Energy Bill [Lords]
Debate between Caroline Lucas and David Mowat
David Mowat
My hon. Friend is right. That development was probably already discounted in the market. Nevertheless, more oil will, of course, put the price down. Like the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell), I worked in the oil industry for a period of my life. During that time a phrase that was often used was that the solution to low oil prices is low oil prices. At some point there will be a market reaction, but it is a long way off. My hon. Friend is right—the Iranian thing does not look helpful.
I have two points on this part of the Bill. The first is one that the SNP may agree with. The new authority is to be based, apparently, in Aberdeen and London. I do not understand why any of it has to be in London. I leave it at that. We have a need in this country to have everything in London. If anything needs to be only in Aberdeen, it is the new authority.
The second point is whether the new authority is going to have issues with US competition law. I do not fully understand that, but my experience is that there could not even be a meeting between US oil companies in the same room without lawyers involved, because of their incredible concern about US anti-trust laws. I wonder how the authority will deal with that, but no doubt somebody cleverer than I am has thought about that.
We have spoken about CCS. Clause 80 is an interesting amendment proposed by the Opposition in the House of Lords. That clause says, broadly, that we should no longer take credits from the EU emissions trading scheme as part of the process. If we step back and think about that, it is the Opposition saying that they do not want a European solution to cap and trade. I made this point earlier and I think I am right. It is true that the European ETS system is useless; that is a different problem. It is completely useless because the European Parliament would not increase the cost of carbon as we have, for example, but that is no reason to give up on a European solution. It seems odd that the two more pro-European parties in this House—I think it is fair to say that—want to go away from a European solution to sort out emissions.
David Mowat
I have taken two interventions and time is not on our side.
The two Opposition parties want to ignore the fact that what the world desperately needs—this might be a point on which the hon. Lady would agree—is a cost of carbon in the system somewhere. If there was a cost of carbon, the investment decisions right across the world would be affected in the same way—that is what the ETS was supposed to deliver—and we would be in better shape. It is a little odd that the Opposition take that view.
I shall not speak at length on the wind point. Others in the House feel more strongly about it than I do and I have spoken about it previously. It is clear that it was in the manifesto and we need to do what we are committed to do. The wind point goes to the core of one of the issues in the climate change debate—the continuing confusion between renewables and decarbonisation. I have heard speeches today in which Members said that other countries are building renewables more quickly than we are, even though their carbon output is vastly more than ours. Germany is an example, but there are many others. We need to be focused with laser-like efficiency on decarbonisation. That brings in CCS, nuclear and other technologies which the focus on renewables has damaged.
On Paris, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who is no longer in his place, made a speech that I found strange in parts. I say to the whole house—I make this point every time—that the European commitment on the rate of decarbonisation, which it put forward in Paris in its intended nationally determined contribution, and of which we were a part, implies a rate of decarbonisation that is half that which the Climate Change Act 2008 requires us to achieve. Now, it may well be that those countries do not yet realise that we are leading them. It may well be that they have not yet cottoned on to the fact that they are slower than us. Or it may be that they desperately want to protect their Port Talbots, their Motherwells and their Redcars, in a way that has not reached the consciousness of this House to the same extent.
I will finish with a point about jobs. We often hear how many jobs are at risk in solar and wind as a result of changing subsidy regimes, and of course that is regrettable, although I do not know the extent to which those numbers are true. However, it is wrong to say that higher electricity prices do not also cost jobs. It is not just about giving relief to energy-intensive industries. If we in this country expect to have a march of the makers—to use that phrase—and for that to be based on an energy regime in which our manufacturers are paying up to 50% more than manufacturers not in China, or even in the US and Singapore, but in France, Germany and Holland, it is going to be tough. I think that Members of this House need to respect the Government’s duty to balance cost with decarbonisation and all that goes with it.
Paris Climate Change Conference
Debate between Caroline Lucas and David Mowat(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Caroline Lucas
Those of us who are deeply sceptical about nuclear power are not sceptical for ideological reasons. Nuclear is slow and deeply expensive. We need to reduce our emissions quickly, but the next nuclear power stations will not be on grid for at least another 10 years. It is an issue of speed and cost, as well as ideology.
David Mowat
As an advocate of nuclear power, I accept we have not solved the waste issue, but it is one that the human race is capable of solving, whereas I am not certain that climate change is. And I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s point about cost.
Returning to the coal and gas debate, another issue is that we confuse post-2030 emissions pathways with the cumulative impact. The gigatonne target is a cumulative one. The effect of carbon and burning coal is cumulative. It is not just about post-2030 pathways or saying that gas has to be an interim energy source. In an intervention earlier, I made the point that were we able to replace all the coal in the world with gas—just like that—it would have the same effect as a fivefold increase in the level of renewable energy. We all ought to think about that statistic. This is not just about renewables. Of course they are vital, but we have to use other technologies, such as nuclear and CCS. The Copenhagen analysis and the EU’s approach have focused too heavily on renewables and not enough on decarbonisation, so I am pleased we appear to be fixing that now.
In that regard, I would make one final point. I have mentioned Austria and—to an extent—Germany as countries that are doing badly, but one country in Europe is a shining example: France has the lowest emissions, the lowest emissions pathway and the lowest level of emissions per capita and GDP, and that is because it is 80% nuclear. There is an emperor’s new clothes element to this. I wish we could be where France is.
What does all this mean for the UK? We have our Climate Change Act, and next Thursday we will get the next ratchet of that. We have to be careful that we do not act unilaterally—I have bought into all this stuff—and do not take a worldwide leadership position for a world that does not wish to or will not be led. That is why Paris is so important and why, for me, it is so disappointing that the EU submission to Paris is so unambitious vis-à-vis our Climate Change Act. The issues of fuel poverty will not be resolved by having the highest electricity prices in the world. I mentioned earlier in DECC questions that a number of EU leaders had sent the Secretary of State texts congratulating her on her announcement yesterday about removing coal from the system and replacing it with gas. I would just say that texts are no substitute for action by some of those countries. I am sure she will be telling them that in Paris, and I wish her luck.
UK Shale Gas
Debate between Caroline Lucas and David Mowat(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I heard that number with interest: six times as much for fossil fuels as for renewables. Can the hon. Lady take us through the calculation that gave that number? Was it, for example, by comparing solar with gas?
Caroline Lucas
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Environmental Audit Committee evidence, which goes through that complicated calculation in a lot of detail.
Caroline Lucas
I have answered that point.
Ministers have given us an industry-led community benefit scheme. It was discussed at length on Tuesday and will be consulted on in the autumn. It is expected to yield £100,000 in community benefits per drilling pad, each with several wells, plus 1% of revenues. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) made a crucial point about the importance of additionality when it comes to such payouts, over and above what localities would normally expect under local government or other funding systems.
I share those concerns, not least in light of recent comments from the chief executive of shale gas explorer IGas, who said that local communities should be won over to shale gas fracking by being rewarded with more teachers in primary schools or more officers on the beat. Given the coalition Government’s cuts to crucial public sector services and local authority budgets, it would be outrageous if communities were faced with a situation in which the only way to secure adequate numbers of teachers or policemen and women was by accepting a giant fracking rig in their back yard.
The other recent development discussed on Tuesday is the creation of a new Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil. The Minister explained its co-ordination role, which aims
“to accelerate the development of shale responsibly.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 215WH.]
The new office has been given the role of cheerleader-in-chief for the shale gas industry, as well as being tasked with ensuring that shale development remains safe and the environment protected. We heard that it would also play a third role, providing information to the public on apparent myths to help people separate fact from fiction. However, the office and the Minister’s whole Department are so rampantly pro-shale gas that I cannot see how the public will have confidence or trust in them either to maintain the highest safety and environmental standards or to provide independent, credible, non-biased information about the risks of shale gas development. How does the Minister intend to manage that perceived conflict of interest?
During the rest of my remarks, I will concentrate on some crucial questions about shale gas development in the UK. First, do we understand fully the local environmental and health risks of shale gas and what our constituents and the general public think about fracking, and can regulation and the OUGO adequately address such risks and concerns? Secondly, does shale gas really have the potential to deliver lower-cost gas power and reduce energy bills, as the Chancellor and other fracking enthusiasts claim? Thirdly, is drilling for shale gas a sensible approach to addressing concerns about future energy security? Finally, is shale gas development compatible with the UK’s climate change commitments? I will set out why, sadly, I believe that the answer to all those questions is no, and why shale gas ultimately cannot and should not have a role in a secure and affordable energy system that is consistent with the UK’s climate change commitments.
On the environmental impacts, I am sure that I am not alone in having been contacted by many constituents concerned about a wide range of environmental and health risks from shale gas. I worry that Ministers and those with financial links to shale gas companies are quick to dismiss people’s concerns, especially about water resources. The International Energy Agency, not known for an overtly environmental perspective or for hyperbole, states:
“The scale of development can have major implications for local communities, land use and water resources.”
It goes on to list serious hazards
“including the potential for air pollution and for contamination of surface and groundwater”.
The number of wells would, of course, depend on how much extractible gas there is and the geological conditions. Huge uncertainties remain, so all estimates are assumptions, but a study by Bloomberg based on average well extraction data from the US, rather than just sweet spots, found that meeting North sea production levels of 1,460 billion cubic feet and sustaining those levels for 10 years would require between 10,000 and 20,000 shale gas wells. Does the Minister think that the visual impact of so many drilling rigs and the associated traffic would be considered preferable to the aesthetics of wind turbines, for example?
On Tuesday, Balcombe residents delivered a petition to the Environment Agency in respect of Cuadrilla’s application for a mining waste permit for its operations in that area. It states:
“We the undersigned residents of Balcombe and its surrounds strongly object to the activities of Cuadrilla and demand that you take all possible measures to ensure the cessation of its activities with immediate effect, on the grounds that it poses an unacceptable threat to our water supply, air purity and overall environment.”
It is wrong for Ministers to dismiss such concerns and to suggest that local opposition stems from a misunderstanding of the impact of shale gas extraction. Local campaigners I have met are not stupid or scaremongering. They are extremely well read and well informed. Last year, a survey by Balcombe parish council found that 82% of residents wanted their local elected representatives to oppose fracking. That gives a good overview of people’s concerns, which include issues such as the increase in road traffic through the village, the pollution of water supplies, the impact on an area of outstanding natural beauty and the effect on property values.
Opposition to fracking goes way beyond organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. One example this week is the Quakers, who issued a statement on the EU’s climate and energy package and said of shale gas:
“This is not an option for replacing coal power. The greenhouse gas emissions during the life cycle of a well (including after decommissioning) are too high to enable us to reach our long-term climate targets and stay within the vital 2°C limit, especially given the high risk of methane leakage.”
It continued:
“The fracking process contaminates water and soils causing major concerns for the environment and public health.”
Even the National Farmers Union has raised concern that fracking represents an additional water user, which could increase water stress in times of shortages, and what about the views of farmers in places where fracking is already established? In Alberta, Canada, the Canadian NFU has led calls for a moratorium, with the co-ordinator, who is a dairy farmer, warning last year:
“Many farmers in my area who either have direct experience with the destructive nature of hydro-fracking technology on their water wells or who have neighbours who have been affected have come to me with their concerns…our ability to produce good, wholesome food is at risk of being compromised by the widespread, virtually unregulated use of this dangerous process.”
The Minister has given assurances about robust regulation in the UK, but the implications of fracking for British farmers remains to be seen, not least in the light of increasing water scarcity and food price hikes. The Co-operative Group, which also farms, perhaps not coincidentally, is also calling for an end to the use of unconventional fossil fuels and for a massive upsurge in community renewables instead.
Another local concern is that leaks from well casings that have been inadequately completed or have subsequently failed are one route by which water and air pollution can occur. The first report from the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change said that the risks are
“no different to issues encountered when exploring the hydrocarbons and conventional geological formations”
and recommends that the Health and Safety Executive tests the integrity of wells before allowing drilling activity to be licensed. The Minister has indicated that such a regime will be put in place. I wonder whether those same assurances were given in the US and elsewhere.
New data from the Marcellus shale show that 6.6% of Pennsylvanian wells are leaking. Examination of studies of well leaks by various bodies in the US, Canada and Norway shows that it is likely that world leakage rates come in at between 5% and 20%. Will the Minister confirm whether there is any difference between well design in the US and the UK that makes that less likely here? Will he also say whether there is a register of the performance of existing UK wells? I have not been able to find one. Such a register would allow us to have an overall picture of leakage in the UK and would tell us a lot about the world-class regulation argument that is so easily bandied about.
The need for robust regulation was discussed in our debate on Tuesday, providing a brief respite from the regulation-bashing rhetoric that seems to be fashionable at the moment. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) was present at that debate, and I am delighted that he spoke in favour of high environmental standards, in keeping with the gold standard that already applies to oil and gas regulation in the UK. However, last month alone, Britain’s offshore rigs and platforms leaked oil or other chemicals into the North sea on 55 occasions. I am not convinced that communities facing the prospect of shale gas drilling, albeit onshore for the time being, will find that reassuring.
The Minister says that robust regulation is now in place and that there is nothing to prevent licensees from bringing forward new drilling plans and seeking the necessary permissions. I worry that his Department is becoming increasingly indistinguishable from the fracking companies that are rubbing their hands at the prospect of tax breaks and drilling permits, particularly in his treatment of legitimate public concerns as myths.
It was heartening to hear the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) speak of the need to put in place the highest environmental safeguards, as opposed to what is simply convenient for the industry. He also made the point that in addition to strong regulation, there must be sufficient resources to ensure that they are applied. The shadow Energy Secretary emphasised the importance of comprehensive monitoring. I would add that the remits and duties of the regulator also matter.
The proposed growth duty to be imposed on non-economic regulators such as the Environment Agency through the draft Deregulation Bill is of great concern in that respect. The Government claim that it will support growth without weakening environmental protection, but lawyers from the UK Environmental Law Association warn in their consultation response that
“A growth duty, as currently proposed, would make it harder for non-economic regulators to refuse environmentally damaging development, including those that threaten nationally important wildlife sites—even if the overall societal benefits of such a refusal are greater than the development.”
They continue:
“This arises because the proposed duty does not adequately reflect evidence about the economic value of the natural environment and the need to value it accordingly in decision making.”
Ministers have a lot of explaining to do before anyone will be persuaded that this growth duty is not simply the latest attempt to weaken crucial environmental and public health safeguards, capitulating to corporate lobbyists who want short-term profit-making to trump public interest.
An additional concern, which is almost entirely ignored in the UK but is at the centre of debates in the US, is the radon risk from fracked gas pumped directly into householders’ kitchen stoves and hobs. Two month ago, the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was told in a written answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), that
“Public Health England…is preparing a report identifying potential public health issues and concerns, including radon…that might be associated with aspects of hydraulic fracturing…The report is due out for public consultation in the summer. Once released for public consultation, the report will be freely available from the PHE website.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 570W.]
Subsequent follow-up by telephone with Public Health England this week established that the “summer” has become “later this year”. That seems to be a trend. Will the Minister explain the delay in publishing this research report when the public debate over fracking is moving ahead apace?
In brief, the concern raised in the US has been led by Dr Marvin Resnikoff, now of Radioactive Waste Management Associates, who has more than 50 years’ research experience in radiation hazards. My purpose in raising this matter is not to scaremonger, but simply to ensure that the risks are not ignored. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that aspect as well.
As chair of the all-party group on fuel poverty and energy efficiency, I believe that the cost of energy policy decisions to householders, particularly those on low incomes, is an absolute priority. Current estimates suggest that fuel poverty now affects more than 6.5 million households throughout the UK. The Government’s figures show that rising wholesale gas prices are the overwhelming cause of higher energy prices, which raises questions about the economic merits of the gas strategy in which gas plays a big role long into the future, never mind that a gas-powered future would bust carbon budgets.
The Chancellor and the Prime Minister both seem to think that shale gas could have a positive impact on gas prices and household fuel bills. Yesterday, the Department of Energy and Climate Change published a new report in what looks like a desperate attempt to create some evidence to back up those dubious claims. The Daily Telegraph thunders:
“Gas prices could fall by a quarter with shale drilling”.
But on closer examination, the document is all about ifs and buts.
Caroline Lucas
I would certain welcome that if it were reflected in the sort of statements that we hear from the Government about shale gas, but it is not. Time and again I have had debates with Ministers when they have easily and quickly leapt to the defence of shale gas by saying that it will incontrovertibly lead to lower gas prices. That is the problem. There is a gap between the rhetoric and the reality. If we all agree that the jury is out on that issue, I am pleased about that. The DECC report states that there is
“a high degree of uncertainty surrounding any price forecast.”
Let us look at what some of the energy market experts are saying about the cost question. Jamie Spiers, researcher at Imperial college, said that
“figures suggest that the cost of extracting UK shale gas reserves will exceed the price. This is a big issue that not been addressed very much.”
David Mowat
The hon. Lady makes the point that the cost of extracting the gas will be higher than the cost of selling it. If so, why would the private sector go ahead with such projects? Surely the problem will be solved. Why does she think the price of shale gas in the US has reduced the price of wholesale gas by 75%?
Caroline Lucas
I think it will be made commercially viable through the sort of tax breaks that the Government are already beginning to give. I will return to the situation in the US later, but it is vastly different. The regulatory regime is different, as are the geology and the issue of exports. Time and again, people from the International Energy Agency downwards have been saying that it is irresponsible to think that we can simply read across the impacts in the US and assume that we will see those here in the UK.
I was giving examples of reputable organisations that are warning that UK shale gas will not bring prices down. Those warnings come from Deutsche Bank, Chatham House, Ofgem, and the International Energy Agency. Even the CBI has warned that there is only one direction for gas prices, and that is upwards. The highly respected former Energy Minister, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), has warned that the reverse is true, saying that
“betting the farm on shale brings serious risks of future price rises”.
The Government’s independent advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, have confirmed that relying on gas would be expensive, adding up to £600 extra on household electricity bills compared with low carbon power, which would add only £100 and would be a good insurance policy against high prices in the future.
Exploitation of the UK’s significant shale resources is unlikely to result in low natural gas prices as well, according to Bloomberg:
“The cost of shale gas extraction in the UK is likely to be significantly higher than in the US, and the rate of exploitation insufficient to offset the decline in conventional gas production, meaning market prices will continue to be set by imported gas.”
Professor Paul Stevens, Chatham House analyst and a recent winner of the prestigious OPEC award for outstanding oil and energy research, has said that the Chancellor’s view that gas will be cheap in the future, based on the views that that will be driven by a shale gas revolution as happened in the US, is “misleading and dangerous.” Here he comes to exactly the point that the hon. Member for Warrington South just mentioned, saying:
“It is misleading because it ignores the very real barriers to shale gas development in the UK and Europe more generally. The US revolution was triggered by favourable factors such as geology, tax breaks and a vibrant service industry amongst many others. However, in Western Europe the geology is less favourable notably with the shale containing a higher clay content making it more difficult to use hydraulic fracturing.”
At a meeting for concerned residents at a potential fracking site in West Sussex, a Cuadrilla representative was asked to comment on whether shale gas could drive down customers’ energy bills. Mark Linder, who is responsible for Cuadrilla’s corporate development, said:
“We’ve done an analysis and it’s a very small…at the most it’s a very small percentage…basically insignificant”.
In the article to which I am referring, a company spokesperson is reported to have said:
“Cuadrilla’s never said it…will bring down prices…We don’t think it will bring down prices, although it does have the potential to.”
The spokesman went on to stress that shale gas exploitation was about security of supply, rather than price, so now I will turn to that.
There is a broad consensus among gas analysts that little, if any shale gas will be produced commercially in the UK before 2020, so we should not expect domestic shale gas to have any impact on gas prices in the short to medium term. That time scale is very important, because so much of the energy debate focuses on the rest of this decade, for which shale gas is basically irrelevant. If we are talking about energy security perhaps in the 2020s, what that looks like obviously depends on how much gas is extractable. The British Geological Survey recently reported that the Bowland shale in Lancashire and Yorkshire may contain 1,300 trillion cubic feet of gas. It stresses that it is a highly uncertain estimate and that it is not an indicator of the volume of gas likely to be extracted, which will depend on economic, technological and environmental considerations. However, if 10% of that gas were extracted, it would equate to approximately 41 years of UK gas consumption, but defining energy security as security of supply, DECC believes that it is still too early to come to a firm conclusion on whether shale gas in the UK or elsewhere in Europe is likely to have a significant effect on security of supply.
The House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee recommended that the
“Government should not rely on shale gas contributing to the UK's energy system when making strategic plans for energy security”,
which seems extremely sensible given all the uncertainties. Indeed, given those uncertainties, a much less risky way to reduce the energy security risks associated with the UK’s growing gas import dependence is massively to increase investments in renewable energy generation—we know what the costs of fuel for solar and wind generation are, for example—and dramatically improve energy efficiency and reduce overall demand.
Much of the discussion on the climate change impact of shale gas centres on its relative emissions intensity compared with coal. That matter is of interest, but it must not distract from the most climatically relevant issue of the absolute quantities of emissions from the global energy system. When people get very excited that shale gas in the US is cutting emissions by displacing coal, they need to remember that that coal is simply being exported and the emissions created elsewhere, so that does not help very much with the overall reduction of emissions required in order to tackle climate change. Regardless of the precise life cycle in terms of the greenhouse gas impact of shale compared with other gas, the direct carbon content of shale gas means that its widespread use is incompatible with the UK’s international climate change commitments.
We hear a lot that the Committee on Climate Change says that we need to cut emissions from power generations to 50 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour by 2030, but we hear less often that that needs to be a step on the way to a zero carbon grid very soon afterwards. Yes, shale gas is lower carbon than coal, although the methane leakage question is still to be resolved, but it is still a high-carbon fuel. Arguing otherwise is not dissimilar to an alcoholic justifying a barrel of 7% cider on the grounds that it is less harmful than a crate of 13% wine.
What about carbon capture and storage, which is usually raised at this point as the get-out-of-jail-free card? At commercial scale, CCS will be significantly less than 100% effective at capturing carbon dioxide, but more importantly, CCS is unlikely to be commercially viable for at least another 10 years and probably more. The Opposition Front-Bench team have been very outspoken about the need for a 2030 decarbonisation target in the Energy Bill. I welcome their strong stance, and indeed, that of Members on both sides of the House on that crucial issue. The Opposition Front-Bench team are clearly trying to create an impression that they understand, more than the coalition, the pace and scale of carbon emission reductions needed. I hope that they would agree that rebuilding cross-party consensus in favour of urgent action on climate change is crucial, too.
However, from all the evidence that I have seen, if we take a scientific, evidence-based approach to tackling climate change, it simply does not make any sense to exploit the UK’s shale gas reserves, however much may be economically or technically recoverable. That is not only a green or environmental argument. As John Ashton, who was the UK’s former head climate diplomat for 10 years, including under Labour, told the Energy and Climate Change Committee,
“the issue here is not emissions, it is the security and prosperity of 60 million British citizens.”
I want to take issue with the view of the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) that those who oppose shale gas are taking an absolutist position. He said on Tuesday that people who are against shale exploration have a principled position, but their views are “ideological objections” that must be separated “from legitimate environmental concerns”, and that regulation is the way to do that. However, is he really suggesting that opposing shale gas extraction on climate grounds is not a legitimate environmental concern? Will he still be saying that when the next set of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports come out and we are all reminded of what is at stake and the consequences of a rise of more than 2°?
I say to the hon. Gentleman that such a position is neither ideological nor absolutist; rather it is a position that is honest about the science of climate change and the massive risks of our current emissions trajectory. The lack of realism and integrity is to be found not among shale gas opponents, but on the Opposition Benches for as long as they remain in thrall to the fossil fuel lobby and in favour of adding a new source of carbon-emitting fossil fuel to our energy mix.
In Tuesday’s debates, not once did the words “carbon” or “climate” pass the lips of an Opposition Member. It is clear that the shadow DECC team have seen the analysis by Carbon Tracker, which found that between 60% and 80% of existing fossil fuels cannot be burned if we are to have any hope of staying below 2°. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) has asked questions about those unburnable high-carbon assets, and the International Energy Agency conclusions on burnable carbon are broadly the same. Perhaps today we will hear from the Opposition, as well as the Minister, exactly how they think that the exploitation of new sources of fossil fuels, including shale gas, is remotely compatible with the action needed to avoid catastrophic climate change and with the UK’s international commitment to keeping global warming below 2°, which was reiterated just last month at the G8.
In conclusion, I want to return briefly to the issue of the inappropriate corporate influence in Government. I believe that that is doing huge harm to our democracy and is at the core of the coalition’s irrational enthusiasm for shale gas and fossil fuels more widely. This fossil fuel obsession, or addiction, is preventing us from making the most of the UK’s indigenous renewable resources. Worse still, it means that we are seeing policies designed to maintain the status quo, where power is literally and metaphorically concentrated in the board rooms of big energy companies such as the owner of British Gas, Centrica, which recently bought shares in Cuadrilla.
Before the cold snap last winter, Centrica raised prices by 6%. Its full-year profits before tax were reported in May to be £602 million, with the group’s full-year earnings after tax expected to be 2% higher than last year at £1.4 billion. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to ask why it is remotely acceptable, for example, that Lord Browne, a former BP boss, is now holding a key cross-departmental role as the head non-executive director at the very same time as he holds significant shares in Cuadrilla. Lord Browne reports to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), in whose constituency Cuadrilla wants to drill. The right hon. Gentleman explains that Browne
“has a cross Government role convening Non-Executives from the best of business and the third sector...The code of practice on good governance in government departments requires the board to record and manage conflicts and potential conflicts of interest appropriately. There is no conflict of interest in this case.”
However, a recent freedom-of-information response from DECC seems to undermine such assurances. It states:
“After a trawl of our Ministers’ private offices and very senior civil servants at DECC we can confirm that there have been four meetings with Lord Browne during the period specified”—
in other words, the past three years. Those all took place in DECC’s offices, and I am told that although DECC does not have minutes for the first two meetings, Cuadrilla’s activity plans and shale gas were discussed. The minutes that do exist are heavily redacted on the grounds that attendees were in a private discussion with the Minister. The response states:
“It would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of Cuadrilla and inhibit communications with this organisation on an ongoing basis if we were to release details”.
Another non-executive director is old Etonian Sam Laidlaw, who has also had a long career in the oil and energy industry, including top roles at Enterprise Oil and Chevron. He is currently in charge of—guess what?—Centrica. I am therefore genuinely concerned that policy making on shale is skewed in favour of the companies, such as Centrica and Cuadrilla, and that the interests of our constituents are not being put first, as they should be, when it comes to the risks of fracking, keeping energy costs down or tackling climate change. I would like to know whether the Minister shares my concerns about the access and influence that these companies have in relation to policy making across the Government.
I want to highlight some questions that my constituents and other members of the public have asked me to put to the Minister during this debate. Will the Government confirm that they will mandate that fracking companies must name the chemicals that they use and their toxicity? Can he explain how fracking is compatible with the sustainability and emission reduction aims of what is meant to be the greenest Government ever? Where is the assessment of the risks of fracking, and how will those risks be properly managed? I would be grateful for answers to those questions as well.
I want to end my speech by saying a few words about the positive energy future that we could decide to pursue, instead of this headlong rush to exploit every last drop of oil and gas. It is a future in which we are free from our fossil fuel reliance and on a path towards climate security, not catastrophe. It is an energy system in which the big six energy companies are replaced by independent generators and a blossoming of community and co-operatively owned renewable schemes—local, sustainable and democratically controlled.
The Centre for Alternative Technology launched just this week “Zero Carbon Britain”, showing how Britain could eliminate emissions by 2030, and not just from our energy system. It is the latest of many reports that show, from a technological perspective, that fossil fuels are fast becoming redundant. I recommend it to anyone who thinks that the only way to keep the lights on is to fry our planet and condemn young people and future generations to unmanageable climate impacts, not least on water and food security. As many have said, what we are lacking is not technological solutions to end our fossil fuel addiction and tackle climate change; it is political will. I hope that this debate will be one step further in generating that will.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on obtaining the debate and on her spirited contribution. Unlike the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), I can only recall being in debates in which I disagreed more or less 100% with her, but I may have missed some of the other debates.
I want to make a few points about the hon. Lady’s spirited contribution. One of the phrases that I have heard used several times is that we are “betting the farm” by moving ahead with shale gas. I have not heard anyone in the Government or otherwise saying that we should do that. We do not want to bet the farm on it. We want a mixed supply of energy for the future, and gas will rightly be part of that. She mentioned Sam Laidlaw who now runs Centrica and who was previously at Conoco and Amerada Hess. Just to put her mind at rest, he is an ex-Etonian, just as she is from Malvern, but I went to a state school in the midlands, and she can take my speech in that way.
I want to pick up on four points. The hon. Lady talked about fossil fuel subsidy. Apparently tax relief —VAT or other forms of tax relief—would be a subsidy. There is a difference between giving a technology money to make it work—I am not necessarily against doing that for some renewables—and just taxing it a little less, and we need to recognise that. I think that she also said—she must intervene if I am wrong—that fossil fuels were six times more expensive than renewables.
David Mowat
I apologise; it is probably my fault. Just to be clear, the price of solar is something upwards of 45 times the price of electricity produced from gas at the moment.
As for the climate change issues around shale gas, or unconventional gas, I would take hon. Members’ concerns about the impact of climate change more seriously—I am inclined to think that we should address it—if they took a different attitude to nuclear power, the technology that is far and away the most likely, worldwide, to make a difference at scale to carbon emissions.
I want to consider whether shale gas will affect the UK economy. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) made an interesting speech about the necessary volume of wells. I was not aware of what he said and found his numbers hard to believe, but if they are true, the point is interesting and important. Let us be clear: shale gas is already having a massive influence on the UK economy, because right now one of our major industrial competitors, the US, has energy prices and therefore electricity prices that are a quarter of ours. It has feedstock prices as an input to the global gas industry and the petrochemicals industry that are a quarter of ours. That is already making a difference at the margins. Some industries are already deciding not to invest in the UK and to bring petrochemicals and chemicals back to the US—indeed, out of China, let alone Europe. Shale gas is already having a massive impact on the UK economy, and it is nonsense to pretend that anything we say in this debate, or that the Government do, will make any difference to that.
David Mowat
They will burn, as my hon. Friend says, a dirty coal. It is extraordinary that that is happening right now in the EU, and even more extraordinary that there appear to be members of the Green party in that country’s Government while it is happening—the same Green party that purports to care about carbon emissions and climate change.
Caroline Lucas
Germany is on course to meet its emissions reduction target far more effectively than we are. There is a short-term gap, admittedly, because it got rid of nuclear so fast. No one wants more coal, but it is a short-term thing as Germany gets its renewables even further up to speed. It is massively ahead of us on renewables and will get its emissions down faster than we will.
David Mowat
The hon. Lady makes an important point, if it were true, but the fact is that Germany has 25% higher carbon emissions per unit of GDP than the UK, and the UK is decelerating more quickly than Germany. To pretend anything else is not right.
I have some more time—I thank the hon. Lady for that—so I want to wrap up by talking a little about local considerations. When I first became interested in the subject, I could see that Lancashire—my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) made a good speech on behalf of his constituents today—was heavily affected. However, the maps of shale gas have since come out in more detail, and there is more in Cheshire, around Manchester and Warrington. Of course it is right that the work should not go ahead without adherence to the highest environmental standards and that the Government should not give permits without being satisfied that fracking will not considerably increase the earthquake cost and all that goes with it. There should be no compromise on that.
In an intervention, I mentioned the fact that Aberdeen contains three constituencies with the lowest unemployment in the country. That is not a coincidence; it is because the sort of economic activity that we are talking about brings jobs. I want to say on behalf of the people of Warrington that we welcome IGas and Cuadrilla. If they wonder where they should have their UK headquarters and if they pick up the text of this debate, I say to Mr Egan and Mr Austin from those companies, we are open for business in Warrington. We would like them to have their UK head offices in our town. It is only an hour and 40 minutes from London. They are very welcome, and we should go ahead as fast as possible.
Energy Suppliers and Prices
Debate between Caroline Lucas and David Mowat(12 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that intervention, because that example clearly demonstrates the kind of power that the energy companies can wield. The implications of the story that he has just told are absolutely outrageous, so I hope the Minister will take on board that kind of story. As the chief executive of Ofgem concluded in October 2011, and I hope the Minister agrees:
“We do not have a fully competitive market.”
That was the phrase that Ofgem’s chief executive used.
Another option would be for the Government—working in collaboration with Ofgem—to legislate for new price-capping powers, potentially based on a new mechanism. Any price capping could be linked to the wholesale price of energy, to make energy costs fairer. It would be a kind of energy price escalator.
Ofcom, the telecoms regulator, has made clear its intention to cap the cost of BT line rental charges, in response to BT’s over-dominance of the land-line rental market. Why not apply the same logic and principle to the energy market? Perhaps we could suggest that Ofgem pick up the phone and call Ofcom to ask for advice; after all, we are always told that “It’s good to talk.”
Thirdly, the Government should now launch an independent public inquiry into the big six energy companies. In much the same way that we have had an independent commission on banking, led by Sir John Vickers, and an ongoing investigation into the media, led by Lord Leveson, we urgently need a public inquiry into the energy industry, to get to the root causes of the problems. To be crystal-clear, I must point out that I am not calling for a Competition Commission inquiry. Instead, we need an independent public inquiry with a broader remit than just to consider prices and competition, because more fundamental issues are at work here.
Those fundamental issues include trust. It seems clear to me, from talking to the constituents whom I meet when I go around my constituency, that many people do not trust the energy companies. Therefore, it would be in the interests of the energy suppliers themselves to ensure that these issues are fully addressed and that all the facts, figures and arguments are discussed in the light of day.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s argument that there is a market failure in the energy sector. If there is a market failure and therefore a de facto cartel is operating, that would be a very serious issue that would need to be fixed. However, what I genuinely do not understand—perhaps she can help me with this point—is why EU figures from November last year showed that UK gas prices for the consumer were 25% lower than those in Italy, France and Germany. Indeed, UK gas prices are the 21st lowest of the 27 countries in the EU. Those statistics do not imply that a cartel is operating in our country; alternatively, they show that, if a cartel is operating here, it is not operating very well.
Caroline Lucas
I cannot help the hon. Gentleman directly on the figures that he has just quoted. The bigger issue is the amount of power that those players have in our markets. My constituents in Brighton do not much care about the price of fuel in Italy, but they care passionately about the price of their own fuel here at home. It looks as though the big six are coming together. A public inquiry would find out whether any collusion is going on. Even if there is no collusion, it is certainly the case that excess profits are being made off the backs of constituents who are struggling with very high fuel prices. When they are urged to swap tariffs, the whole process is so deeply complicated that it is not surprising that, essentially, they are mis-sold the energy that they need.
David Mowat
I completely agree that we need transparent energy prices, and I hope that the Minister will talk about how we will simplify the tariff structure and all that goes with it. However, my point is the same. I understand that the hon. Lady’s constituents do not care about energy prices in Italy, France, Germany or Sweden. My point is that if there is a cartel operating, it is surprising that our gas prices are so much cheaper than in those countries. I will leave it at that.
Caroline Lucas
There are a whole set of complex reasons why energy markets are different in various member states. If everything is completely clean and above board, with no excess profits being made, that can be examined in a public inquiry. That is exactly why we need a public inquiry. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure that he knows from his own constituents, that that is not the perception of the vast majority of ordinary people who are faced on the one hand with rising energy bills and on the other hand with stories in the newspapers about rising energy company profits.
Energy Bill [Lords]
Debate between Caroline Lucas and David Mowat(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Caroline Lucas
I associate myself with the comments made in support of the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) and for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead).
I shall say a few words in support of my new clause 7, which I believe would go to the heart of whether the green deal will succeed or not. As the Minister knows, I strongly favour a properly publicly funded, street-by-street, area-based approach to domestic energy efficiency programmes. That would be far more effective than the market-based green deal approach that the Government are pursuing, not least because a market-based approach will not work for those on low incomes living in fuel poverty. I welcome the fact that the Government have acknowledged that the green deal finance mechanism is not appropriate for those groups—essentially low-income and vulnerable households that have under-heated their homes in the past.
It is crucial to recognise that the golden rule is much less likely to work for households, as they are much more likely to use the money notionally saved from their fuel bills to increase their thermal comfort—in other words, to take the benefits of energy efficiency improvements in increased warmth rather than in increased savings. That is why the energy company obligation is so important, yet under the Government’s current proposals, I am concerned that the obligation is being seriously under-resourced.
The purpose of new clause 7 is to try to identify additional support to allow us to create a significantly larger ECO pot of resources and to supplement it with some other sources of revenue. In arguing for more resources, I have tried to be helpful by suggesting possible sources of funding that could come on stream in the years to come—namely, receipts from auctions under the EU emissions trading system, the carbon floor price, a tax on gas and electricity companies, or, if necessary, direct taxation. Let me say a few words about why those resources are so desperately needed.
As other hon. Members have said, the scourge of fuel poverty is getting worse, not better. The latest Government statistics, from 2009-10, show 5.5 million UK households in fuel poverty, or 21% of the total. Retail energy prices have continued to rise since the fuel poverty figures were updated, with five of the six main energy suppliers recently announcing higher charges for gas and electricity, which will inevitably increase the scale of fuel poverty. As a result, National Energy Action estimates that we are currently closer to having 6.5 million households across the UK living in fuel poverty. However, the stark truth is that existing programmes to address fuel poverty through energy efficiency are not equal even to current demand.
If there is to be any prospect of meeting our social and environmental objectives, and if the 2016 target to eradicate fuel poverty in England in particular is to be met, the Government must introduce much more ambitious policies to support and protect low-income and vulnerable groups. That means that the ECO must be much better funded and supplemented with other resources if it is to provide the necessary support for those who are fuel-poor and living in vulnerable households and for the hard-to-treat properties that need it most.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Would the hon. Lady care to tell the House approximately how much she believes is available or needed for the ECO, and how much of that the sources named in her new clause—in particular, those named in subsections (1)(a), (b) and (c)—would provide?
Caroline Lucas
If the hon. Gentleman holds on for just a moment, I will come to those very figures. Indeed, the question that I wanted to ask the Minister was whether he could outline the latest thinking on the level of funding for the ECO pot. The figure of £1 billion has been cited in the past, but a recent all-party report recommended that the annual contribution through the ECO should be no less than £2.5 billion, focused exclusively on low-income and vulnerable households. Other reports have suggested that the contribution should be as much as £4 billion a year.
Let us not forget that the introduction of the ECO will coincide with the end of all Exchequer funding for domestic energy efficiency programmes—the first time in three decades—when Warm Front is phased out. As we have discussed, the ECO will be funded through a levy on all customers’ fuel bills, regardless of households’ financial circumstances. That is inherently regressive and can result in perverse outcomes. I mentioned earlier that if we are not careful, we could push more people into fuel poverty by levying a fee on all bills—rather than by adopting a taxpayer-funded approach—than we take out of fuel poverty. It is simply not acceptable for low-income and vulnerable households effectively to subsidise those who just happen to live in hard-to-treat homes, but who are perfectly able to pay to heat them properly. The dual function of the ECO pot is therefore misguided and risks creating cross-subsidies from the poorest to the better-off.
In their paper “Extra help where it is needed: a new Energy Company Obligation”, published in May, the Government provide further information about the ECO, and in doing so partially recognise the limitations and regressive nature of the policy, as well as acknowledging concerns about targeting and equity. That document says:
“As the delivery costs of ECO are assumed to be recovered by the energy companies through increases in consumer bills and therefore spread across all households, it is important for the credibility of the scheme to ensure that all households have fair access to the benefits, safeguarding distributional equity. In addition to providing for affordable warmth, this includes considering how the benefits of support for solid wall insulation can be delivered equitably. We are looking into learning the lessons from CERT”.
Those are the challenges that need to be overcome. The case that I want to make—the same case as that made by the Committee on Climate Change—is that the funding available from the ECO should be used exclusively for low-income and vulnerable households, including those in hard-to-treat homes. Essentially, what we should not do is use ECO funds for those in hard-to-treat homes who can afford to pay for them.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Debate between Caroline Lucas and David Mowat(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas
I will not give way again, because I want to talk about amendment 12, which I have tabled.
I agree that an effective carbon price mechanism has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity power, mainly by increasing the carbon liability attached to energy use and thereby making energy efficiency measures and renewables more attractive. It also embodies the “polluter pays” principle, which, of course, I also support. I fear, however, that the proposed carbon floor price will not ensure that investment in energy generation is directed towards low-carbon technologies.
I hold that view for a number of reasons, including the fact that market-based solutions to direct investment in low-carbon generation have proved pretty weak in the past. For example, the EU emissions trading regime has so far failed to maintain the cost of pollution allowances at high enough levels to make any significant difference in reducing emissions. It is also true that, because the floor price will be subject to annual votes in Finance Bill debates such as this, it will fail to provide the price stability that is needed to boost certainty and security for investors in low-carbon energy sources. Furthermore, it can be difficult to judge the level at which a carbon floor price should be set to give appropriate incentives to the various technologies that the Government wish to support.
It is clear from those inherent weaknesses that a carbon floor price will maximise its potential to support a low-carbon economy only if any additional revenues that it raises are ring-fenced for use in support of that transition. That must include, in particular, energy efficiency measures for the fuel-poor. Many Members have raised that subject this evening. The Institute for Public Policy Research estimates that an additional 30,000 to 60,000 households could be pushed into fuel poverty in 2013 as a result of the carbon floor price because it will push up the cost of electricity.
It is therefore crucial for flanking measures to be introduced alongside a carbon floor price, including measures that will properly support and protect those in fuel poverty. They should include proper capitalisation of the green investment bank, support for the implementation of the green deal—for instance, ensuring that the “eco” element is increased considerably, given that it is the part directed at the fuel-poor—and, indeed, assisting in the development of innovative renewable energy technologies. Failure to ring-fence the revenue of the carbon floor price would mean missing a real opportunity to focus efforts on the technologies that will most quickly cut emissions from power generation.
Many other Members have reinforced the idea that the carbon floor price must not deliver windfall profits to the well-established nuclear industry, which has already been heavily publicly supported for many years. The Government’s own figures show that existing nuclear generators stand to gain £50 million a year from it until 2030. It is vital for the Government to clarify whether such a windfall constitutes the kind of subsidy for nuclear power that they have repeatedly said they will not provide. It looks very much like a subsidy to me, and it looks very much like a subsidy to the Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), who has said that the Government should be upfront about the fact that it is a subsidy. He has also said that
“it would be deeply irresponsible to skew the whole process of electricity market reform simply to save face.”
I hope that Ministers will benefit from his expertise, and will recognise that rigging the electricity markets simply to try to provide more support for nuclear generation is entirely wrong.
David Mowat
The hon. Lady is making a powerful case against the nuclear industry, but a few moments ago she made a case against high electricity prices and their impact on the poorest in our society. Electricity costs in France are between a third and a quarter less than those in this country owing to decades of cheap nuclear power, which has a beneficial impact on both heavy industry and consumers.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with the tenor of his intervention. The truth is that the price people pay for nuclear power does not represent its true cost in terms of liabilities, decommissioning and clearing up after an accident. People in Japan are not paying the true cost of clearing up after Fukushima. That £250 billion was not included in people’s energy costs. Nuclear subsidies are incredibly untransparent, but, essentially, people are paying a great deal more for nuclear power. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need electricity prices that people can afford, but the answer is to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency, which will become far more competitive and far cheaper than nuclear power very soon if we give them the support they require.
If the Government recognise that this is a subsidy, they should claw it back through a windfall tax. I tabled a new clause that would have allowed them to do exactly that, but, sadly, it was not selected for debate.
David Mowat
It may be true that renewables will become more cost-effective over time, but there is an long way to go: a factor of about four in the case of solar power.
Caroline Lucas
I entirely disagree. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had been at a meeting with representatives of the solar industry that took place a few days ago in Portcullis House. We were shown presentations by Ernst and Young and others which demonstrated that if a small amount is invested now, solar energy will be able to compete with all fossil fuels and with nuclear power in four or five years.
Although an improved carbon floor price mechanism could help to deliver a less carbon-intensive energy sector, it is important for the Government not to see it as a “silver bullet” solution. Other stronger levers, such as a well managed—I underline “well managed”—feed-in tariff regime and a strong emissions performance standard must also be part of the overall picture. Sadly, however, the Government are falling short in those respects as well. I should like them to devote at least as much effort to stepping up their work at EU level to ensure that the next phase of the EU emissions trading scheme is much more effective than the current phase. The recent collapse in the cost of EU carbon allowances under the scheme is clear evidence of their over-allocation, and the shortcomings of the scheme are becoming increasingly obvious.
I should also like the Government to work with European partners to ensure that, as a minimum, allowances are in line with the policy of cutting EU emissions by between 80% and 95% by 2050, as agreed by member states; that allowances cannot be banked from the second phase of the EU ETS into the third phase; and that a reserve price is set on the auction of permits into the market. Any permits that the market does not want to buy at the reserve price or more should be retired from the scheme.
I urge the Government to undertake to produce the report for which the amendment calls, and to take the opportunity to show how the benefits of a carbon floor price can be maximised and any unintended consequences eliminated. If the carbon floor price is to be effective, we need a tax on the windfall profits of the nuclear industry, along with flanking measures to ensure that those in fuel poverty do not suffer as a result of this policy.