over the past 250 years, and although it is a bit more questionable than some would have it, there is no need to question it at the moment. It follows that CO2 emissions that are man-made have had some impact on temperatures. What does not follow is the argument that is so often put forward, which is that CO2 emitted by mankind has been completely responsible for the very minor increase in temperature that we have seen over the past 250 years. Nobody that I have met has ever, ever denied that the climate changes. I have met many people who are sceptical about the current policy and none of them has suggested that the climate does not change; the climate has always changed and it always will. The existence of glaciers is testament to the fact that the climate has always, and will always, change.
The climate has been changing over the past 2,000 years. It was warmer during the Roman period, a fact that is acknowledged in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent summary for policy makers. It said that it is warmer now than it has been for 1,400 years—as though 1,400 years is a long time. The problem is that, because we all live to be, hopefully, three score years and 10, we think of 70 years or 100 years as being a long time, but the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years, and 100 years is the blink of an eye.
I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State goes to Paris, she will deploy the same sceptical mindset about some of the things she is told that she always deployed when we worked together on the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. I hope she will bear it in mind that it was warmer during the Roman period, cooler during the dark ages, and then warmer again during the medieval period. It then became much colder, and up until about 1800 we had what is called the little ice age when ice fairs were held outside Parliament on the Thames. It was at about that time that we started to industrialise. It was a coincidence that we industrialised at the same time as we came out of the little ice age, and it absolutely must follow that some of the temperature increase that has taken place—about 0.8 °C—must be due to the fact that the Earth was naturally warming up anyway, and the IPCC will not deny that.
David T. C. Davies
I am delighted to give way to Opposition Members who disagree with me, because, unlike the shadow Secretary of State, I am not afraid to have this argument.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman keeps quoting the IPCC, but does he not recognise that one of the IPCC’s recent reports said that 100% of the climate change—the warming—over the past 60 years was due to humans and that the IPCC was 95% convinced about the argument overall? The IPCC has been very clear on this point.
David T. C. Davies
Let me read out something for the hon. Gentleman. Under the title “Summary for policymakers” on page 17, fourth paragraph down, the IPCC says:
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”
What that means in simple English is that slightly more than half of the increase that has taken place in the second half of the 20th century is down to man. The overall increase over the past 250 years is 0.8 °C, but in the second half of the 20th century, the increase was about 0.5 °C. What the IPCC is saying in this report is that slightly over half of that is likely to have been man-made.
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Gentleman can see the report for himself. We are talking about well under half of the total increase in temperature that has taken place.
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Gentleman can shake his head, but that comes from the IPCC. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the shadow Secretary of State if she wants to correct me on something. Even the IPCC is not saying that the increase in temperature is a result of man-made carbon emissions. It is saying that some of it is, and that the overall amount is well under half. On the basis of that, we are going ahead with a set of policies that have caused massive increases in energy bills for home owners and businesses. I say to the right hon. Lady that, with all due respect, none of the Opposition Members will back her when the policies that she may sign up to come home to roost, as they will create higher energy prices for businesses such as Celsa, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. It is absolutely outrageous that steel companies and other manufacturers are finding it difficult to manufacture in this country because they are paying so much more for electricity than their competitors in the rest of Europe.
The reality, of course, is that it costs—I listened with great interest to this discussion—roughly £95 per MWh to generate electricity from both nuclear and onshore wind, and £150 per MWh to do it from offshore wind, so it is very expensive. It costs about £50 to do it from gas and about £30 from coal. We can therefore be absolutely certain that the more we rely on renewable energy, the more we will have to pay for it. No politician from any party should run away from that. They should be willing to go out and make the argument for paying more if they think it is a good idea, but nobody is doing that. Nobody on either the Government or the Opposition Benches thinks it is a good idea to put up energy bills, so why on earth are we prepared to support policies that increase them?
If we are going to do that, we should make absolutely certain that it is not just the UK that will do so. We generate about 2% of the earth’s total man-made carbon dioxide emissions, so we will have no impact whatsoever on the temperature if we unilaterally decide to whack up taxes and start making people pay more money. If there is going to be an agreement, it absolutely has to be global.
What worries me is that, while a graph on which 1 cm represents 100 years may show a slight increase, the reality is that the earth has been around for so long that if we went back 100 million years, it would have to be represented by 10 km and that would show periods with more naturally created CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as greater and smaller temperatures. We would have to go back only 30 cm—about 1,300 years ago—to see the Younger Dryas, a climatic event that was never properly explained but which was entirely natural and during which there was a sudden drop in temperature by about 15 °C within the space of just a few decades.
Somebody cited Margaret Thatcher, a lady of whom I am always happy to call myself a fan. In her book “Statecraft”, in a chapter called “Hot Air and Global Warming”, she actually repudiated much of what she had written when she pointed out that people were getting quite hysterical about this. I think she was absolutely right and I urge the Secretary of State to be very cautious when she gets to Paris, and to remember that there is a difference between healthy scepticism and denial.