The Climate Emergency

Stephen Kerr Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The climate emergency seems to be the kind of emergency where a lot gets said and a lot less gets done. We meet here in this leaking, cavernous, old museum to discuss this climate emergency while outside it people have been banned from protesting about the possible extinction of us as a species. That is an interesting juxtaposition—one to note for our memoirs, should any of us ever get to write them.

I was in Aberdeen at the weekend, for the social event of the season, of course. There is something about the granite that whispers about the enormous length of time that this planet has been spinning around, changing, developing and surviving. You get to thinking about the species that no longer exist, about how some of the extinction events were on a massive scale and about how no species is guaranteed to survive any of those events—that means us too, whether the protests have been banned or not. But we would never know it from looking at the political and governmental response—or inaction—to this emergency.

This is not something that has been sprung on us, either. It is not as though this is news that no one saw coming. The man with the cleft stick has not just arrived, out of breath and anxious, with the news that we are all stuffed. Rachel Carson wrote “Silent Spring” nearly 60 years ago—something that we mark as one of the base cases of the modern environmental movement, but she was not the first voice. George Perkins Marsh spoke about the urban heat island effect and the greenhouse effect, and called for a more considered and sustainable development. That was in 1847, three weeks and 162 years ago. In his lecture, he commented that the ideas were not new even then and that he had borrowed them from Peter Pallas, a Prussian zoologist of the 18th century.

The Irish physicist John Tyndall proved the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect in 1859. Later that century, 1896 to be precise, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius calculated how much atmospheric carbon dioxide contributes to global warming and published the first calculation of the global warming effects of human emissions of CO₂. His work inspired the American Thomas Chamberlin, who published the next year on the CO₂ feedback loop that drove the ice ages and might now be driving us to a tipping point. In 1934, the US Weather Bureau issued its first analysis of temperature change, which inspired the Englishman Guy Callendar to analyse historical temperature records and calculate a half-degree warming between 1890 and 1935. From there, he built the theory that burning fuel increases atmospheric CO₂ and he coined the term “greenhouse effect” in 1938. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee said that pollutants were causing climate change and time was running out to turn it round.

The science is not new; it has been there for 250 years or so. It has, for sure, been developing, but it is not some fad; it is not a crazy fashion that the kids are all getting down to. It is dusty old stuff from the history tomes. But here we are talking again about the climate emergency, and protestors have been banned from London. There is a massive irony in the failure of this UK Government to take any sort of effective action, in that the greatest hero for many of them would be Margaret Thatcher, and she was the first leader of a major state to call for action on climate change. The 1988 Toronto conference was treated to some stark evidence produced by scientists. Thatcher, perhaps because her training as a chemist made it easier for her to understand the language, took up the baton and issued the call. She said it was a key issue and her Government allocated additional funding to climate research. It was, however, mainly relabelled or redirected from elsewhere—they were Tories, after all. Thatcher made that call 31 years ago, yet here we are once again talking about the climate emergency and the protests are banned.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 and in 1990 issued its first report, which confirmed the past scientific findings and issued warnings for the future. Those warnings have continued ever since, but I am starting to wonder whether familiarity is breeding contempt, because the warnings are getting starker and the flash headlines are getting scarier, but the action is not getting any more urgent.

The Environment Bill, which we finally got a sniff of this week, appears to be a howler of a missed opportunity. Apart from the toil of reintroducing EU protections into UK legislation, it misses the chance to be ambitious and claim a future worth having. It promises net zero emissions in 31 years—so, incredibly, we are at the halfway point between Thatcher pledging that the UK would get serious about the environment and the Government actually doing something. If the captain of the Titanic had been warned about the iceberg well in advance and started a discussion about what to do that carried on long enough to watch the thing tear a hole in the side of the ship, while the debate was still about which way to turn, he would be in about the same position we are in now. It is past time for talking and long past time that we should have been doing. It is time to inject a sense of urgency into the climate emergency.

The House can take it as read that the Scottish Government are doing things better, but this should not really be about party political point scoring or engaging in the constitutional debate. Let us see what the UK Government could offer to help to address the problems we all face. It is time the Government introduced some real measures to address the UK’s greenhouse gas output. They could copy Scotland by being guided by the Committee on Climate Change. Members may have heard of that committee; it was set up by the UK Government, although its calls to action are little heard by Whitehall. They are heard in Scotland, though, and the Scottish Parliament and Government have taken action. The climate change Act kicked off a serious attempt at addressing the problems, and it has not abated since. That is why the United Nations climate action conference will be in Glasgow next year.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because it is important that she puts it on the record in this House that the measures taken in Scotland have been taken on the basis of cross-party consensus. Does she agree that the way we achieve our targets in this country in respect of net zero is by working together, rather than doling out dollops of sarcasm in the form of a speech?

[Deidre Brock]

Me, sarcastic? The very idea! I appreciate the cross-party nature of some of the talks in the Scottish Parliament—that is of course welcome—but at a time when the UK Government are suggesting putting up VAT on renewable technologies, including solar, wind, biomass and heat pumps, from 5% to 20%, I think there is still a lot more discussion to be had between the different parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

I begin by picking up where my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) left off by paying tribute to my younger constituents and their engagement on climate change. They want more ambition and more action, and they are engaging in the political process like no previous rising generation in my lifetime because they care passionately about the planet and the poorest people on it. They inspired me, so I decided to conduct a wider survey among my constituents on climate change, and I can report to the House that in Stirling we want our homes insulated, we want to use electric cars, we want public transport options, we want more trees planted, and we want our energy to come from clean sources. The people of Stirling want the UK to take a lead on decarbonisation and extend a helping hand to the rest of the world.

The Gracious Speech confirmed once again that this Government and this House are committed not only to the rhetoric of taking action on climate change, but to taking positive action to stem and mitigate the effects of the developing global crisis, but we need to do more. When the Prime Minister and the Chancellor talk about the need for an infrastructure revolution, they are right. We have shown that it is possible to decarbonise the economy and to have clean growth—it is not an either/or. However, we must invest in the reconfiguration of our national infrastructure. There has never been a greater need to get on with it, and there has never been a better time to make that investment. Investment in infrastructure is critical, which is why I hope the Chancellor will come forward with a proposal for a national infrastructure bank in the Budget early next month.

We need a national crusade to level up our housing stock to the highest energy efficiency standards. By every measurement, that is the right thing to do—for the environment, for our economy and, most importantly of all, for people and their wellbeing, especially the most vulnerable people in our society. Let us make housing an infrastructure priority. We need a national endeavour to insulate our homes and upgrade our electricity distribution network to meet future demand, and to put in place green measures to incentivise property owners to do the right things.

We need to see innovation in farm support payments, with a focus on both caring for the environment and the production of good food. Again, that is not an either/or. We need much more ambition, especially in England, to do much more tree planting. Let me be the first to say it: there are lessons for England in the ambition and delivery of what is happening in Scotland. I am proud of what we are doing in Scotland on a cross-party basis.

However, there is one thing I want to major on: we need more action across the UK on buses. I am delighted that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are big on buses. I have long concluded that the deregulation of rural bus services was a mistake. Bus services in rural areas should be classified as an essential public good. We need to regulate bus services, especially in rural areas such as Stirling, to give rural communities proper public transport options. I could go on at length about the complete lack of anything approaching a bus service in the communities I serve. A bus service is a part of the connectivity matrix, as people need to be able to move around more freely. We cannot talk about being serious about net zero unless we invest more in low emission buses and making the bus a viable mode of public transport, as part of a joined-up public transport network.

I do not have anything like enough time to talk about the failures of Scotrail, under the stewardship of the Scottish National party, so I will conclude by saying how proud I am that we have managed to secure COP 26. It is going to happen in Glasgow, and what a magnificent opportunity for Scotland that is.