Debate on the Address

On one level, that is very nice for my hon. Friend; on another, it is distinctly and disturbingly worrying. According to the National Trust, we have a particular problem with beech trees, which, it says, are at the edge of their tolerance. The 720-tree beech avenue at Kingston Lacy is susceptible to drought and, the National Trust notes,"““summer rainfall has reduced by 20 per cent. since 1990.””" The National Trust is an extremely important body in this regard. Not only does it have the sorts of properties to which I have referred, but it cares for one tenth of the coast of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It notes,"““UK sea levels have risen by around 10 cm since 1990””" That is a huge rise. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs research indicates that about 10 per cent. of the population of England and Wales live within areas potentially at risk from flooding or coastal erosion, in properties valued at £220 billion. The Environment Agency’s budget for flood defences has increased by 35 per cent. in real terms. I will return to that point, however, because it is not doing enough. DEFRA has found that erosion of the north Norfolk coast has been five times worse than Government studies predicted 10 years ago. Climate change, which is already causing huge damage, is accelerating. The climate change Bill should address issues of adaptation as well as emissions, and deal with effects as well as causes. The UK climate impacts programme—a group of, I think, 15 research scientists located in Oxford and funded by DEFRA—has come up with a model of a low emissions future and a high emissions future. The high emissions future looks pretty bleak. By 2080, sea levels in south-west Scotland will have risen by 50 to 60 cm, or 2 ft; in north-east England by 66 cm; on the rest of the east coast by 77 cm; in the south-east by 74 cm; and in Wales by 80 cm. The low emissions scenario projected is that by 2080 the sea will have risen by 20 cm, and in some places less than that, but there will still have been a considerable rise. As was adverted to earlier, that could put some current nuclear power station sites at risk. In the Chamber, and I think it fair to say in the country, we still have a huge blind spot about adaptation—about dealing with effects. The CBI produced quite a good brief called ““Delivering for business and the environment”” in July this year. It contains six principles on climate change, all of which deal with causes rather than effects. That is the kind of blinkered mentality that we are seeing. We are seeing only half the equation. I was delighted to receive recently from AXA Insurance a document entitled ““Climate change and its effects on small businesses in the UK””. AXA has also produced quite a good pamphlet for small and medium-sized enterprises, which I do not have with me tonight, on dealing with the effects of climate change. Page 6 of ““Climate change and its effects on small businesses in the UK”” shows a graph of a survey of businesses. It asked them:"““How helpful or otherwise was each of the following when your business was affected by a severe weather event?””" I have to say that the findings do not make good reading for my Government. Admittedly, the document was produced by AXA, but according to the graph 66 per cent. of businesses thought that an insurance company had been helpful. The other percentages were 44 per cent. for the emergency services, 39 per cent. for a local utility company, 38 per cent. for the local council, 27 per cent. for the Environment Agency or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and 12 per cent. for central Government. The Government must do more by taking a leadership role, and they are starting to do so. ““The UK Climate Change Programme””, published by DEFRA in March this year, is a step forward, but only 11 of its 193 pages deal with adaptation to climate change, although there are scattered references to it on one or two other pages. I mentioned the climate impact programme research team in Oxford. The DEFRA document also mentions it. What we do not know from the research is whether we in the United Kingdom will end up with a Mediterranean climate, as I suspect many of our constituents fondly hope—particularly in southern England and the midlands, where my constituency is—or whether, as I suspect, although I am not a scientist, we will end up with what I call a Newfoundland climate. If the Gulf stream is diverted, we will have a Newfoundland climate. We will not be growing olives and grapes, as people are beginning to in the west midlands; we will be scratching out a living on root vegetables and so on. I must say to the Government what I have said in the Chamber on several occasions—and they are starting to move; I give them credit for that—that I regard 11 pages out of 193 on adaptation to climate change as only half the equation, and not good enough. I believe that 45 of the 711 pages in the Stern report—I speak from memory—deal with the subject, a similar proportion to that in the DEFRA document published in March. Members will not be surprised to learn that I have not read all of the Stern report. The adaptation stuff is a step forward, but only a small step forward. I am glad that Stern took it up, but we need to take it up much more urgently. It is all very well having a broad consensus in the House, as we do, on the need to do our bit in the United Kingdom to control the 2 per cent. of world emissions that we create. It is all very well having a broad consensus, as we do, on the need for the United Kingdom to have a leadership role and to build on the leadership that we have already displayed on the world stage. But we are missing half the equation, and it is the half—adaptation—over which the United Kingdom has total control. We cannot stop China, India or the United States from spewing out emissions, although we can encourage and cajole them to do so. We can put our own emissions house in order, but we have no control over other countries. However, we have total control over adaptation in the United Kingdom.