Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to make
preparations to adapt to a global temperature rise of 4 degrees
Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs () (Con)
My Lords, the third climate change risk assessment provided
climate projections for rises of 2 and 4 degrees centigrade by
the end of the century. The upcoming third national adaptation
programme—NAP 3—will set out the Government’s plans for climate
risks and opportunities for a 2 degree warming scenario to
continue to build a more resilient country, with a focus on
enhanced ambition, implementation and evaluation. In developing
NAP 3, departments were also advised to assess the risks for 4
degrees of warming by 2100.
(GP)
I am very glad to hear that; that is quite good news. With all
his financial acumen, can the Minister also tell me which would
cost more: allowing food price inflation, because of multiple
harvest failures; seaside erosion and mass evacuations;
communities and towns collapsing from floods, fires and general
devastation; or making the right policies in the first place to
be climate friendly?
(Con)
The noble Baroness does not have to rely on my questionable
financial acumen; the Office for Budget Responsibility concluded,
before the current gas crisis, that investment in net zero by
2050 represents 0.4% of GDP in additional public spending, while
delaying the net zero transition by 10 years would double overall
costs. It highlighted that the costs of global inaction would
significantly outweigh the costs of action. That is the sort of
financial backing we have for our adaptation plans.
(LD)
My Lords, last week we had the four hottest days for the globe in
living history. Last summer, 60,000 people died of heat stress in
Europe, including 3,500 in the UK. As temperatures rise, that
will become an epidemic. Can the Minister say what the Government
are doing to make public housing, homes and business premises
resilient to heat stress? I do not see a government plan for
that; could he tell me what it might be?
(Con)
We have already introduced requirements for new residential
buildings to reduce overheating risks, making them more suitable
for the warming climate. We are strengthening the resilience of
the housebuilding industry right across the piece and looking at
the impact of not only heat events but floods. We are spending
billions on adaptation through the Environment Agency to protect
homes from both extremes of weather.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
Can the Minister tell us whether the Government plan to introduce
a maximum working temperature for people at work?
(Con)
I have no knowledge of plans to produce such data, but I will
certainly find out from the relevant department and contact the
noble Baroness.
(CB)
Given the information we have heard in the previous questions on
how destructive a rise of even 2 degrees centigrade could be, why
are we still considering licensing a new oilfield in the North
Sea?
(Con)
Oil as part of our economy is seen as a transition, and we want
to make sure that we move our whole energy production to a
renewable and non-carbon basis. The continued use of oil is
inevitable, but we will continue to make sure that the economy is
based on as much renewable as possible. If the noble Baroness,
like me, goes on to the National Grid app, she can see that as of
today, at this precise moment, energy from renewable way exceeds
energy from oil and gas.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, has the Minister noticed that Green politicians tend to
be a wee bit hypocritical? We have two Green Ministers in
Scotland, and , who go everywhere in
chauffeur-driven cars when there is perfectly good public
transport available, which I use regularly. Is it not about time
that they lived up to their theories in their actions?
(Con)
When I arrived at Defra in 2010, there were five ministerial
cars; that has gone down to one, and I travel mostly by the use
of an Oyster card.
(GP)
My Lords, can the Minister tell me the comparative fuel
consumption and emissions from a helicopter flight compared to
travelling by car?
(Con)
No, I am terribly sorry, but I am afraid that I cannot.
(Lab)
My Lords, the rise in sea level means that there will be more
sea. Does not the Minister agree that this is yet another reason
why the Royal Navy might need more ships to patrol it?
(Con)
That is a spectacular intervention on this subject.
Interestingly, at the height of the Trump presidency, the
Pentagon put out a piece of work where it referred to climate
change as the “threat multiplier”. The nexus between the security
implications of climate change and the environmental ones is
absolutely fundamental to what we are trying to achieve. We are
going to see a much more dangerous world, unless we can tackle
these precise issues.
(CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of the adaptation
committee of the Climate Change Committee. Very hot weather often
goes with periods of drought. Can the Minister tell me what he is
doing to make sure that the farmers of the fenlands are able to
water their crops this summer?
(Con)
The noble Baroness raises a really important point. What we are
doing through our environmental land management schemes and
future farming is to try to make farming more resilient in so
many ways. One of the great difficulties we face in the east and
the south of England is that we have rainfall levels in many
parts that are equivalent to some sub-Saharan African countries,
and using water, slowing it and using it more sensibly, with the
production of more reservoirs, is crucial. Also, the Bills that
this House has passed, such as the one on gene technology,
producing crops that are more resilient to drought, are really
important.
(Lab)
My Lords, in his recent resignation letter, the noble Lord,
of Richmond Park, cited a
concern that
“the UK has visibly stepped off the world stage and withdrawn our
leadership on climate and nature”.
He told us:
“The problem is not that the government is hostile to the
environment, it is that you, our Prime Minister, are simply
uninterested. That signal, or lack of it, has trickled down
through Whitehall and caused a kind of paralysis”.
Does the Minister agree with his former colleague?
(Con)
This Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer,
agreed to the doubling of our international climate finance
contribution to £11.6 billion, one of the most generous of any
country. I have been to three recent COPs and seen that the
United Kingdom is revered in this area of policy in a way that I
cannot put words to, because we are leading on so much of this.
At COP 27, the UK committed to tripling its funding for climate
adaptation finance. In 2021, the UK was the first Government to
endorse the principles for locally led adaptation, which has now
been picked up by 140 countries. We are very much a leader, and I
know that this Prime Minister, who gave that assurance again at
the more recent COP, is right behind making sure that we are
tackling this the greatest challenge that mankind has ever
faced.
(LD)
My Lords, will the Minister comment, therefore, on reports that
the commitment he has just referred to is one that they intend to
row back on?
(Con)
I have no knowledge that we are going to row back on that
commitment. It was made by three recent Prime Ministers, and we
want to make sure that it continues.
of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister, in an earlier answer, referred in passing
to the production—I think that was the word he used —of more
reservoirs. Can he tell the House what plans there are for
reservoir building in England at the moment and where those
reservoirs are planned for?
(Con)
My experience of this is that it is not quick enough. The River
Thames is the conduit for water for a number of water companies
in the south- east and it needs a reservoir in its headwaters.
That has been being planned now for more than a decade and a
half, and we want to see it built. It is unlikely to be built
within the next decade because it is an incredibly complex
process, but we are also looking at trying to move water more
effectively. We can now move water from Yorkshire to Ipswich and
from parts of Wales into the south-east of England—I know that is
a controversial issue and I do not want to unleash the noble
Lord, , on that one. We are looking to
use technology to move water more effectively.
(Con)
Does my noble friend agree that, in contemplating how we prepare
for the future, we should take into account the science, as
prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which
is summarised in table 12.2 of Working Group II. It says that,
though of course the temperature is expected to rise if we follow
the most extreme scenarios, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones,
has forecast, there is not expected to be, nor is there any sign
so far of, any increase in droughts, floods, landslides or
fires.
(GP)
It is happening!
(Con)
Deny the science if you will.
(Con)
My experience in talking to members of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, the Royal Society and some of the best
experts in the world on this is that there is a very real danger.
While I respect my noble friend in so many ways, I feel I will
listen in this case to members of the Royal Society and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, because they are the
guardians of knowledge on this.
