The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2016-09-15.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what discussions he has had with the Department for Education on reskilling in the energy industry.
Mr Nick Hurd
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a number of issues.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2016-03-08.
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, whether the next allocation round for Contracts for Difference will be technology neutral.
Andrea Leadsom
The CFD scheme allows a wide range of renewable technologies to compete for contracts.
On 18 November 2015, my rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the intention to run three more auctions this Parliament, with the first, for the less established group of technologies planned for late 2016.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2016-04-11.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what discussions he has had with the Department for Transport on the proposal to develop a work plan to define the shipping industry’s fair share in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions ahead of the International Maritime Organisation meeting on 18 to 22 April 2016.
James Duddridge
Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials are in regular contact with Department for Transport counterparts who lead for the UK at international negotiations to reduce emissions from the global aviation and shipping sectors. All countries agreed in Paris in December 2015 to limit global temperature increases to well below 2°C, and to pursue efforts towards 1.5°C. International negotiations on how the global shipping sector can contribute to this are at an early, technical stage.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2016-05-18.
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, for what reasons it has not been practicable for her Department to lay the Committee on Climate Change report on Compatibility of Onshore Petroleum with meeting UK carbon budgets before Parliament.
Andrea Leadsom
The Department has received the Committee on Climate Change report. We are considering the report and will lay it before Parliament with our response in due course.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2016-06-13.
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, pursuant to the Answer of 7 June 2016 to Question 38382, whether the European Commission’s proposal of 10 June 2016 on ratification of the Paris Agreement has changed the Government’s timeline for UK ratification of that agreement.
Amber Rudd
The UK is committed to ratifying the Paris Agreement together with the EU and Member States as soon as possible. The Commission’s proposal for a Council Decision on the EU’s ratification of the Paris Agreement is therefore a positive step forward.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2016-07-20.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what assessment he has made of whether it will be necessary to bring forward new (a) primary or (b) secondary legislation to implement the UK’s obligations under the Paris Agreement on climate change.
Mr Nick Hurd
No immediate changes are needed to the UK’s legislation on climate change in order to implement our obligations under the Paris Agreement. The UK is already playing its part in delivering the Agreement through its Climate Change Act 2008. The Committee on Climate Change has said that it will report in the Autumn on the future implications of Paris for the UK. We shall want to consider carefully the CCC’s recommendations.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2016-09-15.
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps he is taking to ensure that the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority are adequately ensuring that companies disclose the financial risk to their company associated with climate change.
Simon Kirby
Climate change is not only a huge threat to our natural environment, but to our economic prosperity too. The private sector’s involvement is crucial if we are to be successful in reaching the ambitious targets agreed in Paris last year. The UK government and regulators are together at the forefront of engaging with the private sector to address this pressing issue:
The Prudential Regulation Authority’s pioneering report on the impact of climate change on the UK insurance sector last year kick-started the global debate around climate-related financial risks.
The Bank of England is leading global efforts to develop the international framework for green finance as co-chair of the G20 Green Finance Study Group.
Governor Carney’s speech in Berlin last week stressed the importance of disclosure in addressing climate-related financial risks.
The Financial Stability Board, chaired by Governor Carney, set up an industry-led Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures in late 2015, under the leadership of Michael Bloomberg. The Task Force is developing recommendations for voluntary, consistent, comparable, reliable and clear disclosures around climate-related financial risks for companies to provide information to investors, lenders, insurers, and other stakeholders. The Task Force published its initial report in April, and will publish a final report in early 2017. The Government looks forward to the publication of the Task Force’s report.
The speech made by Barry Gardiner, the Labour MP for Brent North, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 6 December 2022.
It is a pleasure to join in the debate, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for introducing it. I feel for her: about a decade ago I was in exactly the same position as a Back Bencher trying to tell my Front Bench team that they were mistaken in going down the biomass road. I think the Government are at the point where they will listen; indeed, I hope that is the case because, if they do not, it will make a mockery of all that we are doing on not only climate change but biodiversity.
I say that in the week that COP15—the Convention on Biological Diversity—is due to meet in Montreal. That is significant because the Drax power station is consuming whole trees from primary forests in British Columbia, in Canada. The Canadian Government should look at that carefully because we are talking not just about the case—ably made by the hon. Member for North Devon and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols)—for looking at what this practice is doing to increase emissions and at whether it can be sustainable in terms of the lifecycle of the trees, but about what it is doing to the wider environment and biodiversity. That is what is so terrifying.
The hon. Member for North Devon was right to speak about our inability to keep on using land in this way to feed a power station such as Drax. She spoke of an area 1.5 times the size of Wales; the figure I have is three times the size of Wales. Whatever it is, it is clear that this biomass cannot be sourced domestically, if this is to go on. More than that, it cannot be utilised because of the water resource required to produce the pellets for Drax.
The Department has been asked what the natural absorption rate of the emitted carbon would be if we replenish those lost resources—that is, if we replace those trees to absorb the emitted carbon. It gave an answer—it was, “We do not hold this information.” Well, other people have calculated it, and it is 190 years. We have seven years left until 2030, when the whole world must be on a declining pathway of emissions, and 27 years until 2050, when we have to achieve net zero. So the timescale—even accepting the principle that this is only about carbon emissions and that this is a cycle—is just too long.
The Government will no doubt talk about how CCS can be married up with BECCS. They will say that if we can capture those carbon emissions, that will make it all right. However, only 44% of emissions released at the Boundary Dam project in Canada were captured. The Government have not been prepared to say that they would hold Drax to what Ember, at least, has said should be the target—95% of emissions captured.
I want to focus on some of the key lies being told by Drax. I say that advisedly, because I have been to Drax and debated many times with its scientists. Over the years, I have tried to listen carefully to what they have said, and I have given them the benefit of the doubt on occasions. We need to transition away from biomass; I do not think we can simply stop it, and I am not saying that the contract should immediately be cut, but it is certainly not right for the Government to provide the £31 billion of additional subsidies entailed by what is now proposed over the lifetime of the project.
Drax says that its responsible sourcing policy means that it avoids damage or disturbance to primary and old-growth forest. That is not true, and the “Panorama” programme ably exposed the fact that it is not true. Drax said that many of the trees it had cut down had died and that logging would reduce the risk of wildfires, which shows just how little it knows about biodiversity, because many forests, particularly on the western seaboard of North America, require fire as a stimulant to the germination process. However, the fire spreads quickly; it does not kill the tree, but it does bring about new growth.
The trees on the entire area covered by the second Drax logging licence have now been cut down. It is simply not the case, as the company said, that the forests have been transferred to other logging licences. It said it does not hold those licences anymore. Again, that was a lie. “Panorama” checked that claim by going to the Government of British Colombia, who confirmed that Drax does still hold those licences. I understand how things progress, and I have no doubt that the company was set up to try to do good. We all thought at that stage that this was really going to be a sustainable way of tackling climate change, but Drax has got further and further into a reality that is now simply leading it to lie to the public. It is time that the Government distanced themselves from that lie.
The company says it uses some logs to make wood pellets, but it claims that it uses only ones that are small, twisted or rotten. I do not know whether Members have ever seen the process of gathering and taking logs from a forest. The idea that somebody is checking whether they are small, twisted or rotten and that only those are taken back to the power station is complete nonsense. However, when the logs get there, they can be sorted, and surveys at the pelletisation destinations show that only 11% of logs delivered to plants in the last year were classified as twisted, rotten or of the lowest quality, and could be used.
I am sorry the Government are now considering a further proposal from Drax. I really hope—not only for climate change purposes, but because of the wider biodiversity impact—that they will think very long and very hard, take notice of what the hon. Member for North Devon and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North have said today, and just say no. We have to transition away from burning trees. It is a damaging way of using forests, and it cannot be sustained.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2015-10-21.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what plans he has to remove the climate diplomacy function of his Department in response to the UNFCCC Paris COP 21.
James Duddridge
The Government takes the risk posed by climate change very seriously, and the UK remains a global leader on climate change action. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris COP21 will aim to keep the goal of limiting global temperature rise to below 2 degrees within reach, but is not the end game. Whatever the outcome of COP21, the Government will continue to engage with international partners on climate policy issues, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will work closely with Department of Energy and Climate Change, Department for International Development and other relevant departments to this end.
Demonstrating the UK’s commitment to climate action, the Prime Minister announced at the UN General Assembly on 27 September that the government will provide a further £5.8 billion from the existing 0.7% official development assistance (ODA) budget to the UK’s International Climate Fund in the next spending round, between April 2016 and March 2021.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2014-04-03.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many non-flood and coastal erosion risk management (FCERM) staff at the Environment Agency, including such non-FCERM staff funded through the FCERM budget, were redeployed for emergency flood response activities in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12, (c) 2012-13, (d) 2013-14 and (e) 2014-15 to date.
Dan Rogerson
The figures are as follows:
(a) 2010-11: No data available
(b) 2011-12: No data available
(c) 2012-13: Approximately 5,000 staff involved in flood response (this included Environment Agency Wales at that time). Of this, approximately 38% (1,900) of staff were from non-flooding and coastal erosion risk management (FCRM) functions. This does not include contractors.
(d) 2013-14: Approximately4,500 staff involved in flood response. Of this, approximately 50% (2,250) of staff were from non-FCRM functions. This does not include the additional staff brought in from Natural Resources Wales, contractors, or the military.
(e) 2014-15: Data not yet available.
More detailed information on the numbers of the non-FCRM staff involved in flood incidents which were funded by FCRM or other budgets is not recorded.