Queen’s Speech

My Lords, I wish to speak on the environment. I confess at the outset to having had real difficulty about what I might say beyond welcoming the Marine and Coastal Access Bill and the flood defence measures that have been announced. Issues on the environment are so complex and often confront us with difficult dilemmas whether we are talking about individuals, the Government or society as a whole. The trouble with dilemmas, especially those with a longer-term profile, is that it is all too easy to delay facing them squarely and making the necessary decisions. We can live with a certain inertia. To take an obvious example, we are still in the early stages of a culture change on how buildings are heated. I constantly go into shops, offices and other public buildings that are overheated to an uncomfortable degree. As a society, we need to accept that a whole new culture on energy conservation must be embraced. Another obvious and immediate example to which reference has already been made is the third runway at Heathrow. From a perspective of aviation needs and from comparisons with other major airports in Europe, an overall economic case for the third runway seems clear. Yet it will probably—almost certainly—be an unpopular decision, adding to pollution in a densely populated area and compounding the sense that were we starting from scratch, we would not locate a hub airport for London in such an area or one so close to London itself. It is also unclear how making provision for increased volumes of air traffic could be compatible with the target of an 80 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in the UK by 2050, given that the only way known to us to propel aircraft is through turning hydrocarbons into water and CO2. Aviation is in a slightly different position from road and rail transport where other options are available. However much the efficiency of the engines may yet be improved, it is an energy-intensive activity. In saying that, I echo the noble Lord, Lord Soley, because I have no support for those who invaded Stansted Airport this week and committed criminal acts. We need democratic, careful and thoughtful discussion, not intemperate unilateral actions because the issues are so complex and difficult. Nuclear power has attracted similar passions in the past. This is a classic example of a thorny dilemma. It seems pretty obvious that the chances of getting anywhere near the 2050 CO2 target will require a major reinvestment in nuclear power—if not quite on the French scale, then beyond what we have done in the past. The Government have moved steadily of late towards supporting new nuclear stations, but they are still leaving commercial decisions to electricity generators themselves. Will the market deliver? Will it deliver sensible long-term choices? If by any reasonable judgment we need a long-term nuclear capacity, does that not need more direct government involvement in relevant decisions and planning than is currently the case? It is salutary to note that without the recent shifts in government policy there was a real danger that all the benefits of the introduction of renewable technology and wind power, largely because of government regulation and obligation, would have been completely negated if we had simply closed down the present nuclear capacity. Of course, I recognise that the fears about safety, long-term storage of waste, and so on, are real and raise genuine environmental questions of their own. I believe that these issues are soluble but I understand the dilemmas the Government have faced that have to some extent resulted in putting off key decisions. We can move the focus to the difficult issue of coal, which is one of our indigenous energy resources and will be so when North Sea oil and gas effectively have been exhausted. The usual assumption is that in future coal will be burned only in power generation where carbon capture and storage are in place. Perhaps that ought to be the case for oil and gas generation of electricity because they also produce a large amount of CO2 even if only about half the amount of coal itself, but CO2 capture and storage is unproved technology. It seems to be possible but we do not quite know what its cost and practicality will be on a really large scale. If we order no new coal-fired plant in the immediate future, such as that at Kingsnorth, do we not risk power shortages in a few years’ time, as has often been suggested in this House? Can we count on installing CCS technology whatever the cost without wider international agreements? It would be a great pity and, in some ways, not of much effect if this country were to adopt a policy on CCS different from other major economies. Gas-fired power stations have been the main market solution for the past 20 years; the so-called ““dash for gas””. That has conveniently helped the country, the Government, meet the Kyoto obligations because they produce just less than half the CO2 per unit of electricity generated compared with coal. However, that will result in us needing to import at least 80 per cent, possibly even 90 per cent, of our gas requirements by 2020. That is another difficult dilemma, which it is, in many ways, too late to face. I often think that future generations will look back and think that we have simply squandered the benefits of North Sea oil and gas in a generation or two. All this is set against the climate change agenda. The Government have committed us all to the challenging target of an 80 per cent reduction by 2050. We now need a credible strategy to reach that target that addresses, somewhat more directly, the various areas where, for one reason or another, there has been a certain absence of longer-term planning. It is only as the ideal and the vision are cashed out in practical planning that we will be able to test and evaluate things against the broader economic, social and environmental agendas that are around. It will be credible only if it is taken forward on a European and, indeed, an international stage, as the gracious Speech indicated. That brings me to my final dilemma. Action to reduce the demand for oil, gas and coal will have the effect of reducing their price on the world market. Look at the fall in oil prices in recent months in response to quite a small reduction in demand. That makes oil and gas more affordable to everyone, especially in developing countries. In many ways, that is to be welcomed. The difficulty is that the value in oil, gas and coal lies largely in the energy that is locked up in their atomic and molecular structures, and that can be unlocked only by turning them into carbon dioxide and, in some cases, water. Countries that have indigenous resources of oil or gas are very unlikely to leave them in the ground. The economic pressure to utilise them is great whether a country is the poorest or richest on earth. In one way or another, and at one speed or another, it looks as though the world’s resources of oil, gas and, to some degree, coal are likely to be turned into increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Halting deforestation and carbon capture technology are likely to have only a relatively small impact on this process, at least for the medium term, perhaps until 2050. If global warming is caused by increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which is the dominant, but not universal, belief among the world’s scientists, climate change—global warming—is likely to continue throughout the 21st century. If so, alongside necessary efforts to mitigate the rise in CO2 concentrations, should there not also be more attention to the demands of adaptation to climate change, which does not look to be easily reversible? The impact of climate change is likely to be greater on poorer countries, partly for geographical reasons and partly because they have fewer resources to enable them to engage in the process of adaptation that richer countries will be able to do more easily. That is a major dilemma. How do we strike the balance between resources devoted to decarbonisation and those devoted to adaptation to climate change? The question needs more open discussion and cannot simply be put on one side because of the overwhelming moral imperative that the Climate Change Act has set before us. I wish the Government well as they grapple with these huge, difficult challenges, and I look forward to explicit longer-term planning across these areas. It is not just on the financial front where the limitations of market-driven solutions are becoming apparent.