Energy Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-10-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
David Arthur Russell Howell (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, carbon negativity, which the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has just mentioned, is the concept I was groping for in an earlier amendment and is of course all part of the picture that is emerging: one of several very rapidly changing technologies for handling the carbon issue in ways that may not involve heavy pipelines into redundant oilfields and gas fields in the North Sea or anywhere else. However, that is an aside The question I have about this amendment is as follows. I suppose, having criticised the last amendment—our criticisms have been slapped down by the vote of your Lordships’ House and the amendment has been passed—I ought to be consistent and raise an eyebrow about this amendment. Can my noble friend explain why it is necessary and why it is not covered by Clause 4(1) of the Bill? There is an item in it on innovation: "The need to encourage innovation in technology" This is a requirement already in the Bill and seems sufficiently open to allow all the vast variety of new technologies to come along. I have no quarrel with the other amendments from my noble friend about samples and information and I am sure that they are totally right, but this amendment again focuses on carbon emissions and the storage of carbon dioxide in the North Sea. I would just sound a warning note that we are again close to a dangerous tendency to pick winners, something which has led to so much grief and sorrow in the past because it led to a huge waste of resources and delayed the moves that we all want to see towards a more efficient energy industry and one more in line with meeting our climate obligations. Why does subsection (1) of Clause 4 not meet that, and why is the amendment necessary at all? The amendment states at the end that its aim is, "to meet the target in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008" That of course is the point. There are many paths to meeting our carbon budget in the climate change obligations. Earlier, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, mentioned the UN official Professor Jacquie McGlade, who was given airspace on the radio this morning about the UK’s energy and climate policy. She seemed to be talking complete nonsense and seemed to believe that renewables targets were more important than our emissions targets, and that subsidising particular renewable technologies, regardless of their contribution to CO2 reduction, was the key aspect of our commitment. That is precisely the trap into which the European Commission and European Energy Commissioners have fallen in the past; namely, trying to lay down the precise pattern of renewables to be backed and not backed. They have been trying to extricate themselves from the mess that they caused by that perception ever since at great cost, with great difficulties and with much uncertainty for the industry. When I see this kind of addition I realise why the Minister has probably put it in However, we have some real dangers to avoid. From the previous coalition we have inherited a legacy of considerable confusion, although I admit that I was part of that coalition. We have a legacy in the energy sector which is not at all happy and is leading to considerable ructions and many more difficulties ahead. I will pass over the fact that the targets have not been met at all when one takes into account per capita carbon emissions, let alone the other trilemma targets of affordability and reliability. That is for another debate, but can we please be careful that we leave open the path for all kinds of innovation in the future to meet our climate obligations, and that we do not get trapped into overemphasis on one particular path in order to meet the enthusiasms of those who believe that CCS is essential to be brought into everything? Perhaps it is or perhaps it is not, but let us be careful not to overegg this particular pudding.