Chris Seeks Priority For Climate Change Resilience Measures
Chair: Thank you very much for that commitment. I look forward to the rest of the session. We now take questions from my colleagues on the Committee. The first is from Chris Chope.
Q348 Sir Christopher Chope: Secretary of State, in your 2008 Act you put a lot of emphasis on the need for adaptation and for building resilience measures. You have not mentioned that in your opening remarks, and you will know that the Climate Change Committee is extremely critical of the lack of progress on that front. Bearing in mind that the Environment Agency said in December that they were expecting that by 2050 one in four properties in England will be vulnerable to flooding, what are you doing to ensure that the Government invest sufficiently in flood defences?
Ed Miliband: I know from reading the testimony of Emma Pinchbeck to your Committee that this is something you have taken an interest in. I think we should just be frank about the fact that this has for too long been somewhat of an orphan in Government. It is led, as you will know—I think you expressed some concern about this—not by my Department but by DEFRA working with the Cabinet Office.
I can certainly agree with you at a general level that, as we think about the effects of the climate crisis already in the system, this is something that needs much greater focus from Government. We should be frank also that this is something that requires significant levels of investment at a time when the public finances are, as you know, incredibly tight. But this is an important project and it is something the Government need—I am happy to play my part in this—to give proper attention to, because I do not think it has had the attention it deserves in the past.
Q349 Sir Christopher Chope: If the Government were to decide that investing in adaptation and resilience measures should take priority over some of the capital programmes in your budget, would you go along with that, on the basis that adaptation and resilience are of much greater significance for the ordinary people—you mentioned working people—than issues around reducing CO2 emissions? Since 1990, we have reduced our CO2 emissions by half, but it has not made a ha’penny-worth of difference to the impact of climate change on ordinary people in this country. We have, surely, to put our priority on adaptation and resilience measures.
Ed Miliband: I think you are going to be frustrated with my answer, Sir Christopher. We have to do both. We could give up on measures on tackling greenhouse gas emissions, but I think that would be grossly irresponsible. The way I think about this is that obviously Britain on its own cannot tackle the climate crisis. You are absolutely right to say that. We are 1% of global emissions. But the decisions we make have a massive effect on our ability to influence others to also act.
Let me give you a clear example. When we passed the 2008 Climate Change Act it was emulated around the world. It had an effect not just in Britain but elsewhere. I think there are something like 25 other equivalents of the Climate Change Committee in different countries of the world. If we achieve clean power by 2030, as is the mission of our Government, it will send a message to the rest of the world about what is possible. It is a frustrating answer to you, but I do not think there is any other option. I do not think there is any other responsible option other than doing both of these things.
Q350 Sir Christopher Chope: But you are ducking the question about adaptation and resilience. We used to be global leaders in adaptation and resilience, and the Climate Change Committee says we have fallen behind on that. You are not prepared, it seems, to say publicly that you believe that adaptation and building resilience are and should be top priorities. Back in 1953, as you will recall, in the—
Ed Miliband: I was not around in 1953. I am not suggesting you were.
Sir Christopher Chope: In the Netherlands in 1953, some 2,000 people were killed as a result of flooding. We have similar problems now in the United States—masses of people being killed as a result of the consequences of climate change. Are you going to stand there and say that this Government are going to ignore the priorities that have been identified by the Environment Agency and the need to prevent one in four households—it is about 8 million people—being vulnerable to flooding by 2050, whatever happens?
Ed Miliband: Absolutely not, Sir Christopher, and you and I—if my answer was not clear to you—absolutely share a commitment that we need to act, and this Government have a commitment to act on flood defences and all the issues that you mention. There we agree. But if you want to then suggest to me that we should throw under the bus the idea that we should tackle greenhouse gas emissions as the price of that, that is where I am going to part company with you.
Q351 Sir Christopher Chope: I am not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that you should be willing as a member of the Government to insist that greater priority should be given to investment—
Ed Miliband: Absolutely, it should have priority.
Sir Christopher Chope: Greater priority should be given to investment in adaptation and resilience, even if it means having to cut back on some of your own ambitions within your own Department.
Ed Miliband: I do not think that would be a responsible course of action, and I think you are posing a false choice. I think if we say to the British people—just to step outside this Committee for a minute—”Should we tackle the threat that climate change is going to pose to people’s way of life?”, they would say, “Absolutely.” But if we also said to them, “In adapting to that threat we are going to not do anything about the threat growing bigger and bigger, therefore making the need for adaptation more and more expensive,” they would say, “Well, that can’t be right.” That is the whole point here. This is, if you like, the starting point for much of our discussions.
The key insight of Nick Stern in the 2000s, in the Stern report, was that the cost of not acting on climate change is greater than the cost of acting.
Chair: Thank you, Secretary of State.
-ENDS-
